Military Review

Historical mythology around the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact

84

Speaking of stories World War II, one cannot ignore what preceded it. These are the so-called pacts that were signed by various countries with Nazi Germany, including, for example, Poland. However, for Poland itself, the stumbling block is only one agreement with Hitler Germany, and this is an agreement in which the Soviet Union became one of the signatories.


The theme of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact is raised especially frequently this year, since September 1 marks exactly 80 years from the beginning of World War II. And in a number of countries they decided to again try to blame the outbreak of war also on the Soviet Union - with the further aim of Russia “repenting”.

The treaty of the USSR and Germany was signed at one time, but only in Europe today many forget that the Soviet Union has become one of the last states to sign such an agreement. For some reason, few in Europe recall their own attempts to agree on a "non-aggression" with Hitler.

Against this background, a story was published on the Istoriya shopping center in which they asked at all: “Was there a Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact?” This question looks strange, but Yuri Nikiforov, head of the scientific department of the Russian military-historical society, nevertheless decided to reflect on historical mythology about the pact.

The historian emphasizes such an important thing as the attempts of a number of countries in Eastern Europe to justify collaboration. To this justification, they are trying to use their own interpretations of the events of the 1938 and 1939 years to build their theory of supposedly "Soviet occupation". Watch the video footage in full.

84 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Alexander Suvorov
    Alexander Suvorov 19 November 2019 11: 49 New
    +10
    Lord, how much can poor Molotov be procrastinated already? This pact was at that time needed by the USSR, period. Even if there were secret protocols to the Covenant, this is also normal and we have nothing to be ashamed of.
    Again, if we assume that there are secret protocols, then what of that? The USSR was just returning to itself Poland that was taken from him to the guise of a civil war and nothing more. Politics in general is a dirty thing, but I do not see any contradictions in this case, we just kept our own interests and returned OUR. And it’s not at all possible for the Poles to moan and yell about not justice, after they gobbled up part of Czechoslovakia, which eventually choked.
    Truly Poland, the hyena of Europe!
    1. bessmertniy
      bessmertniy 19 November 2019 11: 52 New
      +1
      The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact can be considered insignificant, since it was offset by the attack of Nazi Germany on the Soviet Union.
      1. Alexander Suvorov
        Alexander Suvorov 19 November 2019 12: 20 New
        +3
        It is truth too! It’s just that the Pans-Poles try to pull an owl on the globe and make the USSR responsible for inciting the Second World War on a par with Hitler Germany. The demand for all kinds of "compensation" from the same opera. It’s just that until the USSR is recognized by anyone as the culprit, these requirements will remain an empty phrase, but if you manage to pull the USSR to the culprits, then the fun will begin. All of Europe in the line for reparations will line up from the tribalt to the French, and the Germans will also line up at the end of the line.
        Only here shish them, everyone who wants to review the history of WWII, we can re-show!
        In a German town, one burgomaster, demanding "the public" to dismantle the monument to Soviet soldiers, said: do you want them (Russians) to install T-34 on the T-90 pedestal instead of T?
        In Pshekia, the majority have a short memory, which is why they suffer, thank God in Germany there still remained adequate burgomaster.
        1. tihonmarine
          tihonmarine 19 November 2019 12: 40 New
          0
          Quote: Alexander Suvorov
          It’s just that the Pans-Poles try to pull an owl on the globe and make the USSR responsible for inciting the Second World War on a par with Hitler Germany.

          And in this they are trusted only by the Tribalts.
          1. Alexander Suvorov
            Alexander Suvorov 19 November 2019 12: 52 New
            +4
            tihonmarine (Vlad)
            And in this they are trusted only by the Tribalts.
            Here it is not a matter of faith, but of today's conjuncture. The fact is that both the tribalt and the pshek have a muzzle in fluff according to the tonsils. Both of them were noted on the path of service of Nazi Germany, and to the fullest, and more precisely in a kneeling pose and with hands not even to the elbow, but up to the throat in the blood of both their fellow citizens and strangers.
            But there is, albeit a meager, but a chance to throw arrows at a large neighbor, and even have a gesheft at the expense of an overseas hegemon. It’s just that these woodpeckers still can’t understand that the hegemon is not used to sharing with anyone, much less with them!
            1. tihonmarine
              tihonmarine 19 November 2019 13: 24 New
              +3
              Quote: Alexander Suvorov
              The fact is that both the tribalt and the pshek have a muzzle in fluff according to the tonsils. And they both noted on the path of service of Nazi Germany, and in full growth,
              Yes, here all of Europe was noted in full growth, In addition to Greece and Serbia.
        2. tihonmarine
          tihonmarine 19 November 2019 12: 48 New
          0
          Quote: Alexander Suvorov
          The demand for all kinds of "compensation" from the same opera.

          So far, no one has formally appealed to the Russian government about compensation (and there is no such term in international law), and all the statements of politicians and the media are simply OBS (one woman said). My mother-in-law loves to say, "One woman told me," to which I tell her, "Her name is Ninka, a neighbor in the country."
      2. tihonmarine
        tihonmarine 19 November 2019 12: 49 New
        +1
        Quote: bessmertniy
        The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact can be considered insignificant, since it was offset by the attack of Nazi Germany on the Soviet Union.

        Wrong answer.
      3. Avior
        Avior 19 November 2019 13: 02 New
        -1
        . Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact can be considered void

        Like the Treaty of Friendship and the Border between the USSR and Germany, together with all the annexes and protocols thereto, since both agreements were officially annulled in the May-Sikorsky Treaty between the USSR and Poland in 1941
        The Government of the USSR recognizes the 1939 Soviet-German treaties regarding territorial changes in Poland as null and void.

        hi
      4. iouris
        iouris 23 November 2019 23: 33 New
        0
        Quote: bessmertniy
        can be considered insignificant, since it was leveled

