Military Review

"The strange war." Why England and France betrayed Poland

140
"Although they declared war on us ... this does not mean that they will actually fight."
A. Hitler



80 years ago, 1-3 of September 1939 of the year, the Second World War began. 1 of September 1939 of the year Hitlerite Germany attacked Poland. 3 September England and France declared war on Germany.

"The strange war." Why England and France betrayed Poland

German Tanks enter Poland. September 1939

The reason for the world war is the crisis of capitalism


On the same day, the Third Reich declared war on the British dominions Australia and New Zealand, 6 and 10 of September - the Union of South Africa and Canada, as well as India, which was then an English colony. The Third Reich was at war with the bloc of countries of the British Empire, France and Poland. The USA and Japan declared their neutrality in the European war.

Thus began the Second World War. It arose as a result of the crisis of the capitalist system, the Western world. Almost the whole world, except for the USSR-Russia, was divided between capitalist predators, and they needed a new living space. The Anglo-American bloc claimed world domination. The new imperialist predators, the Third Reich, Italy and Japan, wanted to get their pieces of the world pie.

The crisis of capitalism could only be resolved with the help of war, the defeat and sack of competitors, the seizure of new territories, resources and markets. The main aggressor in Europe was the German Empire, and in Asia - Japan. However, in fact, London and Washington consistently fomented a new world war in their interests. Some supported Japanese aggression in China and against the USSR. They sponsored Hitler and the Nazis, helped them come to power, arm Germany and allowed it to make the first seizures - Austria and Czechoslovakia (How England gave Hitler Austria; How the West surrendered Czechoslovakia to Hitler) The main goal of England and the United States was to pit Germans and Japanese with Russians, and then finish off the winners and establish their world domination.

This explains all the contradictions and issues of world politics on the eve of the world war. The architects of the Munich policy of "appeasing" the aggressor planned again to push Germany with Russia in order to complete the rout of the two great powers that prevent Britain and the United States from building their world order. To do this, they brought Hitler to power, financed the revival of German military-economic power, threw more and more victims under the Fuhrer’s feet so that he would renew the “onslaught on the East”, against Russian (Soviet) civilization. The West was trying to get out of the crisis by destroying and plundering Russia's wealth. The seizure of a new “living space” made it possible to prolong the existence of the predatory capitalist system.


English King George VI announces the start of the war on the radio. 3 September 1939

Polish predator prey


It is interesting that Warsaw was going with the Germans to take part in the campaign to the East, the defeat of Soviet Russia. The Polish elite dreamed of new conquests at the expense of Russia (the Poles seized the West Russian lands during the 1919-1921 war), the restoration of "Great Poland" within the borders of the 1772 year. In the pre-war period, Poland acted like a brazen predator, the instigator of a great war in Europe.

It’s enough to recall that in the 1930 years Warsaw was actively friends with Berlin, considering the Germans the main enemies of the “Bolsheviks” and hoping that it would be possible to agree with Hitler on a joint campaign against Moscow. In 1934, Warsaw and Berlin signed a non-aggression pact (against the backdrop of Germany withdrawing from the League of Nations). At the same time, Poland became the main European lawyer for the aggressors in the League of Nations. Warsaw justified the attack of fascist Italy on Abyssinia (Ethiopia), the Japanese aggression in China and supported the actions of the Nazis in Europe - and the restoration of control over the Rhine region (with its militarization), and the capture of Austria, and the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia. During the Anschluss of Austria, Poland attempted to annex Lithuania. Only the tough stance of the USSR, and the lack of support from England and France on the Lithuanian question, forced the Polish government to retreat. Then two European predators - Germany and Poland, together attacked Czechoslovakia. Poland contributed to the conclusion of the Munich Agreement by denying military assistance to its French ally in protecting another French ally - Czechoslovakia. Also, the Poles refused to let the USSR troops through their territory to help Prague. Then the Poles openly acted as aggressors, taking part in the “Czechoslovak Pie” section.

The fact was that the Polish lords claimed Soviet Ukraine and saw Hitler as an ally in a future war with Moscow. However, Hitler had his own plans, the Fuhrer himself wanted to make Little Russia-Ukraine part of the Eternal Reich. He planned to defeat Poland, return to Germany the lands lost after the First World War, make it a colony and a strategic bridgehead for a throw to Moscow. For the time being, Hitler hid these plans, encouraging the Poles. He allowed Warsaw to participate in the destruction and dismemberment of Czechoslovakia. Then the Poles occupied the Cieszyn region. Therefore, the Polish elite, blindly and stupidly persisting in their Russophobia and anti-Sovietism, refused to support the Soviet collective security system in Europe, which could save Poland from the September 1939 disaster of the year.

The Polish elite until the last moment was preparing for war with the USSR. All major military events were connected with the future war with the Russians. Warsaw did not prepare for a possible war with Germany, as it saw Hitler as an ally against Russia. Which greatly helped the Germans in the future defeat of the Polish army. The Polish General Staff prepared plans for a joint war with Germany against the USSR. In addition, Warsaw was killed by pride. Pans considered Poland a great military power. When the Nazis came to power in Germany, Poland was militarily stronger than the Third Reich. Warsaw did not pay attention to the fact that in just a few years, the Third Reich restored its military potential and developed rapidly, increasing at the expense of the economic, military and human resources of Austria and Czechoslovakia. The Poles were sure that their divisions, along with the French on the Western Front, would easily beat the Germans. Warsaw did not see threats from Germany.

It is not surprising that Warsaw did not want Moscow’s help even in August 1939, when the threat of the Third Reich’s attack on Poland became obvious. The Polish leadership refused to let the Red Army into Poland. Although the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact was not yet signed at this time, Germany and the USSR were considered adversaries. And Moscow in good faith tried to achieve the creation of a collective security system together with France and England. However, the Polish "elite" was so short-sighted in its historical hatred of Russia and the Russians that refused to accept the helping hand extended by Moscow.

Thus, Poland itself was a predator, wishing to participate in the division of Russian lands, but became a victim of even more powerful predators. Hitler decided to defeat Poland in order to secure a home front before throwing at Paris and free the central strategic direction (Warsaw - Minsk - Moscow) for a future war with the USSR. And France and England, American capital, needed Hitler, having absorbed Austria and Czechoslovakia, to go to the East, to Moscow. Therefore, Poland was so easily sacrificed to strengthen the Third Reich.

Now Warsaw portrays an innocent victim who allegedly fell the first victim of World War II. Although the Japanese had plagued China for several years, Germany captured Austria and Czechoslovakia (with the help of the Poles), and Italy drowned Ethiopia in the blood. At the same time, in Warsaw they do not recall that Western “partners” betrayed Poland, making the Poles slaves of the Nazis, and the Soviet Union, led by Stalin, revived the Polish state from the ashes.


English King George VI (in a light cloak in the front row) inspects the 85 Squadron in France. Hauker Hurricane Mk I fighters are standing on the airfield. In the upper left corner you can see, from left to right: the Bristol Blenheim bomber and two Gloucester Gladiator fighters

"Strange War"


The German attack on Poland obliged England and France, in accordance with previous guarantees, allied obligations, including the Anglo-Polish mutual assistance treaty of 25 on August 1939, to immediately render all possible assistance to the "Polish ally". On the morning of September 1 1939, Warsaw informed the Western powers of the German invasion and requested immediate assistance. Paris and London assured Warsaw of immediate support. However, in the following days, when the German divisions raided Poland, the Polish ambassadors in Paris and London unsuccessfully sought meetings with the head of the French government Daladier and the British Prime Minister Chamberlain to find out when and exactly what military assistance would be provided to the Polish state. The foreign ministers of France and England only expressed sympathy for the Polish ambassadors.

Thus, practically neither England nor France provided any assistance to Poland. Things did not go further than the formal declaration of war on Germany on September 3, 1939. To reassure the French public, only limited reconnaissance raids were undertaken, when advanced detachments and small units penetrated German territory and deepened several kilometers. But already on September 12, the French command, by decision of the Supreme Privy Council, issued a secret order to end the offensive and in October all the troops returned to their original positions. Therefore, the press called this war “strange” or “sedentary”. French and English troops on the Western Front were bored, drank, played, etc., but did not conduct combat operations. The soldiers were even forbidden to shell enemy positions. A powerful British fleet was inactive, which could support Polish troops on the coast. A union aviation, which could calmly smash German industrial centers and transport infrastructure, “bombed” Germany with leaflets! The British government has banned the bombing of German military installations! France and England did not even organize a full-fledged economic blockade of Germany. The Third Reich calmly received all the resources and materials necessary for the economy through Italy, Spain, Turkey and other countries.

At the same time, the French army was then stronger than the German one, and all the combat-ready divisions of the Reich were connected by the Polish campaign. On the western border, Berlin had a total of 23 divisions against about 110 French and British. The Allies had complete numerical and qualitative superiority here. The British and French had almost four times as many soldiers here, five times as many guns. The German troops on the western border did not have tanks or aviation support at all! All tanks and planes were in the East. The German divisions in the West were second-rate, from reserve soldiers, without reserves and equipment for long battles, did not have strong fortifications.

The German generals themselves admitted that England and France would easily have ended the great war back in 1939, if they had begun a strategic offensive deep into Germany. The Westerners could easily force the Rhine and threaten the Ruhr - the main industrial center of Germany, and put Berlin on its knees. That would have ended the world war. Obviously, London and Paris could also support the plot of the German generals, dissatisfied with Hitler's "adventurism". From a military point of view, German generals were right. Germany was not ready for war with France, England and Poland. That would be a disaster.

The Western military also showed a picture of the inaction of England and France, while the Nazis destroyed Poland. British Field Marshal Montgomery noted that France and England did not move when Germany swallowed Poland.

“We continued to be inactive even when the German armies moved to the West with the obvious goal of attacking us! We patiently waited until they attacked us, and throughout this period from time to time they bombarded Germany with leaflets. I did not understand if it was a war. "


The point was that Hitler had full confidence (obviously, an unspoken guarantee) that Paris and London would not wage a real war. Already from the 1920's, English and American financial circles supported the German Nazis and Hitler personally. A great war was being prepared. Germany was to become a "battering ram" for the destruction of the Old World, then the USSR. Therefore, while the Germans calmly smashed Poland, the Anglo-French forces did not take any real military operations on land, in the air and at sea. But Hitler was able to throw at Poland all those who have fighting forces, without worrying about the Western Front.

