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

171
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
Our news channels

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

171 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +4
    2 March 2020 06: 15
    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. +1
      2 March 2020 07: 17
      Quote from 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. +1
        5 March 2020 18: 22
        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. -4
      2 March 2020 07: 29
      I fundamentally disagree with the assessments in the article, they are superficial and based more on political shows than on a real assessment of historical documents and the very spirit of the times. To soberly assess the situation, you must always proceed from one point: 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 your morning newspaper to the USSR, Germany, England and the USA. You can find these newspapers, read the issues at least a month in advance and it will become very clear why everything happened this way. The West acted only in its own interests in Europe, in the United States at that time an isolationist policy reigned 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, Hitler played on this, what in the USSR? At this time, our policy and newspaper issues cannot be called anti-Western, they are openly hostile, so any arguments of contemporaries that the West did not listen and did not believe and did not come to an agreement with the USSR look strange, and this is all in hindsight came up with after. Soviet newspapers are full of issues of how we are preparing to liberate the whole world from the capitalists, by military means or by organizing revolutions in other countries. An inconvenient fact? Of course, however, everyone has forgotten about it today. This is brief, but you can talk for hours like this, I have been studying this topic for many years, everything is completely different from what our official authorities claim, although it is much more inconvenient for the USSR and Russia than is customary to speak officially, unfortunately, however it is.
      1. +3
        2 March 2020 07: 39
        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?
        Does it bother you at all that the position of the "mighty" USSR on Czechoslovakia in 1938 was simply ignored?
        1. -5
          2 March 2020 08: 00
          Quote: strannik1985
          Interestingly, and you only studied the slogans in the newspapers?


          If you seriously want to talk, then write to the PM, I won't have enough characters to answer you, I can't prove anything to those who do not have the same information as me, and this is normal, we assess the situation from the knowledge that we have, when I was also of the opinion that "we are the most innocent", but everything turned out differently
          1. +3
            2 March 2020 08: 06
            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. -6
              2 March 2020 09: 57
              Quote: strannik1985
              Inability / unwillingness to argue their position is your problem, not mine.


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

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


              It is impossible to "tell" to you everything that I managed to find out on the problems of World War II over the years, I just hope that someone will want to figure it out and start digging beyond the "official history textbook" and talk shows on state channels)
              1. +6
                2 March 2020 10: 10
                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. -5
                  2 March 2020 10: 20
                  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. +5
                    2 March 2020 10: 25
                    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. -6
                      2 March 2020 11: 06
                      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. +4
                        2 March 2020 11: 22
                        USA then looked at the world

                        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 agreements, which prescribe reparations to be paid, it is forbidden to have a full-fledged army, navy, etc., etc. So, all of this the Americans, including, amicably hammered, until the suffocate, militarily, grew into a monster-Third Reich. He, the Reich, was made strong by pumping money according to the Dawes / Jung plan, allowing him to fight in Spain, giving the Rhineland, Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland. And you are broadcasting about the "threat to the USSR". It's funny.
                      2. -5
                        2 March 2020 11: 35
                        The power of public opinion should not be underestimated, especially in the United States, although it is difficult for a Russian to understand this, even sometimes impossible, because in our country, as a rule, one person decides everything, so it is also difficult for you to figure out that in the United States public opinion is sometimes more important if people are not there want to enter the war, then no treaty will force them, Roosevelt had to spend a lot of time to win the society over to his side and enter the war, and in our country it is presented as a "strangeness", of course, when in our country there is a war by the will of one a person begins, all these "democracies" for us seem to be fierceness and betrayal, but we simply do not understand)
                      3. +2
                        2 March 2020 11: 53
                        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. -4
                        2 March 2020 12: 05
                        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. +3
                        2 March 2020 12: 57
                        If correctly explained

                        So what's the problem? Explain.
                        While I see the owl pulling on the globe.
                      6. -2
                        2 March 2020 13: 41
                        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. +3
                        2 March 2020 13: 50
                        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. -6
                        2 March 2020 14: 40
                        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. -6
                        2 March 2020 14: 43
                        Quote: strannik1985
                        And so, the USSR officially, at the level of doctrine, abandoned the idea of ​​a world revolution in 1925.


                        He did not give up anything, the Comintern, intelligence, support of the communists around the world. The facts do not tolerate any "rejections".
                      10. +2
                        2 March 2020 15: 47
                        Facts

                        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. -6
                        2 March 2020 15: 49
                        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. +3
                        2 March 2020 15: 50
                        Does this prove anything?