        This statement is much controversial, since the leadership of the USSR (and Stalin personally) played in geopolitical games, and ultimately replayed itself. Hitler got everything he wanted. and only after that the pact became "insignificant."
        Soviet historical science fell into disarray, agreeing with the thesis of Western propaganda, according to which the Second World War only began on September 1, 1939 in Europe. In fact, the war began with the Japanese attack on China and ended in the defeat of Japan. For the main beneficiary of the war - the United States - the war in the Pacific theater was generally the main one. In Europe, the beginning of the war should be considered the enslave of Austria and the "Munich agreement", as a result of which Hitler received the military industry of Czechoslovakia. We should not forget about the aggressive wars of Italy in Africa. All these wars and Anschluss were conducted with the consent of the USA, Great Britain and France.
        In 1938, Chamberlain signed the Munich Agreement with Hitler, Mussolini and Daladier. Returning to London, Chamberlain presented to the public at the airport an signed agreement with the words: "I brought you peace." Churchill harshly criticized Hitler’s pacification policy pursued by Chamberlain’s government, shrewdly remarking that choosing a shame, Britain would receive both war and shame.
        About the same thing happened with the leadership of the USSR. The big difference is that the USSR did not have allies, was considered by all major powers as a mental enemy, had a line of contact only with Germany, and in the event of an attack on Germany, Stalin had every reason to believe that the other powers would more likely declare the USSR an aggressor and support Germany than THE USSR. Thus, the main mistake of Stalin was an excessive fear that he would be accused of aggression, the belief that he was able to "agree" with Hitler, and a sharp change in the line of Soviet propaganda, which, of course, disoriented the country's population and anti-fascist forces in the world.
    2. svp67
      svp67 19 November 2019 12: 36 New
      +2
      Quote: Alexander Suvorov
      Politics is generally a dirty thing

      I still understand the wailing of the West, if they reveal materials on the arrival of Hess and the conversations that were conducted with him. But they hide them, shifting the opening dates, further and further.
      1. Alexander Suvorov
        Alexander Suvorov 19 November 2019 12: 44 New
        0
        svp67 (Sergey)
        I still understand the wailing of the West, if they reveal materials on the arrival of Hess and the conversations that were conducted with him.
        I believe the next 100-150 years, these documents will not be declassified. The pope of the current Queen of England threw a ridge on the video, and the queen herself did not lag behind him, and what offers did Hess bring about this only to him, Hitler, Hess and God knows. But in principle it’s not difficult to guess. Another question, why didn’t you agree ?! This is interesting!
        1. svp67
          svp67 19 November 2019 12: 47 New
          0
          Quote: Alexander Suvorov
          Another question, why didn’t you agree ?!

          Yes, they realized that the Germans would not get them on the Islands, which means that Hitler would soon go to Stalin, since Adolf simply had no other choice. And was it meaningful for them to leave the winners themselves?
          1. Alexander Suvorov
            Alexander Suvorov 19 November 2019 12: 57 New
            +3
            svp67 (Sergey) which means that Hitler will soon go to Stalin, since Adolf simply had no other choice.
            It is not a matter of choosing Hitler, he was initially left with no chance of becoming stupefied from the Drang Nah Osten line, otherwise there would be no way to explain either a strange war, or the whole Europe was gently and not intrusively laid under him. There is only one conclusion here: Hitler was provided with all the conditions for a war against the USSR. He was given and, without question, all that could be given, and even threw money in the form of American and English loans. So here everything seems to me extremely unique!
            1. Leonid Anatolevich
              Leonid Anatolevich 19 November 2019 13: 14 New
              -3
              Nobody forced him to attack the USSR, the Germans did not receive any money from the Anglo-Saxons before the war, they had their own
              1. Alexander Suvorov
                Alexander Suvorov 19 November 2019 13: 20 New
                +2
                Leonid Anatolyevich (Leonid Anatolyevich)
                Nobody forced him to attack the USSR, the Germans did not receive any money from the Anglo-Saxons before the war, they had their own
                Well for such fool like you, this is probably a secret, but for everyone interested it has long been no secret how and from whom Hitler received money. It’s no secret to anyone but you where the Nazi “economic miracle” was born out of the blue in a robbed and impoverished Germany.
                By the way, do you not know who Henry Ford is and why Hitler awarded him the highest order of the Third Reich for foreigners?
                I'm wondering, you just fool not smart troll or smart for an idea, money or any other good ?!
                1. Leonid Anatolevich
                  Leonid Anatolevich 19 November 2019 15: 06 New
                  -2
                  Along the way, you have verbal incontinence. Investments in the Weimar Republic in the 1920s, do not need to be given as aid to Hitler. Ford, like Hitler, was a big fan of the Zion protocols. Created by rubbish from the Russian Police Department
                  1. knn54
                    knn54 19 November 2019 19: 35 New
                    +1
                    "If you withdraw money from the 50 richest Jewish families, then wars and revolutions will stop."
                    G. Ford.
                    1. Leonid Anatolevich
                      Leonid Anatolevich 20 November 2019 23: 02 New
                      -1
                      What does the war have to do with it? What called the Soviet government to conquer Afghanistan?
            2. Doctor
              Doctor 19 November 2019 21: 36 New
              -2
              There is only one conclusion here, Hitler was provided with all the conditions for a war ... So here everything seems to me very unequivocally!


              Of course provided. And he was very happy. Definitely.

              “Exactly three weeks later, we heard that the German Foreign Minister was negotiating in Moscow. During dinner, a note was handed over to Hitler. He ran it through his eyes, for a moment, blushing before his eyes, he petrified, then hit his fist on the table so that the glasses trembled and exclaimed: "I caught them! I caught them!" But after a second he took control of himself, no one dared to ask any questions, and the meal went its usual course.

              After her, Hitler invited people from his circle to himself: “We conclude a non-aggression pact with Russia. Here, read. A telegram from Stalin. " She was addressed to the "Reich Chancellor Hitler" and briefly informed about the unity. It was the most amazing, exciting turn of events that I could imagine - a telegram that amicably connected the names of Hitler and Stalin. Then we were shown a film about the Red Army parade in front of Stalin with a huge mass of troops. Hitler expressed his satisfaction that such a military potential was now neutralized and turned to his military adjutants, intending to discuss with them the quality of weapons and troops on Red Square. The ladies remained in their company, but naturally, they immediately learned the news from us, which was soon made public on the radio.

