August 39th. Pact and war


Covenants and declarations



And again about the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and the attack on Poland. And everything turned out crookedly. It is difficult to call this pact a very big victory or even the achievement of Soviet diplomacy. Or vice versa - a failure. As a matter of fact, this topic (late August - early September 39th) has been studied in great detail, and there is little to add.

But for some reason, they poke us in the face with this same pact (in fact, this is a non-aggression pact) endlessly. In fact, much more logical history Hitler’s diplomatic successes did not begin on August 23, 1939, but on the occupation of the Rhine demilitarized zone. And it happened already in March of the 36th year. Long before all other events. According to international law, Germany could not do this. And the French army (in itself!) Was then much stronger than the German. Yes, at that time, the Czechoslovak or Polish army were quite comparable in power to the Wehrmacht.

But at this very first stage of Adolf Hitler it was not just easy to stop, but very easy. World War II could end without starting. Western democracies were simply required to clearly say no. No casualties and no risk were required from them. Germany was weak and dependent at that moment. She was not capable of any confrontation. Nevertheless, Britain and France were silent. And the States were silent.

Later in all historical books they wrote that Europe rolled into the abyss of war. It’s great, of course, but you could stop this “swing” with a couple of diplomatic notes.

After German reconnaissance aircraft noted the concentration of thousands of French soldiers at the border, General Blomberg begged Hitler to immediately order the withdrawal of troops.

General Guderian, interrogated by French officers after the end of World War II, said: “If you French intervened in the Rhine region in 1936, we would lose everything and Hitler’s fall would be 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. ”

(Wiki.)

No, now we can talk about it as a funny incident. Ah, if the Titanic hadn’t met an iceberg ... Would the Fed arise then? Who knows? That is, we usually started to tell everything right from the “Sunday volleys on June 22nd”. Suddenly so. About the 1939th somehow in an undertone was told. But the history of WWII does not begin on September 1, 1939. Alas, it is.

In the 36th, the German army could not give any "salvos"; it still simply did not exist. But they gave them a demilitarized zone. And then it all went up. That's why it is customary to poke in the face this very non-aggression treaty, leaving behind the scenes all the diplomacy of the 30s. Which is strange enough. And do not tell the story in pieces, you and I are not at Viasat History.

Studying the history of the Third Reich, you never cease to be amazed how easy it was to stop everything. How much had to be given to Hitler without a fight, so that he could really pose a threat to all of humanity. Much has been written about the Munich conspiracy, and yet it is ignored by many. I don’t like it because. In the 38th Hitler still could be easily stopped. But no one wanted to do this.

The Munich Agreement of 1938 (in Soviet historiography usually refers to the Munich Agreement) is an agreement drawn up in Munich on September 29, 1938 and signed on September 30 of that year by British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, French Prime Minister Edward Daladier, German Chancellor Adolf Hitler and Prime Minister Minister of Italy Benito Mussolini. The agreement concerned the transfer by Czechoslovakia of Germany to the Sudetenland. The next day, a mutual non-aggression declaration was signed between Britain and Germany; a similar declaration of Germany and France was signed a little later.

(Wiki.)

Long negotiations and the "pact of last hope"


"About mutual non-aggression," in how. Where is the Soviet Union? And he was simply not invited there. While Hitler could be stopped diplomatically, for some reason he was not stopped and no one wanted to do anything with the USSR. And already in the 39th year, when clouds were gathering around Poland, France and Britain seemed to have begun negotiations with the USSR. From April to August, these same “negotiations” were conducted (total time).

Their course is more than described in detail by numerous researchers. The conclusion is simple: the British, for example, were not going to sign serious documents. And their representative did not have written authority for this (this will become clear already in August). And the French were not very determined, although they were ready to sign the "declaration".

Gentlemen just pulled the rubber. For them, this was a means of exerting pressure on Hitler. No more. At some point, the Soviet leadership began to develop a clear understanding that they were being fooled. The political situation in Europe is developing rapidly, and they have endless negotiations, it is not clear with whom (the level of negotiators of the English-French) and it is not clear what (the goals of the English-French). In general, if anything, these very “negotiations” did not affect the preparation of the German attack on Poland at all. The negotiations went on their own, the preparation itself ...

It could also have happened that the first salvos of the Polish war would have caught the "representative" Anglo-French delegation in Moscow at the talks. That would be a laugh! And by the way, the German reconnaissance saboteurs began the "invasion" on August 26 (wrong!). Think it over! The contract was signed on August 23, and on the 26th ...

