Why England and France acted in the interests of Hitler and the USA

Why England and France acted in the interests of Hitler and the USA

Handshake of Adolf Hitler and British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain at the Munich Conference (“Munich Agreement”)


"Crusade" of the West against Russia. The behavior of England and France before the start of World War II and at its beginning is difficult to explain. It seems that the British and French are crazy. They did literally everything so that their countries committed suicide in the interests of Hitler and the United States.

The madness of England and France


The behavior of England and France before the start of World War II and at its beginning is difficult to explain. It seems that the British and French are crazy. They condoned Hitler in unleashing a great war in Europe, in every way "appeased" the aggressor, instead of stopping the war in its infancy. Although there were all the possibilities for this - political, economic and military. World war led to the collapse of the British world colonial empire, destroyed the French colonial empire. The war destroyed the economies of two great powers, devastated Western Europe. After the war, Western countries became "junior partners" of the American superpower.

In fact, the Anglo-French themselves are to blame for their defeat. They did not stop the aggressor at the very beginning, contributed to the growth of his power. Hitler indulged in every way. They did not crush the Reich at the very beginning of the war. They struggled to push Germany to Russia, but in the end their game was more primitive than the American, which collected all the cream of war. Obviously, such a fate was not expected in Paris, and especially in London. On the contrary, the British planned to strengthen their position after the World War.

Why did England and France not crush Hitler in 1936-1938?


Allies in the 30s could easily turn the Fuhrer neck. Germany was extremely weak. Hitler knew this, his entourage and generals. In the first years, the Nazis had instead of real strength only militant marches, beautiful banners and speeches. Even in 1939, entering the war with England and France, with a front with Poland, was a suicide for the Third Reich, not to mention earlier operations. The German military themselves knew this and were terribly afraid. They would have easily eliminated Hitler: killed or overthrown. For this, England and France had to show interest and will, give guarantees. However, they needed Hitler, so this did not happen.

As soon as Hitler came to power, he immediately eliminated the consequences of the Versailles agreement on disarmament of Germany. Whereas in 1933 German military expenditures accounted for 4% of the total budget, in 1934 it was already 18%, in 1936 39%, and in 1938 - 50%. In 1935, Hitler unilaterally refused to comply with the provisions of the Treaty of Versailles on demilitarization, introduced universal military service in the country and created the Wehrmacht. In the same year, the Reich, with the consent of Britain, lifted restrictions on naval armaments and began to build a submarine fleet. The widespread construction of combat aircraft began, tanks, ships, other weapons. The country has deployed a wide network of military airfields. At the same time, Britain, France and the United States not only did not prevent the Reich from arming itself, and clearly preparing for a big war, on the contrary, helped in every way. Thus, on the eve of the war, the United States was the main supplier of oil to Germany. Almost half of the strategic raw materials and materials were imported by the Germans from the USA, England and France, their colonies and dominions. With the help of Western democracies, more than 300 large military factories were built in the Third Reich. That is, the West not only did not stop the arms of the Reich, on the contrary, it helped with all its might. Finances, resources, materials. No notes of protest, military demonstrations, which would immediately have enlightened Berlin.

The first step of the Fuhrer to external expansion was the occupation of the Rhine demilitarized zone in 1936. After Versailles, Berlin could not have any fortifications, weapons and troops beyond the Rhine, near the borders with France. That is, the western frontiers were open to the French and their allies. If the Germans violated these conditions, the Anglo-French could occupy Germany. In March 1936, Hitler brazenly violated this condition. German troops occupied the Rhine region. At the same time, German generals were very afraid of this impudent trick of the Fuhrer. The head of the German General Staff, General Ludwig Beck, warned Hitler that the troops would not be able to repel a possible French attack. The same position was held by the Minister of Defense and Commander-in-Chief of the Reich Armed Forces, General Werner von Blomber. When German intelligence discovered the concentration of French troops on the border, von Blomberg begged the Fuhrer to immediately order the withdrawal of units. Hitler asked if the French crossed the border. Having received the answer that they did not, he told Blomberg that this would not happen.

German General Guderian, after the end of World War II, said:

“If you French had intervened in the Rhine region in 1936, we would have lost everything, and Hitler’s fall would have been inevitable.”

Hitler himself said:

“48 hours after the march to the Rhine region were the most exhausting in my life. If the French entered the Rhine region, we would have to retreat with their tails tightened. The military resources at our disposal were inadequate even for moderate resistance. ”

At Blomberg's disposal there were only four combat-ready brigades. The Wehrmacht itself in Germany appeared only after the operation on the Rhine, when the Führer ordered the urgent formation of 36 divisions, but they still had to be created and armed. For comparison: Czechoslovakia had 35 divisions, Poland - 40. Aviation the Reich had virtually none. For the operation, three weak understaffed fighter regiments were scraped together (there were hardly 10 combat-ready aircraft in each). France could mobilize 100 divisions within a few days and easily kick the Fritz out of the Rhine region. And then force to change the government and remove the Fuhrer. The German military themselves would have eliminated Hitler. However, in Paris, the position of financiers prevailed, who were afraid of a deep financial and economic crisis (the situation was difficult) in the event of a full-scale mobilization and war. The military also took a cautious stance. And England in parliament was dominated by pro-German insistence. Like, the Germans took their toll, you can’t fight. "Public opinion" advocated "peacekeeping." Therefore, London put pressure on Paris to keep the French from abrupt movements.

Thus, if at this moment, when Hitler’s meager forces crossed the Rhine, the French and British would respond with a powerful military demonstration, there would be no world war and tens of millions of dead. Not the collapse of the British and French empires. Hitler's aggressor state was destroyed in the bud. However, Paris and London turned a blind eye to aggression (as well as to subsequent ones). Hitler was not punished.

Further Reich aggression


It was also possible to put an end to the weak Third Reich during the second major crisis - in 1938, when Hitler set his sights on Austria and the Sudeten region of Czechoslovakia. Moscow during this period did its utmost to create a system of collective security in Europe. But the British constantly and persistently broke it, which ultimately caused a terrible massacre. Stalin then wisely offered the French and British: let's give joint guarantees to Czechoslovakia and Poland. In the event of German aggression, Poland and Czechoslovakia were supposed to miss the Red Army for a war with Germany. And France and England had to give obligations to create the Western Front against Hitler. Paris and London did not go for it. Like Poland. They did not want to see Russians in the center of Europe. Realizing that Hitler was being pushed to the East and could not come to an agreement with the West, Stalin went on a pact with the Reich in August 1939. As a result, Stalin achieved the main thing: World War II began as a clash between the imperialist Western powers. But Russia for some time remained on the sidelines, to substitute the Russians, as in 1914, Britain did not immediately succeed.

In March 1938, England and France turned a blind eye to the Anschluss of Austria (How England gave Hitler Austria) In September 1938, the Munich Agreement was signed on the transfer of the German Empire to the Sudetenland of Czechoslovakia. London and Paris deepened their grave again. The German generals were in a panic from the Fuhrer and very afraid of war. They were sober and smart people, they knew the whole depth of Germany's weakness and did not want a repetition of the 1918 disaster. Even the chief of army intelligence (Abwehr) Admiral Canaris played against Hitler. He kept in touch with Britain. On the eve of the Czechoslovak crisis, German generals wanted to stage a coup and overthrow the Führer. However, the British did not support this idea. German generals were ready to make a coup in 1939, but they were not supported again.

At the time of the Sudeten crisis, the western border of the Reich was bare. The French army could occupy the Ruhr - the industrial heart of Germany with one throw. So far, the Czechs, who received political and military support from France and the USSR, would have fought on their fortified lines. In the East, the Soviet Union opposed the Reich. Germany could not immediately fight with Czechoslovakia, France and the USSR. However, the French and British gave Hitler to devour Czechoslovakia, did not enter into an alliance with the USSR and did not support the military conspirators in Germany itself. That is, it was possible not to fight at all, only to provide organizational and moral support to the German conspirator generals, and Hitler was eliminated.

Thus, the West with its own hands unprecedentedly strengthened Hitler. An indisputable authority has been created for him. They inspired faith in the German people and the army in his genius. Many of the conspiratorial generals of yesterday became loyal servants of the regime.


British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, Italian Prime Minister Benito Mussolini, Chancellor Adolf Hitler and French Prime Minister Eduard Daladier before signing the Munich Agreement on the transfer of the Sudetenland, which was part of Czechoslovakia, Germany. To the left of Chamberlain is the Reich Minister of Aviation, German Field Marshal German Goering. September 29, 1938

Missed opportunities to crush Hitler


Another opportunity to strangle Hitler was in France and England in March 1939, when the Reich dismembered and occupied Czechoslovakia (How the West surrendered Czechoslovakia to Hitler), Klaipeda-Memel. Hitler had no pact with Russia yet. The Soviet Union could create the Eastern Front. The Wehrmacht was still weak. Czechoslovakia, with the approval of the Western powers, could still resist. But Western Europe again went to the "pacification" of the aggressor. "

Even in September 1939, England and France could still end Hitler with relatively little blood and quickly. All combat forces of the Reich were connected by the Polish campaign. From the western direction, Germany was practically bare - there were no strong defensive lines, there were secondary reserve parts, without tanks and aircraft. Again, the Ruhr was almost defenseless. A great moment to end the German Empire is a blow to the military-industrial and energy heart. But the British and French begin a “strange” war ("The strange war." Why England and France betrayed Poland) In fact, they calmly wait until the Germans beat the Poles. They “bombed” Germany with leaflets, played football, tasted wines, and fraternized with German soldiers. Later, German military leaders admitted that if the Allies at that moment came forward while the Germans fought in Poland, then Berlin would have to ask for peace.

England and France committed suicide. They did not destroy the obviously warlike and aggressive Hitler regime; they missed a few favorable moments for the defeat of the Reich. Paris and London first helped Hitler arm himself to the teeth, fed part of Europe to him, provoked the Fuhrer to further captures, hoping that soon the Germans would again clash with the Russians.

In the spring of 1940, Hitler again found himself in a difficult situation. On the Western Front, he is opposed by the armies of France and England, which rely on a powerful defensive line. Hostile Belgium and Holland have not yet been occupied, Denmark, Norway, Luxembourg, the Balkan countries are free. German underwater fleet there is no free exit to the Atlantic. The British fleet can easily block the weak German Navy. The Western powers have the opportunity to cut off the Reich from sources of strategic resources and materials. Anglo-French are preparing a landing operation in Scandinavia. The German generals are still not satisfied with the war launched by the Führer. There are no resources for a long war, again the threat of a crushing collapse.

Under these conditions, Hitler begins an operation to seize Norway. The Western powers receive timely data on preparations for the capture of Norway. However, the Anglo-French are delaying the issue of the landing of their troops in Scandinavia. England and France have a powerful combined fleet, that is, they can simply melt German transport with landing units and destroy the German Navy. As a result, Hitler suffers a terrible defeat, loses access to iron ore, which can lead to a military conspiracy and coup. But the allies miss this chance. At the last moment they postpone their landing, and the Germans are ahead of them quite a bit.

England and France had a chance to stop Hitler even in May 1940. They get Berlin's secret plans to defeat the allies of Holland, Belgium and France. The Germans were about to break through to the sea through the Ardennes and cut off a large group of enemy troops in Belgium. The Allies knew the exact start date for the German offensive. And again inaction and apathy. Hitler gets the opportunity to conduct a new “blitzkrieg”, the Wehrmacht takes Paris. The positions of the Fuhrer in Germany and Europe become steel.

As a result, it turns out that England and France acted in the interests of Hitler and the United States. They did literally everything to elevate Hitler, create the authority of a genius and the great invincible leader, and gave almost all of Europe. They surrendered almost without a fight even to France. The national interests of the French and British were donated in favor of the interests of supranational financial capital (with a major base in the United States), which relied on the outbreak of a new world war. International financial capital (“world backstage”, “golden elite”, etc.), which included royal families, the high aristocracy of the Old World, financial houses, united in a network of orders and Masonic lodges, subjugating the country's special services, was able to paralyze, to deprive the will of the ruling circles of England and France. At the same time, many representatives of the British and French elites themselves worked to establish a “new world order”. The national interests of Great Britain, England, Germany, and the United States themselves, were indifferent to them. And the hosts of the West saw the main enemy as the Stalinist USSR. Therefore, Hitler was allowed to create his own "European Union" in order to throw him at Russia. For the Russians, who dared to create an alternative to the Western slave-owning world, begin to build their own fair world order. Russian (Soviet) globalization.


French Prime Minister Eduard Daladier (second from right) and his cabinet are returning from the Champs Elysees on September 2, 1939 after the decision on general mobilization. The next day, September 3, 1939, England and France declare war on Germany


British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain welcomes the crowd at the official residence on 10 Downing Street in London on the day of the declaration of war on Germany. Behind Chamberlain is his personal parliamentary secretary, Alexander Douglas-Hume, Lord Danglas
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Uncle lee 2 March 2020 06: 15 New
    • 6
    • 2
    +4
    After the war, Western countries became "junior partners" of the American superpower.
    This is called - we went through the coat, and returned shorn ... They outwitted themselves!
    1. Olgovich 2 March 2020 07: 17 New
      • 8
      • 7
      +1
      Quote: Uncle Lee
      This is called - went for wool, and returned shorn ..