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


                        Strange logic ...
                      14. -3
                        2 March 2020 15: 52
                        I’ll write to you in PM in more detail, there the dialogue will not be lost, it will be more interesting
                      15. +3
                        2 March 2020 15: 55
                        No, write here. Do you blame the USSR for open access? Why do I need your letters in PM?
                      16. -3
                        2 March 2020 16: 09
                        So you are interested in listening to arguments or walking in these "footcloths"? In principle, it's inconvenient for me here, you are not the only one to write, then the ends can no longer be found
                      17. +2
                        2 March 2020 16: 15
                        You started to blame here or in PM? If you are uncomfortable / unpleasant / uninteresting, etc., why write?
                      18. -3
                        2 March 2020 16: 17
                        So you wrote to me for some reason, and now make a claim)))))) I expressed my opinion
                      19. +1
                        2 March 2020 16: 19
                        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. -6
                        2 March 2020 16: 27
                        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 with Germany until 1940, then what can we talk about? You don't even know about the confrontation during the "strange war", there were bombings, confrontation at sea, Denmark and Norway, there was a land strategy to rely on the Magenot Line, which was justly impregnable and it was quite logical that Germany would hit in the forehead, wear out and it can be taken with little blood, because the Benelux countries were neutral, but Hitler turned out to be more cunning, and you are sure that this is all the machinations of the West against the USSR, which can be argued about, as if I’m watching TV now, everything you say regularly is there propagandists talk on talk shows
                      21. +3
                        2 March 2020 16: 50
                        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. -6
                        2 March 2020 18: 51
                        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 agreements on mutual assistance with neighboring countries (in fact, consent to voluntary occupation). And later there were joint parades with Nazi troops, echelons with strategic raw materials simultaneously with telegrams from Molotov on the occasion of the capture of another European capital by Germany, and at the same time German bombs were falling on London. We like to say that we fought and won alone, but here alone we fought, it was not us, but England, for almost a year, alone, except for overseas territories, then there was one country, Lend-Lease was later promoted. Therefore, from a historical point of view, there are claims to everyone, to the allies the unwillingness to fight and the readiness of peace on any conditions practically, Poland has just become the last straw, and we have the "Winter War", the Baltic states, cooperation with Hitler already during the war, although here it is possible argue, the thing is ambiguous
                      23. +1
                        2 March 2020 19: 59
                        The parade is a lie.
                        Aggressive "rhetoric" was expressed in non-aggression pacts, for example, they signed with France in 1932, on 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. 0
                        April 5 2020 12: 43
                        You, my friend, are dumb as a tree, and therefore repeat the stupidities of modern liberals.
                      25. +2
                        2 March 2020 16: 02
                        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?
                      26. -3
                        2 March 2020 16: 13
                        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?
                      27. Fat
                        +1
                        7 March 2020 00: 43
                        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 "cheat" much. The industry was re-creating. How could I ...
                      28. 0
                        5 March 2020 18: 24
                        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
                      29. -1
                        6 March 2020 14: 34
                        and the Cominter dismissed?

                        And in which countries did KIM organize a coup from 1925?
                        Germany and Italy, the absence of their own "Comintern", for example, did not prevent them from supporting the coup in Spain.
                      30. -1
                        6 March 2020 16: 03
                        Quote: strannik1985
                        And in which countries of KIM

                        KIM is the Communist International of Youth ... a subsidiary of the Comintern ... bully
                      31. 0
                        7 March 2020 00: 53
                        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.
                      32. 0
                        7 March 2020 10: 10
                        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.
                      33. The comment was deleted.
                      34. +1
                        2 March 2020 14: 18
                        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.
                      35. -2
                        2 March 2020 15: 45
                        No