              In the evening of August 23 after Goebbels commented on the sensational news at a press conference, Hitler asked to be associated with him. He wanted to know the reaction of representatives of the foreign press. With frantically brilliant eyes, Goebbels told us what he heard: “The sensation could not be grander. And when the outside rang of bells, a representative of the English press said: "This is the death knell of the British Empire." This statement made the strongest impression on Hitler's euphoric drunkenness that evening. Now he believed that he had ascended over fate itself.

              At night, Hitler and I stood on the terrace and admired the rare game of nature. For a whole hour, a very intense aurora boreal light flooded with red light located opposite, covered in legends of Untersberg, while above it the sky blazed with all the colors of the rainbow. It was impossible to imagine a more spectacular staging of the final “Twilight of the Gods”. Our faces and hands seemed unnaturally red. Hitler suddenly said to one of his military adjutants: “It looks like a stream of blood. This time, the use of force is indispensable. ”


              A. Speer "Memories"
              1. Leonid Anatolevich
                Leonid Anatolevich 21 November 2019 12: 23 New
                0
                Many who pointed to him
        2. Doctor
          Doctor 19 November 2019 20: 52 New
          0
          Another question, why didn’t you agree ?! This is interesting!


          Churchill calculated the situation for years to come.

          "...Hess, apparently, is in good health and not nervous, and he does not have the usual signs of insanity. He states that this flight to England is his own idea and that Hitler did not know about him in advance. If you can trust him, he hoped to contact the participants in the "peace movement" in England, whom he would help drive the current government out of. If he speaks sincerely and is in his right mind, then this is a welcome sign of the poor work of German intelligence. He will not be mistreated, but it is advisable that the press does not present him and his adventure in a romantic light. We should not forget that he bears a share of responsibility for all Hitler's crimes and is a potential war criminal, whose fate ultimately must inevitably depend on the decision of the Allied governments. "

          This is from a letter from Churchill to Roosevelt at that time, i.e. not written retroactively.
    3. tihonmarine
      tihonmarine 19 November 2019 13: 15 New
      0
      Quote: Alexander Suvorov
      Truly Poland, the hyena of Europe!

      Well, of course you can take it for truth, but in one letter from Engels to Marx we see a more reasonable explanation
      The Poles have never done anything else in history except for bold, pugnacious stupidities. And it is impossible to indicate a single moment when Poland, even only in comparison with Russia, would successfully represent progress or accomplish something of historical significance. On the contrary, Russia does play a progressive role in relation to the East ... Russia has perceived much more elements of enlightenment and especially elements of industrial development than, by its very nature gentry-sleepy, Poland ... Poles have never been able to assimilate foreign elements. The Germans in the [Polish] cities remained and remain Germans. Meanwhile, every second-generation Russian German is a living example of how Russia can Russify Germans and Jews. Even the Jews grow there Slavic cheekbones
      ...
    4. Leonid Anatolevich
      Leonid Anatolevich 19 November 2019 16: 19 New
      -2
      The pact was necessary for the USSR, first of all, so that Stalin could put himself in order after collectivization and corporate purges. The entire nomenclature was cut, especially the NKVD, NKID and the military elite
      1. Doctor
        Doctor 19 November 2019 20: 40 New
        0
        The pact was necessary for the USSR, first of all, so that Stalin could put himself in order after collectivization and corporate purges. The entire nomenclature was cut, especially the NKVD, NKID and the military elite


        Yes, he continued to purge even during the war! Even when the Germans stood near Moscow!
    5. Doctor
      Doctor 19 November 2019 20: 38 New
      0
      Lord, how much can poor Molotov be procrastinated already?


      They will procrastinate for centuries.
      Because this treaty really started the process of starting a world war. The most terrible war in the history of the Russian and other peoples, which put us on the brink of destruction.
      Stalin himself, in his first speech from the beginning of the war, hastened to justify himself and confirm the “correctness” of his decision on an alliance with Hitler by launching a tale of years won, which is still being repeated.

      "They may ask: how could it happen that the Soviet government agreed to the non-aggression pact with treacherous people and monsters such as Hitler and Ribbentrop? Was there a mistake made by the Soviet government here? Of course not!
      ... What did we gain by concluding a non-aggression pact with Germany? We ensured peace for our country for a year and a half and the possibility of preparing our forces to fight back if Nazi Germany risked attacking our country contrary to the pact. This is a definite gain for us and a loss for Nazi Germany. "

      That's just a gain in time, appeared not only in the USSR, but also in Germany. Some even now believe that the failures of 1941 were due to the fact that we did not have time to rearm, forgetting that Germany, too, did not stand still. And if the war had begun in 1943, then the T-34 would have met the Tigers on the battlefield, and the Yaks and Laggs - Messerschmitt "Gustav" and Foku. And in 1944 the jet Me-262. And it’s scary to think THAT would fall on Moscow and Peter in 1945.
  2. Greg Miller
    Greg Miller 19 November 2019 11: 50 New
    +2
    The best and most detailed material on the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was examined by Egor Yakovlev:

  3. Lannan Shi
    Lannan Shi 19 November 2019 11: 57 New
    +7
    For some reason, few in Europe recall their own attempts to agree on a "non-aggression" with Hitler.

    England, Hitler fed us. Poland, Hungarians, Romanians, Balts and others actively collaborated. Naturally now they need the extreme. Criminals on interrogation, a classic of the genre.
    1. Leonid Anatolevich
      Leonid Anatolevich 19 November 2019 13: 17 New
      -7
      Poland, Romania, Hungary, Stalin gave Hitler like, because the Stalin-geopolitician was not worth a penny even comparing with Ribbentrop.
      1. Alexander Suvorov
        Alexander Suvorov 19 November 2019 13: 30 New
        +1
        Leonid Anatolyevich (Leonid Anatolyevich)
        because Stalin the geopolitician was not worth a penny even comparing with Ribbentrop.
        Well, then we certainly have a universal dimension in geopolitics to give such estimates ... laughing wassat laughing
        Poland, Romania, Hungary Stalin gave Hitler like
        Oh well ... And what at that time Poland, Romania, Hungary were in the orbit of the influence of the USSR ?! request
        Aw, citizen fool , it’s time for injections, dohtur has already waited. laughing
        1. Leonid Anatolevich
          Leonid Anatolevich 19 November 2019 16: 12 New
          -1
          Even a schoolboy knows that Romania, Poland and, in part, Hungary were in the Anglo-French sphere of interests. Stalin took advantage of the defeat of the British to restore his reputation before the people for the defeat in Spain and the fiasco with the establishment of the Finnish Communist clique Uusinen
      2. Sayan
        Sayan 19 November 2019 14: 40 New
        +1
        Quote: Leonid Anatolyevich
        Poland, Romania, Hungary, Stalin gave Hitler like, because the Stalin-geopolitician was not worth a penny even comparing with Ribbentrop.