      They didn’t go anywhere themselves.

      Their great brazen, bold and strong spirit.

      author: Behavior of England and France before the start of World War II and at its beginning hard to explain. It seems that the British and French are crazy. They condoned Hitler in unleashing a great war in Europe, in every way "appeased" the aggressor, instead of stopping the war in its infancy.
      In fact, the Anglo-French themselves to blame for their defeat.

      Of course, they themselves are to blame.

      But it is easy to explain: does a person, taking a drag on a cigarette, not understand that he will probably live less?

      . As well as the fact that in order to avoid this, you have to give up small things: just don’t smoke?
      Understands. He understands everything!

      But you have to give up today, which you really don’t feel like, but tomorrow .... Tomorrow will be only tomorrow and also, and maybe it will cost ... recourse

      The French Angles needed to suffer today's small losses — for mobilization, demonstration, input, some real losses and inconvenience, but they categorically did not want this and tried to avoid it.

      Did they understand the terrible risk? Understood, of course. But-did not want understand...

      Even after the outbreak of war on September 1 1939 g more almost 2 days France and England ..... did not declare war on Hitler!
      They carried on with him ... negotiations, trying again, with yet another Munich, to pacify him and ... agree!

      And with what relief they received the liberation campaign of the Red Army on September 17, 39 even the war did not declare the USSR and took its position! Now the USSR, after all, bordered on Germany and, possibly, took it upon itself ...

      Today they cry the opposite, but you can’t throw out the facts, then they completely agreed with the position of the USSR yes
      1. ser56 5 March 2020 18: 22 New
        • 2
        • 1
        +1
        Quote: Olgovich
        They carried on with him ... negotiations, trying again, with yet another Munich, to pacify him and ... agree!

        Great War casualties called for caution request
    2. Orel 2 March 2020 07: 29 New
      • 10
      • 14
      -4
      I fundamentally disagree with the estimates in the article, they are superficial and based more on political shows than on a real assessment of historical documents and the spirit of the times. To soberly assess the situation, you must always proceed from one moment: you do not know the future and imagine that now is the end of the 30s of the twentieth century. You wake up in the morning and take the morning newspaper in the USSR, Germany, England and the USA. These newspapers can be found, read at least a month's issues and it will become very clear why this all happened. The West acted only in its own interests in Europe, in the United States at that time there was an isolationist policy and no one was particularly interested in Europe. In Europe, on the contrary, the problem of "peace" was key, since they survived the First World War - the bloodiest at that time in human history and were ready for anything to prevent a new one, and Hitler played on this, what about the USSR? At this time, you can’t call our policy and newspaper issues anti-Western, they are openly hostile, so any contemporaries’ arguments that the West did not listen and did not believe and did not agree with the USSR look strange, and we didn’t want to come to an agreement, this is all in hindsight came up after. Soviet newspapers are full of issues as we prepare to liberate the whole world from the capitalists, moreover, by military means or by organizing revolutions in other countries. Inconvenient fact? Of course, however, everyone has forgotten about this today. This is brief, and you can talk for hours, I have been studying this topic for many years, it’s not at all what our official authorities say, the truth is much more uncomfortable for the USSR and Russia than is customary officially speaking, unfortunately, however it is.
      1. strannik1985 2 March 2020 07: 39 New
        • 8
        • 5
        +3
        the truth is much more uncomfortable USSR and Russia

        Interestingly, and you only studied the slogans in the newspapers?
        Nothing that the influence of the USSR on international politics is near-zero? For example, the Germans and Italians intercept Soviet merchant ships following to Spain, France closes the border with Spain, delays the already paid weapons and BT for the Republicans, the reaction of the USSR?
        You are not at all embarrassed that the position of the “strongly powerful” USSR in Czechoslovakia in 1938 was simply ignored?
        1. Orel 2 March 2020 08: 00 New
          • 3
          • 8
          -5
          Quote: strannik1985
          Interestingly, and you only studied the slogans in the newspapers?


          If you seriously want to talk, write to the PM, I don’t have enough characters here to answer you, I can’t prove anything to those who do not have the same information as I, and this is normal, we assess the situation from the knowledge that we have, when I, too, was of the opinion that "we are the most innocent," but everything turned out differently
          1. strannik1985 2 March 2020 08: 06 New
            • 8
            • 5
            +3
            Inability / unwillingness to argue their position is your problem, not mine. If you do not want to talk, why did you write the first message?
            1. Orel 2 March 2020 09: 57 New
              • 1
              • 7
              -6
              Quote: strannik1985
              Inability / unwillingness to argue their position is your problem, not mine.


              A brief argument is given, study the newspapers for a start at least, sometimes "they sow the rational, the good, the eternal"

              Quote: strannik1985
              If you do not want to talk, why did you write the first message?


              It’s impossible to “tell” you everything that I managed to find out on the problems of the Second World War for many years, I just hope that someone will want to figure it out himself and start digging further than the “official history textbook” and talk shows on state channels)
              1. strannik1985 2 March 2020 10: 10 New
                • 8
                • 2
                +6
                A brief argument is given

                Can newspaper graphomaniacs somehow comment on the GS assessment about a possible conflict with Poland in 1936? The Poles, subject to the provision of military-technical assistance from the Allies, were given 6 months to resist. Six months against the USSR one on one. Moreover, in the same period (20-30th years), a plan for the evacuation of industry was developed and prepared, and bases were laid on its territory and trained personnel for organizing the partisan movement.
                Impossible

                So far, your argument comes down to the headlines of unnamed newspapers. Will there be something else?
                1. Orel 2 March 2020 10: 20 New
                  • 4
                  • 9
                  -5
                  Quote: strannik1985
                  So far, your argument comes down to the headlines of unnamed newspapers. Will there be something else?


                  Will it be so that you get the feeling that someone is lying to you from official channels, read the history of the creation of the Stalingrad Tractor Plant, over the years and then think about how this could happen? About some new metallurgical production in the Urals in the 30s? Who did all this? For some reason, it was created for the USSR by the capitalists and the West that you hate, and you can also read about the organization of American assistance during the famine in the Volga region, and even according to modern estimates, they saved more than one million people, maybe my or your ancestors. The story that we are taught is not the story that was, but this one that is written, who needs to be glorified, about whom it is necessary to remain silent or what ...
                  1. strannik1985 2 March 2020 10: 25 New
                    • 8
                    • 3
                    +5
                    Will

                    Explain the connection between the construction of a tractor factory in Stalingrad, the construction of which the USSR paid for with money, and the world revolution, which really threatened someone with the USSR?
                    1. Orel 2 March 2020 11: 06 New
                      • 2
                      • 8
                      -6
                      Quote: strannik1985
                      Explain the connection between the construction of a tractor factory in Stalingrad, the construction of which the USSR paid for with money, and the world revolution, which really threatened someone with the USSR?


                      The USA then looked at the world as something far away that didn’t concern them, so they simply traded with everyone, including Germany, or you put the USA at fault that they did not know that Hitler would become a monster in the future ? After all, no. The United States did not feel the threat from the USSR, far, but Europe did, especially since the army of the USSR was simply huge and not a single country in Europe could feel safe. It's me that you immediately turned off any anti-Americanism from the entire Second World War and everything that was before that. This is no small incident. By the way, the entire US army before the war - 3 divisions were. After that, open the map of Europe then and look at things realistically, from the position of a politician from Finland, Poland, Germany, England, France, the USA, you have a Hitler upstart who plays on the feelings of German nationalists and promises a great Empire, but militarily that's all Germany, in all respects, is weaker than the West (on paper) and the USSR (which has the most powerful and numerous armed forces in the world, has an anti-capitalist policy and is stronger than anyone on paper) Who do you consider to be the greatest threat to you ???
                      1. strannik1985 2 March 2020 11: 22 New
                        • 9
                        • 5
                        +4
                        USA then looked at the world

                        It seems to me you read the newspapers of that time. If you are not aware of the United States, including the guarantor of the implementation of the Versailles Accords, which require reparations to be paid, it is forbidden to have a full-fledged army, navy, etc., etc. So, on all this, the Americans, including, scored amicably, until the suffocated, militarily, grew into the monster-Third Reich. He, the Reich, was made strong, pumping up money according to the Dawes / Jung plan, giving him war in Spain, surrendering the Rhine region, Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland. And you are here about the "threat of the USSR" broadcast. It’s ridiculous.
                      2. Orel 2 March 2020 11: 35 New
                        • 3
                        • 8
                        -5
                        You can not underestimate the power of public opinion, especially in the United States, although it is difficult for a Russian person to understand, even sometimes impossible, after all, one person usually decides, therefore it is also difficult for you to figure out that public opinion in the USA is sometimes more important if people aren’t there want to join the war, then no agreement will force them, Roosevelt had to spend a lot of time to persuade society to his side and enter the war, and in our country it is presented as a "strangeness", of course, when in our country the war is by the will of one start a person tsya, all of these "democracies" seem to us to be juvenile and betrayal, but we just don’t understand)
                      3. strannik1985 2 March 2020 11: 53 New
                        • 7
                        • 5
                        +2
                        Do not underestimate the power of public opinion.

                        Are you seriously? This American people was for the abolition of reparations ??? Incidentally, in the midst of the Great Depression. Of course, why the money in the budget, let the Germans better put it into the business laughing
                      4. Orel 2 March 2020 12: 05 New
                        • 1
                        • 5
                        -4
                        Quote: strannik1985
                        Are you seriously? This American people was for the abolition of reparations ??? Incidentally, in the midst of the Great Depression. Of course, why the money in the budget, let the Germans better put it into the business


                        If correctly explained, then nothing surprising and funny, cornered can start a war
                      5. strannik1985 2 March 2020 12: 57 New
                        • 5
                        • 2
                        +3
                        If correctly explained

                        So what's the problem? Explain.
                        While I see the owl pulling on the globe.
                      6. Orel 2 March 2020 13: 41 New
                        • 1
                        • 3
                        -2
                        Quote: strannik1985
                        While I see the owl pulling on the globe.


                        As long as I see that you have no desire to study history further, it is enough for you that you already know what to continue with?)
                      7. strannik1985 2 March 2020 13: 50 New
                        • 5
                        • 2
                        +3
                        While i see

                        Dear opponent, reluctance / inability to argue your position is your problem, not mine.
                        And so, the USSR officially, at the level of doctrine, abandoned the idea of ​​a world revolution in 1925. What newspaper headlines did you follow in attributing the USSR’s aggressive stance towards other countries in the 20s and 30s?
                      8. Orel 2 March 2020 14: 40 New
                        • 0
                        • 6
                        -6
                        None. Even your question is strange. I pointed out to the newspapers how it’s easiest for you to start studying history further, and so, newspapers are an indicator of political sentiments at the top of the USSR, because even dictatorial states need to prepare people for confrontation, that’s what they are preparing, anti-Western sentiments are clear, it means they were preparing for a war with them, it’s just stupid to argue with that. And the rest - these are historical documents of the archives of Germany, ours, England and the USA. I can’t rewrite all the documents for you, it’s impossible, study it yourself, if you want to prove the opposite to me, I’ll only be glad
                      9. Orel 2 March 2020 14: 43 New
                        • 0
                        • 6
                        -6
                        Quote: strannik1985
                        And so, the USSR officially, at the level of doctrine, abandoned the idea of ​​a world revolution in 1925.


                        He did not refuse anything, the Comintern, intelligence, support for communists around the world. Facts do not tolerate any "failure".
                      10. strannik1985 2 March 2020 15: 47 New
                        • 4
                        • 2
                        +2
                        Data

                        Such policies were carried out by more or less serious countries, for example, Franco was supported directly by Italy and Germany, England, France, and the United States indirectly.
                        Tell me in which country, after 1925, the USSR organized a coup?
                      11. Orel 2 March 2020 15: 49 New
                        • 0
                        • 6
                        -6
                        Quote: strannik1985
                        Tell me in which country, after 1925, the USSR organized a coup?


                        Does this prove anything? I can prepare coups in all countries and not succeed anywhere, what do you think will mean that I didn’t try to do this?)))) You have funny logic, of course))) There was support for regimes, there were also pro-communist parties in the world . The Comintern and its successor did this at the state level.
                      12. strannik1985 2 March 2020 15: 50 New
                        • 4
                        • 1
                        +3
                        Does this prove anything?

                        Your thesis about the fault of the USSR refutes. Not prepared and not carried out. Not before that.
                      13. Orel 2 March 2020 15: 51 New
                        • 0
                        • 3
                        -3
                        Quote: strannik1985
                        Your thesis about the fault of the USSR refutes.


