The English Beginning of World War II

84
Before the attack of Nazi Germany on Poland on 1 of September 1939 of the year, in August of the same year two important international documents were signed. On August 23, Germany and the USSR entered into a peace treaty, or the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, on August 25, Poland and Great Britain entered into a military mutual assistance treaty, which was the logical conclusion of the Poland and Great Britain Mutual Assistance Agreement dated April 6 of 1939.





17 September 1939


After the German attack on September 1 on Poland, it turned out that England was not going to fulfill its obligations under this treaty to Poland, limiting itself, together with France, to declaring Germany the September 3 war and the “strange war” on the western front, and the Molotov-Ribbentrop treaty had a “secret protocol” regarding Poland.

On 17 of September 1939 of the year, after the military defeat of Poland by Germany, the Red Army occupied the eastern regions of Poland: Western Ukraine and Western Belarus in accordance with the "secret protocol". England and France were then sympathetic to the entry of Soviet troops into eastern Poland and the USSR did not declare war.

Winston Churchill spoke about the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact as follows:
“The fact that such an agreement was possible marks the entire depth of the failure of English and French politics and diplomacy in a few years. In favor of the Soviets, it must be said that it was vital for the Soviet Union to push the initial positions of the German army as far west as possible ... They needed to occupy the Baltic states and most of Poland by force or deceit before attacking them. If their policy was coldly calculated, then it was also very realistic at that moment. ”


We see quite different things today: New Pilsuda Poland announces 17 of September 1939 as the date of the Soviet attack on Poland in accordance with the Molotov-Ribbentrop Treaty. The secret protocol to this treaty, dividing Poland into spheres of influence, is now exposed as a kind of indictment, however, in the 30 of the last century, secret protocols or understandings were common practice of European, recall, colonial "democracies", before sharing their victims. The 1938 peace treaty of England and France with Hitler ended in the dismemberment and complete absorption of Czechoslovakia by Germany and Poland, which he did not foresee. And there was also betrayal by the "democratic" West of Yugoslavia, there was the Anschluss of Austria, the war in Spain ...

What is "world history" keeping silent about today


The Stalinist USSR in the 30 of the last century had no obligations to Poland, Marshal Pilsudsky. Although the agreement on non-aggression was concluded between Poland and the USSR on July 25 on July 1932, the relations were not even cold, but hostile. On 26 on January 1934, Poland was the first European country to sign a non-aggression treaty with Germany: the Pilsudski-Hitler Pact. Many historians claim that he had his "secret protocol" in which the parties agreed on a joint campaign against the USSR; they cannot find him, but Poland denies everything.

However, some documents of the Polish General Staff of the 30-s indicate that Poland under Pilsudski hatched plans for a joint campaign with Hitler against the USSR. Hitler and Pilsudski were great ideological like-minded people, Hitler celebrated Pilsudski mass funeral after his death on 12 on May 1935, after the defeat of Poland, Hitler placed a guard of honor at the Pilsudski grave in Krakow and stated that if Pilsudski was alive, not German-Polish war It was.

Actually, Poland was dealt with while Czechoslovakia, in the section of which Poland itself took part. It was such a time. US Senator Harry Truman of the 24 of June 1941 of the New York Times spoke cynically, but honestly:
“If we see that Germany wins the war, we should help Russia, if Russia, we should help Germany, and let them kill each other as much as possible.” Although I don’t want to see Hitler in the winners under any circumstances. ”


Here you also need to understand what Truman’s anti-Hitler remark is worth: “Be always sincere, even if you have a completely different mind”. And today we hear similar public statements in the American media.

In pre-war Europe, one must admit that everyone proceeded from this Truman thesis, and the red proletarian Moscow also wanted an armed mess in the midst of "bourgeois democracies." The ideological and political confrontation and enmity of the colonial, and not at all “democratic”, Western powers and the Stalinist international USSR was antagonistic, which Hitler Germany took advantage of.

English beginning. Like in chess


After the partition of Czechoslovakia, Poland at the beginning of the 1939 year abruptly changes its pro-German course to the pro-English one. London offers Warsaw military guarantees and intensive negotiations begin between the parties to conclude a military alliance, which was concluded on 25 on August 1939. Why did Warsaw peck at this purely English deception? Here you can argue for a long time, but even today, Western countries have easily pecked at the English "violin" deception.

The Anglo-Polish military treaty, also with a "secret protocol", served as a direct reason for Hitler to attack Poland - as betraying the pro-German course of Pilsudski. The provocation on the Polish-German border was a fabricated pretext, which is a common practice of Western "democracies", let us recall at least the Tonkin US provocation in the Vietnam War and the American "test tube" at the UN Colin Powell.

For some reason Moscow is not invited to the Anglo-Polish military alliance, which means that it objectively threatens the USSR. Against such a background, Berlin unexpectedly offers Moscow to conclude a non-aggression pact. Stalin has no choice if he does not want to get a united European front together with Hitler against the USSR. All European "democracies" had already concluded peace treaties with fascist Germany.