As history shows, Hitler was right. England and France gave him Poland to eat. Everything was limited to a formal declaration of war. This was a continuation of the Munich policy of "appeasing" the aggressor at the expense of territories in Eastern Europe. Paris and London tried to direct the aggression of Berlin against the USSR. At the same time, ordinary Frenchmen and Englishmen were fooled, saying that Germany would soon oppose the Soviet Union. Even the idea of ​​a European “crusade” against Bolshevism was voiced. In fact, the financial oligarchy of the West knew the true plans of the Führer, which he voiced in the immediate circle - first crush the West, and then turn to the East. Hitler did not want to repeat the mistakes of the Second Reich and fight on two fronts. After the defeat of Poland, he wanted to end France, take historical revenge for the Versailles shame, and put most of Western Europe under his control. Then turn the "Hitler European Union" against the Russians. And the defeat of the USSR and Russian resources allowed Hitler to lead his game and claim world domination.


German soldiers turn to the accordion music to the soldiers of the French army on the other side of the Rhine. The photograph was taken during the so-called “strange” or “sedentary” war (Fr. Drôle de guerre, German: Sitzkrieg) on ​​the Western Front. Photo source: http://waralbum.ru
Author:
140 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Same lech
    Same lech 3 September 2019 04: 55 New
    +27
    Hmm ... thanks to the author for the article ...
    Modern Poland once again decided to become a battering ram against Russia ... history has not taught the Poles anything.
    1. Amurets
      Amurets 3 September 2019 05: 42 New
      +9
      Quote: The same Lech
      history has taught nothing to the Poles.

      Well, the author did not say anything particularly new, and the Polish ambition has repeatedly played a cruel joke with the Poles leading to the partition of Poland.
    2. Angelica
      Angelica 4 September 2019 05: 17 New
      +4
      ..history taught the Poles nothing.

      National Polish dance - rake dance. laughing
    3. DimerVladimer
      DimerVladimer 4 September 2019 14: 13 New
      +4
      Quote: The same Lech
      Hmm ... thanks to the author for the article ...


      It has become customary to thank the authors for misinformation?

      In fact, the presence of troops on the western border of Germany:
      ... measures were envisaged to cover the western border of Germany, where it was planned to deploy Army Group C (commander General W. Leeb) consisting of the 1st, 5th and 7th armies, which would have 31 divisions and, relying on on the unfinished Siegfried line (western rampart), was supposed to defend the border with the Netherlands, Belgium and France. Thus, out of 103 Wehrmacht divisions deployed to mobilize, 57 (55,3%) were planned to be deployed against Poland, 31 (30,1%) in western Germany, and 15 (14,6%) in the central regions of the country.

      And how many articles does the author have 23 divisions on the western border?
      After September 3, another nine infantry divisions were subordinated to Army Group “Ts”, which mainly concentrated by September 9 — a total of 10 divisions (44 of which could be called full-fledged, all the rest were new formations).
      http://militera.lib.ru/research/meltyukhov/03.html#

      The author lied about the lack of German aviation in the western direction:
      Ground forces (Germany) supported the 2nd and 3rd air fleets, in which there were 1 aircraft (of which 094 were combat ready), in addition, the command of Army Group C had subordinate air units with 966 aircraft (144 of them combat-ready), and naval aviation in the West [113] numbered 103 aircraft (121 combat-ready). In total, there were 114 aircraft (1 combat-ready) in the West, including 359 bomber and 1 fighter
      (Das Deutsche Reich und der Zweite Weltkrieg. Stuttgart. 1988. Bd.5 / 1. S.718-719.)
      The French could oppose them
      French Air Force totaled 1 first-line aircraft and about 400 in reserve
      Gimha D. The Failed Battle. M., 1971. S. 150-151; The history of the Second World War 1939-1945. T.2. S.432.
      Confuses the even figure of 1400 + 1600 aircraft - the 1971 year of publication, do not count on reliability, all sources of historical works of the USSR need to be double-checked by numbers due to the availability of new archives, including foreign ones.

      Where did the author find 110 Anglo-French divisions at the beginning of September?
      These are excerpts from Yodel - who brazenly lied - underestimating their own forces and exaggerating the forces of the allies, while there were no British forces on the continent at all. All this "splendor" is taken from Fomin V.T. Fascist Germany in the Second World War (September 1939 - June 1941). S. 101. Moscow 1978.
      Only Samsonov did not know this - he simply took it on faith and copied :) without indicating the source.
      In Fomin VT, this phrase sounds like this:
      At the Nuremberg Trials, the Chief of the Operations Division of the General Staff of the German High Command, General Jodl, said: “Until 1939, we were able to defeat Poland. But we never, neither in 1938, nor in 1939, were actually able to withstand the concentrated blow of all these countries. And if in 1939 we were not defeated, this is only because about 110 French and English divisions, which stood against 23 German divisions in the West during our war with Poland in the West, remained completely inactive. ”
      Well, of course, a complete lie. Since today the location and number of troops is known, the first British divisions on the continent landed in October, when the Polish army was defeated, the country was occupied.

      On September 1, when open mobilization was declared in France, there were 72 infantry (personnel, reserve, North African, colonial and serf troops equivalent to 15 divisions), 3 cavalry, 2 light mechanized divisions and 39 separate tank battalions on its territory
      .
      By September 17, there were only about 60 French mobilized divisions on the border.
      According to other sources, 71 divisions as of September 3 and 13 of them 267000 people - fortress garrisons of the Maginot line and 7 divisions in the formation stage. (Gimha D. Decree. Op. S. 150-151; History of the Second World War 1939-1945. Vol.2. S.432.)
      According to Fomin's Data, 51 combat-ready divisions against 44 German defenses. Well, not at all 110 against 23 according to Yodel-Samsonov

      In general, these are links from an interesting work by MI Meltiukhov, “Stalin’s missed chance. The Soviet Union and the struggle for Europe: 1939-1941” 2000, which worked out more than 1600 sources on this topic (though it is alarming among the sources that are notorious, more than once exposed by Rezun’s works / Suvorov - yet 2000 year of work, not yet subjected to critical analysis.)

      Well, the question is - Samsonov simply mixed in a bunch of facts that he did not even investigate for reliability and poured it on the heads of readers, what misled them - the price of this writing?

      Above, I brought you figures that have links to specific works of historians of varying degrees of reliability, but generally speaking that there was no overwhelming superiority of the French troops in early September 1939 on the Franco-German border.
      .. I’ve thrown some more minuses for this :) - apparently people who value their political convictions more than historical truth.
      1. zenion
        zenion 3 October 2019 13: 50 New
        0
        So the Germans bombed France when they fought with Poland, or scattered condoms from planes?
  2. A1Lukno
    A1Lukno 3 September 2019 05: 03 New
    +13
    Liked. Thanks to the author for the work done!
    1. 210ox
      210ox 3 September 2019 05: 31 New
      +9
      Alexander writes interesting articles .. However, I do not agree with the reason for the outbreak of war. The crisis of capitalism? Partly yes. Here is another .. Revanchism caused by the dissatisfaction of the Versailles Treaty, the desire to destroy the Soviet Union are the main reasons.
      1. Amurets
        Amurets 3 September 2019 07: 05 New
        +9
        Quote: 210ox
        Revanchism, caused by the dissatisfaction of the Versailles Treaty, the desire to destroy the Soviet Union, these are the main reasons.
        The main sources of this war: "The Great Depression (Eng. Great Depression) - the global economic crisis that began in October 1929 with the stock market crash in the United States and continued until 1939. (Most acute from 1929 to 1933) [1]. 1930- e years are generally considered the period of the Great Depression.
        The Great Depression most affected the United States, Canada, Britain, Germany and France, but was felt in other countries. "Germany had no need to destroy the USSR. It was the widest market for its products and the USSR supplied raw materials for German industry. But, according to the British , the union of Germany and the USSR posed threats to British interests in the Middle East. The British did everything possible to annul the "Pact on no attack between the countries and push the USSR and Germany over. And the fears of the British were not unfounded in relation to Germany. Abver created powerful reconnaissance and sabotage networks in Iran and Turkey. Yes, so powerful that the USSR in August 1941 had to send troops into Iran. “Operation Consent.” The entry of Soviet troops into Iran in 1941. The main prerequisites that triggered the operation were issues of global geopolitics and enhanced security:
        - protection of oil fields of the Union (Baku) and England (Southern Iran and the border with Iraq areas of Iran);
        - protection of the transport corridor of the allies, since a significant share of supplies under the lend-lease subsequently followed the Tabriz-Astara (Iran) -Astara (Azerbaijan) -Bak route and beyond;
        - the danger of the approval of the forces of the Third Reich in Iran against the background of the emergence and rise of "Iranian (Persian)" national socialism. "https://topwar.ru/11507-operaciya-soglasie.html
        1. 210ox
          210ox 3 September 2019 07: 37 New
          +5
          About "there is no reason for Germany (Nazi Germany) to disagree with the USSR. The plan" Babarossa "was developed earlier than the entry of Soviet troops into Iran.
          1. Amurets
            Amurets 3 September 2019 07: 50 New
            +4
            Quote: 210ox
            The Babarossa plan was developed earlier than the entry of Soviet troops into Iran.

            But after the start of the Strange War
            1. 210ox
              210ox 3 September 2019 08: 34 New
              +5
              Here is the answer ... the West untied Hitler’s hands .. They expected him to go to the East ... However, he was distracted by the West for several weeks .... yes hi
            2. Milovanovic
              Milovanovic 3 September 2019 19: 37 New
              +3
              "Strange war" in September 1939, outline of a plan of war with the USSR - 1934. With a reservation: at the General Staff (OKW), a political decision was announced later. But the fact that the war will be, was considered by military advisers in Spain. Thus, the General de Walther Division (Karol Sverchevsky, brigade commander) in the Red Army was engaged in reconnaissance and teaching military affairs in the sections of the Comintern, and also taught at the General Staff Academy - he received information from a wide range of sources and knew how to process it. And he considered Spain the beginning of World War II . And after her at the Academy, the cadets directly said that they should pay more attention to the Wehrmacht (biography).
              The economic basis of the blitzkrieg is in the preamble of that plan: Germany needed 6 million tons of grain annually to wage war, and according to OKW estimates in 1934–35, the population of the black earth strip of bread would not remain.
        2. Alex 1970
          Alex 1970 3 September 2019 13: 32 New
          +3
          Is the pact of attack not an allied treaty?
          1. 210ox
            210ox 3 September 2019 13: 38 New
            +4
            Not at all .. But the Triple Alliance, yes.
            1. Alex 1970
              Alex 1970 3 September 2019 14: 23 New
              +2
              Here I am about the fact that the USSR and Germany are never allies.
          2. Alf
            Alf 3 September 2019 16: 14 New
            +7
            Quote: Alex 1970
            Is the pact of attack not an allied treaty?