                        Strange logic ...
                      14. Orel 2 March 2020 15: 52 New
                        • 0
                        • 3
                        -3
                        I’ll write to you in PM in more detail, there the dialogue will not be lost, it will be more interesting
                      15. strannik1985 2 March 2020 15: 55 New
                        • 5
                        • 2
                        +3
                        No, write here. Do you blame the USSR for open access? Why do I need your letters in PM?
                      16. Orel 2 March 2020 16: 09 New
                        • 0
                        • 3
                        -3
                        So you are interested in listening to arguments or in these "footcloths" for a walk? I’m basically uncomfortable here, you’re not the only one to write, then you can’t find the ends anymore
                      17. strannik1985 2 March 2020 16: 15 New
                        • 4
                        • 2
                        +2
                        You started to blame here or in PM? If you are uncomfortable / unpleasant / uninteresting, etc., why write?
                      18. Orel 2 March 2020 16: 17 New
                        • 0
                        • 3
                        -3
                        So you wrote to me for some reason, and now make a claim)))))) I expressed my opinion
                      19. strannik1985 2 March 2020 16: 19 New
                        • 3
                        • 2
                        +1
                        The third time I repeat, your unwillingness / inability to argue your own point of view is your problem, not mine.
                        In essence, will there be a conversation?
                      20. Orel 2 March 2020 16: 27 New
                        • 0
                        • 6
                        -6
                        Quote: strannik1985
                        In essence, will there be a conversation?


                        About what? Do you want to show off your knowledge? If you write seriously that the Allies did not fight Germany until 1940, then what can we talk about? You don’t even know about the confrontation during the “strange war”, there were bombings, confrontations at sea, Denmark and Norway, there was a land strategy to rely on the Mageno Line, which was fairly impregnable and quite logically hoped that Germany would hit in the forehead, exhausted and it can be taken with little blood, because Benelux countries were neutral, but Hitler turned out to be more cunning, and you are sure that these are all the machinations of the West against the USSR, which can be argued about, as if I’m watching TV now, everything that you say regularly there in bolt talk show propagandists
                      21. strannik1985 2 March 2020 16: 50 New
                        • 5
                        • 2
                        +3
                        About what?

                        No, I want to finally find out what the aggressive policy of the USSR was expressed before the negotiations of the summer of 1939.
                        We will still have time to talk about the fulfillment of the allied duty in relation to Poland in September 1939 wink
                      22. Orel 2 March 2020 18: 51 New
                        • 0
                        • 6
                        -6
                        Quote: strannik1985
                        No, I want to finally find out what the aggressive policy of the USSR was expressed before the negotiations of the summer of 1939.


                        Massive preparations for war, the buildup of offensive weapons, aggressive rhetoric, periodic urgent proposals and hints about concluding mutual assistance agreements with neighboring countries (in fact, consent to a voluntary occupation). And later there were joint parades with Hitler’s troops, trains with strategic raw materials along with telegrams from Molotov on the occasion of Germany’s capture of another European capital, and at the same time German bombs fell on London. We love to say that we fought and won alone, but some fought, just not us, but England, almost a year, alone, if not counting overseas territories, then there was one country, Lend-Lease later spun up. Therefore, from a historical point of view, there are claims to everyone, to the allies, the reluctance to fight and the readiness of the world on virtually any conditions, Poland has only become the last straw, and we have the Winter War, the Baltic States, cooperation with Hitler already during the war, although here you can argue, the thing is controversial
                      23. strannik1985 2 March 2020 19: 59 New
                        • 3
                        • 2
                        +1
                        The parade is a lie.
                        Aggressive "rhetoric" was expressed in non-aggression treaties, for example, they signed with France in 1932, and mutual assistance in 1935.
                        All countries were preparing for war.
                        England occupied the Danish colony of Iceland and was one day late with the landing in Norway.
                        In general, a long-known set of anti-Soviet campaigns.
                        And how much pathos was laughing
                      24. Yury Siritsky April 5 2020 12: 43 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        You, my friend, are dumb as a tree, and therefore repeat the stupidities of modern liberals.
      2. strannik1985 2 March 2020 16: 02 New
        • 4
        • 2
        +2
        Dear opponent, points 1 and 2 happened after the Moscow talks in 1939, when the so-called allies openly expressed their unwillingness to fight with Germany.
        What was paragraph 3 expressed in?
      3. Orel 2 March 2020 16: 13 New
        • 0
        • 3
        -3
        Quote: strannik1985
        Dear opponent, points 1 and 2 happened after the Moscow talks in 1939, when the so-called allies openly expressed their unwillingness to fight with Germany.
        What was paragraph 3 expressed in?


        Are you talking about?
  2. Fat
    Fat 7 March 2020 00: 43 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: Orel
    Quote: strannik1985
    Tell me in which country, after 1925, the USSR organized a coup?


    Does this prove anything? I can prepare coups in all countries and not succeed anywhere, what do you think will mean that I didn’t try to do this?)))) You have funny logic, of course))) There was support for the regimes, there were also pro-communist parties in the world . The Comintern and its successor did this at the state level.

    If I want all the stars of the world to bed .... I honestly tried ... But some .... were pretty sweet .... sometimes for the money ...
    PS. After 1925, the country didn’t fool anyone. Industry recreated. How could she ....
  3. ser56 5 March 2020 18: 24 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Quote: strannik1985
    And so, the USSR officially, at the level of doctrine, abandoned the idea of ​​a world revolution in 1925.

    and the Cominter dismissed? laughing
  4. strannik1985 6 March 2020 14: 34 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    and the Cominter dismissed?

    And in which countries did KIM organize a coup from 1925?
    Germany and Italy, the absence of its "Comintern", for example, did not prevent to support the coup in Spain.
  5. ser56 6 March 2020 16: 03 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    Quote: strannik1985
    And in which countries of KIM

    KIM is the Communist International of Youth ... a subsidiary of the Comintern ... bully
  6. Nikolai Korovin 7 March 2020 00: 53 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Yes, it’s hard to understand when someone is engaging in betrayal and betrayal that it’s just very democratic. By the way, when Hitler returned the Rhine region, the Ruhr was still far from the Ruhr that he became in a few years. Americans traditionally funded. The First World War, as you know, was very intensively financed by J.P. Morgan. Even in court for this in the states fell. Well, the American court is also very fair and humane. The story repeated itself. By the way, until 1939, the United States intensively supplied Japan with military materials, while it captured China and accumulated forces to attack the USSR. Khalkhin-Gol and the beginning of the war in Europe, the audience was a bit sober. The Japanese were offended and held a grudge against the treacherous Yankees, who suddenly blocked off their oxygen. But the Soviet Union did not dare to attack. The states are far away, and the Russians - suddenly somehow move to the islands? What to do? It turned out, however, a little vice versa. Yes, historians are underestimated after all by Khalkhin-Gol and why Comrade. Zhukov became the main.

    Personally, I do not understand how you can ignore the obvious facts. How could the USSR influence the politics of England and France, coupled with Poland and Czechoslovakia? The negotiations of 1939 in Moscow clearly showed - nothing. Take only the composition of the Anglo-French delegation at these important negotiations and evaluate that this Scottish bagpipe was brought to Moscow on a cargo and passenger parachute for as little as two weeks - in such a hurry as everything becomes absolutely clear. Just spat in the face of Comrade Stalin, Molotov and Voroshilov - wipe off. Talk to our vice admiral without authority.
  7. ccsr 7 March 2020 10: 10 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Quote: Nikolai Korovin
    How could the USSR influence the politics of England and France, coupled with Poland and Czechoslovakia? The negotiations of 1939 in Moscow clearly showed - nothing.

    That was just so - we were simply ignored and it is surprising that we still managed to achieve something in foreign policy, playing on the contradictions of other countries. An example of this is the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact - it really was a very favorable agreement for us, which is why it is so hated by everyone who wants to cheat Soviet history.
  8. The comment was deleted.
  9. Octopus 2 March 2020 14: 18 New
    • 3
    • 2
    +1
    Quote: strannik1985
    guarantor of the implementation of the Versailles Accords

    No.
    The USA are not related to Versailles. Wilson was unable to sign Congress on it; all his amateur performances were his personal reprise.
  10. strannik1985 2 March 2020 15: 45 New
    • 1
    • 3
    -2
    No

    Yes, in August 1921 the United States entered into a separate treaty with Germany, almost identical to Versailles.
  11. Octopus 2 March 2020 16: 01 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    Quote: strannik1985
    a separate treaty is almost identical to Versailles.

    Exactly what is separate. The states were not the guarantor of the Versailles system; they had separate bilateral relations with Germany.
  12. strannik1985 2 March 2020 16: 17 New
    • 1
    • 2
    -1
    Do not tell me, according to this agreement, Germany could refuse to pay reparations at any time convenient for itself? Similarly with the creation of the draft army, navy, etc. ???
  13. Nikolai Miracles 2 March 2020 18: 36 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    On February 27, 1936, the Chamber of Deputies of the French parliament finally ratified the Soviet-French agreement on mutual assistance. 353 deputies voted for ratification, 164 against.
    On March 7, 1936, Germany occupied the demilitarized Rhine zone. The German government demagogically stated that in connection with France's ratification of the agreement on mutual assistance with the USSR, it was not obliged to comply with the terms of the 1925 Locarno Treaty. If the French government had used force against the presumptuous German military, then Stalin would simply have waved a hand to the French: “You yourself attacked. Goodbye,” ---- this is what he did on November 30, 1939. That is, I had to choose between an agreement with the USSR and the restoration of the status quo in the Rhine region.
    The mutual assistance treaty obligated France to wait for Germany’s unprovoked attack on the USSR and only then attack it. But Germany did not have a common border with the USSR and could not attack. So Poland should have been occupied. Thus, the Soviet-French treaty was fully consistent with Hitler's plans.
    Question: What did the Kremlin think when they entered into such an agreement?
  14. strannik1985 2 March 2020 20: 04 New
    • 0
    • 2
    -2
    If the French government

    At the time of the occupation of the Rhine region in the Reichswehr 21 divisions, this is the maximum at that time, in the French NE more than a hundred.
    Moreover, in the case of a tough answer, a great coup will take place, Hitler’s generals will eat up.
  15. Nikolai Miracles 2 March 2020 20: 17 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    And France will ruin the agreement with the USSR.
  16. strannik1985 2 March 2020 20: 23 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    This did not happen at all from fear of the Reichswehr / Wehrmacht.
  17. Nikolai Miracles 2 March 2020 20: 27 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Under the Treaty, France could use force against Germany only in response to its attack on the USSR. Otherwise, Stalin will say: "You yourself attacked. Goodbye."
  18. strannik1985 3 March 2020 05: 32 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    Under contract

    Nicholas, to repulse the German "aggression" of France, no ally, at that time, is needed. Generally.
  19. Nikolai Miracles 3 March 2020 17: 23 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    The "growth" treaty, in the future, when Germany occupies Poland. Up to this point, the agreement is still valid and it is forbidden to attack Germany first France, if Germany has not yet attacked the USSR.
  • Alexey RA 2 March 2020 16: 45 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Quote: strannik1985
    Can newspaper graphomaniacs somehow comment on the GS assessment about a possible conflict with Poland in 1936? The Poles, subject to the provision of military-technical assistance from the Allies, were given 6 months to resist. Six months against the USSR one on one.

    Hehehehe ... the funniest thing in the USSR of the 30s was the zero correlation of the hypothetical course of the future war in official propaganda and in official planning. As Melia wrote, Marshal Voroshilov could calmly broadcast from the rostrum about "in a foreign land we will defeat the enemy with little blood, a mighty blow"and, having left the rostrum, sign documents on the expansion of areas to be evacuated at the outbreak of war. smile
    Simply put, the war was not officially planned at all, which was broadcast in propaganda.
    1. ccsr 2 March 2020 19: 17 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Quote: Alexey RA
      Simply put, the war was not officially planned at all, which was broadcast in propaganda.

      Quite right - the reality in the 30s was the program of creating an agent network in the abandoned territory and creating secret bases for storing weapons and property for partisan detachments. Unfortunately, before the war, this activity was almost completely curtailed, but in August 1941 the first partisan detachments began to fight against the Germans. And the third line of the UR, which was planned to be built in the Rzhev - Vyazma area during 1941-1942. says that our leadership understood where it might be necessary to fight. So slogans are one thing, and real action is another.
      1. ser56 5 March 2020 18: 26 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        Quote: ccsr
        already the first partisan detachments began to fight against the Germans.

        I strongly recommend Starikov’s memoirs - according to him, he was not allowed to deploy a real subversive war on the railway ... request
        1. ccsr 5 March 2020 20: 08 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          Quote: ser56
          I strongly recommend Starikov’s memoirs - according to him, he was not allowed to deploy a real subversive war on the railway ...

          The old men were not alone at that time, and he was not the only one to leave his memoirs. There is evidence of how much guerrilla data was thrown into the rear of the Germans in August 1941 - study the report of the head of the Western Front RO on August 4, 1941, which indicates that only from the beginning of the war they transferred 17 partisan detachments totaling 469 people and 29 small sabotage groups, with a total number of 255 people.
        2. ser56 6 March 2020 13: 21 New
          • 0
          • 1
          -1
          Quote: ccsr
          The old men were not alone at that time, and he was not the only one to leave his memoirs.

          then they didn’t read ...
        3. ccsr 6 March 2020 13: 51 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          Quote: ser56
          then they didn’t read ...