We leave the question to historians: why did Poland in 1939 abandon the pro-German Pilsudski course? Perhaps Britain made Poland a better offer. And today, Polish experts like the well-known Koreyba report to us that Poland will always follow a better offer, that is, it always sells well. Today, Washington makes the most advantageous offers in Warsaw ...

Summing up the Anglo-Polish beginning of World War II, although there are other reference points, we note that the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact helped Moscow split the western front against the USSR. In the end, the anti-Hitler coalition of England, the USA and the USSR was formed. However, it was formed according to Harry Truman: the Western powers were confident at the end of the 1941 of the year that the USSR would soon be defeated and began to help their weakest enemy so that Germany and the USSR would kill each other as much as possible.

Contradictions of the anti-Hitler coalition


America enters the world war only after the attack of Japan on 7 of December 1941 of the year, until the end of 1941 of the year the USA is a “non-combatant ally”. The anti-Hitler coalition was formally established on January 1 of 1942, but the Western Front was opened by Western allies only on 6 of June 1944 of the year - before the obvious fall of Nazi Germany under the blows of the Red Army.

Moreover, the United States and Britain hatched plans for a separate peace with Germany after the elimination of Hitler, which the Wehrmacht officers, according to some sources, committed assassination attempts before 40, but all of them were unsuccessful. The loudest assassination attempt was committed on June 20 of the 1944 of the year when the conspirator generals carried the bomb to a meeting with Hitler, it exploded, but the massive oak table took on the shock wave and all the fragments, Hitler escaped with shell shock. The plan of the German generals to eliminate Hitler aimed at concluding a separate peace with England and the USA, which had already landed in Normandy, and continuing the war with the USSR, and there is reason to believe that it was agreed with our Western allies.

This is confirmed by the fact that in the victorious 1945 year, immediately after the victory over Germany, the British Prime Minister Winston Churchill bears the operation "The Unthinkable" in the war with the USSR with the involvement of German troops who surrendered to the Anglo-American allies. This was the last attempt to create a united western front against the USSR, it failed, but the Cold War of the West against the USSR under the US President Harry Truman was born from it after Fulton’s speech of the same Churchill.

Our foe Zbigniew Brzezinski, an American analyst of Polish descent, nevertheless admitted:
“It is ironic that the defeat of Nazi Germany raised America's status, although it did not play a decisive role in the military victory over Hitlerism. The merit of achieving this victory should be recognized by the Stalinist Soviet Union, Hitler’s odious opponent. ”


But today's Poland no longer knows this of its American prophet.

The newly made British Prime Minister Boris Johnson does not know the works of Winston Churchill and speaks about the 80 anniversary of 1 September 1939 celebrated in Poland: "Poland was between a fascist hammer and a communist anvil." But then she was there thanks to the betrayal of Poland by Britain and France in their fake "strange war" against Hitler, declared 3 September 1939 year. This date can rightly be called the international "day of betrayal."

Soviet historiography, and even today, out of its ridiculous desire “not to escalate” and “round off sharp corners stories”Stresses that the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact gave the USSR a respite before the war, pushed back the borders, completely according to Churchill. But this is only part of the truth, another important part of it is that this pact made impossible the union of fascist Germany with Britain and the United States and their formation of a common front against the USSR. By the way, Churchill himself hints at this:
“The fact that such an agreement was possible marks the full depth of the failure of English and French politics and diplomacy in a few years.”
84 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +1
    4 September 2019 15: 11
    NE British were so unprepared for war, neither numerically, nor qualitatively, as if Nazi agents were sitting in the WB MO.
    1. +3
      4 September 2019 16: 01
      And who was ready for WWII?
      1. +3
        4 September 2019 18: 02
        Only Germany. And that is relative.
        1. +9
          5 September 2019 09: 03
          Many forget that at the time of the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, Japan attacked the MPR (undeclared war on the Khalkhin Gol) and the USSR was forced to defend Mongolia under the treaty of friendship and mutual assistance. Fierce battles with the massive use of aircraft and tanks went from May to September 1939. And to secure the western border while pushing it 250 - 300 km from Moscow was at that time the best solution, especially after the failure of negotiations with England and France and given that Germany, Japan and Italy were allies in the Anti-Comintern Pact. The signing of the Molotov Ribbentrop Pact frustrated the creation of a unified German-Japanese front against the USSR. Definitely it was a major diplomatic victory of Stalin.
          1. +2
            5 September 2019 10: 48
            Quote: Aron Zaavi
            NE British were so unprepared for war, neither numerically, nor qualitatively, as if Nazi agents were sitting in the WB MO.

            Stop practicing verbiage.
            We in Russia are well aware of your opinion that Stalin wanted to hunt everyone down, and the white lambs of the West miraculously saved thanks to the United States.
            But facts are facts.

            The second front is 44 years old.
            Truman's words June 24, 1941.

            Here you are a Jew. Of course, your fellow believers perished several times less at the hands of the Nazis than the inhabitants of the USSR, but you have millions. And here you are about the weakness of the English people sang a song. Be ashamed.