            Not at all.
            I translate into human language.
            The non-aggression pact is when you and your neighbor decided not to beat each other's faces.
            An allied treaty is when, when attacking a neighbor, you too get involved in a fight on the side of a neighbor and together straighten the face to the attacker.
        3. Mekey Iptyshev
          Mekey Iptyshev 4 September 2019 07: 08 New
          0
          Have you read Mine Kampf? The war became inevitable, Stalin understood this and unfolded sharply his views, a gesture
        4. telamon10
          telamon10 4 September 2019 10: 03 New
          +2
          You say so, as if Germany at that time was such a peaceful state that only dreamed of producing goods and trading them! What happened to the ideology of Nazism, which grew up on the fertile soil of revenge? What kind of alliance of Germany with the USSR is in question is also not clear. Communists were planted in Germany, and the party was banned because this ideology was no less dangerous to fascism than to the rest of capitalism. And in the West, too many dreamed of wiping the USSR off the face of the earth. Economically, this, by the way, is much more profitable than trading. Here are the causes of WWII. And the financial crisis ... and you yourself write that it was most acutely felt in the years 29-33.
      2. Andrey Zhdanov-Nedilko
        Andrey Zhdanov-Nedilko 3 September 2019 08: 17 New
        +4
        The main reason for WWII is the redistribution of the world and resources.
        1. 210ox
          210ox 3 September 2019 08: 36 New
          +5
          This is the reason for the WWII .. Once again I say, the situation in 1939 was somewhat different ..
          1. Alex 1970
            Alex 1970 3 September 2019 13: 33 New
            +2
            I agree. The redivision of the world is the first world.
            1. Andrey Zhdanov-Nedilko
              Andrey Zhdanov-Nedilko 4 September 2019 08: 08 New
              +1
              And redistribution is WWII.
          2. Alex 1970
            Alex 1970 3 September 2019 13: 35 New
            +2
            But from the results of the First World War the WWII grew up and the main reason was nevertheless the revanchism of Germany, and as an integral application and plans for living space.
            1. 210ox
              210ox 3 September 2019 13: 48 New
              +2
              Here I completely agree with you ..
            2. Maki Avellevich
              Maki Avellevich 3 September 2019 20: 43 New
              +4
              Quote: Alex 1970
              But from the results of the First World War the WWII grew up and the main reason was nevertheless the revanchism of Germany, and as an integral application and plans for living space.

              the results of geopolitical changes after the WWII were very satisfactory for England.
              however, the revolution that incinerated Russia and looked like they were doing something gave a secondary and extremely undesirable result - the USSR.
              It seems that the weakening or liquidation of the communist system was, if not the main thing, then at least one of the most desirable results of WWII from England.
      3. Angelica
        Angelica 4 September 2019 05: 25 New
        +3
        Revanchism, caused by the dissatisfaction of the Versailles Treaty, the desire to destroy the Soviet Union, these are the main reasons.

        Revanchism was certainly present. But he was not there if the Anglo-Saxons did not create Hitler. For its natural purposes. And the Anglo-Saxons wanted to destroy the USSR (Russia) first of all. Hands of the Germans. This whole plan got out of hand. And the Anglo-Saxons had to help the Soviet Union to eliminate the beast.
        Therefore, the main reason, for more than one century, is the Anglo-Saxons.
        And today they are also in search. Whom to set against Russia.
  3. Military Builder
    Military Builder 3 September 2019 05: 34 New
    +10
    With your article you will blow up the brain of the liberal part of our population, because "the evil Stalin wanted to attack Germany first, and Hitler only warned"
    1. Vadim Golubkov
      Vadim Golubkov 3 September 2019 07: 30 New
      +10
      It won’t blow, in Novaya Gazeta there is today's article by historian Solonin, everything is the other way around, Stalin and the USSR are bad and unleashed World War 2, but Poland is poor, unhappy, England, France, good, but could not help Poland, because the USSR did everything cunningly in negotiations that they could not
      help Poland. The comments of liberals under the article are the same ... the USSR is bad, the rest are all good.
      1. Andrey Zhdanov-Nedilko
        Andrey Zhdanov-Nedilko 3 September 2019 08: 16 New
        +14
        The historian Solonin is deprived of the scientific rank and citizenship of the Russian Federation, and then also expelled from the country! This is the only way to deal with the enemies of the people and the country.
        1. Doctorleg
          Doctorleg 3 September 2019 15: 49 New
          -6
          And you - the title of a hero!
          1. Andrey Zhdanov-Nedilko
            Andrey Zhdanov-Nedilko 4 September 2019 08: 26 New
            +1
            C'mon, with exile ... Though you don’t print, that’s enough for now!
        2. naidas
          naidas 3 September 2019 20: 05 New
          +2
          Quote: Andrey Zhdanov-Nedilko
          The historian Solonin deprived of the scientific title and citizenship of the Russian Federation

          It is useless, he has one scientific title - the aviation engineer.
          Since March 2016, lives and works in Estonia, where he is a co-owner and chief designer of Pyroheat OU.
        3. Catfish
          Catfish 3 September 2019 21: 43 New
          +2
          Yes nooo. At one time they were sent, sent, both under the tsar and under Brezhnev, and they always returned and arranged what they arranged. Why do you think when I.V. They could not even imagine such a thing to Stalin? Well, and you say to send, to deprive ... smile
        4. ccsr
          ccsr 4 September 2019 15: 07 New
          0
          Quote: Andrey Zhdanov-Nedilko
          Historian Solonin deprive of scientific rank

          He is not a historian by education, but an ordinary clicker, specializing in military history.
          And he does not have a scientific title - well, if any fake scientific advice considered something there from his writings.
          Mark Semenovich Solonin was born on May 29, 1958 in Kuibyshev. My father worked as a technologist at a bearing factory, my mother taught German at the institute. In 1975 he graduated from high school with a gold medal and entered the Kuibyshev Aviation Institute. S. P. Koroleva, at the end of which he worked in a closed design bureau [15].
          In 1987, he began working as a fireman in the boiler room, was one of the organizers of the socio-political clubs of Kuibyshev during the years of perestroika.

          Quote: Andrey Zhdanov-Nedilko
          and then send them out of the country!

          Late we realized:
          Since March 2016, lives and works in Estonia [15], where he is co-owner and chief designer of Pyroheat OU
      2. bbss
        bbss 3 September 2019 13: 39 New
        +4
        Quote: Vadim Golubkov
        in Novaya Gazeta

        Oh my God! NG is a garbage dump!
        1. The comment was deleted.
    2. Pedrodepackes
      Pedrodepackes 3 September 2019 07: 49 New
      -8
      Quote: Military Builder
      because "the evil Stalin wanted to attack Germany first, and Hitler only warned"

      In fact, the plans to attack Germany were really the first, from the directive of the head of the Main Political Administration of the Red Army A. Shcherbakov (early June 1941): "On the state of military-political propaganda"
      “To tell us that we should only wage a defensive war when a knife is still above us ... To say this to us is to repeat the old phrases of petty-bourgeois pacifism that have long lost their meaning. If we were to face such constantly actively hostile forces were vowing ... that we will never proceed with well-known actions that may turn out to be offensive in the military-strategic sense, then we would be not only fools, but also criminals. " (PSS V.I. Lenin T.XXVI, pp. 49-50).
      So, Leninism teaches that the country of socialism, using the favorable international situation, must and will be obliged to take the initiative of offensive military operations against the capitalist encirclement in order to expand the front of socialism.
      .... The international situation has become extremely aggravated, the military danger for our country has come nearer than ever. Under these conditions, the Leninist slogan “on a foreign land to protect one’s land” can at any moment turn into practical action.

      This directive is based on "Considerations for a Strategic Deployment Plan for the Armed Forces of the Soviet Union in the event of a war with Germany and its allies," developed by A. Vasilevsky in May 1941, which provided for a preventive strike against Germany and its allies. Another thing is that the beginning of the offensive was provided only in response to Germany’s direct preparations for the war against the USSR, and here Hitler Stalin outplayed it, having managed to prepare a strike earlier than the USSR was ready to repel. So not everything is so simple.
      1. bistrov.
        bistrov. 3 September 2019 09: 10 New
        +9
        Quote: Pedrodepackes
        developed by A. Vasilevsky in May 1941

        What sources did you get this from? Rezun's "works"?
        For example, G.K. Zhukov, who was then the chief of the General Staff of the Red Army, in his Memoirs and Reflections also speaks of this not a “directive”, but only a fact-finding “note” allegedly submitted to Stalin on his own behalf and Marshal Timoshenko, who was then the Minister of Defense.
        It was supposed that this “note” was allegedly personally executed by Vasilevsky, who was then the head of the General Operations Directorate, but they do not exclude that the copy that appeared in 1992 could have been fake, since there are no signatures there, although they were sealed up. It is highly doubtful that Stalin would be served a simple scrap of paper without any signatures.
        According to Zhukov, after reading this note, Stalin immediately called him and in strong terms scolded him and Marshal Tymoshenko for provocative intentions, like, do you want to provoke a war with Germany?
        After that, probably all the materials about it were immediately destroyed, where did the so-called. "draft"? Especially Vasilevsky in his memoirs not a word about this.
        1. Pedrodepackes
          Pedrodepackes 3 September 2019 09: 16 New
          -10
          Quote: bistrov.
          According to Zhukov, after reading this note, Stalin immediately called him and in strong terms scolded him and Marshal Tymoshenko for provocative intentions, like, do you want to provoke a war with Germany?

          Where were these words published? and second, but the GlavPur directive does not convince you? And what about all these songs and films before the war, "a small blow with a mighty blow"?
          Quote: bistrov.
          but just a fact-finding “note”
          this is not a note, but
          "Considerations for a strategic deployment plan for the Armed Forces of the Soviet Union in case of war with Germany and its allies."