          I read for a long time, and not only that, I read not only his memoirs on this subject since I also had to deal with modern realities.
        4. ser56 6 March 2020 16: 02 New
          • 0
          • 1
          -1
          Quote: ccsr
          I read for a long time

          then they forgot that his proposals for a massive mine war on the railway were ignored until 43g ...
        5. ccsr 6 March 2020 19: 25 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          Quote: ser56
          then they forgot that his proposals for a massive mine war on the railway were ignored until 43g ...

          They could have “ignored” his opinion for a more prosaic reason - there were not enough specialists, and even the communication and delivery of equipment for partisan detachments was problematic, if only because the Red Army did not have enough for everyone in the first two years of the war. I am always cautious about such statements by veterans, if only because at that time they did not have the information that was needed to understand all the problems of the army in order to assess what was important at that time.
  • kalibr 2 March 2020 12: 03 New
    • 6
    • 7
    -1
    Vladimir! This cannot be explained to Bach’s deaf fugue - a person wrote to you that he read newspapers of that time. Me too - here on this topic was not one of my articles. And I can confirm - he is right. And you just need to take and read “Truth” too, at least, at least ... slogans. But the navel will be untied, right?
    1. strannik1985 2 March 2020 13: 09 New
      • 3
      • 4
      -1
      And you only need

      Ok, read the headlines. wink It turns out that the doctrine of building socialism in a particular country was adopted in 1925, the chief apologist of the world revolution in 1927 was removed from all posts, sent to exile, sent in 1929 from the country, and deprived of USSR citizenship in 1932. That is, not only does the USSR not, he does not want to. Attention to the question, what headings did you read?
      1. kalibr 2 March 2020 18: 26 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: strannik1985
        Attention to the question, what headings did you read?

        Vladimir, here on the site there are enough of my articles on archival materials and newspaper materials, with photocopies of texts. Go to the profile and see is not difficult.
        1. strannik1985 2 March 2020 20: 07 New
          • 0
          • 1
          -1
          Dear opponent, if you are not able to argue your own point of view here, these are your problems.
  • ser56 5 March 2020 18: 24 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Quote: strannik1985
    Nothing that the influence of the USSR on international politics is near-zero

    and why? like RI had an influence and a fleet to support this influence ... even after the REV ...
    Quote: strannik1985
    in Czechoslovakia in 1938 just ignored?

    or maybe they remembered the Brest Peace? repeat
  • Olgovich 2 March 2020 11: 03 New
    • 4
    • 5
    -1
    Quote: Orel
    In Europe, on the contrary, the problem of "peace" was key, since they survived the First World War - the bloodiest at that time in the history of mankind and were ready for anything to prevent a new one, Hitler played on this,

    This is yes.
    Quote: Orel
    what in the USSR? At this time, you can’t call our policy and newspaper issues anti-Western, they are openly hostile, so any contemporaries’ arguments that the West didn’t listen and disbelieve or agree with the USSR look strange. and did not want negotiate it's all in hindsight came up with after.

    What is invented?

    USSR joint defense initiatives well known and you can’t cut them down in any way - to protect the Czechs, joint defense, etc.
    There is even a Treaty with France of 1935.

    We wanted something sincerelybut they didn’t believe in us one iota and were afraid a little less than Germany, and precisely because of the tasks of the International, which was in Moscow ..
    1. Orel 2 March 2020 11: 27 New
      • 2
      • 5
      -3
      Quote: Olgovich
      We really wanted to, but we did not believe in one iota and were afraid a little less than Germany, and precisely because of the tasks of the International, which was in Moscow ..


      That’s the problem with this, I see from all historical documents that if the Red Army entered some country, even by agreement, it wouldn’t come out of there any more, and any government that would decide to raise such a question would be replaced, the price of collective security from Hitler was equal to strengthening the USSR just to an astronomical scale, our army was already the strongest in the world, and then also give the half of Europe to the Red Army, this is utopia, there was no reality in these negotiations initially, it my subjective opinion, the truth is not pretend
      1. Olgovich 2 March 2020 12: 05 New
        • 4
        • 5
        -1
        Quote: Orel
        This is the problem, I see from all historical documents that if The Red Army entered a country, even by agreement, then it would not have left it

        “WOULD NOT” cost anything.

        But what was feared is a fact
        Quote: Orel
        the price of collective security from Hitler was equally strengthening the USSR just to an astronomical scale

        Not equal, for this there are negotiations, counterbalance systems, etc.
        It was necessary to try, especially since there was no alternative and still had to negotiate, but in much worse conditions ....
        1. Orel 2 March 2020 13: 30 New
          • 2
          • 3
          -1
          Quote: Olgovich
          “WOULD NOT” cost anything.


          The Baltic States did not agree with you in 1940, the collective security treaty was essentially on paper, the result is known

          Quote: Olgovich
          It was necessary to try, especially since there was no alternative and still had to negotiate,


          Nobody then knew what would happen, you make a typical mistake, you can’t talk about historical facts based on your knowledge of what happened then, and you judge the West as if he knew what would happen, nobody knew then, the USSR was not afraid on an equal footing , and ten times more if you want, therefore it’s serious to offer a couple of millions of soldiers to come in, well, it’s unlikely that it would be clearer, let's now deploy a couple of millions of NATO soldiers to protect against terrorism, I think the comparison is not very, but you essentially about this judge europe in t s conditions
          1. Olgovich 2 March 2020 13: 38 New
            • 2
            • 5
            -3
            Quote: Orel
            The Baltic States did not agree with you in 1940, the collective security treaty was essentially on paper, the result is known

            The Baltic states are a completely different “essence”. Like Bessarabia.
            Quote: Orel
            Nobody then knew what would happen, you make a typical mistake, you can’t talk about historical facts based on your knowledge of what happened then, and you judge the West as if he knew what would happen, nobody knew then

            Don't be silly: to know the future, you just need to know the past.

            And the past, WWI, was well known
            Quote: Orel
            The USSR was not feared on an equal footing and ten times more

            Nonsense - no one knew what to fear, there was no precedent.
            Quote: Orel
            Now, to protect against terrorism, we’ll host a fleet of millions of NATO soldiers, I think the comparison is not very good, but you basically judge Europe for that in those conditions

            inappropriate comparison.
            1. Octopus 2 March 2020 14: 24 New
              • 3
              • 3
              0
              Quote: Olgovich
              Nonsense - no one knew what to fear, there was no precedent.

              Just Poland, and the Baltic states, and Finland perfectly understood what they were dealing with. And they understood correctly, as subsequent events showed. The Germans (from Finland) left in the 44th, the Russians are still sitting (in Vyborg).
          2. Fat
            Fat 3 March 2020 01: 20 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            Quote: Orel
            Quote: Olgovich
            “WOULD NOT” cost anything.


            The Baltic States did not agree with you in 1940, the collective security treaty was essentially on paper, the result is known

            Quote: Olgovich
            It was necessary to try, especially since there was no alternative and still had to negotiate,


            Nobody then knew what would happen, you make a typical mistake, you can’t talk about historical facts based on your knowledge of what happened then, and you judge the West as if he knew what would happen, nobody knew then, the USSR was not afraid on an equal footing , and ten times more if you want, therefore it’s serious to offer a couple of millions of soldiers to come in, well, it’s unlikely that it would be clearer, let's now deploy a couple of millions of NATO soldiers to protect against terrorism, I think the comparison is not very, but you essentially about this judge europe in t s conditions

            By 1935, the RKKA infantry troops formed the basis of the USSR Armed Forces and its main striking force. Their staff was about 394 thousand people
            Basically, these were not personnel divisions, but territorial and "mixed * according to the principle of formation of troops ..
            The strongest army, huh ... If all this good was mobilized, then the whole army would increase by 70-75%.
            And where to get this power in a couple of millions?
            1. ccsr 3 March 2020 12: 41 New
              • 3
              • 1
              +2
              Quote: Thick
              The strongest army, huh ... If all this good was mobilized, then the whole army would increase by 70-75%.
              And where to get this power in a couple of millions?

              For some reason, the opponents do not want to notice this, as well as the fact that even if you increase it by two or three times, it will still be sky-ready formations and units, because the command staff of all levels will be missed. And a few more years of peacetime will require that the newly recruited staff will be trained and coordinated units capable of at least somehow resisting the armies that have combat experience, as was the case in the Wehrmacht on the eve of the attack on the USSR.
            2. ser56 5 March 2020 18: 30 New
              • 1
              • 1
              0
              Quote: Thick
              394 thousand people

              Germans have a total of 110 in the Reichswehr request and we still have cavalry, moto and tank brigades ... even the mechanized corps is already ...
              1. Fat
                Fat 5 March 2020 19: 27 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: ser56
                Quote: Thick
                394 thousand people

                Germans have a total of 110 in the Reichswehr request and we still have cavalry, moto and tank brigades ... even the mechanized corps is already ...

                1. Reichswehr was formed on the principle of hiring. 110 professionals.
                2. The length of the borders of the USSR and the German state is slightly different, don’t you?
                On March 3.16, 1935, the German armed forces were created on the basis of the Reichswehr, universal military service was again introduced in the country (the “Wehrmacht Construction Law”), which was a gross violation of the Versailles Treaty. From this moment on, the old names "Reichswehr", "Reichsmarine", etc. are not used. According to the "Law on the construction of the Wehrmacht," the number of divisions was supposed to increase to 36, and the total number of land army - to reach 500 thousand people.
                1. ser56 6 March 2020 13: 20 New
                  • 0
                  • 2
                  -2
                  Quote: Thick
                  According to the "Law on the construction of the Wehrmacht," the number of divisions was supposed to increase to 36, and the total number of land army - to reach 500 thousand people.

                  look at the statistics of the growth of the Red Army in these years - be surprised ... request
                  Quote: Thick
                  110 professionals.

                  in the Red Army in 1937 there were only medium and higher commanders of 240! Or are they not pros for you? request
                  1. Fat
                    Fat 6 March 2020 14: 40 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Quote: ser56
                    in the Red Army in 1937 there were only medium and higher commanders of 240! Or are they not pros for you?

                    Sergei. If we only take into account the Reichswehr ... By the time of Rem's death in 1934 there were 3 members in the SA + Stahlhelm 000 front-line soldiers - this is a "mobile reserve", recruit personnel officers as much as you need ... Ah, yes ... 000 SS
                    The Luftwaffe was formed on March 9, 1935, the Panzerwaffe's “birthday” is October 15, 1935 ... 1937 the end of April, the Condor legion turns Guernick into rubble ...
                    OKV organized in February 1938
                    So, there is nothing to be surprised at, I cannot even assume that nothing was done in the USSR over the years. However, the difference in approaches to the principles of the formation of troops among military experts led to the "Tukhachevsky Case"
                  2. ser56 6 March 2020 16: 00 New
                    • 0
                    • 2
                    -2
                    Quote: Thick
                    Sergei. If we only take into account the Reichswehr ... By the time of Rem's death in 1934, there were 3 members in the SA + Stahlhelm 000 front-line soldiers - this is a "mobile reserve", recruit personnel officers as much as you need

                    one would think that in the USSR there was neither Osoviahim, nor the Komsomol, nor the veterans of 1MV and GV?
                    let's look the same ... request
                    Quote: Thick
                    Oh yes ... 50000 SS

                    BB and PV NKVD boom to consider? repeat
                    Quote: Thick
                    March 9, 1935 formed by the Luftwaffe, the "birthday" of the Panzervaffe - October 15, 1935

                    and the Red Army Air Force has long been on the wing, the Red Army TiMVs have not only brigades, but also mechanized corps .. request
                    and most importantly - the cavalry corps, in the cavalry divisions of which tank regiments ... soldier
                    Quote: Thick
                    However, the difference in approaches to the principles of the formation of troops among military experts led to the "Tukhachevsky Case"

                    truth as old as the world - the executioners of GV cannot lead troops in a conventional war ... request
                  3. Fat
                    Fat 6 March 2020 16: 47 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    I’m not trying to challenge your words. But the formation of the Wehrmacht is a clear connivance of the British and French and Italians, who, only after the aggression in Abyssinia, began to lean toward an alliance with the Reich ...
                    The Olympic Games in Berlin are generally a masterpiece of Nazi propaganda ... De Coubertin himself ... Was fascinated ... and only 2 countries for political reasons announced a boycott (Lithuania and Spain)
                    Since the fall of the Weimar Republic, the USSR has not had direct contractual relations with Nazi Germany, only "business" ...
                    But the fact that old Europe was pushing Hitler east in buns and kicks is an undeniable fact.
                    The pact for Europe was a shock, forcing to stop dreaming about an ideal world "for many generations" ... Without Soviets.
                  4. Fat
                    Fat 6 March 2020 17: 27 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Quote: ser56
                    one would think that in the USSR there was neither Osoviahim, nor the Komsomol, nor the veterans of 1MV and GV?
                    let's look the same ...