            The Anglo-Saxons were one of the instigators of this war. Truman's words obviously confirm this.
            The goal is the destruction of Russia and the weakening of Germany.
            The goal was partially achieved.
            It was simply that they could not destroy Russia, but they thoroughly ravaged and destroyed tens of millions of my compatriots.

            So, do not smack nonsense about the unpreparedness of England.

            What do you annoy the Russians with?
            1. 0
              8 September 2019 01: 17
              Bravo hats offү
          2. -6
            7 September 2019 21: 02
            Definitely it was a major diplomatic victory of Stalin.

            The biggest diplomatic failure. Moreover, in general, Dzhugashvili’s biggest mistake for his entire reign. Having signed an agreement with the Nazis, he untied Hitler's hands and allowed him to deal with the enemies one by one.
            It was necessary to immediately play on the side of the Anglo-Saxons, it still happened so.
            But he put on the wrong horse and in the wrong race, and this led to the most bloody war in Russia and put it on the brink of complete destruction.
        2. +3
          7 September 2019 10: 16
          The paradox is that everyone considered themselves ready for war. But, as they say, the generals always prepare for the past war, and only the Germans, as the losing side in the first world war, prepared for the future war.
          1. 0
            14 September 2019 18: 29
            Quote: Jurkovs
            everyone considered themselves ready for war

            Even the Poles :-)
            Yes, the joke is that the Poles thought that they could confront Germany in a military confrontation. When Latvia merged its territories after the Czech Republic, the Poles did not bend under German pressure and did not give their access to the Baltic, which they received after the First World War.

    2. 0
      4 September 2019 16: 04
      Quote: Aaron Zawi
      NE British were so unprepared for war, neither numerically, nor qualitatively, as if Nazi agents were sitting in the WB MO.

      Everything is possible in this world, even that which is not possible. Who knows, maybe there were German agents in the UK Defense Ministry ... If we find out, then very soon ...
      1. +2
        5 September 2019 08: 15
        If in MI-5 or MI-6, excuse me, I always confuse them, they were sitting through the same agents of the NKVD, GRU, etc., then why the Germans could not have their own in the MO and the General Staff of Great Britain?!? ...
        1. +3
          5 September 2019 08: 48
          King of England Edward VIII himself was a big admirer of Hitler, it is good that he married an American and abdicated in 1936.
          1. +2
            5 September 2019 08: 57
            Yes, yes, I remembered ... and not this one - there were other fans too!
    3. +3
      4 September 2019 16: 08
      Quote: Aron Zaavi
      were so unprepared for war, neither numerically nor qualitatively

      (in a voice from Rambal-Cochet) Why?
      Since the days of Spain, there has been talk in Europe about what war should be.
      Overseas in the United States, the Chiefs of Staff reviewed the experience of the 15th Inter-Brigade (with the Lincoln Battalion) and began to prepare in 1938.
      1. +2
        4 September 2019 17: 01
        It is a pity that the author responds to * today * looking for something that was not in reality.
        The Poles at Pilsudski and the Poles after the death of * the director * of Poland seem to be different for some reason, they are no different from today's Poles. There, in Poland, they change the vector of propaganda with * extraordinary ease *, often several times during the same generation. It is worth remembering how this happened in the last century. What will fly into the heads of the Poles tomorrow, no one knows, including the Poles. As soon as they become sour, they will change again, and their opinion will change completely sincerely. NO?
        1. 0
          4 September 2019 18: 01
          The author omits many very important events of those times, for example, the flight of Rudolf Hess to England ...
          1. +3
            4 September 2019 20: 37
            Yes, and another voyage to Moscow in the summer of the 39th English and French representative .. For negotiations. Although what powers did they have? To chat? Did not work out.
            1. 0
              5 September 2019 08: 16
              Do not talk, but fool!
          2. +2
            5 September 2019 02: 32
            "The author omits many very important events of those times, for example, the flight of Rudolf Hess to England ..."
            The author, as always, is superficial and weather-covered, and he omits a lot of factors, for example, today’s not very secret correspondence between foreign ministries, where in today's context the position of the West is visible, pull the cat by the tail, ..
            but about Poland it is quite objective - jackal, hyena europa ...
            1. +1
              5 September 2019 08: 50
              Hess did not arrive to visit Lord Halifax in May 1940.
              1. +1
                6 September 2019 08: 46
                A typo with Hess came out, he flew to Britain in May 1941.
          3. 0
            5 September 2019 08: 58
            There are still many questions with this flight - it is not without reason that the British kept secret until 2045! I envy those who are younger - you will find out, but I won’t live ...
            1. +1
              6 September 2019 08: 20
              Nobody seems to live. There, in 2045, then the level of secrecy will be extended and after the melting of the Arctic ice, the archives will drown!
    4. +6
      4 September 2019 19: 30
      Quote: Aron Zaavi
      NE British were so unprepared for war, neither numerically, nor qualitatively, as if Nazi agents were sitting in the WB MO.

