After the victory. Some results of the Second World War

53
Article "Inconvenient conclusions from the Second World War" we made some conclusions, it remains to say, in our opinion, about some results of this world war.

After the victory. Some results of the Second World War




Who won where?


Today, the opposite answers are given to the question of who won this war: the USSR or the USA? The Red Army defeated Hitler’s war machine and took Berlin, but more of the USA took advantage of the victory over fascist Germany, seizing dominant economic positions in the world. Politically, none of the parties won the war, since immediately after the General Victory a "cold war" broke out between the winners.

The war did not end as its developers planned in England, France and the USA. It was the West that made the decision about World War II, since the USSR, destroyed during the 1917 revolution and the civil war of the 1918-1922 years, was a catching side in the 30 years and therefore already defending itself. The West was planning an attack on the USSR, so London and Paris in the 30 years rejected all the USSR initiatives to create a collective security system in Europe against Hitler.

It is also necessary to distinguish the foreign policy of Germany, which had its own logic, from the crimes of the fascist regime. At the same time, we note that the radical nationalist Hitler, with his mania of world domination at all costs, spoiled the collective West of its world mass.

What was avoided


Hitler’s megalomania prevented the West from creating in the 30 years a united front of Western countries against the USSR, fascist Germany concluded, of course, an adventurous non-aggression treaty with the internationalist ideology of the USSR, but before that all the adventures got away with Hitler, he was forgiven by London and Paris . (By the way, today the West forgives all adventures and crimes to the Bandera regime in Ukraine.)

This led to the failure of the Anglo-French diplomacy of the 30's, which Winston Churchill stated: “The fact that such an agreement (German-Soviet non-aggression treaty. - Auth.) Was possible, marks the entire depth of the failure of English and French politics and diplomacy in a few years. " The collapse of the united front of the West allowed the USSR to withstand the blow of Germany alone with the satellites, and then take the help of the coalition formed during the war against Hitler with the participation of England and the United States. The victory over fascist Germany allowed the USSR, including through reparations and some military trophies, to increase its economic potential and create a nuclear missile weapon.

If England, France and the United States succeeded in joining forces with Germany, somehow eliminating Hitler and his entourage (Wehrmacht officers made such attempts up to 40 times in order to conclude a separate peace with the West), the war would have continued in 1945, and the USSR It was most likely destroyed by nuclear bombing of the former Western allies and the "new Germany". The US nuclear bombing of Japan before its near defeat showed that the United States has no moral restrictions, and Churchill’s "unthinkable" plan in the 1945 year after the war with the USSR says that our Western allies had separate plans. And, of course, this is evidenced by the very fact of the beginning of the Cold War of the West with the USSR after a general victory.



US and USSR in the Cold War


Big world politics is a correlation of the military-economic potentials of the parties, and this ratio of potentials after the Second World War has changed in favor of the United States. The potential of the USSR significantly increased, to comparable values ​​with the United States. By the end of the twentieth century, the ratio of these potentials changed not in favor of both the United States and the USSR, which generally disintegrated, but in favor of third world countries led by China. A new economic giant appeared on the world stage - China, and India, the Middle East with Iran and other eastern countries were on the way.

Many analysts are of the opinion that in the Second World War (for a third-party world, the battle of the main "Western countries") the East won: the system of direct colonial domination over it by the West collapsed. Moreover, the colonial system of the West collapsed thanks to an internationalist policy on the ideology of the USSR, it is well remembered in the East, and the Russian S-300 air defense systems are buying today, despite the cries and threats of US sanctions. Here begins the seemingly incomprehensible hatred of the West for the USSR and the desire to slander his memory: the USSR robbed him of all the colonies. Everything! It remains, however, a colonial influence, but this is not for long, it is already understandable.

The state of “neither peace nor war” after World War II could end in a war between the USA and the USSR, which, one might say, was prevented by US President John F. Kennedy. Perhaps it was precisely for this that the American "deep state" killed him: John Kennedy refused to start a war with the USSR in 1962 during the Caribbean crisis, and the ratio of nuclear charges at that time was in favor of the United States by a large margin. Kennedy asked the military: do you guarantee that not a single nuclear bomb will fall on US territory? The Pentagon did not give such a guarantee, and Kennedy agreed to an agreement with the USSR on overcoming the nuclear crisis. Today, the nuclear potentials of the parties are approximately equal, and we are not talking about one or two missed nuclear charges, but about complete nuclear destruction.