        Exhale, exhale))) here the hemp is flattening, sickly)))
  4. Chit
    Chit 19 November 2019 11: 58 New
    -21
    "The treaty of the USSR and Germany was signed at one time, but only in Europe today many forget that the Soviet Union was one of the last states to sign such an agreement. For some reason, few in Europe recall their own attempts to agree on a" non-aggression "with Hitler . "

    Already said. The Soviet Union, perhaps, was the last of the states that signed such agreements.
    But he was the first to sign a secret protocol simultaneously with the agreements.
    And he became the first state, after the signing of such agreements with Germany, the Second World War began. For some reason, no previously signed agreements of other states with Germany led to a world war.
    Involuntarily the question arises: is it not the secret protocol that matters?
    Is it time to ask Kiselev - a coincidence? And I do not think to answer.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 19 November 2019 12: 11 New
      +9
      Someone got up every morning, put on pants and went to work. And all was well. But then one day he put on shorts instead of trousers. And he was hit by a car. Coincidence? I do not think :)))))
      You have made a classic logical mistake right now. "After that" does not mean "As a result of this"
      1. Avior
        Avior 19 November 2019 13: 23 New
        -5
        Exactly, no connection.
        After the German attack on Poland, England and France declared war on Germany, and the USSR in response concluded a friendship treaty with Germany and demanded that Britain and France cease their aggressive war against Germany and separately cease their declared war on fascism (Hitlerism) as a criminal ideology about what the comrade People's Commissar Molotov and said at an extraordinary congress
        No connection.
        It is interesting, but if England and France listened to the USSR and reconciled with Germany, as the USSR and Germany themselves sought, would they end up with him, like the USSR, the Treaty of Friendship?
        Should they in 1941 start the war against Germany again or should they continue to be friends?
        1. Leonid Anatolevich
          Leonid Anatolevich 19 November 2019 13: 46 New
          -7
          Nowadays, historical science in Russia is experiencing a time of grave desecration. A dude who heard about the Second World War at a beer stall gnawing a ram, (like Sergei Ivanov), goes out in public telling fables about a diplomatic triumph. The creatures would be ashamed of the memory of the dead millions in this Holocaust
        2. Revival
          Revival 19 November 2019 13: 59 New
          +3
          "After the German attack on Poland, England and France declared war on Germany, and the USSR in response concluded a friendship treaty with Germany."
          Are you okay with history, dates?
          That is, you say that after Britain and France declared war on Germany over the attack on Poland, the USSR in response concluded a friendship agreement !?
          Are you a proponent of an “alternative” story?
          Confirm what you wrote with facts or admit that you blurted out just like that (well, you yourself understand the term applicable to this situation)
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 19 November 2019 14: 02 New
            +1
            The non-aggression pact was signed on August 23, and the friendship pact was signed at the end of September, already after the WWII, so that’s all right.
            But all this does not mean anything. VSSSR well understood that the war with Germany was not far off and sought to delay it until the Red Army was brought into proper condition. It's not like a friendship agreement - you sign a love agreement to the grave :) laughing
            1. Avior
              Avior 19 November 2019 14: 32 New
              -2
              And how did the treaty of friendship with Germany delay the attack?
              But how was the attack delayed by the demand for England and France to end their aggressive war against Germany?
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 19 November 2019 14: 55 New
                -1
                The Friendship Treaty unequivocally pointed Germany to the next victim - France, and for Japan - the United States. But in the absence of this agreement, there could be options.
                1. Avior
                  Avior 20 November 2019 10: 19 New
                  -1
                  Details - as he pointed out? Hitler told his comrade-in-arms of the USSR this is a friend, will we not attack him? In fact, it was France who declared war on Germany, and not vice versa, Hitler had no choice.
                  And if there weren’t a friendship agreement, but just a non-aggression agreement, would the Germans attack the USSR?
                  Can you give a link to a verifiable verifiable fact about this?
                  And at the same time explain why the USSR insisted that France and England should end the aggressive war with Germany. How does this fit into your theory?
                  1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 20 November 2019 17: 53 New
                    0
                    Quote: Avior
                    Details - as he pointed out? Hitler told his comrade-in-arms of the USSR this is a friend, will we not attack him? In fact, it was France who declared war on Germany, and not vice versa, Hitler had no choice.

                    You see, political issues need to be looked at more broadly. And deeper.
                    Quote: Avior
                    And if there weren’t a friendship agreement, but just a non-aggression agreement, would the Germans attack the USSR?

                    The question is completely wrong. It should have been set like this:
                    "And if there wasn’t a friendship agreement, but just a non-aggression agreement with Germany, JAPANESE would you attack the USSR? "

                    The question is that at the time of signing the non-aggression pact, the USSR was already participating in a local war with the Japanese. I'm about the Halkin Goal, of course. So, HC had two important aspects
                    1) Despite the victory, HG showed a number of gaping gaps in the preparation of the Red Army
                    2) Despite the peace agreement concluded on 15 on September 1939, it was completely unclear what Japan would do next.
                    Add to this:
                    1) Purely formal warfare by England and France, i.e. "Strange war"
                    2) The general state of world politics pushing Japan into the Berlin-Rome axis
                    In other words, in the USSR the situation is such that France and England declared war only fearing for the honor of their uniform, and are not going to wage it for real. There was no guarantee that Germany would not make peace with them on terms acceptable to herself. And then the USSR faced the real threat of war on the 2 front in conditions when it was not ready for one front either.
                    In general, the USSR was in dire need of a reprieve, which would allow it to put its armed forces in order. The friendship treaty with Germany was supposed to have a restraining effect on Japan, as Germany and Japan were on the verge of an alliance. And at the same time, it was quite obvious that, provided that Hitler was certain that the USSR would not attack, he would turn his armies to France and would not seek a political compromise. And even if it does, it will not attack the USSR, finding it.
                    Quote: Avior
                    And at the same time explain why the USSR insisted that France and England should end the aggressive war with Germany. How does this fit into your theory?