                    Sergey, Removskoye SA seriously competed with the Reichswehr on the rights to establish the imperial armed forces. Rem stupidly not mastered. Blomberg outplayed him, for which he became Field Marshal.
                    Brown SA defeated the Jews and all dissent ... Osoaviahim was not noted in the actions. He prepared the fighters, yes ...
                    From 1925 to 1933 in flight and tank schools and German officers the same thing ... one of the "joint" schools, I remember was in Lipetsk (pilots), the Kama tank school near Kazan ...
                    From 1933 to 1939 there was no military-technical cooperation
                  5. ccsr 6 March 2020 19: 39 New
                    • 2
                    • 1
                    +1
                    Quote: ser56
                    let's look the same ...

                    Well, let's look, especially from the point of view of mastering the technique of a simple German and a simple Soviet person. By the beginning of the Second World War, almost all Germans of military age had a good knowledge of household appliances and were constantly confronted with railways, cars, and even civil aviation. But the veteran of the Second World War, who on the eve of the war participated in Krenkel’s expeditions and was involved in the radio communications of our remote areas, told me that for the first time people heard Moscow’s voice only in the thirties, and it was a miracle for them. You just can’t imagine that a huge part of our country did not see railways, vehicles, many technical means at all, and the education was not very high. And you think that you can equally evaluate these people and Germans in terms of training in military affairs? Nothing like that, not to mention that the territory and climate of Germany is much more favorable for the training of troops, which is why they were able to prepare better command personnel for the lower level of the army. And this is only a small part of why your “equally” will be too one-sided, if you do not take into account many of the nuances of then life in our country. And from my own experience - I came across draftees in the seventies who did not know how to use the telephone exchange of telephone exchanges, because they first saw him alive in the army. And you undertake to judge about that time ...
                  6. Fat
                    Fat 6 March 2020 21: 45 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Quote: ccsr
                    I came across draftees in the seventies who did not know how to use the telephone exchange of telephone exchanges, because they first saw him alive in the army. And you undertake to judge about that time ...

                    I came down from the mountains for salt in an emergency did not come across ... The wrong troops. However, when I was my civilian ... And not such shots met. Two years was enough to get into civilization. Do not stagger, exactly get sad
                  7. ccsr 7 March 2020 10: 02 New
                    • 1
                    • 1
                    0
                    Quote: Thick
                    I came down from the mountains for salt in an emergency did not come across ...

                    We didn’t have such, and there was a selection, but just sometimes recruits from such remote places came across that it was not necessary to be surprised.
                    Quote: Thick
                    Two years was enough to get into civilization.

                    For two years, of course, they became different people, which is why many did not want to return to their native lands, preferring to go to the limiters or to the Ministry of Internal Affairs system, where they willingly took them.
                2. ser56 7 March 2020 15: 46 New
                  • 1
                  • 1
                  0
                  Quote: ccsr
                  especially from the point of view of mastering the technique of a simple German and a simple Soviet person.

                  but let's look at 1MB - with education it was even worse ... hi However, the RIA fought quite worthy! Maybe the officers of the RIA were better than the commanders of the Red Army?
                3. ccsr 7 March 2020 18: 51 New
                  • 1
                  • 1
                  0
                  Quote: ser56
                  but let's look at 1MB - with education it was even worse ...

                  Then the weapons were more primitive, although even then it took a long study to make an intelligent fighter out of the peasant.
                  Quote: ser56
                  Maybe the officers of the RIA were better than the commanders of the Red Army?

                  So the officers of the RIA just trained officers of the Red Army, so that the continuity was at all levels. I think that the difference was more likely due to lack of education, because the tsarist officers had a better primary education than their students from the working and peasant circles, who often only had a central vocational school behind them.
                  By the way, my father told me about his uncle, who grew up in the village and was called to serve in the Life Guards Hussar Regiment in the lower ranks somewhere in the late 19th century. For several years of service in Tsarskoye Selo, he received such an education there that when he quit, he was immediately hired by some official in the large city of Vyatka province, but I think that he had letters of recommendation. My father, who had become an officer before the Great Patriotic War, always said that he was a very educated man by the standards of that time - this is how soldiers were taught in the tsarist army.
                4. ser56 8 March 2020 15: 19 New
                  • 0
                  • 3
                  -3
                  Quote: ccsr
                  Then the weapons were more primitive,

                  Seriously? bully nothing has changed in the rifle units (Mosin’s rifle and Maxim’s machine gun), practically the same in artillery, but these are the most massive troops .. The RIF fought much better than the RKKF. As for the pilots and tankers, the first ones were also in the RIA and fought well, except for the tankers - so ordinary, junior and middle command staff of the Red Army MV was quite - until the moment when Zhukov did not ditch the troops by reorganization ..
                  Quote: ccsr
                  So the officers of the RIA just trained officers of the Red Army, so that the continuity was at all levels.

                  wrong - the bulk of the former officers in the Red Army destroyed in the early 30s in the case of Spring ...
                  Quote: ccsr
                  I think that the difference was more likely due to lack of education,

                  who interfered with getting at least a secondary education in the 20 years between wars, for example, the GKZh? he had enough time for 2 wives ... Maybe such requirements were to the command staff - devotion to the SV? For the peasants to be shot ... request
                  Quote: ccsr
                  tsarist officers had better primary education

                  Are you serious? even the cadet corps is a secondary education ... request
                  Quote: ccsr
                  this is how soldiers were taught in the tsarist army.

                  What prevented this from being done in the Red Army?
                5. ccsr 8 March 2020 18: 35 New
                  • 2
                  • 1
                  +1
                  Quote: ser56
                  Seriously? nothing has changed in the rifle units (Mosin rifle and Maxim's machine gun),

                  You forgot that the appearance of armored vehicles required other skills in training fighters, at least in terms of the use of armor-piercing rounds and grenades, or for example, the ability to count on shooting paratroopers.
                  Quote: ser56
                  until the time when Zhukov did not ditch the troops by reorganization ..

                  This is a reorganization - tell us more in detail, and why Zhukov killed everything.
                  Quote: ser56
                  err - the bulk of the former officers in the Red Army destroyed in the early 30s

                  Well, not everyone was destroyed, even if Shaposhnikov was led by the General Staff for many years.
                  Quote: ser56
                  Maybe such requirements were to the command staff - devotion to the SV? For the peasants to be shot ...

                  Complete nonsense, given that Tukhachevsky was shot, apparently did not take into account his ability to suppress the uprising.
                  Quote: ser56
                  Are you serious? even the cadet corps is a secondary education

                  Before entering a cadet or cadet school, they received a higher school education.
                  Quote: ser56
                  What prevented this from being done in the Red Army?

                  Lack of funds for the maintenance of the army, so we had to reduce training programs for all categories of personnel.
                6. ser56 10 March 2020 13: 47 New
                  • 0
                  • 5
                  -5
                  Quote: ccsr
                  at least in terms of the use of armor-piercing rounds and grenades, or for example, the ability to count on shooting paratroopers.

                  sucking problems out of your finger? bully Let me remind you that the RIA was preparing infantry for a battle with cavalry - this is more difficult ...
                  Quote: ccsr
                  This is a reorganization - tell us more in detail, and why Zhukov killed everything.

                  the formation of 21 MK in the spring of 1941, according to the GKZh directive, .. well-coordinated units were pulled apart, the new ones did not have time to form, there were no resources, no drugs, no equipment ... request Why did the GKZh modestly repent of his memoir ... hi
                  Quote: ccsr
                  Well, not everyone was destroyed, even if Shaposhnikov was led by the General Staff for many years.

                  about 3000 senior and senior officers, well-educated, with military experience and patriots, were destroyed and driven out of the Red Army ... there were crumbs ... they were not enough in 1941 for a normal fight against the Wehrmacht ...
                  Quote: ccsr
                  Complete nonsense, given that Tukhachevsky was shot, apparently did not take into account his ability to suppress the uprising.

                  1) I will refrain from evaluating your posts ... bully
                  2) Tukhachevsky climbed into the struggle for power and was cleaned up.
                  3) I recall that the GKZH suppressed the uprising in the Bryansk region, where it advanced, although it could have been killed ... read his memoir ...
                  Quote: ccsr
                  Before entering a cadet or cadet school, they received a higher school education.

                  1) the building is not a school - the level of general education is approximately equal to the gymnasium ...
                  2) this is not all primary education, as you put it ... request
                  Quote: ccsr
                  Lack of funds for the maintenance of the army, so we had to reduce training programs for all categories of personnel.

                  ridiculous ... found money for thousands of tanks and planes, but not for the formation of command personnel? bully Moreover, not so much money is needed to train 40 average commanders per regiment - one class ... request I expressed a hypothesis earlier, why! hi
                7. ccsr 10 March 2020 17: 11 New
                  • 1
                  • 2
                  -1
                  Quote: ser56
                  Let me remind you that the RIA was preparing infantry for a battle with cavalry - this is more difficult ...

                  Harder than with tanks? - Oh well...
                  Quote: ser56
                  the formation of 21 MK in the spring of 1941, according to the GKZh directive, ..

                  It was a decision on Zhukov, and the government of the country - catch the difference? And Zhukov could not plan it, because this document was prepared in 1940, when Zhukov was the commander of the KOVO.
                  Quote: ser56
                  about 3000 senior and senior officers, well-educated, with military experience and patriots, were destroyed and driven out of the Red Army ... there were crumbs ... they were not enough in 1941 for a normal fight against the Wehrmacht ...

                  I don’t argue with this - indeed, firewood was broken then, but, for example, the destroyed chief of the General Staff of the General Staff, Proskurov, was from a working-class family, so not only tsarist officers were repressed then.
                  Quote: ser56
                  the corps is not a school - the level of general education is approximately equal to the gymnasium ...

                  Learn how he became a guard officer of Trubetskoy - he described in detail how the training process was organized in the tsarist army for officers, where not all officers had a cadet corps, but had a normal gymnasium education.
                  Quote: ser56
                  ridiculous ... found money for thousands of tanks and planes, but not for the formation of command personnel?

                  That's why Tukhachevsky suffered when they realized what he had done with the arms of the Red Army. So the “power struggle” was attributed to him - so then it was characteristic of such processes.
                8. ser56 11 March 2020 13: 37 New
                  • 1
                  • 5
                  -4
                  Quote: ccsr
                  Harder than with tanks? - Oh well...

                  decided to run? bully
                  Quote: ccsr
                  It was a decision on Zhukov, and the government of the country - catch the difference?

                  demagoguery ...
                  Quote: ccsr
                  because this document was prepared in 1940, when Zhukov was the commander of KOVO.

                  Whose signature is under the directive? bully
                  Quote: ccsr
                  destroyed chief of RU General Staff Proskuro

                  are you closer to the Chekists? repeat
                  Quote: ccsr
                  really then broke firewood,

                  it is called differently - the main criterion for a career was the devotion to SV! For a while they paid attention - collectivization! The Red Army was the basis of the regime and the suppression of the uprisings of the people! Therefore, they removed competent patriots and replaced them with masons - executioners a la Tyulenev, whom the Romanians beat in 41g ... request
                  Quote: ccsr
                  Study

                  Do you have to give me advice? bully you have RIA officers with primary education after corps and gymnasiums ... bully
                  Quote: ccsr
                  and had a normal gymnasium education.

                  and Shaposhnikov after a real school, so what?
                  Quote: ccsr
                  That's why Tukhachevsky suffered when they realized what he had done with the arms of the Red Army

                  Well, it’s strange to discuss with you - about education, about types of weapons ... bully
                9. ccsr 11 March 2020 13: 53 New
                  • 1
                  • 2
                  -1
                  Quote: ser56
                  Whose signature is under the directive?

                  What directive and on the basis of what was it developed - can you say? Whose signature is the first - specify.
                  Quote: ser56
                  Therefore, they removed competent patriots and replaced them with masons - executioners a la Tyulenev, whom the Romanians beat in 41g ...

                  Tell these tales to someone else, and it’s clear to me that it’s not for you to judge how and why such replacements took place at that time, especially since many were expelled from the army for specific misconduct.

                  Quote: ser56
                  and Shaposhnikov after a real school, so what?

                  And the fact that you simplistically represent the process of training officers in the tsarist army, brandishing a cadet corps, as if this was the only element of primary education for officers of that time.
                  Quote: ser56
                  you about education, you about the type of weapons ...

                  You apparently were not given to understand that it was precisely the leap in the development of new weapons that required the enlistment of officers who did not receive primary education in the cadet corps, but in ordinary gymnasiums or real schools.
                  Quote: ser56
                  decided to run?

                  Is it from you? Not funny.
                10. ser56 11 March 2020 15: 41 New
                  • 1
                  • 5
                  -4
                  Quote: ccsr
                  What directive and on the basis of what was it developed - can you say? Whose signature is the first - specify.