          Quote: bistrov.
          From the "works" of Rezun?
          What does the Reason have to do with it? Preventive strike is the most sensible decision at that time. Why did Stalin seek permission from Poland to enter Czechoslovakia in the 38th? Butterflies catch?
          1. bistrov.
            bistrov. 3 September 2019 09: 30 New
            +8
            Quote: Pedrodepackes
            and the GlavPur directive does not convince you

            Well, where in this "directive" refers to the "preemptive strike"? In addition to crackling general phrases, there is nothing there, which are the theses on the protection of one’s interests “on a foreign land”. It was then the well-known SLOGONS, nothing more, "little blood", you just forgot to add ... And it would be strange if Glavpur RKKA, whose task was only the political education of the personnel, was also dedicated to secret intentions spirit, so to speak, of devotion to communist ideals.
            Quote: Pedrodepackes
            for which he sought permission from Poland to enter Czechoslovakia in the 38th

            Well, in any case, not for a “preemptive strike," for which no one is asking permission ...
          2. Andrey Zhdanov-Nedilko
            Andrey Zhdanov-Nedilko 3 September 2019 11: 12 New
            0
            Quote: Pedrodepackes
            Preventive strike is the most sensible decision at that time.

            You are an adventurer, rezunist and utopian! Yes, the Soviet Union would have received such a response in response to this preventive strike that we would never have dreamed !!! And the USSR would have ended its existence long before 1941 ...
            1. Kronos
              Kronos 3 September 2019 12: 22 New
              +1
              From whom would he get it?
              1. Andrey Zhdanov-Nedilko
                Andrey Zhdanov-Nedilko 3 September 2019 13: 07 New
                0
                Yes, from the same Wehrmacht - yes, at first there would have been success, and then ... however, why am I going to retell Rezun, whom I don't like to me?!? I disagree with him in many ways, but here I agree - our soldiers, who will be captured in the summer of 1941, would simply die here! And the Wehrmacht would have invaded us anyway.
            2. Pedrodepackes
              Pedrodepackes 3 September 2019 13: 46 New
              +1
              Quote: Andrey Zhdanov-Nedilko
              And the USSR would have ended its existence long before 1941 ...

              why? As of 1938, even the army of Czechoslovakia was able to repel the Wehrmacht’s strike, at least at the initial stage, and if the Soviet Union had supported it, the Wehrmacht would have had no chance. They then defeated Poland with difficulty, and this was when they were preparing for another year and they appropriated all the equipment of the Czech army. You are probably writing about the year 1938, but you are thinking about the 41st.
              1. Andrey Zhdanov-Nedilko
                Andrey Zhdanov-Nedilko 3 September 2019 13: 56 New
                +2
                Sorry, accepted, of course I was thinking about 1941 ...
                1. Pedrodepackes
                  Pedrodepackes 3 September 2019 14: 00 New
                  -1
                  Quote: Andrey Zhdanov-Nedilko
                  of course I was thinking about 1941 ...

                  well, it's my fault too, chaotically outlined hi
              2. andrew42
                andrew42 3 September 2019 15: 50 New
                +3
                The argument is about nothing. A completely different reason for the death of the preemptive strike from the USSR: we would immediately have automatically received the "label of aggressor" and the joint invasion of Britain and Germany with the support of the United States (and if before 1940, then France too). Stalin and the leadership of the USSR were clearly aware of this, unlike some roosting warriors. The “crusade against Bolshevism” was not a joke, but a stable doctrine of all Western “democracies”, which grew with Italian fascism and German National Socialism, as instruments of a power strike. From this point of view, even the return of Western Ukraine / Belarus was a tremendous risk, but fortunately a well-calculated risk, - they were sure that in 1939 Hitler would not tear to the east, and would even wag his tail, and did not miscalculate. Steamed everything by 1941. military leadership: People’s Commissariat of Defense, General Staff and district headquarters. There are no complaints about the political elite of the USSR, - a solid five.
                1. Pedrodepackes
                  Pedrodepackes 3 September 2019 16: 15 New
                  -3
                  Quote: andrew42
                  A completely different reason for the death of the preemptive strike from the USSR: we would immediately have automatically received the "label of aggressor" and the joint invasion of Britain and Germany with the support of the United States (and if before 1940, then France too).

                  after this you can no longer read. We are talking about a preemptive strike in 1941, since France was defeated and Great Britain barely recaptured. This was possible only between the defeat of Poland and the defeat of France. If you mean the help of Czechoslovakia, then everything would have been decided there on the basis of an agreement with Poland and, automatically, with Great Britain and France.
          3. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 3 September 2019 12: 52 New
            +6
            Quote: Pedrodepackes
            Preventive strike is the most sensible decision at that time.

            A preemptive strike in 1941 was the death of Red Army units in boilers.
            How can the mobilized mechanized units of the Red Army advance, Senno and Lepel showed: in a week the mechanized corps stitch to zero at the cost of tactical success.
            How they can deliver a preemptive strike on the airfields of an enemy of the Red Army Air Force - showed raids on Finland in June 1941: half of the airfields are unknown, half of the remaining crews were not found, naked bombers go as a parade under attack by enemy fighters, they cannot cover their fighters - the radius of everything 120-130 km.
          4. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 4 September 2019 10: 39 New
            0
            Quote: Pedrodepackes
            And what about all these songs and films before the war, "a small blow with a mighty blow"?

            And this, to put it mildly, is the schizophrenia of Soviet propaganda, which gave a completely different picture of the future war for which the country was actually preparing.
            It should be noted that the propaganda speeches of political and military leaders contained somewhat different tasks than the military plans developed under their leadership. So, in 1936, K. Ye. Voroshilov proclaimed the slogan that the Red Army would wage war "with little blood and on foreign territory." But this statement did not prevent the approval of the next year’s plan of evacuation from areas that may be occupied by the enemy, and the next norms of losses for the year of the war, which had very little in common with the mentioned slogan. Therefore, when analyzing preparations for war, it is very important to separate political propaganda from the real direction of military planning.
            © Melia A.A. Mobilization preparation of the national economy of the USSR
            Even Mehlis was not able to overcome this hatred of pre-war.
        2. Andrey Zhdanov-Nedilko
          Andrey Zhdanov-Nedilko 3 September 2019 11: 06 New
          +3
          Or maybe for Vasilevsky this "note" was completed by "MOSSAD" already in 1950-60. ? Vasilevsky himself in his memoirs is indeed not a word. Another option - Zhukov faked after the war, but then the question is: why and for what purpose? In the stamp in. it seems like 1947 or 1948 ... In general, there is no answer and there is no one to ask.
        3. Rey_ka
          Rey_ka 3 September 2019 13: 30 New
          +2
          The liberal progressive public had a spiritualistic session with Dr. Goebels about this
      2. Wolga
        Wolga 3 September 2019 09: 27 New
        +4
        Well done, sit down, well-deserved deuce ... To quote from the collected works of V.I. Lenin and the directive of the political administration of the Red Army as an argument - this is strong! One of the reasons for eliminating L.D. Trotsky also had a blind belief in Lenin's "teachings" about the world fire of the revolution. As history has shown, JV Stalin was somewhat disagree with such an undertaking. For reference - plans for offensive and defensive operations were developed at the general headquarters of all countries - this is the norm and rule of the general staff. As regards the "far-fetched" arguments, in order to start military operations against another country (especially offensive actions!) It is necessary to transfer military units from the state of peacetime i.e. to saturate military formations with people, for which then (and now) mobilization is being carried out. Conducted in secret, this event is not possible, and the fact of its holding signals to other countries about the possible start of a war and the possible conduct of aggressive actions of this state. I note the German army was completely mobilized by the time of the attack on Poland. It’s nonsense to talk about “replaying” Stalin by Hitler about preparing a strike ... Although history does not tolerate a subjunctive mood, in theory it would be ideal for Stalin to deliver a preemptive strike on Germany at the time of Germany’s attack on France, but the USSR did not.
        1. Andrey Zhdanov-Nedilko
          Andrey Zhdanov-Nedilko 3 September 2019 11: 01 New
          +1
          Quote: Wolga
          Although history does not tolerate a subjunctive mood, in theory it would be ideal for Stalin to deliver a preemptive strike on Germany at the time of the German attack on France, but the USSR did not.

          Hmm, and the USSR was already bound by the Treaty of hands and feet, and by the "minds" of some! ... Yes, Stalin was glad of every peaceful day, however, put yourself in his place - you would have acted the same way! Do not even argue.
          And still - the USSR has deployed a colossal network of strategic intelligence in Western Europe, and at a distance of 100-200 km from the borders it all missed until 3 o’clock in the morning on 22-06-1941! Well, the Germans misinformation was super! Plus, the deceit and the silence of the scouts from the NKVD border troops - to die that tragic day is much simpler and easier, but it turned out to be much more difficult to open the structure and construction of enemy groups without scared before the leader ...
          And developing plans for “preemptive” strikes is not difficult on paper: believe me, for $ 10000, I can, without really straining, develop a plan for the Chilean Armed Forces General Staff for a preventive strike against the army of Argentina or even Mexico with a subsequent strike along the Cordillera, and you can to split forces then on Alaska and Canada.
          1. Kronos
            Kronos 3 September 2019 12: 24 New
            +1
            In general, the day before the attack, the Red Army received a directive to prepare for the Germans' strike; other thing is that few people performed it
            1. Andrey Zhdanov-Nedilko
              Andrey Zhdanov-Nedilko 3 September 2019 13: 08 New
              +1
              They just didn’t manage to complete it.
              1. Rey_ka
                Rey_ka 3 September 2019 13: 33 New
                +1
                left on Monday but June 22 was Sunday
            2. Pedrodepackes
              Pedrodepackes 3 September 2019 13: 32 New
              0
              Quote: Kronos
              few performed it

              Quote: Kronos
              the day before the attack

              Not enough time to put on alert?
              Quote: Kronos
              the red army received a directive to prepare the Germans strike

              and didn’t receive it, and the directive was sent when it arrived (and it was late in the evening) it was already late
          2. Wolga
            Wolga 3 September 2019 21: 45 New
            0
            Dear, I, unlike the liberals, will not even try to dispute this fact. Stalin chose the most appropriate position for reality - expectation.
        2. Pedrodepackes
          Pedrodepackes 3 September 2019 13: 40 New
          -2
          Quote: Wolga
          Regarding the far-fetched arguments,

          Do you think that the proposal of the USSR to provide military assistance to Czechoslovakia is
          Quote: Wolga
          far-fetched argument

          Quote: Wolga
          To quote from the collected works of V.I. Lenin and the directive of the political administration of the Red Army as an argument

          this is an argument that there was no peace policy of the USSR at that time, and the GlavPur directive is not a statement from the rostrum of the director of the collective farm. At that time, at such a level did not throw words.
          1. Wolga
            Wolga 3 September 2019 21: 56 New
            0
            You are our unwavering ... First of all, here is the “Agreement on mutual assistance between the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the Republic of Czechoslovakia”, by the way signed in 1935. (https://www.1000dokumente.de/index.html?c=dokument_ru&dokument=0021_tsc&object=context&l=en) and is a similar agreement with France. Indicate how he proves the aggressive policy of the USSR ??? Secondly,
            Quote: Pedrodepackes
            GlavPur's directive is not a speech from the rostrum of the collective farm director. At that time, at such a level did not throw words.