                        Yes, in August 1921 the United States entered into a separate treaty with Germany, almost identical to Versailles.
                      36. +1
                        2 March 2020 16: 01
                        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.
                      37. -1
                        2 March 2020 16: 17
                        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. ???
                      38. +1
                        2 March 2020 18: 36
                        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, the German occupation of the demilitarized Rhine zone took place. The German government demagogically declared that in connection with the ratification of the treaty with the USSR on mutual assistance by France, it was not obliged to observe the terms of the Locarno Treaty of 1925. If the French government used force against the presumptuous German military clique, Stalin would simply wave his hand to the French: "You attacked yourself. Goodbye," - and so he did on November 30, 1939. That is, they had to choose between an agreement with the USSR and the restoration of the status quo in the Rhineland.
                        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?
                      39. -2
                        2 March 2020 20: 04
                        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.
                      40. 0
                        2 March 2020 20: 17
                        And France will ruin the agreement with the USSR.
                      41. -1
                        2 March 2020 20: 23
                        This did not happen at all from fear of the Reichswehr / Wehrmacht.
                      42. 0
                        2 March 2020 20: 27
                        According to the Treaty, France could use force against Germany only in response to her attack on the USSR. Otherwise, Stalin will say: "You attacked yourself. Goodbye."
                      43. -1
                        3 March 2020 05: 32
                        Under contract

                        Nicholas, at that time, no ally is needed to repel the German "aggression" of France. Generally.
                      44. 0
                        3 March 2020 17: 23
                        An agreement "for growth", for the future, when Germany occupies Poland. Until that moment, the treaty is still valid and it is forbidden to attack Germany by the first France if Germany has not yet attacked the USSR.
                2. +2
                  2 March 2020 16: 45
                  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.

                  He-he-he ... the funniest thing in the USSR of the 30s is the zero correlation of the hypothetical course of a 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, coming down from the rostrum, sign documents on the expansion of the areas to be evacuated at the beginning of the war. smile
                  Simply put, the war was not officially planned at all, which was broadcast in propaganda.
                  1. +3
                    2 March 2020 19: 17
                    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. 0
                      5 March 2020 18: 26
                      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. 0
                        5 March 2020 20: 08
                        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. -1
                        6 March 2020 13: 21
                        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. 0
                        6 March 2020 13: 51
                        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. -1
                        6 March 2020 16: 02
                        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. 0
                        6 March 2020 19: 25
                        Quote: ser56
                        then they forgot that his proposals for a massive mine war on the railway were ignored until 43g ...

                        His opinion could be "ignored" for a more prosaic reason - there was not enough specialists, and the very communication and delivery of equipment for the partisan detachments was problematic, if only because the first two years of the war, the Red Army was not provided for everyone in sufficient quantities. I am always cautious about such statements by veterans, if only because at that time they did not possess the information that is needed to understand all the problems of the army in the field, in order to assess what was most important at that time.
            2. -1
              2 March 2020 12: 03
              Vladimir! It is impossible to explain Bach's deaf fugue - a man wrote to you that he read newspapers of that time. Me too - there was more than one of my articles on this topic. And I can confirm - he is right. And all you need is to take and read Pravda, at least, at least ... slogans. But the navel will untie, won't it?
              1. -1
                2 March 2020 13: 09
                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. 0
                  2 March 2020 18: 26
                  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. -1
                    2 March 2020 20: 07
                    Dear opponent, if you are not able to argue your own point of view here, these are your problems.
        2. 0
          5 March 2020 18: 24
          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? feel
      2. -1
        2 March 2020 11: 03
        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, and 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. -3
          2 March 2020 11: 27
          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. -1
            2 March 2020 12: 05
            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

            "W's" are not worth 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. -1
              2 March 2020 13: 30
              Quote: Olgovich
              "W's" are not worth 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. -3
                2 March 2020 13: 38
                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 Baltics are a completely different "essence". As well as 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. 0
                  2 March 2020 14: 24
                  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
                +2
                3 March 2020 01: 20
                Quote: Orel
                Quote: Olgovich
                "W's" are not worth 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" divisions based on the principle of the 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. +2
                  3 March 2020 12: 41
                  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. 0
                  5 March 2020 18: 30
                  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
                    0
                    5 March 2020 19: 27
                    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. -2
                      6 March 2020 13: 20
                      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
                        0
                        6 March 2020 14: 40
                        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 only the Reichswehr were taken into account ... By the time of Rem's death in 1934, the SA had 3 members + Stahlhelm 000 front-line soldiers - this is a "mob reserve", recruit as many personnel officers as you need ... Oh, yes ... 000 SS
                        The Luftwaffe is formed on March 9, 1935, the Panzerwaffe's "birthday" is October 15, 1935 ... 1937 is the end of April, the Condor legion turns Guernica into rubble ...
                        OKV organized in February 1938
                        So, there is nothing to be surprised at, I cannot even imagine that nothing has been done in the USSR over the years. However, the difference in approaches to the principles of the formation of troops among military specialists led to the "Tukhachevsky case"
                      2. -2
                        6 March 2020 16: 00
                        Quote: Thick
                        Sergei. If only the Reichswehr was taken into account ... By the time of Rem's death in 1934, the SA had 3 members + Stahlhelm 000 front-line soldiers - this is a "mob reserve", recruit as many personnel officers 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? feel
                        Quote: Thick
                        March 9, 1935 Luftwaffe formed, Panzerwaffe "birthday" - 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 troop formation among military specialists 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
                        0
                        6 March 2020 16: 47
                        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 did not have 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 came as a shock for Europe, forcing them to stop dreaming about an ideal world "for many generations" ... Without Soviets.
                      4. Fat
                        0
                        6 March 2020 17: 27
                        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 ... one of the "joint" schools, I remember it was in Lipetsk (pilots), tank school "Kama" near Kazan ...
                        From 1933 to 1939 there was no military-technical cooperation
                      5. +1
                        6 March 2020 19: 39
                        Quote: ser56
                        let's look the same ...