                  Tymoshenko and Zhukov
                  Quote: ccsr
                  but it’s clear to me that it’s not for you to judge

                  what emotions, instead of factology ... bully
                  Quote: ccsr
                  as if it were the only link

                  Lying is bad! Do not quote me about this? fool
                  Quote: ccsr
                  that elementary education received not in cadet corps, but in ordinary gymnasiums or real schools.
                  Well, I don’t see the point of discussing - you have problems with terms ... negative
                  Quote: ccsr
                  Is it from you?

                  from the heart of the question! hi
                11. ccsr 11 March 2020 18: 50 New
                  • 1
                  • 2
                  -1
                  Quote: ser56
                  Tymoshenko and Zhukov

                  Firstly, you did not give a link to the Directive, and it is not clear how it appeared, because it could appear as a consequence of the instructions of the government of the country. And secondly, Tymoshenko is personally responsible for this Directive, because he is a senior boss. Do you know anything about the rules of the army to accuse Zhukov of publishing it?

                  Quote: ser56
                  Well, I don’t see the point of discussing - you have problems with terms ...

                  Maybe I have a problem with the terms, but you then pervert the essence of obtaining the knowledge of officers in the tsarist army.
                  Quote: ser56
                  from the heart of the question!

                  This is your dream.
                12. ser56 12 March 2020 09: 47 New
                  • 1
                  • 5
                  -4
                  Quote: ccsr
                  Firstly, you did not give a link to the Directive, and

                  you have high self-esteem ... bully
                  Quote: ccsr
                  secondly, Tymoshenko is personally responsible for this Directive, because he is a senior boss.

                  you have a problem with knowing the rules - signatories respond! GKZH was not an adjutant ... By the way, he even admits this in his memoir hi

                  Quote: ccsr
                  Maybe I have a problem with the terms, but you then pervert the essence of obtaining the knowledge of officers in the tsarist army.

                  I can wait for a quote from me? otherwise you are lying to me and showing your own ignorance ... request primary education after corps / gymnasium ... bully
                  Quote: ccsr
                  This is your dream.

                  By no means laughing
                13. ccsr 12 March 2020 16: 53 New
                  • 1
                  • 2
                  -1
                  Quote: ser56
                  GKZH was not an adjutant ...

                  He was a deputy people's commissar, and there were several of them. By the way, by the level of influence on Stalin, Zhukov was far from at the forefront among the highest military.
                  Quote: ser56
                  you have a problem with knowing the rules - signatories respond!

                  A lie - the senior chief is responsible, and the signature of the second person is usually formal in nature, because in the army there is one-man management, and the person who published it is responsible for the directives.
                14. ser56 13 March 2020 11: 23 New
                  • 1
                  • 5
                  -4
                  Quote: ccsr
                  and the second person’s signature is usually formal,

                  I'm too lazy to repeat the basics of office work ... bully
                  I hope the essence, i.e. the defeat of tank troops before the Second World War you heard ... request
                15. ccsr 13 March 2020 11: 52 New
                  • 1
                  • 2
                  -1
                  Quote: ser56
                  I'm too lazy to repeat the basics of office work ...

                  Have they themselves created at least one serious document, or have they made general representations after they have been brought?
                  Quote: ser56
                  those. the defeat of tank troops before the Second World War you heard ...

                  Why are you doing this?
                16. ser56 13 March 2020 12: 02 New
                  • 1
                  • 5
                  -4
                  Quote: ccsr
                  Have they themselves created at least one serious document, or have they made general representations after they have been brought?

                  the transition to personality gives out the absence of arguments ... request Do you want to measure the appendages? bully
                  For example - the IVS directives in the Second World War were signed not only by him - probably Vasilevsky or Antonov were just extras ... soldier
                  Quote: ccsr
                  Why are you doing this?

                  Have you already lost the thread topic? bully however the flood went - good luck!
                17. ccsr 13 March 2020 12: 14 New
                  • 1
                  • 2
                  -1
                  Quote: ser56
                  For example - the IVS directives in the Second World War were signed not only by him - probably Vasilevsky or Antonov were just extras ...

                  They were the developers of such directives, that's why they signed so that later it was clear who to ask for misses with such directives. Against the background of Stalin and the Politburo in the then hierarchy, Vasilevsky was not such a big boss, although he held a responsible post.
                18. ser56 13 March 2020 14: 57 New
                  • 1
                  • 5
                  -4
                  Quote: ccsr
                  They were the developers of such directives, that's why they signed,

                  Quote: ccsr
                  A lie - the senior boss answers, and the signature of the second person is usually formal in nature,

                  samoporka went ... bully
                19. ccsr 13 March 2020 18: 49 New
                  • 1
                  • 2
                  -1
                  Quote: ser56
                  samoporka went ...

                  Only in your imagination - no one claims that Vasilevsky led to the Victory in the Great Patriotic War, but for some reason they say that Stalin did it. And all the blunders are not hanged on Vasilevsky, but on Stalin - so it’s like you, that non-commissioned officer widow, who you are carving yourself.
                  By the word "developer" means in the military environment only that it is a performer who receives instructions from the boss - you are not in the subject here either.
                20. ser56 14 March 2020 16: 13 New
                  • 1
                  • 5
                  -4
                  Quote: ccsr
                  only in your imagination -

                  I am too lazy to quote you further with mutually exclusive provisions ... request
                21. ccsr 14 March 2020 16: 18 New
                  • 1
                  • 1
                  0
                  Quote: ser56
                  I'm lazy

                  Apparently not to such an extent as not to knock the clueless keyboard.
                22. ser56 14 March 2020 16: 26 New
                  • 1
                  • 4
                  -3
                  Quote: ccsr
                  Apparently not to such an extent as not to knock the clueless keyboard.

                  1) Yesterday in Yesterday, 14:57 p.m. I quoted your remarks, from which it is clear that you do not have a position, but you can! In response - from you demagogy for another reason ... To discuss with a similar subject - do not respect yourself ... request
                  2) I am having fun over your "intellect" from the barracks, no more ... then went a frank flood, I end on this thread - do you want that, write to the PM hi
                23. ccsr 14 March 2020 16: 50 New
                  • 1
                  • 1
                  0
                  Quote: ser56
                  Yesterday in Yesterday, 14:57 I brought your statements, from which it is clear that you do not have a position, but you can!

                  You're lying - you just pull out some of my phrases, and give them your meaning, and not what I put into them.
                  Quote: ser56
                  To discuss with such a subject is not to respect yourself ...

                  Nevertheless, continue to put pressure on Claudia.
                  Quote: ser56
                  I'm having fun with your "intellect"

                  For God's sake, your homegrown attempts to be branded as an “intellectual” are also ridiculous to me.
                  Quote: ser56
                  want what, write to the PM

                  Too much honor to write to you in PM.
  • Red Bogatyr 9 March 2020 17: 33 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    The RIF fought noticeably better than the RKKF.
    especially in the Far East laughing
  • ser56 10 March 2020 13: 53 New
    • 0
    • 4
    -4
    Quote: Red Hero
    especially in the Far East

    1) be surprised - yes! Compare the losses of the RIA in the REV against the Japanese! And the loss of the Red Army against the Japanese on Hassan and HG!
    2) Do you mean Hassan? OR 1945? The latter is not correct - the Red Army defeated the Wehrmacht!
  • Red Bogatyr 9 March 2020 18: 16 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    However, the RIA fought quite worthy!
    "Great retreat" does not mean anything ???
  • ser56 10 March 2020 13: 50 New
    • 0
    • 4
    -4
    Quote: Red Hero
    Great retreat "doesn’t mean anything ???

    Compare Doku retreated RIA and to where the Red Army! hi And the losses of the Germans in the first 6 months of 1 and 2 MB, and compare with the losses of the RIA and the Red Army ... you will learn a lot ... wink
  • ccsr 2 March 2020 12: 19 New
    • 9
    • 0
    +9
    Quote: Orel
    that if the Red Army entered a country, even under a treaty, it wouldn’t leave it already,

    This is a propaganda stamp, which is easily refuted by the fact that our troops, albeit in limited numbers, were in China before the Great Patriotic War, in Iran, as well as post-war events, at least in relation to Yugoslavia, Romania, Bulgaria, Port Arthur and later exit of our troops from Austria.
    Quote: Orel
    , our army was already the strongest in the world,

    I understand that you are a prisoner of newspaper information, but in fact the state of the Red Army in the second half of the thirties was not at all what you think it was, and it manifested itself well in Finnish. I think that you too believed in the slogan "The Red Army is stronger than all", but you even have no idea about the true state of our armed forces.
    1. Orel 2 March 2020 13: 34 New
      • 2
      • 4
      -2
      Quote: ccsr
      I understand that you are a prisoner of newspaper information, but in reality the state of the Red Army in the second half of the thirties was not at all what it seems to you, and this manifested itself well in Finnish.


      I am a prisoner of state archives, TsAMO, foreign affairs, the Wehrmacht, the English Library and the Library of Congress, and newspapers are the easiest things to start with)
      1. ccsr 2 March 2020 13: 41 New
        • 4
        • 0
        +4
        Quote: Orel
        I am a prisoner of state archives, TsAMO, foreign affairs, the Wehrmacht, the English Library and the Library of Congress, and newspapers are the easiest things to start with)

        You have only the remains of the destroyed mosaics in large numbers, and what painting the artist depicted you can not understand, because you have no idea about his plan. The same thing happens when assessing the armed forces - even with a large number of documents, you will not be able to assess the situation correctly, if only because most likely you do not have basic knowledge of military affairs. But for those who have them, it is much easier to understand the state of the armed forces of different states of that time, at least on the basis of their equipment, combat training and available documents.
        1. Orel 2 March 2020 14: 00 New
          • 2
          • 2
          0
          Quote: ccsr
          You have only the remains of the destroyed mosaics in large numbers, and what painting the artist depicted you can not understand, because you have no idea about his plan.


          It is quite possible that many of our archives are still closed, and there may be a lot of revolution, and most likely an unpleasant one, the pre-war period, just the cooperation with Hitler, the funds are almost completely classified, it’s not without reason that I think it’s necessary to fit everything in my head to study professionally what is inaccessible to me, from what I know and deny, but do not pretend to be true, this is only my opinion
        2. Orel 2 March 2020 14: 02 New
          • 1
          • 3
          -2
          Quote: ccsr
          But for those who have them, it is much easier to understand the state of the armed forces of different states of that time, at least on the basis of their equipment, combat training and available documents.


          Of course you are right, only lately I have seen few books that are really worthy of attention, basically propaganda appears again, serious historical research has problems in the era of the Late Putin, if I may say so)
        3. Orel 2 March 2020 14: 08 New
          • 2
          • 1
          +1
          I read from the last book of Churchill's speeches from the end of the First World War to the end of the Second World War, to be honest, I was very surprised by his political acumen, he predicted both the Hitler monster and the collapse of communism and the restoration of Russia, and this decades before, science fiction was just , it’s a pity that Churchill was not the head of England during Munich, the story could go differently, but what to do, she does not suffer the subjunctive mood, by the way I did not see any anti-Russian in his speeches, on the contrary, he is completely loyal to the Russian people, and here comm Lowland he openly hated interesting kvintesentsiya recommend in general
          1. chenia 2 March 2020 14: 44 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            Quote: Orel
            and the collapse of communism and the restoration of Russia,

            As soon as Russia and Belarus ceased "restore" after the collapse of communism, these countries still exist relatively normally.
            And here is the most obvious example of the restoration of the country of Ukraine. Continue ..... or yourself ..

            Quote: Orel
            on the contrary, he is completely loyal to the Russian people,


            They are very loyal. This is very noticeable even now. And most importantly, there is no communism. And the west is suffocating with love for Russia.
            Or are you something wrong ....?
          2. Fat
            Fat 6 March 2020 22: 25 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: Orel
            I read from the last book of Churchill's speeches from the end of the First World War to the end of the Second World War, to be honest, I was very surprised by his political acumen, he predicted both the Hitler monster and the collapse of communism and the restoration of Russia, and this decades before, science fiction was just , it’s a pity that Churchill was not the head of England during Munich, the story could go differently, but what to do, she does not suffer the subjunctive mood, by the way I did not see any anti-Russian in his speeches, on the contrary, he is completely loyal to the Russian people, and here comm Lowland he openly hated interesting kvintesentsiya recommend in general

            Lord Churchill, mastermind of the landing at Galipoli? Same to me ... the father of the empire ....
            Sure to read
        4. Fat
          Fat 6 March 2020 23: 28 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: ccsr
          it is much easier to understand the state of the armed forces of different states of that time, at least on the basis of their equipment, combat training and available documents.

          We have what we have. Summary Forecasts. Analyzes. With rare exceptions, mat. models.
          But what we do not have !? Like manpower. Technologies. Science ... And ... Not directed aggression of the masses
          Where? Lebensraum? Or Japam on a hill, so that our colony doesn’t ... Duc .. China has become the 4th big guy in the UN ...
      2. Fat
        Fat 7 March 2020 00: 16 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: Orel
        captured by state archives, TsAMO, foreign affairs, the Wehrmacht, the English Library and the Library of Congress, and newspapers are the easiest thing to start with)

        Newspapers? Congress folklore beobacher? A couple of languages ​​to learn?
        C grade !? Great position.
        You, Oryol, are all leading to the barbarians. .. The paper will endure any fantasy .. And any selections of quotes to the flake ....
        Start by looking, see, well ... Or to Henry (s) ....
    2. Orel 2 March 2020 13: 38 New
      • 1
      • 2
      -1
      Quote: ccsr
      This is a propaganda stamp that is easily refuted.