Saboteurs were also tasked with capturing industrial facilities, roads and bridges. In particular, on the night of August 26, the Abwehr command of Lieutenant A. Herzner was supposed to capture the Yablunkovsky Pass and ensure the advance of the 7th Infantry Division from Zilina to Krakow. The difficult mountainous terrain did not allow the detachment radio operator to receive a message about the cancellation of the order to start the war, transmitted after 20.30 on August 25. Therefore, early in the morning of August 26, the detachment completed the task - it captured the pass.

(Dom-knig.com.)

Somehow it doesn’t seem very much that the agreement with Stalin in Berlin was given decisive importance. Dates do not hit. They are trying to convince us that the fate of Europe was decided in Moscow at the Anglo-French-Soviet talks in Moscow. That it was necessary to talk and agree ... Apparently, the main purpose of these "gatherings" is to prevent Stalin from agreeing on something with the Germans. That is, negotiations are as it were, but there are no results and are not planned.

In principle, it must be said that to some extent the Soviet side succeeded in powdering the brain. They talked from April to August ... and in the last decade of August, Stalin resolutely rushed out of the negotiation trap. A non-aggression pact is no more and no less than a leap into the last car of a departing geopolitical train.

On August 17 and 20 (!), The head of the French military mission, General Dumenk, reported from Moscow to Paris: There is no doubt that the USSR wants to conclude a military pact and does not want us to turn this pact into an empty piece of paper that does not have concrete significance.

(Wiki.)

Already on August 20, and they are building all plans. How much can you! By strategic and diplomatic standards, the time between August 23 and September 1 is one second (but the German saboteurs did not give us that second either). That is, you want to say: if Stalin did not sign a non-aggression treaty, and the invasion of Poland would not have taken place? Are you seriously? Given the fact that the German army already was mobilized? And where would this mobilized army go?

We are told that a non-aggression pact is bad. Fine, what were the alternatives? The German army smashes Poland and goes east (to our "old" border), but we have no agreements with Berlin. Is this a good alternative? And what is it good, in your opinion? Why is the heroic stupidity expected from the USSR exactly?

Until the very last moment, Stalin wanted to negotiate with the English-French, and now at the very last moment ... when it became clear that the train was almost gone. Here in the "scalded cat mode" had to negotiate with the Germans.

Once again: there is such an original approach - ask “necessary” questions and hush up “unnecessary” ones. Why was the USSR not invited to Munich in the 38th? If you so dreamed of "stopping Hitler"? Why was it to give Hitler Czechoslovakia? Why should he give Austria? These questions are not asked or posed seriously. Mistakes, fallacies, fear of war.

But from the 1939 USSR it is customary to ask harshly and specifically. So the USSR had to understand everything correctly and make only the most honest decisions. That is, in a kind of airless diplomatic space, Stalin signed the “spherical criminal pact” with the hands of Molotov. That is, the USSR had two million more solutions, but for some reason this option was chosen.

The fact that the Allies declared war on Hitler at the beginning of September, but not on Stalin (to which they had no complaints at all) is justified by this, with all their political cynicism, they could not take up and begin to make claims after a demonstrative failure of negotiations. Because it was completely nonsense. They (at that time!) Recognized by default that they simply did not leave any other choice for the USSR.

At that time, it was absolutely clear to everyone. But in 40-50 years ... it’s not so clear. Already questions arise! Why was the contract? The thing is that the USSR was not on the moon in airless space, and Joseph Stalin could not pursue a spherical policy in a vacuum. And he did not have a million options. Britain is an island, and the United States generally lay across the ocean. Britain had some options; the USA had all possible options. What the French thought was a separate issue.

Stalin had no special options. is he had negotiate with Hitler after the failure of negotiations with the Anglo-French. The idea being promoted by someone to “scare Hitler with negotiations” did not work with all obviousness. Hitler was not afraid. By the way, it seems he was aware that there would be no agreements "Moscow - Paris - London".

That is why Hitler’s preparations for war are analyzed separately, and the non-aggression pact is analyzed separately. It is not correct. The mobilization of the German army is serious. It is difficult, it is expensive. This is not a joke to you. Mobilization does not make jokes for the sake of. The well-known Rezun wrote well and much about mobilization.

So, by August 23, the Wehrmacht had already de facto entered the war (this is practically the case). All principal decisions werealready accepted. For some reason, this most obvious moment passed by the keen attention of the great Ukrainian historian. Hitler could not “take and deploy everything” at the end of August. Too late. The abolition of the attack on Poland in the last decade of August would be for Hitler equivalent to resignation. And capitulate for Poland (in the "East Prussian-corridor issues") was a bit late. Do not have time.