            What is it that at that time they rush not with such words but also with "test tubes with anthrax" so that it’s the same past ...
        3. naidas
          naidas 3 September 2019 21: 05 New
          +1
          Quote: Wolga
          One of the reasons for eliminating L.D. Trotsky

          was the elimination of a political rival. But what Trotsky proposed for the army remained.
          1. Wolga
            Wolga 3 September 2019 22: 24 New
            +2
            In this context, we consider the political convictions of Trotsky, who, unlike Stalin, adhered precisely to the principle of planting a revolution throughout the world, naturally by the hands of the Red Army. Stalin, on the other hand, believed that the very fact of the victory of the proletariat in a single state was already a happy coincidence. By the way, the Soviet-Polish war, as a confirmation of this, showed that Entente member countries would rather support capitalist Poland, which was the culprit of that war, than Soviet Russia. The hopes of the USSR for the help of Polish workers and peasants did not materialize, which for Stalin clearly became a sign of the end of the "nightmare" cap. countries of the world revolution, but Trotsky was not convinced.
            1. naidas
              naidas 6 September 2019 19: 17 New
              0
              Quote: Wolga
              In this context, we consider the political convictions of Trotsky, who, unlike Stalin, adhered precisely to the principle of planting a revolution throughout the world.

              And how then:
              Therefore, the revolution of the victorious country should not consider itself as a self-sufficient value, but as an aid, as a means to accelerate the victory of the proletariat in other countries ”(IV Stalin. Issues of Leninism. M., 1935. P. 24.).
              The triumph of the all-encompassing power of the Communist Party, carried out by the most severe, most dictatorial methods - this is the real purpose of the "world revolution in the Stalinist way" (Ibid., Pp. 68–69).
              January 21, 1940 Stalin noted: "The actions of the Red Army are also a matter of world revolution."
              "A Short Course in the History of the CPSU (B.)," In Chapter Nine: To eliminate the danger of foreign capitalist intervention, it is necessary to destroy the capitalist encirclement. "
              Quote: Wolga
              for Stalin, it clearly became a sign of the end of the "nightmare" cap. countries of the world revolution, but Trotsky was not convinced.

              Well, this is understandable to Lenin, who trotted out the trunks of Trotsky did not, but Trotsky got everyone, since he is for this, then everything is against.
              Remember, no peace, no war, and disband the army, as the creator of the Red Army said.
      3. Ivan Tartugai
        Ivan Tartugai 3 September 2019 18: 59 New
        +1
        Quote: Pedrodepackes
        In fact, the plans to attack Germany were really the first, from the directive of the head of the Main Political Administration of the Red Army A. Shcherbakova (early June 1941): "On the state of military-political propaganda"

        It seems to be a hoax, i.e. lies.
        Since Colonel General Shcherbakov AS became the head of the Main Political Administration of the Red Army only on July 12, 1942. And before that, he was the first secretary of the Moscow City Party Committee, and immediately before his appointment to the post of head of the Main Political Administration of the Red Army, there was the head of the Sovinformburo.
        Naturally, the directives on behalf of the head of the Main Political Administration of the Red Army (early June 1941): “On the state of military-political propaganda” could not be published by AS Shcherbakov.
        In early June 1941, the head of the Main Political Administration of the Red Army was the Army Commissioner of the 1st rank Zaporozhets AI.
  4. Strashila
    Strashila 3 September 2019 05: 48 New
    0
    What is actually surprising, private-capitalist relations. I came across in books how we can strike at the Germans. they are located in the forest, and the forest belongs to a private person, but he will condemn us for damage. But this was only at the first stage.
  5. Ros 56
    Ros 56 3 September 2019 06: 41 New
    +2
    Well, who in their right mind would have fought for this cross between a hyena and a jackal called Poland.
  6. Olgovich
    Olgovich 3 September 2019 07: 01 New
    +5
    The main goal of England and the USA was pit Germans and Japanese with Russians, and then finish off the winners and establish their world domination.

    This explains all the contradictions. and world politics ahead of world war.

    Absolutely nothing explains: the Angles, according to the author, "pitted" the Germans with the Russians, but in REALITY the Germans almost nailed ... the Angles themselves (two years before the Russians). The United States allegedly "pitted" the Japanese with the Russians, and the Japanese staged a massacre ... with the USA itself! belay
    Poland became the main European advocate for aggressors in the League of Nations. Warsaw justified the attack of fascist Italy on Abyssinia (Ethiopia), the Japanese aggression in China and supported the actions of the Nazis in Europe - and the restoration of control over the Rhine region (with its militarization), and the seizure of Austria, and the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia. During the Anschluss of Austria, Poland attempted to annex Lithuania. Then two European predators - Germany and Poland, together attacked Czechoslovakia.

    Not a lawyer Poland, Poland OFFICIALLY represented Germany in the League of Nations! These facts are very remarkable: here is THEIR and it was necessary to sound in detail the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia publicly, and not slurred reproaches for rewriting history. This had to be voiced on September 1 in Warsaw.
    And France and England, American capital hadthat Hitler, having absorbed Austria and Czechoslovakia, went to the East, to Moscow.

    They needed him to go ANYWHERE-to the East, to Africa, just not on them: they did not want and were afraid to fight and die! They had enough PMV. Let us recall HOW the French parliament resisted, how he was AFRAID and did not want to declare war on Germany!

    This also explains the "strange" war in Poland, and this also explains the fact that France surrendered almost without a fight — they didn’t want to, they were afraid to fight.
    1. Amurets
      Amurets 3 September 2019 08: 43 New
      +4
      Quote: Olgovich
      These facts are very remarkable: here is THEIR and it was necessary to sound in detail the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia publicly, and not slurred reproaches for rewriting history.
      And when the Russian Foreign Ministry clearly and clearly voiced its position. Primakov could do this, but no one else.
      1. Olgovich
        Olgovich 3 September 2019 10: 05 New
        +2
        Quote: Amurets
        And when the Russian Foreign Ministry clearly and clearly voiced its position.

        But there was SUCH an occasion-80 years of the beginning of WWII! !!
        Moreover, ALL trump cards in the hands of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Yesand Poland’s appearances in the LN, and Poland’s refusals to save the Czechs, Lithuania’s ultimatums, actions in alliance with Hitler. ...
        Work-for-the-day-and-release worldwide press release with evidence of Poland's WWII incendiary.
        And .... practically nothing ....

        In response to the wild insulting of Poland to Russia, the Foreign Ministry’s response in the style: "Turak himself!"

        Bitterly..... request
        1. Rey_ka
          Rey_ka 3 September 2019 13: 34 New
          +3
          It's fun to announce celebrations in honor of start WWII!
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 3 September 2019 13: 02 New
      +4
      Quote: Olgovich
      They needed him to go ANYWHERE-to the East, to Africa, but not to them: they did not want to and were afraid to fight and die!

      Particularly pleased with the mention in the same row the United States and France with England. smile
      Just the United States needed a war in Old Europe - a long and difficult one. In which the United States would enter at the most advantageous moment and be the only actual winner. And the rest of the participants, weakened by the war, would become debtors of the United States, lose political independence and open their market and the market of their colonies (who would have them) for American expansion.
      1. Rey_ka
        Rey_ka 3 September 2019 13: 35 New
        -2
        If we had not restrained Moscow, then the United States and England would have to fight alone with the whole world!
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 3 September 2019 15: 17 New
          +2
          Quote: Rey_ka
          If we had not restrained Moscow, then the United States and England would have to fight alone with the whole world!

          Eurocentrism in your statement I see ... smile
        2. naidas
          naidas 3 September 2019 21: 12 New
          -1
          Or conclude an agreement on the division of the USSR.
        3. Andrey Zhdanov-Nedilko
          Andrey Zhdanov-Nedilko 4 September 2019 08: 16 New
          0
          Strongly disagree! Could, as an option, be repeated in 1812. Or - they would have retreated to the Urals, but then all the same they would have been in Berlin, well, if not May 9, 1945, later, but they would have been for sure!
          PSA Turkey enter the war "wrong" - and in Istanbul would be too!
    3. Maki Avellevich
      Maki Avellevich 3 September 2019 20: 47 New
      0
      Quote: Olgovich
      Absolutely nothing explains: the Angles, according to the author, "pitted" the Germans with the Russians, but in REALITY the Germans almost nailed ... the Angles themselves

      you're dramatizing.
      Yes, the Germans battered England seriously. but exactly what they have suffered.
      the English fleet continued to control the seas and block Germany.
      how could Germany beat England if they could not cross the Lamansch?
  7. andrewkor
    andrewkor 3 September 2019 07: 41 New
    +3
    The article is not in the eyebrow, but in the eye of the "pacifiers", not diminish not add!
  8. Andrey Zhdanov-Nedilko
    Andrey Zhdanov-Nedilko 3 September 2019 08: 12 New
    +3
    Very good article and written lively, not standard! Yes, history has taught nothing to the Poles ...
  9. bistrov.
    bistrov. 3 September 2019 08: 14 New
    +10
    Now Poland seeks to form a "union of sixes", consisting of three Baltic dwarfs, Georgia, "Ukraine" and considers itself a leader in it. Behind all this, far-reaching plans are guessed, first of all anti-Russian, to accuse Russia of unleashing the Second World War, along with Hitler, to force him to admit his guilt and demand the so-called "Soviet occupation" of large indemnities. Not without reason, some of the Baltic dwarfs started talking about this in all seriousness. Then you can demand back Galicia, which is now part of "Ukraine."
    And in the distance looms “Uncle Sam”, which obviously could not have done without it, although Trump didn’t come to a certain “celebration” that took place in Poland on the 1st day, preferring to watch it from afar, but sent his representative in the form of Pence, who accepted the hymns that were distributed there to the United States, which, they say, in that war all "won both in the West and in the East" and "liberated poor Europe", although it fought on the side of Hitler. And the USSR, and 600 thousand of its citizens who died for the liberation of Poland, have nothing to do with it. Therefore, you can break down their monuments and desecrate their graves.
    What is surprising is the position of Russia, whose leaders, both Yeltsin and Putin, repeatedly and officially apologized to Poland for signing the so-called The Molotov-Ribbentrop Treaty, although France, Great Britain, and Poland had similar treaties with Germany ... Why didn’t they apologize at least for the “strange war”?
    That’s what Lavrov needs to do, and not speak on any “days of knowledge”, not doing his own thing, but to evaluate the actions of his department over the past years, you can give, as an extremely unsatisfactory, some burry newcomer Klimkin, in a tight jacket, gave him 100 points ahead, putting on the ears, almost the whole world because of the alleged "aggression of Russia".
  10. bubalik
    bubalik 3 September 2019 08: 22 New
    +2
    1 of September 1939 of the year Hitlerite Germany attacked Poland.