                    The USSR insisted on this because of the customs of diplomacy of those years. If Germany is a friend, then those who fight against it are aggressors and they need to wag their fingers. Well, they threatened :)))
            2. Doctor
              Doctor 19 November 2019 21: 01 New
              0
              But all this does not mean anything. VSSSR well understood that the war with Germany was not far off and sought to delay it until the Red Army was brought into proper condition.


              They would have waited for the storm troopers, tigers, panthers, Me-262, and tactical missile systems with delicious filling.
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 20 November 2019 17: 57 New
                +1
                Quote: Arzt
                They would have waited for the storm troopers, tigers, panthers, Me-262, and tactical missile systems with delicious filling.

                You have made a classic alternate mistake now. They changed the story, but at the same time for some reason decided that for the rest it should go as it went.
                For your information, the Germans did not even think of creating heavy tanks like the Tigers and Panthers until they invaded the USSR. Prior to that, their "heavy" tank was a bit heavier than the T-34 (weighed 30 tons) and was developed at the Shatko Research Institute, the Valko Research Institute. And about missile systems ... You find out in what condition the work was there. Apart from Fau, there weren’t any any effective missile systems there even in 45.
          2. Avior
            Avior 19 November 2019 14: 29 New
            -2
            I am a supporter of objective history
            And instead I wrote has confirmation in open sources
            Only no one reads inconvenient facts, that’s how a person works
            https://ru.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Договор_о_дружбе_и_границе_между_СССР_и_Германией
      2. Avior
        Avior 19 November 2019 13: 30 New
        -6
        Of course, I have no doubt that they won’t refute the facts, they’ll just naminx, this is not the topic where the voice of reason speaks, here all the discussions are about emotions, not facts, facts and what are called facts, then they pull up to emotions who like, but I wrote only because I did not expect from you such a frivolous post.
        hi
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 19 November 2019 13: 51 New
          +3
          Naturally, they will zamusutut, and I will even be the first. Because facts are a thing extremely stubborn, and they irrefutably testify that the non-aggression pact between Germany and the USSR was a consequence of the Munich agreement, according to which Czechoslovakia was presented to Hitler and after which it became clear that neither England nor France would hit a finger for a collective security system in Europe. They blessed the European War with 1938 and refused to see the USSR in their allies. Under these conditions, the USSR simply had no choice.
          Moreover, even such a lover of communism as Churchill speaks of this. But do you need to be holier than the pope?
          1. Avior
            Avior 19 November 2019 14: 07 New
            -5
            The story did not end on August 31 or September 1, 1939.
            All these considerations are possible until this date.
            But the story went on.
            Or are you still certain that England and the USSR were not allies?
            What England and France declared war on Germany?
            And what Germany attacked the USSR you do not know?
            Inconvenient facts, as I see it, you simply ignored.
            But minus rushed.
            Clear
            Threat And you yourself read the Munich Agreement?
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 19 November 2019 15: 07 New
              +1
              But for this if it would be possible - then put two minuses. To put it mildly, you perceive history very strangely. The leadership of the country takes decisions based on the specific situation. So in 1939, England was not nearly an ally of the USSR and could not become one. To do this, they needed to gain in wort, lose their ally France in a month, survive the parliamentary storm and the dismissal of Chamberlain's cabinet. So it should be understood that all this happened in a world where the USSR signed non-aggression treaties and then friendship with Germany. If he had not signed them, history could have gone a completely different way. For you, the story looks so that whatever happens, but in the end the USSR and England are obliged to become allies.
              England and France declared war, but did not fight seriously. And Japan just could not choose in any way whom to attack, the USSR or the USA, and the pact played a considerable political role there.
              Therefore, the facts you have listed are quite convenient for me and completely do not refute everything that I indicated above
              And yes, I read the Munich documents
              1. Avior
                Avior 20 November 2019 10: 44 New
                0
                how you do it easily and simply.
                as soon as the USSR signed a friendship agreement with Germany, concluded a trade agreement with it, and began to demand that they stop aggression against Germany, England and France immediately realized that the USSR was their ally. And before that they doubted.
                Therefore, they declared a war on Germany (but, forgot, they didn’t fight the way you would like them to. But even the USSR demanded to stop such a war, didn’t forget?).
                It is very convenient to replace verified facts with unfounded statements. And then remember more to remember.
                Am I writing something about a pact? The pact needed to be concluded, and this is the right decision. There is a gap between the neutral non-aggression pact and the friendship treaty.
                Again, if you read the text of the Maisky-Sikorsky Treaty, it can be seen that the territorial changes of Poland were provided for not in one treaty of friendship and border with Germany, but also in the second in the non-aggression pact, it is the plural.
                The Government of the USSR recognizes the Soviet-German treaties of 1939 regarding territorial changes in Poland as invalid.

                This is by the way about what was in the pact except non-aggression itself.
                And yes, I read the Munich documents

                and where is it about the "Munich Agreement, according to which Czechoslovakia was presented to Hitler."
                Drop the quote ...
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk 20 November 2019 17: 04 New
                  0
                  Quote: Avior
                  how you do it easily and simply.
                  as soon as the USSR signed a friendship agreement with Germany, concluded a trade agreement with it, and began to demand that they stop aggression against Germany, England and France immediately realized that the USSR was their ally. And before that they doubted.

                  No, it’s so easy and simple for you. I quote
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  So in 1939, England was not nearly an ally of the USSR and could not become one. To do this, they needed to gain in wort, lose their ally France in a month, survive the parliamentary storm and the dismissal of Chamberlain's cabinet.

                  Hence the question - are you sure that you still oppose me, and not someone else? :)))
                  Quote: Avior
                  Therefore, they declared a war on Germany (but, forgot, they didn’t fight the way you would like them to. But even the USSR demanded to stop such a war, didn’t forget?).
                  It is very convenient to replace verified facts with unfounded statements.