                        Well, let's take a look, especially from the point of view of the possession of the technique of an ordinary German and an ordinary Soviet person. By the beginning of the Second World War, almost all Germans of military age had a good enough command of household appliances and constantly faced the railroad, cars and even civil aviation. But the veteran of the Great Patriotic War, who on the eve of the war participated in Krenkel's expeditions and was engaged in the radioification of our remote regions, told me that people first heard the voice of Moscow only in the thirties, and it was a miracle for them. You simply cannot imagine that a huge part of our country did not see the railways, vehicles, many technical means at all, and the education was not very high. And do you think that it is possible to equally assess these people and the Germans from the point of view of military training? Not a fig of this, 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 train better command personnel for the lower echelons 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 the 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 set of the automatic telephone exchange, because they saw it alive for the first time in the army. And you are going to judge about that time ...
                      6. Fat
                        0
                        6 March 2020 21: 45
                        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. 0
                        7 March 2020 10: 02
                        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.
                      8. 0
                        7 March 2020 15: 46
                        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?
                      9. 0
                        7 March 2020 18: 51
                        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.
                      10. -3
                        8 March 2020 15: 19
                        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?
                      11. +1
                        8 March 2020 18: 35
                        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.
                      12. -5
                        10 March 2020 13: 47
                        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
                      13. -1
                        10 March 2020 17: 11
                        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?

                        It was for this that Tukhachevsky suffered when they realized what he had done with the weapons of the Red Army. So the "struggle for power" was attributed to him - this was then typical of such processes.
                      14. -4
                        11 March 2020 13: 37
                        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? feel
                        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
                      15. -1
                        11 March 2020 13: 53
                        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.
                      16. -4
                        11 March 2020 15: 41
                        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
                      17. -1
                        11 March 2020 18: 50
                        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.
                      18. -4
                        12 March 2020 09: 47
                        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
                      19. -1
                        12 March 2020 16: 53
                        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.
                      20. -4
                        13 March 2020 11: 23
                        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
                      21. -1
                        13 March 2020 11: 52
                        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?
                      22. -4
                        13 March 2020 12: 02
                        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!
                      23. -1
                        13 March 2020 12: 14
                        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.
                      24. -4
                        13 March 2020 14: 57
                        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
                      25. -1
                        13 March 2020 18: 49
                        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 way, the word "developer" means in the military environment only that it is an executor who receives instructions from the chief - you are not in the subject here either.
                      26. -4
                        14 March 2020 16: 13
                        Quote: ccsr
                        only in your imagination -

                        I am too lazy to quote you further with mutually exclusive provisions ... request
                      27. 0
                        14 March 2020 16: 18
                        Quote: ser56
                        I'm lazy

                        Apparently not to such an extent as not to knock the clueless keyboard.
                      28. -3
                        14 March 2020 16: 26
                        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 with your "intellect" from the barracks, no more ... then there was a frank flood, I finish on this thread - you want what, write to the LAN hi
                      29. 0
                        14 March 2020 16: 50
                        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 am having fun with your "intellect"

                        For God's sake - I am also ridiculous about your home-grown attempts to be known as an "intellectual".
                        Quote: ser56
                        want what, write to the PM