You may not agree with me, but the agreement of the 23rd is nothing fundamentally did not decide. And clutching at the heart when considering it is somewhat absurd. Important decisions were made at the moment when Hitler was going to act in the Rhine DMZ, in Austria and the Sudetenland ... that is where very important decisions were made. There you could do it ... or you could do it differently. The British and French had a certain alternative.

The options were very different. It was possible to figure out, wait and pull time. But Mr. Hitler could be denied very harshly. The insanity of the situation on the Rhine in the 36th year is so great that literally legends have to be told about the difficult situation in the French economy. What if the French began mobilization, it would be a financial crisis.

Why do they need mobilization? The French could well crush the Reich-36 army in peacetime. Without mobilization. How do they lie to us? Say, start the French in the 36th mobilization, and this would bring down their weak economy (this is described separately). And we think that already in the 36th there was a certain “super-powerful Wehrmacht” that could just gobble up Europe. And separately (in another book) it is said that there was no Wehrmacht in the 36th (it still had to be created in the remaining three (!) Years of peace time). Somehow, "professional historians" do not like to tell the whole truth.

Options for Stalin and the Allies


But Stalin in the last decade of August, the situation was peak. He had no options but to negotiate with Hitler. If anyone wants to sob about ruined Poland, then she just did everything to “kill herself”. She categorically refused to support contacts with Russia. Moreover, relations with Russia were very bad. The entire interwar gap.

In general, the Poles had to think not about the Anglo-French "allies", but about their own interests. Especially the example of Austria and Czechoslovakia at that moment to help and edify them. If Paris and London refused to save Vienna and Prague, what are the chances of Warsaw? That was what Polish politicians and generals needed to think about. They didn’t think about that, alas.

Many inhabitants have always been struck by cynicism and the dirt of Realpolitik, but that is, that is. When it comes to state interests, then there is no time for sentiment. In the 39th, the Poles were obliged to think about the good of their own country, and not about some muddy alliances. In principle, they had to think about options at the time of the Sudeten crisis. They somehow on the wrong side fit into it. And in the crisis around Austria, they somehow fit in the wrong direction.

Why did the Poles not want to save their country? And why should JV Stalin have to do this for them? They are simply very interested in honest, correct and safe options for the USSR in August 39th. I would like to hear the whole list. Announce please be so affectionate. If anything, Poland categorically did not want any defense alliances with Russia. And Hitler could well defeat her on his own.

And then another moment pops up, interesting. If the French army hit Germany in September 39th, it would be a complete disaster. For the Germans, of course. They did not deny it. In general, for some reason it is customary to analyze the actions of the French army in the summer of the 40th. For some reason, its actions (inaction) in the autumn of the 39th are usually analyzed much less frequently.

But in September of the 39th, the French army was still stronger than the German. A German is fighting against Poland, turning to France, so to speak, in the rear. By the way, a purely Rezunov theme. France could really get Hitler to check and checkmate for 2 weeks by striking from the rear (and the German generals openly admitted this - it is strange to deny the obvious). There was nothing to fend off in September 39th. Understand - nothing! One can write a revealing book that Hitler was brought to power by the French secret services in order to provoke a military crisis in Europe with the hands of a weak and inadequate Germany and create a “black redistribution”. Ah, how everything turned out for Paris in September 39th!

Hitler is an aggressor and a scoundrel, and France is fighting with him (reflecting aggression!). But Herr Hitler has practically no troops on the French border! And this situation did not happen by itself, no ... French intelligence built it in pieces. Valiant Frenchmen could (as in Bonaparte’s time!) Bring bayonet freedom to Central Europe. That’s all Tanks, guns and planes from Germany are thrown to Poland. Nice, huh?

With little blood, a mighty blow ... But for some reason, in such a winning situation, they preferred to sit out in the trenches, and then fell under occupation. But Stalin is to blame for everything. And yes, the non-aggression pact between Germany and Poland, the Pilsudski-Hitler Pact was signed a little earlier than the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. But who remembers this? As well as the declarations of non-aggression of Germany - Britain and Germany - France. Signed also a little earlier than August 1939.