                  It is very convenient to attribute to the opponent statements that he did not make and call them unfounded statements. I have quoted the FACTS I quoted above. If you consider them unsubstantiated statements - please refute.
                  Quote: Avior
                  Am I writing something about a pact? The pact needed to be concluded, and this is the right decision. There is a gap between the neutral non-aggression pact and the friendship treaty.

                  Of course. But now I don’t understand why you are falling there :))))
                  The USSR needed confidence that it would not become the object of aggression by Germany and Japan in the near future + technical assistance, since after the Soviet-Finnish west, for the most part, they showed us cookies. Germany needed confidence that the USSR would not take the side of England and France. Both sides received what they needed in the short term - that’s all, in fact.
                  And I do not understand why such an empty formality as the call to end the war excites your imagination so much. This is the usual formal diplomatic action in such circumstances.
                  Quote: Avior
                  Again, if you read the text of the Maisky-Sikorsky Treaty, it is clear that the territorial changes of Poland were provided

                  And what is the problem here?
                  Quote: Avior
                  and where is it about the "Munich Agreement, according to which Czechoslovakia was presented to Hitler."
                  Drop the quote ...

                  Second paragraph
                  All four powers: Germany, the United Kingdom, France, Italy, according to the agreement already reached in principle regarding the assignment of Germany to the Sudeten German region, agreed on the following conditions and forms of this assignment ...

                  They married me without me. The line of fortifications of the Czechs was broken, the German troops - in 30 km from Prague. Moreover, the countries that signed the agreement agreed that the borders of Czechoslovakia after the annexation of the Sudeten are not finite, and may be subject to further changes.
                  The final definition of boundaries will be established by the international commission.
      3. Liam
        Liam 19 November 2019 14: 32 New
        -2
        That is, there is no relationship between the non-aggression pact, the secret protocol and the friendship treaty after the partition of Poland at the end of September ... it just happened so ... the shorts were accidentally donned
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 19 November 2019 15: 09 New
          0
          There is a connection :))) But we are not talking about a connection
          we speak of agreements, but about the reasons for the outbreak of war. And here all these treaties and pacts are only a consequence of Munich
          1. Liam
            Liam 19 November 2019 20: 41 New
            0
            Here's how ... and for Munich this sentiment does not work?)
            You have made a classic logical mistake right now. "After that" does not mean "As a result of this"
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 19 November 2019 20: 59 New
              0
              Quote: Liam
              Here's how ... and for Munich this sentiment does not work?)

              No, it does not work :) And if you knew the story, you would understand why. I can only reread (well, or read, if you suddenly have such a gaping knowledge gap) Winston Spencer Churchill's six-volume, at least the first two volumes. He explained everything in great detail there, and I think you will believe him more than me :)
              1. Liam
                Liam 19 November 2019 21: 08 New
                +1
                Your modesty smiled ... We put ourselves on the same level with Churchill as authorities)
                By the way .. calm down. Thousands of historians around the world believe that the Covenant was the trigger of the 2nd World War. But since you won’t believe me, read 2 volumes from each of these many thousands. I think their position is more justified than your shorts)
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk 20 November 2019 17: 08 New
                  0
                  Quote: Liam
                  Your modesty smiled ... We put ourselves on the same level with Churchill as authorities)

                  Your "ability" to distort the statement of the opponent smiled. When I write that "you do not trust me, read better Churchill, he has more authority for you than me," I, it turns out, put myself on the same level with "Iron Hog" :))))
                  Quote: Liam
                  However .. calm down.

                  What for? I don't seem nervous
                  Quote: Liam
                  Thousands of historians around the world believe that the Pact served as the trigger for the 2 world.

                  Yes, there are thousands, trillions :))))) List a dozen :))))) And yes, you just put them above Churchill - in your opinion, they know better :)))))
                  1. Liam
                    Liam 20 November 2019 19: 43 New
                    -1
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    You just put them above Churchill - they, in your opinion, know better :)))))

                    Firstly, Churchill (along with Bismarck) is the champion of the Russian-speaking Internet on false quotes. And Churchill is not a historian but a politician. So yes, historians will be more objective and Churchill.
                    Secondly. The source of your first freshness of the “arguments” on the topic is one moldy masterpiece of the Soviet agitprop, which was urgently cooked up on the knee when the Allies published the collection. diplomatic documents 'Nazi-Soviet relations, 1939–1941 ”.That was then our answer was born to Chamberlain, whom you have been feeding for 70 years, although you do not know the source. This masterpiece was called:Falsifiers of history. - M.: OGIZ, State Political Publishing House, 1948 .-- 79 p. (Historical note.) Circulation of 500 thousand copies.
                    There you will find all the "arguments" that are almost literally repeated here.
                    Here is a sample from this masterpiece .. find 10 differences as they say:
                    .As in 1918, due to the hostile policies of the Western powers, the Soviet Union was forced to conclude the Brest peace with the Germans, and now, in 1939, 20 years after the Brest Peace, the Soviet Union was forced to conclude a pact with the Germans in view of the same hostile policies of England and France .

                    The talk of all kinds of slanderers about the fact that the USSR should not have allowed itself to make a pact with the Germans cannot be considered otherwise than ridiculous. Why Poland, having allies in the person of England [55] and France, could go to the non-aggression pact with the Germans in 1934, and the Soviet Union, which was in less favorable conditions, could not go to such a pact in 1939? Why could England and France, representing the dominant power in Europe, be able to agree to a non-aggression declaration with the Germans in 1938, and the Soviet Union, isolated thanks to the hostile policies of England and France, could not make a pact with the Germans?

                    Is it not a fact that of all the non-aggressive big powers of Europe, the Soviet Union was the last power that went on the pact with the Germans?

                    Of course, the falsifiers of history and other reactionaries are unhappy that the Soviet Union was able to skillfully use the Soviet-German pact in order to strengthen its defense, that it was able to push its borders far to the west ...
                    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 21 November 2019 17: 07 New
                      +1
                      Quote: Liam
                      Firstly, Churchill (along with Bismarck) is the champion of the Russian-speaking Internet on false quotes. And Churchill is not a historian but a politician. So yes, historians will be more objective and Churchill.
                      Secondly. The source of your first freshness of the “arguments” on the topic is one moldy masterpiece of Soviet agitation prop

                      It is unfortunate that you did not heed my recommendation, but it is your business.
                      Your first mistake. What makes you think that I studied Churchill on quotes in the internet? I read Churchill's six-volume book before the advent of the Internet :)))) It has been translated into Russian for a very long time and is not a bibliographic rarity (according to the 2 volume in the book).