                        Too much honor to write to you in PM.
                      30. 0
                        9 March 2020 17: 33
                        The RIF fought noticeably better than the RKKF.
                        especially in the Far East laughing
                      31. -4
                        10 March 2020 13: 53
                        Quote: Red Bogatyr
                        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!
                      32. 0
                        9 March 2020 18: 16
                        However, the RIA fought quite worthy!
                        "Great retreat" does not mean anything ???
                      33. -4
                        10 March 2020 13: 50
                        Quote: Red Bogatyr
                        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
          2. +9
            2 March 2020 12: 19
            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 captivated by 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, and this manifested itself well in Finnish. I think that you too much believed in the slogan "The Red Army is the Strongest of All," and you have no idea about the true state of our armed forces.
            1. -2
              2 March 2020 13: 34
              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. +4
                2 March 2020 13: 41
                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. 0
                  2 March 2020 14: 00
                  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. -2
                  2 March 2020 14: 02
                  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. +1
                  2 March 2020 14: 08
                  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. +2
                    2 March 2020 14: 44
                    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
                    0
                    6 March 2020 22: 25
                    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
                  0
                  6 March 2020 23: 28
                  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
                0
                7 March 2020 00: 16
                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. -1
              2 March 2020 13: 38
              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. +6
                2 March 2020 13: 50
                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. -4
                  2 March 2020 14: 57
                  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
                    0
                    7 March 2020 01: 12
                    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. +2
              2 March 2020 14: 34
              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. +2
                2 March 2020 17: 02
                Quote: Octopus
                Judas Khrushchev. Under Stalin, this was not.

                There must be a tag "sacrasm" somewhere here. 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. +3
                2 March 2020 19: 05
                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. +2
                  2 March 2020 22: 05
                  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. 0
                    3 March 2020 12: 34
                    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. +1
                      3 March 2020 14: 40
                      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. 0
                        3 March 2020 19: 26
                        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?
          3. +1
            3 March 2020 15: 49
            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 it ultimately happened - but after the death of more than 60 million people and the destruction of Europe and some other territories. And the strengthening of the USA turned out to be even more "astronomical". And this is the question - why did Britain and especially France not want to come to an agreement right away? To restore the Entente, but in new conditions - this was obvious! The arguments that it was impossible to come to an agreement with the USSR are, in my opinion, unfounded! There is no doubt only one thing - the only goal achieved by the "collective West" was to incite Hitler against the USSR and bring countless losses (and suffering) to its peoples. As for the rest, the game of the Britons and, especially, the French turned out to be so-so - they, in addition to large losses, ceased to be superpowers, centers of power - unlike the Union.
          4. 0
            5 March 2020 18: 28
            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 ...
      3. 0
        2 March 2020 18: 37
        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, the German occupation of the demilitarized Rhine zone took place. The German government demagogically declared that in connection with the ratification of the treaty with the USSR on mutual assistance by France, it was not obliged to observe the terms of the Locarno Treaty of 1925. If the French government used force against the presumptuous German military clique, Stalin would simply wave his hand to the French: "You attacked yourself. Goodbye," - and so he did on November 30, 1939. That is, they had to choose between an agreement with the USSR and the restoration of the status quo in the Rhineland.
        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. +2
          2 March 2020 19: 24
          Quote: Nikolay 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: Nikolay 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. 0
            2 March 2020 19: 28
            What Agreement was concluded "after"?
            1. +1
              2 March 2020 19: 35
              Quote: Nikolay Chudov
              What Agreement was concluded "after"?

              The Pact and the 1939 Treaty are different documents.
          2. +1
            2 March 2020 19: 43
            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. +1
              2 March 2020 20: 09
              Quote: Nikolay 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. +1
                2 March 2020 20: 19
                What role did this treaty play against Germany’s military power? Moreover, he kept France from using force against Germany.
                1. 0
                  3 March 2020 12: 31
                  Quote: Nikolay 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. 0
                    3 March 2020 17: 38
                    Quote: ccsr
                    even such a cutie treaty forced Hitler to sign the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact in August 1939

                    I didn't. For three years you did not force and suddenly forced? But 9 days after ratification, the Soviet-French treaty was used by Hitler as a pretext for bringing troops into the demilitarized Rhineland. According to the treaty, France could not attack Germany if she did not attack the USSR, and for this, Poland must first disappear from the political map of the world. This was Hitler's plan. It seems that Hitler did endorse the Soviet-French treaty in absentia, at least "in the shower." By the way, initially this agreement was planned 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. -1
                      3 March 2020 19: 33
                      Quote: Nikolay Chudov
                      I didn’t. Three years did not force and suddenly forced?