      And we all know this agent. Let me introduce you:

      Sir Winston Leonard Spencer-Churchill. Author of the concept "10 years without war", Chancellor of the Treasury and a great cutter of military spending.
      Against his background, even Chamberlain seemed a dangerous militarist. laughing
      1. -1
        4 September 2019 23: 03
        What about
        “How terrible, fantastic and implausible is the very idea that we should dig trenches and try on gas masks here, only because people in whom we know nothing quarreled among themselves in a distant country”

        Против
        You were faced with a choice between war and shame, you chose shame, but war awaits you too. ”

        You did not confuse a photo?
        1. +1
          5 September 2019 12: 16
          Quote: Avior
          You did not confuse a photo?

          No. Just do not judge politicians by their public statements. Especially when one of these politicians is in opposition. smile
          Everything that Britain fought in the first half of the war (and in the navy - almost the entire war) is the work of Chamberlain. It was he who, while still Chancellor of the Treasury, sharply advocated an increase in spending on the army - and the White Paper, published under his leadership in 1935, was immediately subjected to harsh criticism from the same Attlee for being too militarized and committed to a policy of force.
          By the way, the remilitarization of the Reich of the Rhine region was actually supported by the British Labor Party, who directly stated that public opinion and their party would not support any military and economic sanctions against Germany.
          In 1936 and 1937 Chamberlain, while still the chancellor of the Treasury, completely abandoned the policy of economy and financed the construction of 5 LC, 4 AB and 20 KR, the expansion of the Air Force to 1750 aircraft and an increase in the army by 4 battalions.
          Chamberlain even crossed the previously established threshold of £ 120 million, increasing them in 1935-1936. up to 137 million. And in the White Book of 1937, he generally demanded to spend 1500 million on the armed forces in five years.
          Further, Chamberlain's appetites only grew. In 1938, the Air Program was adopted, according to which the Metropolitan Air Force increased to 2370 aircraft - it was adopted and exceeded (the output amounted to 3000 aircraft). In 1939, 8000 aircraft were planned.
          The annual planned defense spending has been increased to 160 million pounds. However, this figure was immediately blocked - for the formation of 19 (and since April 1938 already 32) new divisions needed money, so that the military budget of 1938 amounted to 600 (!) Million pounds.

          Chamberlain's entire policy was subordinate to one: I want to have a few more years to save the country.

          And Sir Winston, being the Chancellor of the Treasury, reduced the budget of the Armed Forces of the Island Empire to the point that when his followers decided to save a little more, a rebellion immediately began on RN ships.
          1. 0
            5 September 2019 12: 33
            And what is the use of his expenses if he was afraid of war?
            1. +1
              5 September 2019 12: 46
              Quote: Avior
              And what is the use of his expenses if he was afraid of war?

              He was not afraid of war. He did not want to be drawn into it when the army, air force and navy were absolutely not ready for it. And he needed to buy time to restore the sun.
              Quote: Alexey RA
              Chamberlain's entire policy was subordinate to one thing: I want to have a few more years to save the country.

              Chamberlain did not want to put the life of his voters, sending them bare-chested on a machine gun.
              1. 0
                6 September 2019 01: 18
                Author of the concept "10 years without war"

                but he was right
                More than right.
                not even ten, but twenty
                The Ten Year Rule was a British government guideline, first adopted in August 1919, that the armed forces should draft their estimates "on the assumption that the British Empire would not be engaged in any great war during the next ten years".

                And do not forget that the Minister of Finance was a hunks purely in office.
      2. 0
        7 September 2019 10: 27
        Quote: Alexey RA
        And we all know this agent. Let me introduce you

        One cannot judge so superficially. It is likely that Churchill understood about the technological race with Germany that had begun, and simply consolidated the budget, not wanting to spend it on obsolete weapons.
    5. +1
      5 September 2019 08: 21
      Quote: Aaron Zawi
      NE British were so unprepared for war, neither numerically, nor qualitatively, as if Nazi agents were sitting in the WB MO.

      England and France in the first place were not mentally prepared for war. Germany and Japan were mentally prepared, and so were we. The British and the Americans needed humiliating defeats to understand: they won’t be able to sit out.
  2. +3
    4 September 2019 15: 21
    An extremely robust article by the author.))
    If we see that Germany wins the war, we should help Russia, if Russia, we should help Germany, and let them kill each other as much as possible. Although I do not want under any circumstances to see Hitler in the winners

    This is a normal political approach, the author of the rights everyone wanted to use everyone to achieve their own goals. Who better used others, we see by the results.
    1. 0
      5 September 2019 08: 18
      By the way, and Maojedun China in the 1960s and 70s. professed such a formula. Do you remember? I will not quote exactly, but it was about the battle between the tiger and the dragon ... Who, colleagues, will remind?
  3. +4
    4 September 2019 15: 24
    Poland is the most "corrupt girl" in Europe.
  4. +1
    4 September 2019 15: 37
    Quote: Aron Zaavi
    NE Great Britain were so unprepared for war, nor numerically