                      You yourself can read it, just drive it into the search engine "World War II" Churchill read online and follow the very first links to the milter.
                      The second one. Churchill, in contrast to the "thousands of historians" to which you refer, was directly involved in those events. He personally communicated with both Molotov and Stalin and knows about politics “a little bit” more than any historians
                      The third. Yes, Churchill, being a politician, can lie or be biased (like thousands of historians, by the way). But the whole problem is that the book was written by him AFTER his famous Fulton speech (do you know what it is?) And politically Churchill had NO ONE reason to whitewash the USSR in his book. But to expose the USSR as a kind of beast in the flesh - had many reasons. And yet, contrary to his political interests, Churchill directly writes that
                      1) The USSR for a long time consistently tried to create a system of European security
                      2) The short-sighted and erroneous policies of France and England led to the fact that all the proposals of the USSR (which Churchill considers sound and reasonable) were ignored.
                      3) The USSR was placed by England and France in conditions when the conclusion of a pact with Germany was the only possible way for the USSR - they simply did not leave any other.
                      And now I repeat my question. Cite at least a dozen of the "thousands of historians" to which you refer :))))))
    2. Alexander Suvorov
      Alexander Suvorov 19 November 2019 12: 28 New
      +4
      Chit
      But he was the first to sign a secret protocol simultaneously with the agreements.
      Do not remind me according to what conspiracy Poland received the Tieszyn region?
      And he became the first state, after the signing of such agreements with Germany, the Second World War began.
      Kolyasurengoy relocate, we stained you ... laughing laughing laughing
      For some reason, no previously signed agreements of other states with Germany led to a world war.
      Do not remind me with whom and when the Second World War began ?! request And at the same time remind me of the date of entry of the USSR into it ... fool
      1. Glory1974
        Glory1974 19 November 2019 13: 05 New
        +1
        Do not remind me with whom and when the Second World War began ?! request And at the same time remind me the date of entry of the USSR into it ..

        The problem is that the USSR, on the basis of its interests, did not blame its post-war ally - Poland, at the beginning of the 2 World War, therefore it did not focus on the Teshinsky region.
        Now Poland has ceased to be an ally and, using official history, makes itself a victim, but not only of Germany, but of the USSR, because it also sent troops into Poland.
        Now Russia should essentially abandon the Soviet view of the beginning of the 2-th World War, and begin to consider it from the moment of the occupation of the Teshinsky region.
        Accordingly, in the eyes of Europeans, Russia is becoming the first candidate for the role of a scribe of history.
        1. Leonid Anatolevich
          Leonid Anatolevich 19 November 2019 13: 32 New
          -8
          The Teshinsky problem came from the First World War, even the very concept of how Czechoslovakia never existed in nature; this country was created by the victors who had concealed this absurdity from the dregs of the Habsburg Empire. And the Sudetenland was crammed into Czechoslovakia by mistake. L. George in his memorandum of March 25, 1919 - “I cannot but see the main reason for the future war in that the German people, who have proved themselves to be one of the most energetic and powerful nations in the world, will be surrounded by a number of small states. many of them could never create stable governments for themselves, and now a lot of Germans will get into each of these states, demanding reunion with their homeland. ”The proposal of the Polish Affairs Commission on transferring 2100 thousand Germans to the people of another religion, the people who, throughout their history, could not prove that they are capable of stable self-government, in my opinion should sooner or later lead to a new war in Eastern Europe. "
          The Russian left is always trying to blame the unleashing of WWII on others - although the stupid Stalin is to blame.
          1. Alexander Suvorov
            Alexander Suvorov 19 November 2019 13: 46 New
            +3
            Leonid Anatolyevich (Leonid Anatolyevich)
            The Russian left is always trying to blame the unleashing of WWII on others - although the stupid Stalin is to blame.
            Where do you get them? Probably in Ukraine open day in all madhouses?
            Is Stalin to blame for the Munich agreement too? And in a strange war? But was Stalin accidentally not to blame for the fall of the Roman Empire?
            1. Leonid Anatolevich
              Leonid Anatolevich 19 November 2019 15: 15 New
              -3
              No need to turn on the fool - your tricks are disgusting
          2. Revival
            Revival 19 November 2019 14: 05 New
            +5
            Explain what you mean.
            Stalin chtoli divided and formed the country on the basis of the 1st world !!?
            Or would you just write something?
            1. The comment was deleted.
      2. The comment was deleted.
  5. DPN
    DPN 19 November 2019 12: 00 New
    +3
    That Russia is profitable on that and must be held on, not paying attention to Shavok, but she must be bored with a stick and punish, nevertheless they know the mongrel only respect the stick.
  6. rocket757
    rocket757 19 November 2019 12: 10 New
    +4
    Nobody wants to admit their mistakes, let alone crimes ... from such gratitude for release you will not wait!
    What to do, what to do .... we will REMIND to everyone different how they behaved in that dashing year.
    Our business is RIGHT and we WIN!
  7. tihonmarine
    tihonmarine 19 November 2019 12: 37 New
    0
    The historian emphasizes such an important thing as the attempts of a number of countries in Eastern Europe to justify collaboration.
    If these snakes in a human guise would not have flirted with Hitler themselves, then there would have been no Molotov-Ribentrop Pact, which was crucial for the USSR at that time. He did not allow Japan to enter the war on the side of Germany, and the USSR fought on only one front.
    1. Leonid Anatolevich
      Leonid Anatolevich 19 November 2019 16: 15 New
      -3
      42 million - isn't it expensive for hugging with the Nazis?
      1. Revival
        Revival 19 November 2019 16: 48 New
        0
        Your reference book seems to be the "black book of communism")))
        1. Leonid Anatolevich
          Leonid Anatolevich 20 November 2019 23: 00 New
          0
          I am a Marxist, I do not have such a frivolous treatment of ideology
  8. Amateur
    Amateur 19 November 2019 12: 44 New
    -2
    There was no Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, and no. there is
    Non-aggression agreement between Germany and the Soviet Union (German: Deutsch-sowjetischer Nichtangriffspakt; - an intergovernmental agreement signed on August 23, 1939 by the heads of foreign affairs agencies of Germany and the Soviet Union,