  11. DimerVladimer
    DimerVladimer 3 September 2019 09: 50 New
    -1
    Does the author not be embarrassed that he lives in a country that, in his rhetoric, also needs to be credited to capitalist predators? :))
    Or is there enough "native undeveloped" space for local capitalists?

    Some authors still manage to copy from the encyclopedia of the USSR.
    1. Andrey VOV
      Andrey VOV 3 September 2019 10: 22 New
      +5
      And are the USSR encyclopedias so bad?
      1. DimerVladimer
        DimerVladimer 3 September 2019 10: 48 New
        -1
        Quote: Andrey VOV
        And are the USSR encyclopedias so bad?


        Well, if you remove the political cliches, they may not be completely hopeless, but you cannot be guided by the exact source - which the author regularly proves in blind copying of materials.
        And statements like:
        A powerful British fleet was inactive, which could support Polish troops on the coast.

        Where? On the Baltic coast? How does the author imagine a breakthrough in the Baltic Sea of ​​the English fleet through the curtains of submarines, minefields, under air strikes? Full layman!
        1. Andrey VOV
          Andrey VOV 3 September 2019 11: 00 New
          +1
          and what forces and means did Germany have in 1939 in terms of its Navy .. I honestly don’t know and the data of a competent person would be interesting, I admit there is no time to comb through the Internet.
          And so yes, it is understandable that the British and French wanted to spit on Poland, as they had done to Czechoslovakia
          1. DimerVladimer
            DimerVladimer 3 September 2019 11: 33 New
            -2
            Quote: Andrey VOV
            And so yes, it is understandable that the British and French wanted to spit on Poland, as they had done to Czechoslovakia


            It’s scary for the French army to go deep into the territory of Germany - to storm the West Wall alone, when the British are still digging on their backs and will arrive only in October, and the German army is mobilized, has about 32 divisions on the border of France and Belgium and another 1,5 million troops in Poland (56 divisions of 4 brigades and these are the best troops).
            Yes, any strategist of that time who has no idea about blitz krieg will say that this is impossible.
            The surprise for the allies (but not for the Germans - the Weiss plan as a whole proved to be true) was the impossibility of long-term resistance to the Polish army, its archaic nature, its inertness of command (the plan of "hard defense" - "defense of everything", without breaking the front, the French school ... )
            Those. the Allies were preparing for a protracted war, the Wehrmacht made drastic adjustments to the tactics of the previous war, refusing to storm the fortified areas, and dismembering it with armored forces, blocking with infantry and destroying foci of resistance by aircraft and artillery. The result - the Polish army is dispersed and incompetent by September 17th.


            Quote: Andrey VOV
            and what forces and means did Germany have in 1939 in terms of its navy

            The question is that the non-surface forces would be opposed to the British fleet - they are not comparable weaker than the British.

            It is theoretically possible to break through practically into the inland Baltic Sea - subject to constant air strikes. However, the fleet requires a regular supply - with fuel, ammunition, food - to conduct an escort to supply the fleet - this is utopia.
            The convoy is especially vulnerable to the submarine fleet (by the beginning of the war, the Germans had 57 boats in operation - almost half of the small type IIB were “coastal” including 10 training ones, but very suitable for operations in the shallow Baltic) and aviation.

            That is, Mr. Samsonov reproached the British for not sending the fleet into a trap!
            It is simply from a complete misunderstanding of the issue that the author writes about.
            1. Andrey VOV
              Andrey VOV 3 September 2019 13: 11 New
              +4
              subsequent Germans actions in the Baltic against the USSR (heavy mining, etc.) showed what would happen to the British fleet ... even if we discard their initial reluctance to fight for Poland, they probably knew perfectly well in the fleet headquarters what was waiting for them in the Baltic
              1. DimerVladimer
                DimerVladimer 3 September 2019 13: 17 New
                +2
                Quote: Andrey VOV
                for Poland, then surely the fleet headquarters knew perfectly well what awaited them in the Baltic


                Definitely - to jeopardize the only defense of the metropolis - the fleet! Yes, not for any Poland!
                1. Amurets
                  Amurets 3 September 2019 13: 47 New
                  +3
                  Quote: DimerVladimer
                  Definitely - to jeopardize the only defense of the metropolis - the fleet!

                  Yes, England came in shock after Gunter Pryn's breakthrough at Scapa Flood base, drowning of the battleship “Royal Oak” in it. Here are the facts. On the night of October 13-14, 1939, the U-47 submarine, moving in a surface position, penetrated the Scapa Flow naval base. Its commander, Lieutenant Commander Gunter Prien, reported that he had sunk the Royal Oak battleship and damaged the Ripals battleship. The British Admiralty responded succinctly: "Ripals was at sea."
                  In any case, Prin's breakthrough into the base, which was considered impregnable, caused serious consequences for the British Navy. The fleet of the Metropolis, temporarily leaving Scapa Flow, since it was no longer considered safe, fell into the trap placed by the commander of the submarine forces of Germany. Commodore Dönitz correctly foresaw the redeployment of British ships to new bases, even more vulnerable. https://www.litmir.me/bd/?b=155182
              2. Andrey Zhdanov-Nedilko
                Andrey Zhdanov-Nedilko 4 September 2019 08: 19 New
                0
                By the way, recently re-read W. Churchill’s WWII once more - they choked, drank coffee, consulted, but no one thought about the actions of the Big Fleet in the Baltic.
        2. Maki Avellevich
          Maki Avellevich 3 September 2019 20: 51 New
          0
          Quote: DimerVladimer
          Where? On the Baltic coast? How does the author imagine a breakthrough in the Baltic Sea of ​​the English fleet through the curtains of submarines, minefields, under air strikes?

          perhaps. but agree that England and France, in principle, did not take any other than ostentatious measures to protect the ally
        3. naidas
          naidas 3 September 2019 21: 50 New
          +1
          Quote: DimerVladimer
          de? On the Baltic coast? How does the author imagine a breakthrough in the Baltic Sea of ​​the English fleet through the curtains of submarines, minefields

          The main areas of German mining in 1939 lay to the west, in the northern and southern straits between England and Northern Ireland (the Northern Strait and the St George's Strait), at the Firth Clyde Bay on the way to the English Channel, and in the east - on narrow shipping lanes along the English coast, and especially in mouth of the Thames and Mystery.
          In 1939, protection against German torpedoes still worked:
          The English battleship Worspite, which was stationed in Narvik, was attacked by German torpedoes at least five times, and each time the torpedoes passed the target.
          In another patrol in November and December 1939, six torpedoes fired by Captain Lieutenant Priin’s boat also passed the target. And the rest of the submarines also had similar cases.
          Quote: DimerVladimer
          Full layman!

          Do not rush words, and even they will say about you.
          In 1939, this was possible if you put up with the USSR and not plan to bomb the Baku oil fields (until May 1940). But by 1941. I agree with you completely.
    2. Kronos
      Kronos 3 September 2019 12: 26 New
      0
      Yes, Russia is the same capitalist hishnik
      1. bistrov.
        bistrov. 3 September 2019 17: 07 New
        0
        Quote: Kronos
        Russia is the same capitalist hishnik

        What is the "predation" of Russia expressed in? Instead of plundering the population and natural resources of the conquered territories, such as the USA, Great Britain, France, Russia never destroyed local peoples, but pulled them up to their level of cultural development and living standards, and built modern infrastructure. Example- Chukotka, where a floating nuclear power plant, Crimea, has recently been sent, IN WHICH AFTER JOINING THE MULTI-PROFILE CONSTRUCTION-RESTORATION INFRASTRUCTURE WORKS STARTED AND A BRIDGE TRANSITION IS BUILT.
        And in the USA, for example, the local population is driven into the reservation so far.
        1. Kronos
          Kronos 3 September 2019 17: 12 New
          -2
          In general, they won huge compensation for themselves and live not badly. But partly you are right the USSR and the truth the nations did not rob. As for Russia, it’s never been so the conquest of Siberia, for example, was ordinary colonialism; in Alaska, Russian merchants did not consider local people to be full of criminal cases. There is for example the historical saga Tobol read how there Russian did not oppress anyone
    3. naidas
      naidas 3 September 2019 21: 16 New
      0
      Quote: DimerVladimer
      that he lives in a country that, in his rhetoric, also needs to be credited to capitalist predators?

      Is it not so?
  12. Rwmos
    Rwmos 3 September 2019 10: 22 New
    0
    Just over regularly to remind about it, otherwise the memory is short - quickly forget
  13. Operator
    Operator 3 September 2019 10: 28 New
    +3
    "The Polish leadership refused to let the Red Army into Poland"

    The main thing is not that - Poland in August 1939 refused to take part in the Moscow negotiations of the USSR, Britain and France on the conclusion of a military alliance against Germany. In the quadripartite agreement, it would be possible to discuss all issues of the deployment of the Red Army units.

    Those. Poland wanted to leave Britain and France in the hope that Germany would recognize Poland as its ally in the war against the USSR. That is why Winston Churchill called Poland the hyena of Europe.
  14. Wildcat
    Wildcat 3 September 2019 10: 35 New
    -5
    Very bad article.
    If the author decided on the example of Poland to show the "severity of manners and customs" of that era, which would now be called "trampling European values", then one could at least tell about a piece of Czechoslovakia. And on other examples of the world of interbellum 1918-1939 show that "changing borders through weapons" was the usual European practice. If the USSR added to these customs, it is its own vision of the class struggle against expulsions (although this is not only our know-how) and mass killings (here we were different).
    About the inactive fleet of the Allies, the creation of the Reich for the war with the USSR, it is not very interesting, these and similar topics were discussed many times and their place, of course, was in waste paper.
    The author, is it possible to link to the joint plans of Hitler and the Poles for a joint war with the USSR?
    1. DimerVladimer
      DimerVladimer 3 September 2019 10: 55 New
      -6
      Quote: Wildcat
      The author, is it possible to link to the joint plans of Hitler and the Poles for a joint war with the USSR?