    But did England have goals on the mainland for war?
    they were ready for what interests them.
    1. +3
      4 September 2019 15: 59
      The whole history of Great Britain is its interests on the mainland, or rather, on the mainland.
      1. +3
        4 September 2019 16: 32
        But, the threat to England was only either from the sea or from the air, where they successfully stopped it. And to build up and arm the ground forces, it was not a special problem for her, even the "catastrophe" of Dunkirk, where heavy equipment remained, did not play a special role.
        1. +1
          5 September 2019 09: 26
          Hitler at that moment simply felt sorry for these island bastards ...
      2. 0
        5 September 2019 08: 22
        Yes, our Ivan the 4th ("Terrible") did not marry their queen at one time, and now we have a headache for 500 years from this island bastard ... And so it would be the London province of RI! And Peter the 1st had to bring Sweden to his knees and also to the empire !!!
        1. +3
          5 September 2019 09: 21
          Quote: Andrey Zhdanov-Nedilko
          Yes, our Ivan the 4th ("Terrible") did not marry their queen at one time, and now we have a 500-year headache from this island bastard ...

          and what was the use of the German roots of the Russian tzarina? In addition, for example, the last Russian autocrat Emperor Nicholas II and the British monarch George V, were cousins. How did this help Russia?

          Nicholas II "cousin Nicky" and George V "cousin Georgie"
          Their mothers are sisters:
          - Princess Dagmar - after marriage, Grand Duchess Maria Fedorovna, wife of Alexander III and mother of Nicholas II
          - Princess Alexandra of Denmark - wife of King Edward VII and mother of George V.
          They were the daughters of Christian IX King of Denmark.
          1. +1
            5 September 2019 13: 25
            I admit it. Did not help...
        2. 0
          5 September 2019 13: 16
          Well, Finland was part of the Russian Empire, and Helsingfors was a naval base. And what really helped?
          1. +1
            5 September 2019 13: 22
            The machinations of the London-Washington Jews are to blame for everything ... It was they who brought down the empire in 1917!
  5. +2
    4 September 2019 16: 06
    Quote: AS Ivanov.
    the whole history of Great Britain is its interests on the mainland, more precisely - on the mainland

    no, England was mainly interested in the trade and exploitation of the colonies - the confrontation or interference in the continental showdown taught them that it was very dangerous. (remember how the Spaniards, the Dutch, the French several times put England on the brink of complete collapse)
    and the British focused on the struggle for trade, mainly related to shipping.
    And on the mainland, they frolic before the WWII only in China, India and Africa and everywhere they did not weakly rake.
    only Egypt was more or less calm.
  6. -2
    4 September 2019 16: 14
    The author, you are very far from JV Stalin, so do not rewrite history ... Especially if you are not a historian, but a propagandist who does not know history ...
  7. +16
    4 September 2019 16: 27
    Wow. When Samsonov writes this, it can somehow be understood, but Victor ...
    After the German attack on September 1 on Poland, it turned out that England was not going to fulfill its obligations under this treaty to Poland

    Actually, this is completely wrong.
    US Senator Harry Truman of the 24 of June 1941 of the New York Times spoke cynically, but honestly:

    The opinion of one senator, who had absolutely nothing to do with US policy at that time
    After the partition of Czechoslovakia, Poland at the beginning of the 1939 year abruptly changes its pro-German course to the pro-English one. London offers Warsaw military guarantees and intensive negotiations begin between the parties to conclude a military alliance, which was concluded on 25 on August 1939. Why did Warsaw peck at this purely English deception? Here you can talk for a long time

    But it's better to study a little history. Then the author would have learned an amazing thing - it turns out that there was no "British deception" that knocked the Poles from a pro-German position in nature. Germany itself cured Poland from the pro-German course when in 1938, after Yugoslavia, it raised the issue of settling the "Polish Corridor" and Danzig.
    In essence, the German proposals put the question bluntly - either Poland from an "independent" power turns into a tacitly obedient satellite of Germany and loses part of its territories, or a war. When the Poles realized that an alliance with Germany was a sweet erotic dream, and the alarm had already rang, they naturally rushed to look for allies.
    And, of course, the Poles, by virtue of their permanent inconsistency, rejected the only ally who could really help them, i.e. THE USSR. Poles are generally strange people - for example, I am completely powerless to understand their logic when they squeaked and climbed into Germany's friends and at the same time whole-heartedly spread natural Germans in Poland.
    In general, the Poles tried to make friends with France and England, and this could work ... if the Poles adopted a realistic plan for the deployment of armies, and could hold out for at least a few months. But instead, the Poles substituted their armies for defeat and ... in fact, that’s all.
    The thesis of some kind of deception of England does not stand up to criticism at all - but the author, needing the proof of his alternative historical theory, lovingly puts it together with an ax, hoping for a completely inexperienced reader in history.
    The union of England, the USA and fascist Germany, which the author hints at in nature, could not exist for many reasons, and first of all - because it completely contradicted the interests of both the USA and England. Again, if England wanted such an alliance, it could easily have achieved it after the fall of France, because Hitler simply squeaked and climbed with an outstretched hand of friendship :))))
    In general, it is very sad that VO articles are so biased.
    1. +1
      4 September 2019 16: 55
      Unfortunately, VO hit the cheers (((
      1. +1
        6 September 2019 13: 37
        Quote: smaug78
        Unfortunately, VO hit the cheers

        retinue makes a king, just read the comments
    2. 0
      4 September 2019 18: 10
      Take a closer look at 1938 after Czechoslovakia, not Yugoslavia at all.
      1. 0
        5 September 2019 16: 38
        Quote: yriuv62
        Take a closer look at 1938 after Czechoslovakia, not Yugoslavia at all.