Author:
Photos used:
4.bp.blogspot.com
Articles from this series:
The last parade in Brest
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. nemez 2 March 2020 06: 18 New
    • 8
    • 1
    +7
    So you have to poke their nose. We are silent and nod, we are waiting for a new war.
    1. Orel 2 March 2020 07: 04 New
      • 8
      • 30
      -22
      As for me, another article in the spirit of "we're white and fluffy," but they are to blame for everything. True, it is much more complicated, and if you are completely confident in the estimates, you must begin to analyze the causes of the Second World War right from the end of the twenties of the twentieth century. Hitler achieved such successes thanks to a skillful game on the diplomatic contradictions of the USSR and the West, so we are all to blame. That the Munich agreement, that the Pact with Germany - one field of berries and everything is clear here, all these are crimes against independent states
      1. bistrov. 2 March 2020 07: 17 New
        • 5
        • 3
        +2
        Quote: Orel
        all these are crimes against independent states

        But is Poland an “independent state”? Same as today's "Ukraine."
      2. Olezhek 2 March 2020 07: 26 New
        • 7
        • 1
        +6
        What is the Munich agreement, that the Pact with Germany


        But for some reason, they poke us in the face with this same pact (in fact, this is a non-aggression pact)


        And yes, the non-aggression pact between Germany and Poland, the Pilsudski-Hitler Pact was signed a little earlier than the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. But who remembers this? As well as the declarations of non-aggression of Germany - Britain and Germany - France. Signed also a little earlier than August 1939.


        It would be nice to figure out the details first. request
      3. Arlen 2 March 2020 07: 49 New
        • 14
        • 4
        +10
        Quote: Orel
        so we are all to blame

        What is the USSR to blame? That the West did not want to negotiate with the USSR and rejected peace initiatives, as well as security initiatives in Europe proposed by the Soviet Union? Maybe the USSR is to blame for the Munich agreement and the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia?
        1. Basil50 2 March 2020 08: 15 New
          • 10
          • 2
          +8
          arlene
          You will never prove anything to a liberal. They have no convictions.
          In 1939, the Germans, knowing perfectly well who such Poles did not begin to take them as allies, simply subjugated.
          WWII began with the genocide of the Germans and ended with the genocide of the Germans and organized the genocide of the Poles.
          In Europe today they are trying to justify the Germans, but Hitler also has such a dreamy artist and, in general, his only * mistake * is the extermination of Jews and, in general, Europeans, they are so inspired and so on and so forth. The English prime minister was not shy about voicing Hitler’s plans. How did her plans differ from * ost *?
          1. Basil50 2 March 2020 16: 13 New
            • 3
            • 3
            0
            As a reminder
            In 1939, after the Finnish provocation in Mineil, a war broke out between the SOVIET UNION and the Finns. The British and French supplied weapons and fodder for the Finnish army, the Germans and Swedes did not hesitate to supply weapons and military advisers.
            In the 1940s, the French and British planned a bombardment of oil fields in the SOVIET UNION, about which the Germans notified the whole world after the capture of Paris. The first hints of the bombing plan were dated 1938. The construction of airfields in the colonies of France and England in the Middle East took a lot of time.
            In the Far East, the Japanese one and a half million army staged constant provocations threatening war. since 1937.
            1. parma 3 March 2020 16: 14 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: Vasily50
              For the 1940th year, the French and the British planned a bombardment of oil fields in the Soviet Union

              Again 25 ..... So what? There are always such plans ... Do you want a shock - in the 30s the USA had a war plan with both the WB and Canada (by the way, on the other hand, there were such plans), this is known quite officially ... I won’t be surprised if The Russian Federation has plans for a war with Kazakhstan, say, or Belarus .... It's just a PLAN as a last resort ... I think in the Crimea in 2014, the achievements of just such a plan for a war with salo-borers were used ....
              Regarding the article, there is always a choice, we simply don’t always like it .... For example, it was possible to impose an embargo against Germany ... Without the resources of the USSR, the Wehrmacht would have had problems with “becoming” (this was the calculation of France and England with blockade) ... Regarding the "old" borders (before the partition of Poland) they were in 1939 (does everyone know the Stalin line?) were much better fortified than the "new" in the summer of 1941 ....
              And the pact is reminded to us for one more reason - we first fed the lion (who remembers when the last Soviet bulk carrier was unloaded at the port of Hitler Germany before the war?), And then they said that he decided to bite us “treacherously” ... with little blood and Stalin wanted a war aside from us, in the end everyone got a big war ... For whoever chooses between shame and war is inclined to the first gets the second ...
        2. Octopus 2 March 2020 09: 04 New
          • 3
          • 4
          -1
          Quote: Arlen
          What is the USSR to blame?