And so Trump came


For many years, Washington’s post-war foreign policy was aimed at helping all kinds of dissenting political minorities in competing countries around the world, and allowed the United States to weaken them in its national interests. But today, the United States itself has captured this wonderful strategy, because President Trump represents the political minority in the country, at least for now.

Trump came to power when the United States lost global control over its “own” world. The blame for this lies with Russia, because someone must be guilty of this, and the USA cannot be this “someone”. It comes to the point of absurdity: the head of the Pentagon (!) Demanded that Russia "become a normal country" and share "Western values", that is, proceed from the national interests of the United States in relation to itself! But this absurdity is professed by the US Democratic Party.

President Trump represents, one might say, American realists who want to quickly fix the division of the world while US dominance is maintained: then the division of the world will be in favor of the USA. Therefore, Trump invites Russia to join the G7, calls for tripartite talks on strategic arms of the USA - Russia - China, despite the sanctions wars. Blackmailing with sanctions wars. While the old interventionist, the Democratic Party of the United States, is demanding higher rates in the struggle for full global leadership. And accuses Trump of betraying his strategy. In their own way, they are right: Trump has a different world strategy.

In Europe, President Trump supports Brexit the treacherous Albion, and this English split in Europe is somewhat reminiscent of the situation of the 30 of the last century. World War II did not solve the main issue stories in Anglo-American, and again we see a split in Europe, and against the backdrop of Anglo-American rapprochement.

Brexit looks like London’s dissatisfaction with Brussels’s policies, but behind it is Berlin’s refusal to recognize the leading role of London, and Washington behind it, in the European Commission. Berlin refused to coordinate the London presidency of the EC, and then the protege of Berlin was Jean-Claude Juncker, the Berlin protege, which led to the scandal of Chancellor Merkel with Prime Minister Cameron and the referendum on Britain's exit from the EU.

Apparently, the United States has been behind Brexit from the very beginning, although President Barack Obama has publicly called for not to do so. Has Barack Obama never lied to the world? How many times has he stated that missile defense in Europe is directed exclusively against Iran? On the other hand, Brexit can also be considered as the expulsion of London from continental Europe by Berlin. Given the new confrontation between the West and Russia, we can say that with Brexit the world will politically return to the 30 years of the twentieth century.
Our news channels

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

53 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +7
    13 September 2019 15: 29
    Hitler’s megalomania prevented the West from creating a united front of Western countries in the 30 years

    there is an opinion that the whole game was broken by the British simply unrealistic stupid policy of Poland after the death of Pilsudski.
    These are questions of Danzig and a number of other problems raised.
    That is why the Germans did not unite with Poland, which was supported by England and France, but attacked it.
    And that is why England and France refused to save Poland.
    1. +7
      13 September 2019 16: 07
      Quote: yehat
      there is an opinion

      Alas, the opinion is as far-fetched as, in fact, the article
      1. +4
        13 September 2019 16: 11
        why is it far-fetched? This version has both logic and documentary evidence.
        It is enough to read that Hitler wrote about the Poles after refusing to grant passage to Danzig.
        1. +4
          13 September 2019 16: 20
          Quote: yehat
          why is it far-fetched? This version has both logic and documentary evidence.

          No. For example, all the facts simply cry out that no one refused to save Poland, France and England simply did not have the opportunity to do this. In order to understand this, just look at the state of the armed forces of the Franks and Angles on the continent.
          Quote: yehat
          It is enough to read that Hitler wrote about the Poles after refusing to grant passage to Danzig.