        By itself. Alas, I’m slightly ill, and after a day of hard work - that’s bursting. Czechoslovakia, of course
    3. +5
      4 September 2019 19: 39
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      Poles are generally strange people - for example, I am completely powerless to understand their logic when they squeaked and climbed into Germany's friends and at the same time whole-heartedly spread natural Germans in Poland.

      And before that, also tear off a piece of Silesia from Germany. Classy ally, what there ... smile
      However, it’s difficult to name Poland’s neighbor, from whom it didn’t tear territories into itself in the XNUMXth century.
      1. 0
        5 September 2019 16: 40
        Quote: Alexey RA
        And before that, also tear off a piece of Silesia from Germany. Classy ally, what there ...

        That's right :) hi
  8. +3
    4 September 2019 16: 50
    It would be nice to add that, as General Halder, chief of the Reich General Staff wrote in his diary, by the 25 of September 1939 of the Luftwaffe, 93% of the available stock of bombs had been used up, and the consumption of artillery ammunition exceeded 97%.
    Actually everything. Even the British did not have much to fight. By the end of September, the Great Reich could only wave it off with cowards ... The slightest military operations ... And that’s all, you can only charge a vinar with a fig in your pocket.
  9. +1
    4 September 2019 17: 15
    On August 23, Germany and the USSR entered into a peace treaty, or the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact,
    Dear or-or. The contract is good. The pact is not gut.
    WIKI: Hitler-Pilsudski Pact (1934) “Declaration on the Non-Use of Force between Germany and Poland” (Polish Deklaracja między Polską a Niemcami o niestosowaniu przemocy) (also called the Non-aggression Treaty between Germany and Poland, Pillersudski Pact [1 - Git 2] [3] [4] [5] [6]) - a joint declaration signed by Germany and Poland on January 26, 1934. The adoption of this document contributed to the temporary normalization of relations between the two states.
    On August 25, Poland and the United Kingdom entered into a military mutual assistance treaty.
    And then the pug realized that it could bark at the elephant. And if an elephant made slush from it, then what we have been proving for 80 years that we did not lure that elephant with carrots, and this vile animal, pug, itself asked for such a boorish, well-deserved appeal.
  10. +2
    4 September 2019 17: 44
    "The Red Army occupied the eastern regions of Poland: Western Ukraine and Western Belarus"

    The Red Army did not "occupy", but liberated the occupied Western Ukraine and Western Belarus.

    PS Senator Harry Truman in the US Congress had a reputation for being a simpleton - he publicly blurted out what other congressmen had in mind bully
  11. +2
    4 September 2019 19: 23
    "to the introduction of Soviet troops into eastern Poland" - in fact, it was our land.
    1. 0
      4 September 2019 23: 50
      Any land of ours is rightfully able to hold it.
      1. 0
        7 September 2019 20: 21
        Our Crimea. Kuril Islands and Sakhalin
        1. 0
          7 September 2019 20: 31
          If we become weak, they will immediately be taken away. We can keep ours for now. In today's world, the rest of the arguments are not so important.
  12. +2
    4 September 2019 22: 49
    "Our enemy Zbigniew Brzezinski,"
    She’s a bastard, but a very smart bastard.
    It was read by his book "The whole world is a chessboard".

    Quote: Vasily50
    What will fly into the heads of the Poles tomorrow, no one knows, including the Poles.

    Know, they are wonderful!
    Again begin to dream of Greater Poland from Gibraltar to Kamchatka))
    1. 0
      5 September 2019 02: 42
      "You know, they are great!
      Again they will start dreaming of Greater Poland from Gibraltar to Kamchatka "
      Reply
      Snake nation, with snake tongue - Pshecki! ...
      And there they cherish, into oblivion ...
    2. +1
      6 September 2019 08: 27
      So what a war she will be between China and Poland!
  13. +3
    5 September 2019 07: 26
    WWII roots in the Versailles peace treaty. Comrade STALIN also said that it was a truce for 20 years. Many new state formations appeared, and one of them was Poland. this state, born of a versailles, managed to fight for its short coexistence and quarrel with almost all its neighbors. it was a buffer between the USSR and GERMANY, which was created by the Anglicos and the French, and covered by them, in all Polish adventures. so, for objective reasons, Poland in this form could not exist. no one in the house will tolerate the madman, with his warlike cries.
  14. 0
    7 September 2019 04: 19
    Quote: yehat
    Quote: AS Ivanov.
    the whole history of Great Britain is its interests on the mainland, more precisely - on the mainland

    no, England was mainly interested in the trade and exploitation of the colonies - the confrontation or interference in the continental showdown taught them that it was very dangerous. (remember how the Spaniards, the Dutch, the French several times put England on the brink of complete collapse)
    and the British focused on the struggle for trade, mainly related to shipping.
    And on the mainland, they frolic before the WWII only in China, India and Africa and everywhere they did not weakly rake.
    only Egypt was more or less calm.