    There is no need to repeat the anti-Soviet and anti-Russian propaganda cliches “Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact”, “Molotov cocktail”.
    1. Glory1974
      Glory1974 19 November 2019 13: 00 New
      +1
      What’s the difference? In the first case, they are called by the names of the signatories, in the second case, the official name.
    2. tihonmarine
      tihonmarine 19 November 2019 16: 22 New
      0
      Quote: Amateur
      Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, Molotov Cocktail.
      Beautiful names - let all evil spirits know that Molotov was the second person of the state, which was respected throughout the world. Maybe there is a man whose name is given to both the pact and the mixture burning the fascist tanks.
  9. Yury Siritsky
    Yury Siritsky 19 November 2019 13: 11 New
    -1
    Unfortunately, at the time of Gorbachev, it was not without reason that the famous Yakovlev and the rest began to condemn this treaty, giving the start to this race. Ours has generated what we have now.
    1. tihonmarine
      tihonmarine 19 November 2019 16: 23 New
      0
      Quote: Yuri Siritsky
      Unfortunately, during the time of Gorbachev, not without famous Yakovlev and the rest began to condemn this agreement,

      And dozens of "Golovlevy Jews".
    2. KERMET
      KERMET 19 November 2019 20: 34 New
      -1
      They began to condemn not the treaty itself, but allegedly "secret protocols" to it, the originals of which have not been provided by anyone for as long as 30 years winked
  10. Ilya Zaitsev
    Ilya Zaitsev 19 November 2019 14: 23 New
    -7
    The white and fluffy ESESECER did everything fairly and rightly, and all the other kazuls and the cause of all wars, a hundred of us are constantly surrounded by enemies, especially the capitalist exploiters of the entire planet and even Mars, so the people of this country must watch out for spies (THEY CAN BE IN YOUR FAMILY !), tighten their belts, abandon the bourgeois myths of "democracy and all your meat to be ready, as soon as comrade Dzhugashvili calls for example ... a war liberating for the Finns from the" exploiters ", show" they all "oh they resist, put 10 Red Army Yits for one Finn, oh, 2000 tanks were burned! Well, stupid, well, imperialists, well, bourgeois do not understand true freedom through Soviet happy camps, not only for pioneers!)) 9
    1. Ilya Zaitsev
      Ilya Zaitsev 19 November 2019 14: 41 New
      -3
      That's all freedom and the truth, military termination)))
      1. Alexander Suvorov
        Alexander Suvorov 19 November 2019 14: 45 New
        +1
        Ilya Zaitsev (Ilya Zaitsev)
        That's all freedom and the truth, military termination)))
        And what is wrong with freedom in VO? What, you have already been arrested and taken to execution?
        and the truth
        And here you are VERY very excited if you think your vyser is true!
        1. Ilya Zaitsev
          Ilya Zaitsev 19 November 2019 15: 30 New
          -4
          Vyser specifically what?
          Some fact is described in the "You are of the Syral" interpretation ?!
          Well, if history is shamefully built on a fratricidal war, industrialization and collectivization is carried out through bloody violence and with such victims built, the social model flew into the “pipe of history” (although DPRK and CUBA remained as a museum reminder, China and Vietnam became wiser and carried out “non-kosher” communist dogmas of reform) as if without black humor to look at it all.
          There is no war with anyone without a reason, and if you unleash wars, no matter how you “justly” justify them, wait for the war to come to you.
          The Germans, having carefully studied how, due to the "provocations" of the USSR, "was forced to" start a "liberation (take the beauty on Suomi) war, and how the Red Army fought there, they were just convinced that the blitzkrieg would be easier for them than in Europe ... and now, if you imagine the Kwantungskub army, which hit when the Germans were "near Moscow", it would be very worthwhile to express their historical gratitude that they complied with the non-aggression pact until 1945, waiting for the echelons of professional soldiers to send them to hammer .
          Wars, bloodsheds are the same "rake" of constant mistakes when a country, instead of starting with itself building happiness for its people and real results, rather than veiled "truth" and window dressing, tries to show and impose on others "how to build a happy society "!
          1. The comment was deleted.
        2. Ilya Zaitsev
          Ilya Zaitsev 19 November 2019 15: 58 New
          -4
          Vyser specifically what?
          Some fact is described in the "You are of the Syral" interpretation ?!
          Well, if history is shamefully built on a fratricidal war, industrialization and collectivization is carried out through bloody violence and with such victims built, the social model flew into the “pipe of history” (although DPRK and CUBA remained as a museum reminder, China and Vietnam became wiser and carried out “non-kosher” communist dogmas of reform) as if without black humor to look at it all.
          There is no war with anyone without a reason, and if you unleash wars, no matter how you “justly” justify them, wait for the war to come to you.
          The Germans, having carefully studied how, due to the "provocations" of the USSR, "was forced to" start a "liberation (take the beauty on Suomi) war, and how the Red Army fought there, they were just convinced that the blitzkrieg would be easier for them than in Europe ... and now, if you imagine the Kwantungskub army, which hit when the Germans were "near Moscow", it would be very worthwhile to express their historical gratitude that they complied with the non-aggression pact until 1945, waiting for the echelons of professional soldiers to send them to hammer .
          Wars, bloodsheds are the same "rake" of constant mistakes when a country, instead of starting with itself building happiness for its people and real results, rather than veiled "truth" and window dressing, tries to show and impose on others "how to build a happy society "!
    2. Revival
      Revival 19 November 2019 16: 51 New
      -1
      Something you grind, oh yay ..
      It seems to be supposed to write that each Finn laid down 30, and not 2000 tanks like yours, but 73254 Finns were burnt right away.
      1. Ilya Zaitsev
        Ilya Zaitsev 30 November 2019 09: 27 New
        0
        Where and what should be ???
        There are official statistics.
        Finnish army and militia: 25 killed [904]
        43 wounded [557]
        1000 prisoners [7]
        Army of the Red Army: 126 killed and died at the stages of sanitary evacuation, including:
        16 died of wounds and diseases in hospitals,
        39 369 missing
        264 sanitary losses