          Not enough, because what is written proves only Hitler’s attitude to the Poles, and nothing more. It is possible to fish out the machinations of the Britons from there ... of course, but this is already necessary on the althistory - this has nothing to do with the facts :))))
          1. +3
            13 September 2019 19: 30
            You apparently did not read that the French entered the territory of Germany, but a couple of days left there. What can we say about how the naglits faded to the island. At the same time, they left all weapons, did not even burn fuel, although it was possible. They left the guns in excellent condition, tanks and other weapons, including hand and even airplanes. There were anti-aircraft guns that did not fire a single shot at German planes, they flew and did not bomb. Churchill lamented that now they need at least a million rifles and about 10 a million rounds of ammunition for them. And there, Hess flew in with greetings and was taken hostage. They didn’t let the old man go out, so that he wouldn’t blur out. He hanged himself on an electric cord, during the duty he was accused.
            1. +2
              14 September 2019 20: 15
              Quote: zenion
              You apparently did not read that the French entered the territory of Germany, but a couple of days left there.

              I've read about this and many other things. Including, for example, what forces the French entered, and what forces they had. You are not. Also, you are clearly not familiar with the result of the Saar operation (which you mentioned) - and, by the way, it could "tell" you a lot.
              Quote: zenion
              What can we say about how the naglits faded to the island. At the same time, they left all weapons, did not even burn fuel, although it was possible. They left the guns in excellent condition, tanks and other weapons, including hand and even airplanes.

              Let's not pile up historical absurdities, and focus on the autumn of 1939 :)))) The British left the continent "a little" later than the events discussed
          2. +4
            14 September 2019 09: 01
            Dear colleague, I remember it was you who said that the war begins not at the moment when diplomats exchange notes, and not when explosions begin to rattle, but with the beginning of mobilization.
            Based on this, if one country prepared for war, and the other did not ... then was it going to fight?
            And if you recall that France itself (having the strongest army in Europe and having WB allies) lasted only two weeks longer than Poland, despite the fact that it had nine months to prepare, the same question again arises: - and were these gentlemen going to fight at all?
            1. +1
              14 September 2019 20: 24
              Quote: Senior Sailor
              Dear colleague, I remember it was you who said that the war begins not at the moment when diplomats exchange notes, and not when explosions begin to rattle, but with the beginning of mobilization.

              Greetings, dear Ivan! So the Germans announced the mobilization of 25 on August, the Franks on 26, at least preliminary.
              1. +1
                15 September 2019 13: 59
                Hello to you, too. hi
                In general, the French did not have the strength with which they could occupy the Ruhr before the defeat of Poland

                And there was no aviation ... and desire ....
          3. +1
            15 September 2019 14: 38
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            France and England were not able to do this corny

            France and England were trite silent:
            - W. Churchill: "The German war machine crashed heavily across the border and got stuck near Linz." About half of the tanks were out of order on the way to Vienna (this is along European roads and without resistance).
            - Germany could put up against Czechs 135 tanks that could hit Czechs. The Czechs could exhibit 350 cars that could hit any German.
            -about Poland: On 7 of September, units of the 3 and 4-th French armies crossed the German border in Saarland and wedged into the foreground of the Siegfried Line. No resistance was rendered to them. On September 12 a decision was made to end the offensive.
            1. +1
              15 September 2019 20: 47
              Quote: naidas
              - W. Churchill: "The German war machine crashed heavily across the border and got stuck near Linz." About half of the tanks were out of order on the way to Vienna (this is along European roads and without resistance).

              Yeah. But only this, for a second, the Anschluss of Austria - March 1938. Since then, much has changed.
              Quote: naidas
              - Germany could put up against Czechs 135 tanks that could hit Czechs. The Czechs could exhibit 350 cars that could hit any German.

              When Germany invaded France in 1940, it did not have tanks capable of hitting heavy French (yes, in fact, medium ones), as well as British Matildas. And when Germany invaded the USSR, our KVs were indestructible. To the point.
              Quote: naidas
              about Poland: on 7 of September, units of the 3 and 4 of the French armies crossed the German border in Saarland and wedged into the foreground of the Siegfried Line. There was no resistance to them.