                      For three years Hitler had no intention of conquering Poland - the Weiss plan was finished in June 1939. That is why Hitler decided to protect himself from Stalin's alliance with the French, if they really took the side of Poland.
                      Quote: Nikolay Chudov
                      It seems that Hitler did endorse the Soviet-French treaty in absentia, at least "in the shower."

                      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: Nikolay 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. 0
                        3 March 2020 19: 48
                        Quote: ccsr
                        If a military alliance were concluded, then yes

                        If Hitler signed the trilateral agreement mentioned in the protocol on the signing of the Soviet-French treaty on mutual assistance, then yes. But he was satisfied with this bilateral treaty, France, under this treaty, could not "touch" him until the occupation of Poland and a real threat from him to the Soviet Union. France declared war on Germany, and as a result, Stalin declared on November 30, 1939:
                        Not Germany attacked France and England, but France and England attacked Germany, taking responsibility for the current war
      4. 0
        3 March 2020 15: 27
        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,

        And nevertheless, many, especially those in power, were confident that a new world war was inevitable - and you can find this in the very newspapers to which you refer. You may not want war as much as you want, but if your neighbors are "sharpening the ax of war", then you have to answer - otherwise you will simply be eaten (or, as the classic said, crushed).
        Before the war, of course, everyone tried to play their game. Moreover, it should be understood that real players can not always be one hundred percent identified with "their" states - it was often (and is) so that the "henchmen" of other players sat at the top. For example, it was in the interests of the same Germany 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 it was necessary to exterminate the Jews? To rob, take away property - it is still possible to understand, proceeding simply from "common sense". But the general extermination - what was it for? For almost 80 years, historians and analysts have been treading around the bush, and they cannot give any really logical explanation. Or do they not want to?
      5. -2
        4 March 2020 13: 32
        "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.
      6. 0
        April 5 2020 12: 40
        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.
    3. +2
      2 March 2020 08: 35
      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. -7
        2 March 2020 10: 01
        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. +3
          2 March 2020 11: 29
          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. +2
            2 March 2020 14: 37
            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. 0
          2 March 2020 14: 49
          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.
    4. 0
      2 March 2020 09: 21
      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.
    5. -4
      2 March 2020 09: 42
      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.
  2. -1
    2 March 2020 07: 08
    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 family of the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha dynasty (Windsor). Only the intervention of W. Churchill prevented them from uniting.



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

      No, it's more complicated. Most likely, the count was on a long war between the USSR and Germany, in which the "allies" wanted to skim the cream off.
      For the "simple" destruction of the USSR, the Reich as such is not needed, a coalition of countries of the so-called Little Entente is enough.
    2. +1
      2 March 2020 07: 50
      History Spirals
  3. +1
    2 March 2020 07: 37
    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.
  4. 0
    2 March 2020 07: 46
    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!
  5. 0
    2 March 2020 07: 52
    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. .
  6. 0
    2 March 2020 11: 25
    Samsonov, a folk-backlayer again broadcasts from cheers laughing
  7. +4
    2 March 2020 13: 00
    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, the simplest method of economic reset was applied in Europe - the destruction of accumulated property. It did not matter at all who "wins" the war. Have England and France suffered losses that are significant to their masters? He who was rich remained rich and became even richer. A number of the poor were killed. So what?! Who cares for 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 ...
  8. -2
    2 March 2020 13: 12
    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.
  9. -2
    2 March 2020 14: 59
    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.
  10. +2
    2 March 2020 17: 58
    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, the German occupation of the demilitarized Rhine zone took place. The German government demagogically declared that in connection with the ratification of the treaty with the USSR on mutual assistance by France, it was not obliged to observe the terms of the Locarno Treaty of 1925. If the French government used force against the presumptuous German military clique, Stalin would simply wave his hand to the French: "You attacked yourself. Goodbye," - and so he did on November 30, 1939. That is, they had to choose between an agreement with the USSR and the restoration of the status quo in the Rhineland.
    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?
  11. -3
    3 March 2020 01: 16
    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. -1
      3 March 2020 09: 21
      It began when Poland, in a warm alliance with Germany, gutted Czechoslovakia.
  12. 0
    5 March 2020 18: 21
    "Even in September 1939, England and France could still put an end to Hitler with relatively little blood and quickly. All the combat-ready forces of the Reich were bound 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 practically defenseless. The perfect 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
  13. 0
    April 19 2020 20: 59
    The author, well, you are either a brilliant dreamer or haloperidol daily intramuscularly

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

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