    Nobody ever put them on the brink of collapse, what nonsense in my head I live. They fought on the continent a lot and often, which is what the seven-year-old costs, and they all had normal with it, and that of the Dutch, that of the Spaniards, that of the Franks, they bent and more than once. In China, India and Africa they won - the size of the territories and the Opium Wars won - confirmation of this (and from India they still invaded Afghanistan and Iran, for example). At one point, they captured half the world - more than any other empire in history. But where without the holy fools?
  15. -1
    7 September 2019 04: 22
    Quote: Alexey RA
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Poles are generally strange people - for example, I am completely powerless to understand their logic when they squeaked and climbed into Germany's friends and at the same time whole-heartedly spread natural Germans in Poland.

    And before that, also tear off a piece of Silesia from Germany. Classy ally, what there ... smile
    However, it’s difficult to name Poland’s neighbor, from whom it didn’t tear territories into itself in the XNUMXth century.

    Well, let's count. Here they are formed after the collapse of Austria, they start a war with the future of the USSR and in Ukraine, yes they captured something - approx. Then a long lull, except that a piece of Lithuania pulled (or Latvia? Lithuania seems to be) and Slovaks after the partition of Czechoslovakia. And that’s it. From the Germans they got it only after the war, to the Slovaks or there still to whom they no longer climbed. They fought only once for a part of Ukraine and Belarus, not even all of them. And until the 20th century it was the same - it fought mainly in one direction, until the Swedes began to press.
  16. -4
    7 September 2019 04: 24
    Quote: Operator
    "The Red Army occupied the eastern regions of Poland: Western Ukraine and Western Belarus"

    The Red Army did not "occupy", but liberated the occupied Western Ukraine and Western Belarus.

    PS Senator Harry Truman in the US Congress had a reputation for being a simpleton - he publicly blurted out what other congressmen had in mind bully

    it's cool when some people always call seizure "liberation" and "reunification", and any other - seizure. But no, it isn't.
    1. 0
      7 September 2019 20: 50
      Some have a spy, others have a scout. But in essence, justification of land accession is always necessary.
  17. -5
    7 September 2019 04: 24
    Quote: hhhhhhh
    "to the introduction of Soviet troops into eastern Poland" - in fact, it was our land.

    was not
  18. -5
    7 September 2019 04: 24
    Quote: Pavel57
    Any land of ours is rightfully able to hold it.

    yes, that's for sure - 1/6 of the land, after all, even the Mongols were less aggressive.
    1. +1
      7 September 2019 23: 21
      1/6 are aggressive. And 1/2 of the British Empire, the spread of progress?
  19. -4
    7 September 2019 04: 25
    Quote: Ehanatone
    "You know, they are great!
    Again they will start dreaming of Greater Poland from Gibraltar to Kamchatka "
    Reply
    Snake nation, with snake tongue - Pshecki! ...
    And there they cherish, into oblivion ...

    I'm afraid that you too will go there sooner or later. Having dragged the whole world to the bottom.
  20. -5
    7 September 2019 04: 26
    Quote: Comrade Kim
    "Our enemy Zbigniew Brzezinski,"
    She’s a bastard, but a very smart bastard.
    It was read by his book "The whole world is a chessboard".

    Quote: Vasily50
    What will fly into the heads of the Poles tomorrow, no one knows, including the Poles.

    Know, they are wonderful!
    Again begin to dream of Greater Poland from Gibraltar to Kamchatka))

    Yeah, but the whole world would have been under the auspices of the wise king ...
  21. -5
    7 September 2019 04: 28
    Quote: Unknown
    WWII roots in the Versailles peace treaty. Comrade STALIN also said that it was a truce for 20 years. Many new state formations appeared, and one of them was Poland. this state, born of a versailles, managed to fight for its short coexistence and quarrel with almost all its neighbors. it was a buffer between the USSR and GERMANY, which was created by the Anglicos and the French, and covered by them, in all Polish adventures. so, for objective reasons, Poland in this form could not exist. no one in the house will tolerate the madman, with his warlike cries.