              It's right. The Germans did not show any serious resistance and retreated in order to concentrate for defense. Nevertheless, the loss of the French killed / missing amounted to almost 2 000 people. And what would happen when the Germans nevertheless began to defend themselves? :)))))
              1. 0
                15 September 2019 21: 25
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                Yeah. But just that, for a second,

                you’re interested in a war, declare and order to prohibit approaching German positions at less than 1 km, and we are fighting to inform the Poles. I suppose obviously this is not a case of unpreparedness, then we would not have announced it.
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                And when Germany invaded the USSR, then our KV were unkillable

                105-mm howitzers and 88-mm anti-aircraft guns were beaten, and there were few 364s on 1.04.41s with broken ones.
                1. 0
                  16 September 2019 10: 35
                  Tell me, is it really so difficult to compare dates? The French launched an offensive in Saarland on 7 of September, and Hamelin’s order not to approach German positions dates back to 12 of September, that is, precisely according to the results of the offensive. During which it was perfectly clear that the French were not ready for him.
                  As for the 105-mm and 88-mm guns - they had some fun. Recall which German tanks they were installed in 1941 g?
                  1. 0
                    18 September 2019 15: 32
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    that is, just according to the results of the offensive. During which it was perfectly clear that the French were not ready for him.

                    Why then reassured the Poles?
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    the same until 105-mm and 88-mm guns - had fun. Recall which German tanks they were installed in 1941 g?

                    Maybe you read the post, it says there. Yes, and articles are on.
                    1. 0
                      18 September 2019 16: 28
                      Quote: naidas
                      Why then reassured the Poles?

                      Because if the Poles could hold out for several months, the French would have the strength to advance
                      Quote: naidas
                      Maybe you read the post, it says there. Yes, and articles are on.

                      No, I can’t read :))) And - I repeat the question:
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      As for the 105-mm and 88-mm guns - they had some fun. Recall which German tanks they were installed in 1941 g?

                      Will the answer be?
                      1. +1
                        18 September 2019 17: 20
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        As for the 105-mm and 88-mm guns - they had some fun. Recall which German tanks they were installed in 1941 g?

                        you don’t have to rave right away, you have to learn to read, where are the references to such guns on German tanks?
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Because if the Poles could hold out for several months, the French would have the strength to advance

                        This is also nonsense. Here's the question how much France, in your opinion, needed to be prepared after the declaration of war? 8 months are few, maybe 10 years?
                      2. +1
                        18 September 2019 18: 54
                        Quote: naidas
                        you don’t have to rave right away, you have to learn to read, where are the references to such guns on German tanks?

                        Here is this nonsense, written by one very forgetful forum member
                        Quote: naidas
                        - Germany could put up against Czechs 135 tanks that could hit Czechs. The Czechs could exhibit 350 cars that could hit any German.

                        Discussed tanks. In response to this, I wrote
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        When Germany invaded France in 1940, it did not have tanks capable of hitting heavy French (yes, in fact, medium ones), as well as British Matildas. And when Germany invaded the USSR, our KVs were indestructible. To the point.

                        Then you suddenly remembered about 105-mm and 88-mm cannons, although the conversation, in fact, was about tanks :))) But now, finally, you "suddenly" remembered that, it turns out, besides tanks, there are also other weapon systems capable of hitting enemy armored vehicles. Make another effort, and try to figure out that the same is true in the days of Czechoslovakia. Succeeded? I congratulate you on this - you have answered your own reply exhaustively. This one, otherwise you will forget again :)
                        Quote: naidas
                        - Germany could put up against Czechs 135 tanks that could hit Czechs. The Czechs could exhibit 350 cars that could hit any German.

                        Such cases
                        Quote: naidas
                        This is also nonsense. Here's the question how much France, in your opinion, needed to be prepared after the declaration of war? 8 months are few, maybe 10 years?

                        Until the completion of the mobilization and deployment. And this is the basics of military art :)) And yes, learn how to separate flies from cutlets - the French army after 8 months (1940 g) was not ready to fight the main forces of the Wehrmacht, and we are talking about the capture of part of Germany, defended by second-rate divisions in 1939 d. I understand that it’s difficult for you, the dates are different, all sorts of numbers, but you’ll strain :)
                      3. 0
                        18 September 2019 19: 16
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Then you suddenly remembered the 105-mm and 88-mm guns, although the conversation, in fact, was about tanks:

                        As I understand it, my comment on cannons on tanks is weak to give you (as far as I immediately spoke about anti-aircraft guns and howitzers). And do not transfer your carelessness to me and come up with nonsense.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Until the completion of the mobilization and deployment. And this is the basics of military art :)) And yes, learn to separate flies from cutlets already - the French army after 8 months (1940 g) was not ready to fight the main forces of the Wehrmacht,