      Link to a specific part of the author’s brain? You a piece or the whole?

      The author never bothered himself with evidence of unfounded fabrications :)
      1. Wildcat
        Wildcat 3 September 2019 14: 19 New
        +3
        Quote: DimerVladimer
        Quote: Wildcat
        The author, is it possible to link to the joint plans of Hitler and the Poles for a joint war with the USSR?


        Link to a specific part of the author’s brain? You a piece or the whole?

        The author never bothered himself with evidence of unfounded fabrications :)

        hi
        Sorry.
        Then you yourself have to "throw at the fan":
        "The Polish historian: you can not equal Hitler and Stalin in 1939"
        https://www.bbc.com/russian/features-49513422?xtor=CS3-33-%5Bwsrussian%7EC%7EA14B11C13D10E11F12G11ad1copy2%7Esmppolsov%5D-%5BFacebook%5D-%5B6129913462701%5D-%5B6129913465101%5D&
    2. naidas
      naidas 3 September 2019 22: 33 New
      0
      Quote: Wildcat
      The author, is it possible to link to the joint plans of Hitler and the Poles for a joint war with the USSR?

      maybe this will help (as far as the specifics did not reach): Goering:
      “You must always remember that there is a great danger that threatens from the east, from Russia, not only Poland, but also Germany. This danger is not only Bolshevism, but Russia as such, regardless of whether there is a monarchist, liberal, or any other system in it. In this regard, the interests of Poland and Germany completely coincide. ”
      In December 1938, the Polish diplomat Jan Karsho-Siedlevsky:
      “The political perspective for the European East is clear. In a few years, Germany will be at war with the Soviet Union, and Poland will support Germany in this war. It’s better for Poland to definitely side with Germany before the conflict, since the territorial interests of Poland in the East, primarily at the expense of Ukraine, can only be secured by a previously reached Polish-German agreement. ”
      It is believed that Danzig destroyed everything.
      1. Wildcat
        Wildcat 4 September 2019 09: 18 New
        +2
        maybe this will help (as far as the specifics did not reach): Goering:

        hi
        no, it will not help, because in a parallel universe it was like this:
        Quote: naidas
        The Polish General Staff prepared plans for a joint war with Germany against the USSR.
        1. Wolga
          Wolga 4 September 2019 23: 15 New
          0
          January 26, 1934 Poland signed in Berlin "Declaration on the peaceful settlement of disputes and the non-use of force between Poland and Germany." It stated that Germany and Poland refuse to use force against each other and intend to agree among themselves on various problems relating to bilateral relations. The duration of this “agreement” was set at 10 years. Using legal tricks, Germany evaded obligations regarding the inviolability of the Polish-German border. The refusal to use force against one another declared in the declaration permitted a review of the territorial integrity of other powers.
          Thus, already in 1934, Poland and Germany felt for mutual interests in relation to Lithuania and Czechoslovakia, bypassing the extremely acute issue of Danzig's affiliation. Unlike the Soviet-Polish non-aggression pact of July 25, 1932, as well as the accepted diplomatic practice, the Polish-German “treaty” did not contain provisions on its termination if one of the parties entered into armed conflict with a third country .
          Accordingly, this “agreement” contributed to the formation of the offensive alliance of Poland and Germany. - https://nstarikov.ru/blog/71406?print=print
          We do not forget that as a result of the Munich agreement, Poland actively participated together with Germany and Hungary in the division of Czechoslovakia, taking over the Tieszyn region. Let me remind you that Germany and Hungary are signatories of the Anti-Comintern Pact.
          1. Wildcat
            Wildcat 5 September 2019 01: 54 New
            +2
            "Accordingly, this" agreement "contributed to the formation of the offensive alliance of Poland and Germany. - https://nstarikov.ru/blog/71406?print=print" - "declaration ..." and "joint military plans" (see Molotov-Ribbentrop ) - do you see the difference?
            Link to Starikov is good, but I would like confirmation from more authoritative sources, you can start with Rentv.
            Someone please explain to me why so many people are trying to reconsider the story of 80 years ago ?! Either Poland began to be malicious, then England did not fight as it should with Hitler. Pravda newspaper right until 22.06.1941/XNUMX/XNUMX.
            Is Ramses at least happy with everything for now, or is Egypt still untouched?
  15. DimerVladimer
    DimerVladimer 3 September 2019 10: 39 New
    -1
    Westerners could easily force the Rhine and threaten the Ruhr - the main industrial center of Germany, and put Berlin on its knees. This would have ended the world war.

    Again, speculation.
    The German land army is quickly relocating along the developed railway network, which the Germans proved back in World War I. in 3-4 days. The air fleet is even faster.
    By September 17, the French had not yet been mobilized and were not able to advance. By the 20th of September alone, France had mobilized 61 divisions on the border with Belgium / Germany (against 31 German divisions), then the British:
    Regarding British assistance, it was clear that the first two divisions of the English Expeditionary Force couldto fly to the continent only in early October, two more - in the second half of October. It was not necessary to count on other English divisions. For the French, this also served as an excuse not to start offensive operations.

    And yet France, with a partially mobilized army, launched the Saar offensive on September 7:
    Near Saarbrücken, immediately eleven divisions stormed the Germans' positions, breaking 32 kilometers ahead. In total, the French managed to take 12 settlements in a week. However, the Germans, without losing their cities, thereby misled the French, accumulating strength. Gradually, the Germans began to counterattack: on September 10, the French repulsed the first attack near Apache. However, the offensive continued until the capture of the Warndt Forest. In this operation, the infantry suffered heavy losses from anti-personnel landmines, and the French offensive ran out of steam. The French army did not even reach the West Wall.

    The offensive on the western front had to be postponed from September 17 to September 20. The planned full-scale attack on Germany was to be carried out by 40 divisions, including one armored division, three mechanized divisions, 78 artillery regiments and 40 tank battalions, but due to the hopeless situation of Poland on September 17 it was canceled.
    By September 17 - the Polish army was defeated - the Germans tactics brilliantly justified, defeating the enemy and not giving time to mobilize the enemy army.
    Yes - the French army had an advantage in numbers and in tanks, but mobilization and training took too much time. The British are not even present on the continent.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 3 September 2019 17: 07 New
      +2
      Quote: DimerVladimer
      By September 17, the French had not yet been mobilized and were not able to advance. By the 20th of September alone, France mobilized 61 divisions on the border with Belgium / Germany (against 31 German divisions)

      And it is not a fact that the mobilized divisions were combat-ready. EMNIP, the French had a system of triple mobilization (hello to the Soviet "trio"):
      The system of mobilization after the 1927 law provided for the formation of 20 military districts in France. At the beginning of the mobilization, each “active” infantry division (one in each military district) had to be defeated to form 3 new divisions, transferring most of the personnel to the reserve divisions, and compensating for such a loss by reservists.
      Three types of divisions:
      The “active” division - in peacetime, had a third (of the maximum) of its composition of officers, two-thirds of the personnel [cadres - m. sergeant in the context of the following type?]. In peacetime, it had 55% of the maximum population.
      Type A division - 23% of officers, 17% of sergeants, but only 2% of the total maximum strength.
      A type B division — a total of THREE officers per regiment — the rest had to be filled up with reservists.

      In peacetime, this is all great - you can seriously save on two cropped divisions. But here is how war - so at least quit: when mobilizing from one more or less prepared division, you get one middle division and two “paper” divisions, which still need to be prepared and prepared.

      And the second subtle point - when calculating the forces of France, it is usually not taken into account that a fairly large part of the peacetime divisions were "serf" divisions, intended only for defense.
    2. Maki Avellevich
      Maki Avellevich 3 September 2019 21: 01 New
      -1
      Quote: DimerVladimer
      Yes - the French army had an advantage in numbers and in tanks, but mobilization and training took too much time. The British are not even present on the continent.

      Well, they were in no hurry to help Poland. dot. The British always knew how to come up with compelling reasons for the setup.
      Nothing personal just business.
  16. Edward Vashchenko
    Edward Vashchenko 3 September 2019 11: 05 New
    +2
    German soldiers turn to the accordion music to the soldiers of the French army on the other side of the Rhine.

    What are they shouting?
    1. Andrey Zhdanov-Nedilko
      Andrey Zhdanov-Nedilko 4 September 2019 08: 21 New
      +1
      Invite to play football!
  17. Operator
    Operator 3 September 2019 11: 25 New
    +3
    Quote: Pedrodepackes
    "Considerations for a strategic deployment plan for the Armed Forces of the Soviet Union in case of war with Germany and its allies"

    At the headquarters of the armed forces of all countries lay and lie various versions of war plans - for example, in modern realities: launching a reciprocal, reciprocal, and at the appointed time nuclear missile strike.

    But the aggressor is only the country that, in practice, has implemented a version of the plan for delivering a preemptive strike against the enemy - for example, Germany in the case of 22 on June 1941 of the year.
    1. DimerVladimer
      DimerVladimer 3 September 2019 13: 19 New
      +3
      Quote: Operator
      But the aggressor is only the country that, in practice, has implemented a version of the plan for delivering a preemptive strike against the enemy - for example, Germany in the case of 22 on June 1941 of the year.

      Better not say! good
  18. smaug78
    smaug78 3 September 2019 12: 55 New
    -2
    Samsonov again, nonsense again laughing
    1. Rey_ka
      Rey_ka 3 September 2019 13: 38 New
      -1
      Try to write no nonsense and refute?
      1. smaug78
        smaug78 3 September 2019 13: 41 New
        +1
        Why, you like to read nonsense laughing
      2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 3 September 2019 19: 21 New
        +4
        Quote: Rey_ka
        Try to write no nonsense and refute?