    As practice has shown, the Germans and the USSR turned out to be much more militant, the Soviet Union especially when it brought the light of civilization to all sorts of Afghanistan, for example. By the way, the Poles fought only with the USSR and Ukraine, esicho (for the sake of justice, with both its parts - ZUNR and UNR), and then only for the sake of part of the lands, not even all, but a small piece in fact. It is clear that today it is fashionable to be an ignoramus with propaganda in the head, however.
    1. +4
      7 September 2019 20: 42
      Well, about the ignoramus, I will not say anything, and I remind you that you need to know the latest history, at least within the current 10-year-old. with someone successfully, but with someone not very. and about the militancy of the USSR, the alliance was not surrounded by peace-loving countries that bit off pieces of territory that were part of R.I. so -100 years, or even more, and wanted more, the appetites were still those. this is the first, and the second how old are you, son, so that you talk about Afghan? what do you know about him, in general, to argue why we were there? without knowing, do not judge it for the future.
  22. -1
    7 September 2019 04: 33
    Quote: 3315061
    Many forget that at the time of the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, Japan attacked the MPR (undeclared war on the Khalkhin Gol) and the USSR was forced to defend Mongolia under the treaty of friendship and mutual assistance. Fierce battles with the massive use of aircraft and tanks went from May to September 1939. And to secure the western border while pushing it 250 - 300 km from Moscow was at that time the best solution, especially after the failure of negotiations with England and France and given that Germany, Japan and Italy were allies in the Anti-Comintern Pact. The signing of the Molotov Ribbentrop Pact frustrated the creation of a unified German-Japanese front against the USSR. Definitely it was a major diplomatic victory of Stalin.

    even more chebureks forget that the samurai have fought in China since the 37th year (and a little even from the 33rd), but whoever thinks of these narrow-eyed savages is the same monkey, where are they to the light of civilization in great Europe, right? And by the way, there were no breakdowns of any mythical front, Japan was an ally of Germany even before part of the Axis and the only reason that it did not enter the war on its side against the Soviets, as it should have been by treaty, was waiting for someone to win. After the defeat of the Wehrmacht near Moscow, they decided not to rock the boat, otherwise they would have invaded as nice, moreover, it was not so much in Khalkhin Gol and Nomongan (since then the samurai have changed a lot), but in the fact that they completely got bogged down in China (the whole war 65% of all their forces were kept there) - the desperate resistance of the Chinese put an end to the plans of the samurai to invade at least somewhere other than Indochina and Indonesia (for example, the invasion of India broke after the Chinese cut the supply routes through Burma). But, again, who cares about these macaques, the whole history of the universe around Europeans (and, accordingly, us) revolves.
    1. +1
      7 September 2019 23: 25
      There was also the Pact, which spoiled the Japanese idea of ​​axis power.
  23. 0
    7 September 2019 08: 47
    Quote: Andrey Zhdanov-Nedilko
    There are still many questions with this flight - it is not without reason that the British kept secret until 2045.
    - And what is wrong with the discharge of 1943 through the Canadian Communist Party?
  24. +3
    7 September 2019 09: 59
    ... The Red Army occupied the eastern regions of Poland:

    I am constantly revolted by these small omissions. The Red Army did not enter the eastern regions of Poland, the Red Army entered the lands temporarily occupied and torn away by Poland in 20, which belonged to Russia (in the broad sense of the word). Anglo-Saxons never allow themselves such misunderstandings, and we (wide soul) do not understand why we use verbal cliches from Western propaganda. And when will we learn to turn our brains to the fullest.
    1. +1
      7 September 2019 23: 28
      Poland rightly considered the winners to be its territory. But a new war nullified the old status quo. And then, who will establish the new status quo by force. The USSR proved it.
  25. 0
    7 September 2019 10: 11
    We leave the question to historians: why did Poland in 1939 abandon the pro-German Pilsudski course?

    There can be only one explanation. Poland captured the Tishino region, which was not provided for by the Munich agreement. England was in no hurry to express its opinion on this matter, but in the English newspapers this move of Poland was condemned. Poland had to legitimize its takeover, and England at that time was considered the strongest power. Hence the change of course and the fawning of the Poles in front of London.
  26. 0
    10 September 2019 22: 55
    War is the same world, only waged by other means. Almost according to Clausewitz and Sechenov: war is a continuation of politics by other means. Take away your weapons and then fight remains with your hands and feet, or rather the ideology of compromises: here you have crumpled tomatoes in an export batch. Ah, it means so, well then you have bony beef instead of lean.
    Today, this is the principle of the eurozone in relations with Russia and third countries. So far, our gas is warming Europe, and not strangling in the cells. So the war taught something and allowed it to live in peace.
  27. 0
    14 September 2019 18: 23
    There are 2 good videos about the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.
    They consider this issue more multifaceted.



  28. 0
    27 September 2019 09: 20
    The Anglo-Polish military treaty (25.08.1939), also with a "secret protocol", served as a direct reason for Hitler to attack Poland (01.09.1939/XNUMX/XNUMX) - as betraying the pro-German course of Pilsudski.

    The article is interesting, rather not giving answers, but generating questions.
    I specifically put down the dates in the quote, the question arises about the timing of the mobilization of Germany in front of a military company in Poland. Etc., etc.
  29. +1
    30 September 2019 15: 38
    Quote: rezerv66
    military company

    Sorry! It should be read "Campania". The word is a homophone, a mistake is often made. "Company" is a community of subjects, "campaign" is a series of events.