                        It is difficult to understand from your comet how long it takes to complete the mobilization and deployment in your opinion. There is even about flies and cutlets, but I can not find the answer to my question:
                        Quote: naidas
                        So the question is, how much do you think France should have prepared after the declaration of war? 8 months are few, maybe 10 years?
                      4. +1
                        18 September 2019 19: 39
                        Quote: naidas
                        As I understand it, my comment on cannons on tanks is weak

                        So cited above. Are you unable to read your own text? Or just organically do not stand to recognize their own lapses?
                        Quote: naidas
                        It is difficult to understand from your comet how long it takes to complete the mobilization and deployment in your opinion

                        And what does my opinion have to do with it? There is a very specific timeline for the deployment of the French army - 17 September, and the first British divisions were due to arrive in October. Alas, by September 12, it became clear that Poland had lost the war with a bang, by September 16, its defense had broken up into several unconnected boilers, and Soviet troops entered Poland.
                      5. 0
                        18 September 2019 20: 07
                        Then you wrote about yourself correctly:
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        No, I can’t read:

                        To my post from15 September 2019 21: 25
                        Quote: naidas
                        105-mm howitzers and 88-mm anti-aircraft guns beat

                        Unexpectedly and merrily, these cannons you switched to tanks.
                        To the question naidas (naidas) 4 from Today, 17: 20:
                        Quote: naidas
                        So the question is, how much do you think France should have prepared after the declaration of war? 8 months are few, maybe 10 years?

                        accordingly worthy answer:
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        And what does my opinion have to do with it?

                        Thank you.
    2. +1
      13 September 2019 19: 33
      Quote: yehat
      there is an opinion that the whole game was broken by the British simply unrealistic stupid policy of Poland after the death of Pilsudski.

      The fact that Poland had neither coast nor reason I do not doubt. But Poland could not and did not have the desire to break off the British. In turn, it was the Britons who made every effort to break Poland and Germany, and then, so that Poland did not get off this hook after the Molotov-Ribentrop agreement, she also concluded an agreement with her that she did not intend to fulfill. Just the Poles were blundered, as they have done more than once before.
    3. The comment was deleted.
  2. +3
    13 September 2019 16: 38
    The author has old songs about the main thing, but in a new way. The main figures involved in this massacre were the British empire and their cousin sga.sga, by and large, created Hitler to crush the English monopoly of the world leader. The USSR in this scenario the anvil Germany hammer. And the direction of Germany to the USSR blew off the excess steam of the German machine. Having crushed Germany in the USSR due to the losses incurred, it was difficult to resist the threat. The threat to Amers was somewhat leveled by this fact. As a result of the war, the Britons rolled back to third position. The Soviets took second place. Europe was subordinate ameram.amerikantsy th burst to be the leader.
    1. +6
      13 September 2019 18: 25
      Today, the opposite answers are given to the question of who won this war: the USSR or the USA? The Red Army defeated Hitler’s war machine and took Berlin, but more of the USA took advantage of the victory over fascist Germany, seizing dominant economic positions in the world.

      This is how it turns out, we did not take advantage of the fruits of victory? Those. we did not win? The author, before the WWII of the USSR, was in the world, as they say now, the country of the 3-th world. Which, as in 1939, could easily be expelled from the League of Nations. The bombing of the Baku oil fields could be threatened then by Britain and France, and Japan organized regular military provocations! USSR left WWII SUPERPOWER, the founding country of the UN, in the orbit of influence of which was almost half of the current European Union and China !!! NEVER, either before or after, the Russian State was not so Great and Mighty as in the period after WWII and the advent of Gorbachev to power ...
      1. +10
        13 September 2019 19: 06
        Bomb. There would be no atomic bomb, there would be no greatness - they would gobble up. Thanks to Lavrenty and the Office: they worked perfectly and efficiently. And Stalin with the atomic bomb was much worse for the Anglo-Saxons than a dozen Hitlers with their blitzkriegs. And due to this, we are still alive and relatively independent, well, not really, of course ...
    2. -4
      13 September 2019 19: 35
      Hitler knew Naglia well to trust her. He was forced to attack the USSR and he was attributed the words of Napoleon - in order to capture Naglia, Russia must be crushed. And Hitler was dressed and provided with money from across the sea and the strait. Although at one time they screamed that Hitler was created by Stalin. But they thought better of it and more about the monetary issue they do not raise a cry, they try to remain silent. For the USSR’s attack, they created the Hitler’s No. 1 EU, such a huge conglomerate that worked to kill the USSR and divide the territory.
  3. +5
    13 September 2019 16: 55
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    In order to understand this, just look at the state of the armed forces of the Franks and Angles on the continent.