        What for? If you, for example, are not even able to check a couple of Samson numbers yourself (about 110 of the Anglo-French divisions, for example) and do not know the material so much that you do not understand what kind of game they hang on your ears?
  19. Pavel57
    Pavel57 3 September 2019 13: 12 New
    +3
    The capitalist model requires the continuous expansion of markets and sources of raw materials. If there is no expansion, then the crisis is in one form or another. War is always a convenient way to overcome the crisis, as well as the ability to remake the world. The First World War, in fact the first stage of the global redivision of the world in favor of the conditionally United States, implied the second stage, which was implemented in the form of World War II. In conditions when there are several players, you have to look for situational allies. For objective and subjective reasons, those who won the war became allies. But after the war, the situation changes and the allies become adversaries.
    Poland was counting on an alliance with Germany, and at the first stage she managed to grab a piece of the Czech Republic, but it was easier for Germany to remove Poland with her political ambition from the world map than to agree on the future division of the USSR.
  20. prior
    prior 3 September 2019 13: 13 New
    +2
    "Why England and France betrayed Poland"
    Really sirs and muses were going to fight and die for Poland! Who are the Poles for them? Half-Slavs, Half-Europeans ...
    1. DimerVladimer
      DimerVladimer 3 September 2019 13: 31 New
      +2
      Quote: prior
      Really sirs and muses were going to fight and die for Poland! Who are the Poles for them? Half-Slavs, Half-Europeans ...


      For them it makes no difference - a French peasant or a British farmer will die on the battlefield.
      War for them is the mistake of politicians who pay for the lives of the people.
      Something politicians and capitalists on the battlefield were not seen in the forefront ...
      The Polish government safely retired into exile, leaving the fighting - so the lords also did not want to die for their homeland, leaving this fate to the Polish people.
  21. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 3 September 2019 18: 36 New
    +3
    On the western border, Berlin had a total of 23 divisions against about 110 French and British

    Sagging, well, nonsense ...
    1. Kenxnumx
      Kenxnumx 3 September 2019 19: 05 New
      0
      This is not nonsense - this is supposedly a quote from Jodl
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 3 September 2019 19: 19 New
        +4
        Quote: Ken71
        This is not nonsense - this is supposedly a quote from Jodl

        I don’t remember Jodl by heart, but all the same - nonsense :)))) Too lazy to search, but the French and 50 divisions did not have EMNIP at hand, and of those that were, far from all were mobilized. The English contingent, if there was one, is scanty; there was not a single EMNIP division.
        1. Kenxnumx
          Kenxnumx 3 September 2019 19: 21 New
          +1
          What I wrote below. Mobilizing from scratch is weeks. And even more so, to transfer troops through La Manche
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 3 September 2019 19: 23 New
            0
            Quote: Ken71
            What I wrote below.

            Agas, now I see.
        2. Andrey Zhdanov-Nedilko
          Andrey Zhdanov-Nedilko 4 September 2019 08: 24 New
          -1
          The British promised four, and somehow leisurely ... It seems that these four divisions had to be taken from the Falklands or from Australia.
  22. Kenxnumx
    Kenxnumx 3 September 2019 19: 04 New
    +2
    Again the Anglo-Saxons are to blame. Here are the radishes. And most importantly, the United States was neutral at that time and for another two years. By the way, how does the author explain the fact that the British and Dominions were moving troops to Europe, in the context of the idea that they were going to pit Germany from the USSR? And by the way, about a strange war, everything is not so strange. Whatever Jodl might think, but the Franks and Angles had 110 divisions, not even in 1940. The Germans began the war with a mobilized army. The allies had to not only mobilize the army, but also to transfer units from England. And crossing the Rhine is not a small river to cross. That is, when the allies were really ready - the Poles were no longer fluttering, by and large, draining in two weeks.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 3 September 2019 19: 23 New
      0
      Quote: Ken71
      about there when the allies were really ready - the Poles were no longer fluttering, by and large draining in two weeks.

      CSIP
  23. Nadir shah
    Nadir shah 3 September 2019 19: 11 New
    +1
    Quote: DimerVladimer
    Quote: prior
    Really sirs and muses were going to fight and die for Poland! Who are the Poles for them? Half-Slavs, Half-Europeans ...


    For them it makes no difference - a French peasant or a British farmer will die on the battlefield.
    War for them is the mistake of politicians who pay for the lives of the people.
    Something politicians and capitalists on the battlefield were not seen in the forefront ...
    The Polish government safely retired into exile, leaving the fighting - so the lords also did not want to die for their homeland, leaving this fate to the Polish people.

    you can’t say better. And the fellows fellows - not only did they throw their own, and then forced to raise the Warsaw uprising, which ended a little predictably. So it’s convenient to risk other people's lives, sitting in London ... capitalism as it is, in an alloy with terrible feudalism.
  24. naidas
    naidas 3 September 2019 20: 09 New
    0
    Quote: Pedrodepackes
    small blood powerful blow "

    Here about it:
    If tomorrow is war, if the enemy attacks,
    If dark power comes ...


    ... We do not want war, but we will protect ourselves,
    We are fortifying the defense for a reason,
    And in enemy land, we will crush the enemy
    Little blood, a mighty blow!
  25. serg v zapase
    serg v zapase 4 September 2019 03: 44 New
    +1
    The version of Russian historians and political scientists has been voiced, and how historians of England or France consider this non-interference. In my opinion, the Germans too quickly capitalized the Poles, so that any help and even military action would not have led to the salvation of Poland. If so, then it is not worth starting a war, you can simply declare it. Moving the shooter further to Moscow also had a difficult decision. The Germans could also move to Africa with the Middle East. I do not think that the Germans did not have true data about the Red Army, just successes in France and earlier in Poland led to dizziness from successes. What kind of looting of the resources of the USSR is it? The country was already selling the necessary resources to the Reich, and it is not a fact that under the military occupation regime these resources would be cheaper. I think that the war with the USSR is precisely the “crusade” against socialism, because according to the plan of the Germans, known as the “Ost,” the taxable population should have been reduced, and this is generally beyond reason why a territory without a population should be reduced.
  26. Svdtk750
    Svdtk750 4 September 2019 05: 21 New
    +1
    I think the matter is in the attempt of the States to take on the role of world leader, pushing aside an Empire over which the Sun never sets.
    Last year there was an article with a chronology of events. I barely found it.

    https://topwar.ru/145469-borba-za-vtoruju-mirovuju-vojnu-chast-1.html
    1. Romv
      Romv 4 September 2019 12: 05 New
      0
      I read it, unusual.
  27. Romv
    Romv 4 September 2019 12: 05 New
    0
    A strange war is England's way of preserving its colonies. Trying to negotiate with Hitler behind France, donating France if necessary. Push Hitler to war with the USSR, and when he gets bogged down to organize a stab in the back and win (if Hitler leaves the Angles and French in their rear.
    To pierce the Angles, since everyone played the dark in the Americans ..
  28. cat Rusich
    cat Rusich 4 September 2019 21: 35 New
    0
    I recall the events of 1812. The Poles (Poniatowski’s corps at the beginning (June 16 (28), 1812)) of 34 people - at the end (beginning of January 600, 1813 people) went "on a campaign to Moscow" with all the known consequences. Why did they go? - return the lost lands? I can’t understand the Poles. Why didn’t they go south, to return Krakow, who was under the yoke of the “Austrian yoke. My opinion: the Poles wanted to fight the Russian Empire ... and they only want to fight with us (Russia). Poland is Tabaki (read Mowgli) of Europe ...
    1. Petrik66
      Petrik66 31 October 2019 13: 17 New
      0
      The Austrian Empire in 1812, was an ally of Napoleon and also sent his troops to the war with Russia. Napoleon was hardly considering such an alternative ....... as a war of Poles and Austrians.
      1. cat Rusich
        cat Rusich 31 October 2019 21: 26 New
        0
        Prussia sent the same 20 Prussians to war with Russia under the command of Gravert (aka York). I mean, the "patriots" Poles were obliged to use the historical moment to return the historical lands. Yes, at least "using" Napoleon (as a friend he could give Krakow to the Poles). Could they "betray" Napoleon in January 000 - they would bargain for independence ... The Poles "put all their eggs" in Napoleon’s pocket - "the bet didn’t play" ...
  29. Comrade Kim
    Comrade Kim 4 September 2019 23: 05 New
    0
    Quote: The same Lech
    history has taught nothing to the Poles.


    That is, everything has long been forgotten. And the victims suffered by Poland in World War II, and German ideas from the plan "Ost" ("Of all the peoples, according to the plan to be resettled, the Poles are the most hostile to the Germans, the largest and therefore the most dangerous people. The plan provides for the eviction of 80-85 percent of Poles, that is, from 20 or 24 million Poles 16-20,4 , 3 million to be evicted, while 4,8 million will have to remain in the territory inhabited by German colonists. ") mean nothing for modern Poland.
    There only a fierce hatred of the Russians and Russia rules the ball.
  30. iouris
    iouris 7 September 2019 13: 18 New
    0
    The Polish leadership betrayed everyone and could not agree with Hitler: it overestimated its capabilities (this sometimes happens with very passionate individuals who are ready to sacrifice their people for the sake of "bright" ideals and principles, or, values).
  31. Petrik66
    Petrik66 31 October 2019 10: 56 New
    0
    The article is more like an agitation. "Strange war" - rather was after the defeat of Poland. No one at the headquarters of England, France and the USSR supposed that the Poles would surrender in three weeks, but in fact within a week. What could the French do during this period? Mobilize the army and rush to the Siegfried Line? They really did not know the state of the German fortifications, the number of forces, if we recall that according to the plans of the Allies no offensive actions were planned on the border with Germany, but were supposed to be in the pillboxes of the Maginot Line, while Belgium sat quietly and did not declare war , then ...... what kind of war in the first 2 weeks?
    Does the fleet of England help the Poles on the coast? Are you seriously? Without air cover? And who were they supposed to drive there? battleship "Schleswig Holstein". Should aviation bomb? The state of French aviation left much to be desired, in confirmation of 1940, when the French and the British lost the battle for France in one wicket. An agitation for that, and an agitation that would not be involved in analysis, and famously "in Komsomol" give out deliberate nonsense, but correct from the point of political moment.
  32. Jarserge
    Jarserge 31 October 2019 13: 19 New
    0
    I wonder when there will be not "financial circles", England, France, but specific surnames? To paraphrase the famous statement of Lazar Kaganovich “Every accident has a name, surname and position” - specific people are to blame for each war, who have chosen the simplest and quickest way out of political and economic problems
  33. Basarev
    Basarev 4 November 2019 21: 24 New
    0
    The Poles once again outwitted themselves. It seems that they understood the place of the Slavs in racial theory ... But still, they filled themselves with friends for the Fuhrer.