      You can’t refute any stamp or anything, the history of Finland and the Baltic states cannot be called a stamp, but what you brought back, the UN has already created something different, nuclear weapons, politics and the world have changed, and it only proves all your examples, for communist regimes were established there, just not everyone obeyed later, but this is a different story
      1. ccsr 2 March 2020 13: 50 New
        • 6
        • 0
        +6
        Quote: Orel
        the story of Finland

        The history of Finland just showed that our army was not ready for a big war - since you were studying the documents, you probably should have studied the results of this war, at least from the reports and materials of the meetings.

        Quote: Orel
        and the fact that you brought, so the time was different

        The operation in China and the deployment of our troops to Iran were carried out long before the advent of the UN - have you not heard of this? And in Mongolia, our troops did not remain before the war - this is so note.
        Quote: Orel
        and he only proves all your examples, for the communist regimes were established there,

        In Iran or Austria or what? It looks like you haven’t studied everything in the archives ....
        1. Orel 2 March 2020 14: 57 New
          • 0
          • 4
          -4
          Quote: ccsr
          The history of Finland just showed that our army was not ready for a big war - since you were studying the documents, you probably should have studied the results of this war, at least from the reports and materials of the meetings.


          I do not refute this, in reality it turned out that the amount of war does not win, but this does not affect the nature of the policy, it remained belligerent, and Finland was blamed on shortcomings at the local level, because they did not stop creating mechanized corps of monstrous proportions, bulky, difficult to manage, even on the march, the corps stretched for 250-300 km. on the roads! And this is not surprising in the state of more than 1000 tanks, apart from other equipment, almost all of these corps without fuel remained on the roads in June 1941, even without a fight, they just got up and got lost in the bustle. Rare divisions went into the strike areas and at least something could oppose, but in fact - defeat. How to manage such a case, assemble it into a fist, no one thought. We thought simply, the more, the stronger and more effective. The war showed that everything is different.

          Quote: ccsr
          The operation in China and the deployment of our troops to Iran were carried out long before the advent of the UN - have you not heard of this? And in Mongolia, our troops did not remain before the war - this is so note.


          As a result, China and Mongolia had loyal communist regimes and they obeyed us, and then China decided to be independent. Iran was jointly run by England, so here we did not decide all alone.
          1. Fat
            Fat 7 March 2020 01: 12 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: Orel
            Iran was jointly run by England, so here we did not decide all alone.

            Yes, they could easily. Goodwill decided everything. Tolbukhin under a 21-year contract could rub the whole country from the land of Iran ..... The son of Shah Pahlavi was selling oil for a fraction of .... Anyway. The Asian bridge worked ...
    3. Octopus 2 March 2020 14: 34 New
      • 4
      • 2
      +2
      Quote: ccsr
      our troops, albeit in limited numbers, were in China before World War II

      They stuck there until 1992. 39A in Mongolia.
      Quote: ccsr
      in Iran

      From there, the former allies very well asked.
      Quote: ccsr
      at least in relation to Yugoslavia

      Thanks to the gangster Tito.
      Quote: ccsr
      Romania, Bulgaria,

      Members of the ATS.
      Quote: ccsr
      Port Arthur and the later exit of our troops from Austria.

      Judas Khrushchev. Under Stalin, this was not.
      1. Alexey RA 2 March 2020 17: 02 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: Octopus
        Judas Khrushchev. Under Stalin, this was not.

        Somewhere there should be a tag "sacrazm". wink

        In fact, the NSC saved the fleet from the base, which was declared unsuitable at the beginning of the twentieth century. And if in the presence of Qingdao and Weihaiwei there was still some sense in the existence of Port Arthur, then in the middle of the XNUMXth century this base was a meaningless trap for the fleet.
      2. ccsr 2 March 2020 19: 05 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        Quote: Octopus
        They stuck there until 1992. 39A in Mongolia.

        In fact, our troops were brought into Mongolia several times, and the last case was related to the aggressiveness of China, including against the USSR:
        For the first time, Soviet troops were sent to Mongolia in 1921 during the civil war in Russia and the Mongolian people's revolution in order to eliminate the White movement, which had a bridgehead in the country. In March 1925, the Soviet Union withdrew troops from the MPR.
        Subsequently, troops were introduced in 1937, 1939, 1945 and 1967, which was associated with the need to repel external aggression against the allied Mongolian state and to fulfill tasks to defend the country from a potential military threat from the outside.


        Quote: Octopus
        From there, the former allies very well asked.

        Stalin could not give a damn about the opinion of the Allies, but there was a war and it would cost us dearly. So this conclusion was not connected with our military defeat, but because of the political situation.
        Quote: Octopus
        Thanks to the gangster Tito.

        It seems that your idol Churchill was ready to make a deal with the devil - have you heard about this?
        Why was Stalin worse if he used Tito’s help in the war with Germany?
        Quote: Octopus
        Romania, Bulgaria, ATS Members.

        Our troops did not stand there - it was about our presence.
        Quote: Octopus
        Judas Khrushchev. Under Stalin, this was not.

        Have you ever studied the history of the Port Arthur treaty:
        It is believed that the issue of transferring China to Port Arthur was first raised by Nikita Khrushchev. However, already at the conclusion of the Treaty of Friendship, Alliance, and Mutual Assistance on February 14, 1950, the Soviet Union pledged to withdraw its troops from the Kwantung Peninsula and transfer Port Arthur to China no later than the end of 1952. But because of the war in Korea on September 15, 1952, the USSR and the PRC exchanged notes on extending the period for joint use of the naval base until the conclusion of peace treaties with Japan by both states.
        1. Octopus 2 March 2020 22: 05 New
          • 3
          • 1
          +2
          Quote: ccsr
          However, already at the conclusion of the Treaty of Friendship, Union and Mutual Assistance on February 14, 1950

          )))
          Comrade Stalin said goodbye, but did not leave, I must say.
          Quote: ccsr
          Our troops were not there

          Comrade Stalin, unlike you, was an internationalist. He did not care what passports, but it was important to whom they obey.
          Quote: ccsr
          Why was Stalin worse if he used Tito’s help in the war with Germany?

          No worse. According to Tito, there were no questions to Comrade Stalin initially. But then Comrade Tito did not justify his trust, he lived much longer than necessary.
          Quote: ccsr
          It seems that your idol Churchill was ready to make a deal with the devil - have you heard about this?

          Of course I heard.
          Quote: ccsr
          In fact, our troops were brought into Mongolia several times

          And there was only one, in the 92nd.
          1. ccsr 3 March 2020 12: 34 New
            • 2
            • 2
            0
            Quote: Octopus
            Comrade Stalin said goodbye, but did not leave, I must say.

            You were informed that the war in Korea had begun, and this confused all withdrawal plans.
            Quote: Octopus
            Comrade Stalin, unlike you, was an internationalist.

            In words - yes, but he dispersed the Comintern, just in case.
            Quote: Octopus
            According to Tito, there were no questions to Comrade Stalin initially. But then Comrade Tito did not justify his trust, he lived much longer than necessary.

            It is about the participation of Tito in the war against the Germans, and what happened later is not discussed now.
            Quote: Octopus
            And there was only one, in the 92nd.

            Nothing of the kind - our troops were withdrawn from Mongolia several times, otherwise they would not have to be re-introduced.
            1. Octopus 3 March 2020 14: 40 New
              • 2
              • 1
              +1
              Quote: ccsr
              otherwise they would not need to be re-entered.

              Do not tell. Here in Syria they have already withdrawn 5 times, but have not entered even once.
              Quote: ccsr
              He dispersed the Comintern, just in case

              The Comintern switched to illegal. Comrade Dimitrov, I recall, was not in Kolyma, but in a completely different place. Comrade Togliatti and comrade Thorez, too, was not at the wall who finished his life.
              Quote: ccsr
              this confused all withdrawal plans.

              )))
              Started.
              Be that as it may, they brought it out under Khrushchev (with Malenkov), and not under Stalin.
              1. ccsr 3 March 2020 19: 26 New
                • 1
                • 1
                0
                Quote: Octopus
                Do not tell. Here in Syria they have already withdrawn 5 times, but have not entered even once.

                They did not withdraw, but reduced the contingent - these are two big differences.
                Quote: Octopus
                Be that as it may, they brought it out under Khrushchev (with Malenkov), and not under Stalin.

                So what if the agreement on the withdrawal of troops from the GSVG was signed by Gorbachev, and the practical conclusion was made under Yeltsin?
  • Alexey LK 3 March 2020 15: 49 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: Orel
    our army was already the strongest in the world,

    This was shown by the war with Finland, right? Or the disaster of 1941?
    Quote: Orel
    the price of collective security from Hitler was equal to strengthening the USSR just to an astronomical scale

    So this ultimately happened - but after the deaths of more than 60 million people and the destruction of Europe and some other territories. And even more "astronomical" was the strengthening of the United States. And this is the question - so why did Britain and, especially, France do not want to immediately agree? To restore the Entente, but in the new conditions - it was just asking! Arguments that it was impossible to agree with the USSR are, in my opinion, groundless! Undoubtedly, only one thing - the only goal that the "collective West" achieved - was to incite Hitler against the USSR and bring countless losses (and suffering) to his peoples. And the rest - the game of the British and, especially, the French turned out to be so-so - they, in addition to heavy losses, ceased to be superpowers, centers of power - unlike the Union.
  • ser56 5 March 2020 18: 28 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Quote: Orel
    then she would not have left

    see China after the conflict on the CER, Afghanistan in the 20-30s, etc. After the war - Austria, again China, Mongolia ...
  • Nikolai Miracles 2 March 2020 18: 37 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    On February 27, 1936, the Chamber of Deputies of the French parliament finally ratified the Soviet-French agreement on mutual assistance. 353 deputies voted for ratification, 164 against.
    On March 7, 1936, Germany occupied the demilitarized Rhine zone. The German government demagogically stated that in connection with France's ratification of the agreement on mutual assistance with the USSR, it was not obliged to comply with the terms of the 1925 Locarno Treaty. If the French government had used force against the presumptuous German military, then Stalin would simply have waved a hand to the French: “You yourself attacked. Goodbye,” ---- this is what he did on November 30, 1939. That is, I had to choose between an agreement with the USSR and the restoration of the status quo in the Rhine region.
    The mutual assistance treaty obligated France to wait for Germany’s unprovoked attack on the USSR and only then attack it. But Germany did not have a common border with the USSR and could not attack. So Poland should have been occupied. Thus, the Soviet-French treaty was fully consistent with Hitler's plans.
    Question: What did the Kremlin think when they entered into such an agreement?
    1. ccsr 2 March 2020 19: 24 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: Nikolai Chudov
      Question: What did the Kremlin think when they entered into such an agreement?

      Actually, this is not an agreement on a military alliance, so the Kremlin only used what France agreed to. What claims can there be in this case against Stalin?
      Quote: Nikolai Chudov
      Thus, the Soviet-French treaty was fully consistent with Hitler's plans.

      This is unlikely - even such a cutie treaty forced Hitler to sign the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact in August 1939, and the Treaty was concluded after.
      1. Nikolai Miracles 2 March 2020 19: 28 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        What contract was concluded "after"?
        1. ccsr 2 March 2020 19: 35 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: Nikolai Chudov
          What contract was concluded "after"?

          The Pact and the 1939 Treaty are different documents.
      2. Nikolai Miracles 2 March 2020 19: 43 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: ccsr
        Actually, this is not an agreement on a military alliance, so the Kremlin only used what France agreed to.

        And what did France agree to wait for the occupation of Poland and not attack Germany until she attacks the USSR? And why is the Soviet Union all this?
        1. ccsr 2 March 2020 20: 09 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: Nikolai Chudov
          And why is the Soviet Union all this?

          And then, that already in 1936, our intelligence was reporting on the strengthening of the military power of Germany, which is why such a treaty with France would not hurt us in any case.
          1. Nikolai Miracles 2 March 2020 20: 19 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            What role did this treaty play against Germany’s military power? Moreover, he kept France from using force against Germany.
            1. ccsr 3 March 2020 12: 31 New
              • 1
              • 1
              0
              Quote: Nikolai Chudov
              What role did this treaty play against Germany’s military power?

              It was a political treaty in the first place, demonstrating our intentions to confront Germany in its plans for a military revival. Only military unions could play a role against Germany’s military power, although judging by the defeat of Poland, they were often fictitious.
              1. Nikolai Miracles 3 March 2020 17: 38 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: ccsr
                even such a cutie treaty forced Hitler to sign the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact in August 1939

                I didn’t. Three years did not force and suddenly forced? But 9 days after ratification, the Soviet-French treaty was used by Hitler as an excuse to send troops into the demilitarized Rhine region. Under the treaty, France could not attack Germany if it did not attack the USSR, and for this Poland must first disappear from the political map of the world. This was Hitler's realized plan. It seems that Hitler nevertheless endorsed the Soviet-French treaty in absentia, at least in the soul. By the way, initially this treaty was outlined as a trilateral German-Franco-Soviet:
                A treaty of assistance was to be concluded between the USSR, France and Germany, in which each of these three states was obliged to provide support to the one that would be the subject of an attack by one of these three states.