    it was enough for the French to give the order for the occupation of the Ruhr in cash so that EVERYTHING would end.
    the Germans did not have the strength to interfere.
    1. +3
      14 September 2019 20: 26
      Quote: yehat
      it was enough for the French to give the order for the occupation of the Ruhr in cash so that EVERYTHING would end.

      They tried to pop into the Saar region - the result is known. In general, the French did not have the strength with which they could occupy the Ruhr before the defeat of Poland
      Quote: yehat
      the Germans did not have the strength to interfere.

      Oddly enough, but what was, it was quite enough
  4. +2
    13 September 2019 17: 01
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Not enough, because what is written proves only Hitler’s attitude to the Poles, and nothing more. Get out of there the machinations of the Britons

    the Britons just needed Germany to go to the USSR.
    the conflict with Poland, the allied treaties connected with them was not a topic at all - it was a setup.
    There are no machinations of the Britons. I say - just the incompetence of the Polish government, which poorly understood the balance of power. They raved about Great Poland from Tallinn to the Black Sea.
    So we got on the hill.
  5. +9
    13 September 2019 18: 02
    The confusion is two inaccuracies:
    - Western hatred of Russia appeared much earlier than the USSR,
    - There were not so many reasons to remove Kennedy, and not only for the refusal to strike the USSR, but rather for the desire to print dollars bypassing the Fed.
    1. +2
      16 September 2019 12: 20
      Quote: Pavel57
      reasons to clean Kennedy

      there were many. not one, not two, or even 5.
      the moment has simply come that there are more of them than fears of consequences.
  6. 0
    13 September 2019 18: 14
    It comes to the point of absurdity: the head of the Pentagon (!) Demanded that Russia "become a normal country" and share "Western values"

    ... but according to Die Welt that 53% of Germans are absolutely dissatisfied with democracy, as the basic principle of society’s self-organization. That is, they do not share these same values:
    https://russian.rt.com/inotv/2019-08-14/Welt-bolshinstvo-nemcev-nedovolni-demokratiej
    And exactly the same thing the French found out:
    https://politika.temadnya.com/1620711905618561314/bild-v-shoke---bolshinstvo-vostochnyh-nemtsev-utratilo-veru-v-demokratiyu/
    ... and the Americans:
    https://iz.ru/857148/kirill-senin/sotcialisticheskie-shtaty-ameriki-amerikanskaia-molodezh-presytilas-kapitalizmom
  7. +6
    13 September 2019 19: 17
    I started reading the article, I read the first three parts, I thought: And when will it be about Trump? and oops .. And so Trump came, and why not about Ukraine ....? smile Not to work ...
    1. +8
      14 September 2019 00: 03
      Yes. Trump's villainous tricks are not revealed deeply enough. bully
      Not a word about Melania. The backstage role of the English Queen is not
      exposed. About a red Boris - not a word at all ... request
      Is this how analytical geo-political articles are written?
      With Samsonov, everything is clear: "the masters of the West are sneering."
      And immediately it is easier on the soul: "they are plotting, but we exposed them!" am
  8. +2
    13 September 2019 19: 24
    Perhaps for this reason, Angela Merkel was poured something at dinner. It is not for nothing that Putin carries with him all his own, although this also may not help in such cases. After all, Stalin could not escape from his comrades. And after all, these "comrades" brought the USSR to collapse. It's amazing that that Marked "comrade" is still alive, the devil hasn't taken him.
    1. 0
      16 September 2019 14: 29
      He is not in power. Why spend resources on a win back asset?
  9. +1
    13 September 2019 21: 08
    which can be said to have been prevented by US President John F. Kennedy. Perhaps it was precisely for this that the American "deep state" killed him:

    And everyone is bashfully looking away .....
    Well, what is the deepest state? Moneylenders, they are moneylenders ....
  10. +1
    14 September 2019 07: 08
    As a result of the war, the Union received half of Europe, advanced German technology, global influence and many socialist regimes around the world.
  11. +3
    14 September 2019 07: 43
    The article is about nothing. An attempt in a nutshell to describe the greatest events of the twentieth century, was unsuccessful. No.
  12. +1
    14 September 2019 10: 42
    The war did not end as its developers planned in England, France and the USA. Exactly West made a decision about the second world war

    I would like to not empty words, and DOCUMENTS "decisions": minutes of decisions of conferences, dates of meetings, composition of participants.
    Hitler’s megalomania prevented the West from creating in the 30 years a united front of Western countries against the USSR

    But what prevented the West from making this united front in the 1920-beginning of the 30's, before Hitler and before industrialization?
    And the supply of the largest factories in the USSR from the West does not fit with a "united" front - WHY to arm the USSR if they are going to ... attack it? belay request
    If England, France and the United States succeeded in joining forces with Germany, somehow eliminating Hitler and his entourage (Wehrmacht officers made such attempts up to 40 times in order to conclude a separate peace with the West), the war would continue in 1945

    As the author imagines this: England, who fought against Germany for 6 years, will abruptly fight ... along with it. How can this be explained, at least in England itself? No.
    Even if Hitler had been eliminated in 1944, it was only about the surrender of Germany.

    Then, of course, there could be different options. So they were in real history.
    1. +1
      16 September 2019 14: 38
      Having created a "united front" we will have to fight on this front. Because someone needs to fight exactly - to get out of the trench and go to die. After the incredible massacre of the First World War, unprecedented in history, it was necessary to raise some people who would go to die. For something. Not for money and the influence of the authorities, for sure. What for? So the project "Hitler and National Socialism" started working. Long project.
      Are you familiar with the term modern Russia - "feed the pig"? This is when a favorable regime is created for an entrepreneur - cheap loans are given, equipment is found, orders ... does it look like anything? And when he collects money, builds a successful business, establishes it, all this is taken away from the entrepreneur, and he himself is killed or imprisoned. It's hard to build, you have to be able to, burn your life on it, plow madly ... well, that's how our grandfathers plowed, these factories were built.
      And then a united Europe would come, and capture all that was built, adjusted, neglected. Well, to fight against, and then together - an old European tradition. The Europeans have long been fighting not for the country, not for their people, for nothing of what we are fighting for. They go to war to enjoy unpunished killing, fire and torment. And with whom to go to burn, rob, rape and kill, they always didn’t care.
      1. +1
        16 September 2019 15: 20
        Quote: Mikhail3
        By creating a "united front" will have to fight on this front.

        With a fright?
        Quote: Mikhail3
        - "feed the pig"? This is when a favorable treatment is created for an entrepreneur - cheap loans are given, equipment is found, orders ... does it look like anything?

        Nope. WHY for someone: to create, find equipment, give loans, orders, and then ... remove / kill him, if you can IMMEDIATELY AT ALL? Are these geniuses really moneyless pigs? Nonsense: if you have the funds, put YOUR manager / director and no worries.
        Quote: Mikhail3
        And then a united Europe would come and take over everything built, established, neglected.

        Yeah they at home these plants were designed, assembled, adjusted, disassembled and mounted here again. And they came to pick up .... they built and adjusted lol

        LAND they came to pick up RESOURCES. And they could build factories without problems.
        Quote: Mikhail3
        The Europeans have long been fighting not for the country, not for their people, for nothing of what we are fighting for. They go to war to enjoy unpunished killing, fire and torment.

        Nope: they go FOR BENEFITS, LIVE, FOR MONEY: this was the reason for their great geographer. discoveries, wars, etc.
        1. 0
          16 September 2019 17: 30
          Quote: Olgovich
          With a fright?

          The answer is in my post above.
          Quote: Olgovich
          WHY for someone: give create

          The answer is also higher, but I’ll specifically deploy it for a professional troll - then why conquer Russia - in order to move industrial capacities to sources of raw materials, that is, suddenly, to Russia. So that the Russians themselves create everything that they have to work as slaves on. Unclear)? Do not understand what is the BENEFIT? Hehe ...
  13. 0
    14 September 2019 11: 23
    I would like to add that the United States now seems to want to destroy China and the Russian Federation, but since oil is running out, in fact, to prepare for a new protectionism and for them all the same, the primary task is to accumulate more resources.
  14. 0
    14 September 2019 11: 40
    Churchill tried to pass off the need for virtue: extending the control of the Third Reich to all of continental Europe and the USSR’s victory in WWII is not a failure of British and French diplomacy, but a national catastrophe of these countries - according to the results of the war, the British and French colonial empires disappeared, and these countries forever became second-rate compared to the USA, USSR, China and India (Brazil, Nigeria, Indonesia are approaching).
  15. +2
    14 September 2019 12: 56
    Today, the opposite answers are given to the question of who won this war: the USSR or the USA? The Red Army defeated Hitler’s war machine and took Berlin, but more of the USA took advantage of the victory over fascist Germany, seizing dominant economic positions in the world. Politically, none of the parties won the war, because immediately after the General Victory a “cold war” broke out between the winners
    .
    Do not confuse "won (in WWII)" and "won (in WWII)" - these are not synonyms. The USSR came out as the winner in WWII. The US has benefited from the war.
  16. -1
    14 September 2019 16: 54
    From the point of view of today, the USSR was not even worth liberating Europe. We would have reached our border, taken indemnities, exchanged prisoners and voila. And it would not have been worth it with Japan either. Free Kamchatka and stop. Now neither Europe would rock the boat, nor China would be an empire, and the Germans would strike America with the Yaps, still the Americans would probably be in debt
    1. +1
      16 September 2019 13: 43
      Kamchatka with it, it was already controlled by the USSR.
      1. 0
        19 September 2019 00: 34
        Sorry. I wanted to say Sakhalin
  17. 0
    16 September 2019 10: 51
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    that the French are not ready for him.

    a rare impudent manipulation of the interpretation of facts.
    if the French were not ready to advance WITHOUT resistance, how were they ready to retreat ???
    I'm not saying that at 1941, almost half of the Wehrmacht's trucks were French.
    it’s ready to support logistics. or you still become insolent and say. that the French had no warehouses, no troops, nothing at all, just trucks?
  18. +2
    16 September 2019 11: 02
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    When Germany invaded France in 1940, it did not have tanks capable of hitting heavy French (yes, in fact, medium ones), as well as British Matildas. And when Germany invaded the USSR, our KVs were indestructible.

    Andrey, in this thread I began to lose respect for your skills and knowledge
    how could the Germans not hit when they could?
    moreover, about 300 tanks could also penetrate heavy Frenchmen in the forehead, because 75mm cigarette butts were armed with cumulative grenades, and 50mm guns were equipped with subcaliber shells
    although this was not usually required. Due to a number of shortcomings of their tanks and tactics, the French usually did not stop them from flanking and shooting the sides.
    French tanks sometimes snapped very painfully when the Germans squinted with tactics, but usually they were simply beaten, rarely meeting in the head-on.
    I also note that the French lost many tanks due to maneuver warfare due to marches, separation from the infantry and the enormous difference in the speed of concentration of forces.
  19. 0
    17 September 2019 13: 21
    Quote: voyaka uh
    Not a word about Melania. The backstage role of the Queen of England

    the most interesting thing now is the behavior of Merkel and her group.
    They are the ones who are changing the political lines most of all now.
    This also applies to European socialists and the relations between the United States and the Jewish Union and the United States and the Middle East and relations with the Russian Federation - for example, the configuration of sanctions is changing.
  20. 0
    18 September 2019 07: 45
    This is not a dispute between the Winners, but a dispute between the heirs. And these are different things. This dispute will go on for a very long time, because each side will use the story for its own purposes.
    cry.
  21. 0
    18 September 2019 14: 38
    During my military service at the beginning of the 70x in the GSVG, I had to communicate with the Germans, who at that time were around 50. So almost everyone lamented that Hitler had violated the contract. It seems to me that everything changed after the flight of Ges. No wonder the Britons destroyed it and kept it secret for many years. It was after this that the Wehrmacht turned east.

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

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