                That is, the USSR would have an obligation to help Germany as a "victim of French aggression."
                1. ccsr 3 March 2020 19: 33 New
                  • 1
                  • 2
                  -1
                  Quote: Nikolai Chudov
                  I didn’t. Three years did not force and suddenly forced?

                  For three years Hitler did not intend to conquer Poland - the Weiss plan was completed in June 1939. That is why Hitler decided to protect himself from the alliance of Stalin with the French, if they really acted on the side of Poland.
                  Quote: Nikolai Chudov
                  It seems that Hitler nevertheless endorsed the Soviet-French treaty in absentia, at least in the soul.

                  It is possible, but it should be studied by memoirs or diaries of eyewitnesses of those events. For now, we can only guess what Hitler was thinking at that time.
                  Quote: Nikolai Chudov
                  That is, the USSR would have an obligation to help Germany as a "victim of French aggression."

                  If a military alliance were concluded, then yes.
                  1. Nikolai Miracles 3 March 2020 19: 48 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Quote: ccsr
                    If a military alliance were concluded, then yes

                    If Hitler signed the trilateral agreement mentioned in the protocol for signing the Soviet-French agreement on mutual assistance, then yes. But he and this bilateral treaty suited France under this treaty could not “touch” it until the occupation of Poland and the real threat from it to the Soviet Union. France declared war on Germany, and as a result of this, Stalin declared on November 30, 1939:
                    Not Germany attacked France and England, but France and England attacked Germany, taking responsibility for the current war
  • Alexey LK 3 March 2020 15: 27 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Orel
    The West acted only in its own interests in Europe,

    Those. in the interests of, for example, France and its elite was that the Germans occupied them? And also Belgium, the Netherlands, etc.? A kind of logic ...
    Of course, you are right that the official history from textbooks is not always an objective picture. But there is logic, a systematic approach, the interests of states and their ruling elites, which is the driving force of history. And from this point of view, the article gives a good analysis.
    Quote: Orel
    In Europe, on the contrary, the problem of "peace" was key, since they survived the First World War - the bloodiest at that time in the history of mankind and were ready to do anything to prevent a new one,

    Nevertheless, many, especially those in power, had confidence that a new world war was inevitable - and you can find it in the very newspapers you are referring to. You may not want war as much as you like, but if your neighbors “sharpen the ax of war”, then you have to answer - otherwise they will simply eat you up (or, as the classic said, they will crush you).
    Before the war, of course, everyone tried to play their game. Moreover, it must be understood that real players can not always be XNUMX% identified with "their" states - it was often (and is) so that the "proteges" of other players were sitting at the tops. For example, in the interests of Germany itself it was to stop after Poland and equip its new empire - but this is if you do not take into account the actions and intentions of other players and if you do not think about the real motivation of the Fuhrer.
    And by the way, so far no one has really explained - why was it necessary to exterminate the Jews? Rob, take away property - you can still understand, proceeding simply from "common sense". But universal extermination - what was this for? For almost 80 years, historians and analysts have been hovering around, but they can’t give any really logical explanation. Or do not want to?
  • voyaka uh 4 March 2020 13: 32 New
    • 1
    • 3
    -2
    "they are superficial and based more on political shows than on a real assessment of historical documents" ////
    ----
    This article is just one of a long and consistent series of articles on falsifying history.
    All this is a large-scale attempt by neo-Stalinists to rewrite history within the framework of their concept: the Stalinist empire, as the peak of human development.
  • Yury Siritsky April 5 2020 12: 40 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    It was during the time of Trotsky that they dreamed of a world revolution. Stalin long ago abandoned this concept and built socialism in his country.
  • Private89 2 March 2020 08: 35 New
    • 5
    • 3
    +2
    The Great Patriotic War was also a class war, too, when a number of capitalist countries wanted to destroy the first socialist state. The financial circles of the USA and England, France, in fact, sponsored Nazi Germany, revived its industry, engaged in, actually covered the Anschluss of Austria and the seizure of Czechoslovakia, and abandoned their faithful vassal of Poland when Germany attacked it, waged the so-called strange war. All this actually pushed Hitler east, but the fed beast was not so subdued and they even had to make an alliance with the USSR.


    1. Orel 2 March 2020 10: 01 New
      • 0
      • 7
      -7
      Quote: Private 89
      The Great Patriotic War was also a class war, too, when a number of capitalist countries wanted to destroy the first socialist state.


      Start in 1918 approximately, according to this, it turns out that this first socialist state at the level of state policy proclaimed a world revolution and the destruction of capitalism and all states with a capitalist economy, so who came to whom with their charter? Everything here is much more complicated, they didn’t especially remember us, we wanted to prove that you live abroad incorrectly there)))
      1. Private89 2 March 2020 11: 29 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        The transition from capitalism to socialism is good for the majority of the population and certainly not beneficial to the ruling class of the bourgeoisie, it is natural that the bourgeoisie of England, France, the United States is not profitable, all the more so the soviet nationalized factories and factories belonging to foreign capital countries. (Somewhere around 50% of the factories and plants in the Republic of Ingushetia belonged to foreigners). But the fact that the Soviet government wanted other peoples to find real freedom, not declarative as under capitalism, when only those who have capital have freedom, is that bad? The Soviets were well aware that they would be crushed if there were only cap.countries around. The transition from feudalism to capitalism also did not immediately begin, the same French revolution ended with the restoration of the monarchy. So a return to socialism as a more just and progressive system is inevitable.
        1. Octopus 2 March 2020 14: 37 New
          • 4
          • 2
          +2
          Quote: Private 89
          The transition from capitalism to socialism is good for the majority of the population

          North Korea and Cuba are two shining cities on a hill, illuminating the Eastern and Western hemispheres with the Light of Good.
          Quote: Private 89
          the Soviet government wanted other peoples to gain real freedom,

          Comrade Stalin and Comrade Beria were well aware of freedom.
      2. chenia 2 March 2020 14: 49 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: Orel
        so who came to whom with their charter?


        And what is wrong ..
        According to their charter, Yukos is right.
        And to destroy such a charter is a holy cause.
  • bandabas 2 March 2020 09: 21 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Well no. There are representatives of one nation that considers itself God's chosen, who rule in almost all states. Despite all sorts of genocides.
  • Bar1 2 March 2020 09: 42 New
    • 0
    • 4
    -4
    here is the symbol of our Kolovrat — these non-Aryans brazenly appropriated, and for some time now that the Germans were Aryans simply began to be paraded, as in a play, but the Germans never went to either Persia or India, therefore they could never be called Aryans.
    Aryans are other people.
  • Amateur 2 March 2020 07: 08 New
    • 2
    • 3
    -1
    The behavior of England and France before the start of World War II and at its beginning is difficult to explain.

    And what is there to explain. They wanted Hitler to eat the USSR. The ideas of Nazism were close to the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha dynasty (Windsorov) family. Only the intervention of W. Churchill prevented them from uniting.



    In the pictures - Edward 8
    1. strannik1985 2 March 2020 07: 41 New
      • 3
      • 1
      +2
      And what is there to explain

      No, it's more complicated. Most likely, the calculation was for a long war between the USSR and Germany, in which the "allies" wanted to skim the cream.
      For a "simple" destruction of the USSR, the Reich as such is not needed; a coalition of the countries of the so-called Little Entente is enough.
    2. pmkemcity 2 March 2020 07: 50 New
      • 3
      • 2
      +1
      History Spirals
  • Ros 56 2 March 2020 07: 37 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    And for whom is this news, we were told about this at school more than 50 years ago. The truth is I do not know what they say about this at the current school.
  • rocket757 2 March 2020 07: 46 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Missed opportunities to crush Hitler

    It’s just a HISTORY as it was, and it still is.
    They will try to correct, rewrite and .... in short, of course.
    They were and are the enemy, without any changes for many years to come.
    It’s as if it’s not necessary to explain anything, but it will have to be done again and again!
  • apro 2 March 2020 07: 52 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    A military ceasefire always ends in war. The PMV left a reserve for the future ... there was something to reconsider.
    The role of the winners is to leave everything as it is. With the least efforts. The Germans have only one choice to review the results of the PMV. Moreover, the winners of the Angles and French lost their leading positions giving way to their cousins. Germany, by and large, was cultivated by the Soviet Union with their goals. .
  • smaug78 2 March 2020 11: 25 New
    • 3
    • 3
    0
    Samsonov, a folk-backlayer again broadcasts from cheers laughing
  • Mikhail3 2 March 2020 13: 00 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    The behavior of England and France before the start of World War II and at its beginning is difficult to explain. It seems that the British and French are crazy. They condoned Hitler in unleashing a great war in Europe, in every way "appeased" the aggressor, instead of stopping the war in its infancy.
    All actions of the elites of these countries were absolutely logical, justified and successful. Something incomprehensible can be seen in a situation only for people brought up in the Soviet or Russian tradition, who do not understand the modern, and it should be noted, completely winning thinking.
    The world-made locomotive of those years - the USA - fell into a severe crisis. It was no longer possible to lie to yourself that capitalism is the advanced structure of society, giving methods for the development of mankind. Incidentally, it was not the capitalists who pulled the United States out of the Great Depression, but practical engineers, using absolutely non-capitalist methods.
    Therefore, in Europe, the simplest method of economic reset was applied - the destruction of accumulated property. It was absolutely unimportant who would “win” the war. Did England and France suffer any significant losses for their masters? Who was rich, he remained rich and became even richer. They killed some number of the poor. So what?! Who cares for even a second?
    Plus, a large-scale experiment was conducted - whether the concentration of managing a mass of European private enterprises in the hands of the German genius (without jokes) of Yalmar Schacht's management would lead to a noticeable growth and increase in production flexibility. Very interesting material has been accumulated. It was necessary to prepare for a confrontation with the socialist model of governance. Maybe fascism? Nazism? Serious work was being done.
    For the USSR, all this was a struggle for physical survival. And for the rest of the participants, not excluding Germany, simply by saving the capitalists by destroying excess property and extra gaps. We can observe the results - the explosive development of Europe in the postwar years, even managed to feed everyone, the result in world history has never been seen before.
    If the author is hard to explain, can he still think? There are no riddles ...
  • evgen1221 2 March 2020 13: 12 New
    • 0
    • 2
    -2
    Well, the Insoles with the French, with the financing of the states, calculated the Führer to the east using the Poles to launch, and then the classic, he got stuck in the east, and a second front opens for him in the rear. And then the adyk contract was worth it and don’t shine, and the powers will deribe us and eastern Europe with a new one with tripled strength. But it did not grow together, it was not fartanulo.
  • Orel 2 March 2020 14: 59 New
    • 0
    • 2
    -2
    Quote: ccsr
    In Iran or Austria or what? It looks like you haven’t studied everything in the archives ....


    Allies forced us to leave Austria. These were the conditions of the post-war division of the world. This is a different story. I told you about politics before the Second World War, but it was different.
  • Nikolai Miracles 2 March 2020 17: 58 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    On February 27, 1936, the Chamber of Deputies of the French parliament finally ratified the Soviet-French agreement on mutual assistance. 353 deputies voted for ratification, 164 against.
    On March 7, 1936, Germany occupied the demilitarized Rhine zone. The German government demagogically stated that in connection with France's ratification of the agreement on mutual assistance with the USSR, it was not obliged to comply with the terms of the 1925 Locarno Treaty. If the French government had used force against the presumptuous German military, then Stalin would simply have waved a hand to the French: “You yourself attacked. Goodbye,” ---- this is what he did on November 30, 1939. That is, I had to choose between an agreement with the USSR and the restoration of the status quo in the Rhine region.
    The mutual assistance treaty obligated France to wait for Germany’s unprovoked attack on the USSR and only then attack it. But Germany did not have a common border with the USSR and could not attack. So Poland should have been occupied. Thus, the Soviet-French treaty was fully consistent with Hitler's plans.
    Question: What did the Kremlin think when they entered into such an agreement?
  • 1970mk 3 March 2020 01: 16 New
    • 0
    • 3
    -3
    Who wants to can use foul language. But...
    What are you talking about? When did World War 2 begin? What did the USSR do before June 22, 1941?
    We have a funny story.
    1. Mikhail3 3 March 2020 09: 21 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      It began when Poland, in a warm alliance with Germany, gutted Czechoslovakia.
  • ser56 5 March 2020 18: 21 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    "Even in September 1939, England and France could still end Hitler with relatively little blood and quickly. All the fighting forces of the Reich were connected by the Polish campaign. From the western direction, Germany was practically bare - there were no strong defensive lines, there were secondary reserve units, without tanks and aircraft. Again, the Ruhr was virtually defenseless. A great moment to end the German Empire is a blow to the military-industrial and energy heart. But the British and French are starting a "strange" war "
    replace September with May 1940, A and F with the USSR - we get the same ... request With one exception - the USSR did not even start a strange war ... should we blame it? hi
  • Icelord April 19 2020 20: 59 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    The author, well, you are either a brilliant dreamer or haloperidol daily intramuscularly