          )))
          Three claims to the USSR:
          1. Protocols to the Covenant. Neither Britain nor France in Munich seized a piece of Czechoslovakia. Poland and Hungary snatched it, but it was somehow forgotten. And not quite in Munich, the Hungarians with the Poles excelled, it was only about the Sudetenland.
          1.a Czechoslovakia / Czech Republic has never built up the main victim of the war in Europe, and does not like to talk about the period of the protectorate. There are reasons. But Poland’s WWII and its consequences are the main theme.
          2. Many people have concluded agreements with Hitler, but the friendship and border agreement of September 28.09.1939, XNUMX, right during WWII, is not often seen. Especially among the winners of fascism.
          3. In the 39th 40th there was a peculiar situation. The fascists Mussolini and Franco are neutral. Franco was smart enough for the whole war, Mussolini - until the summer of 40. But the winners of fascism behave interestingly. Different places are exempted from priests and landlords. Most British allies, as a sin. Accidentally coincided in time.
          1. strannik1985 2 March 2020 09: 17 New
            • 5
            • 1
            +4
            2. Many who made contracts with Hitler

            To put it mildly, it’s strange, especially if you recall the nature of the Moscow talks in the summer of 1939, the so-called allies wanted to conclude an agreement so much that they sent negotiators (British) without authorization to sign and with instructions to delay the negotiations as long as possible.
            And if you recall what the so-called allies did with Poland friendly to them ...
            These claims are for those who are completely not oriented in history, even within the school curriculum.
            1. Octopus 2 March 2020 10: 03 New
              • 2
              • 4
              -2
              Quote: strannik1985
              the Allies so wanted to conclude a treaty that they sent negotiators (British) without authority to sign and with instructions to delay negotiations as long as possible.

              Why do they need an agreement with the USSR?
              Quote: strannik1985
              remember what the so-called allies did with Poland friendly to them ...

              Why not? They attacked Germany, thought about a war with the USSR.
              Quote: strannik1985
              even within the school curriculum.

              Soviet school course?
              1. Olezhek 2 March 2020 10: 17 New
                • 4
                • 0
                +4
                Why do they need an agreement with the USSR?


                And what kind of obligations may the USSR have with respect to those countries that do not want to sign any treaties with it?


                remember what the so-called allies did with their friendly Poland
                Why not? Attacked Germany

                belay belay
                1. Octopus 2 March 2020 10: 53 New
                  • 3
                  • 1
                  +2
                  Quote: Olezhek
                  What kind of obligations can the USSR have with respect to those countries that do not want to sign any treaties with it?

                  None. He fought with whom he considered necessary. I did not understand the question.
                  Quote: Olezhek
                  Attacked Germany

                  Your eye twitches

                  What do you want to say with your wink? That the newspaper Pravda and personally Stalin himself deceived the Soviet people?
                  1. Old Horseradish 2 March 2020 18: 09 New
                    • 1
                    • 1
                    0
                    Quote: Octopus
                    That the newspaper Pravda and personally Stalin himself deceived the Soviet people?

                    Of course they did not cheat! Take the selection of "Truth" for 40-41 on June 22. Read what they called Goering, Hitler. I don’t even want to write what they were called there. The softest word is "friends." It would be very good to make the editor-in-chief of Pravda and the one who stood above him gobble up all the binder of the newspaper Pravda on June 22, 1941, when Germany attacked the USSR.
                  2. Olezhek 2 March 2020 18: 54 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    What do you want to say with your wink? That the newspaper Pravda and personally Stalin himself deceived the Soviet people?


                    Sorry, my last name is not Stalin.
                    Thanks of course, but no.
                    1. Octopus 2 March 2020 21: 15 New
                      • 1
                      • 2
                      -1
                      Quote: Olezhek
                      Sorry, my last name is not Stalin.

                      Very bad. I believe only Comrade Stalin.
              2. strannik1985 2 March 2020 10: 17 New
                • 2
                • 0
                +2
                Why do they need an agreement with the USSR?

                Now we know that there is no reason, and in the summer of 1939 the so-called allies tried to create the opposite impression.
                And what is wrong?

                France and England, in fact, guaranteed military assistance to Poland and threw it in September 1939.
                Soviet school course?

                I have no idea where you were taught. Not sure about the treaty with France in 1925 and England in 1939?
                1. Octopus 2 March 2020 10: 58 New
                  • 1
                  • 1
                  0
                  Quote: strannik1985
                  the allies tried to create the opposite impression.

                  So what is the problem? The imperialists invaded Germany a peaceful Soviet Union, is it now also not gentlemanly?
                  Quote: strannik1985
                  guaranteed military aid to Poland and threw it in September 1939.

                  Why are you "thrown"? Concern expressed, sanctions imposed.
                  Quote: strannik1985
                  Not sure about the treaty with France in 1925 and England in 1939?

                  I heard something. I’ll tell you more, in the Nuremberg indictment they wrote a lot about it, just perfidythat's all.
                  1. strannik1985 2 March 2020 11: 15 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    So what is the problem?

                    In the "claims" laughing They wanted to throw it, but it didn’t work out, now they are making claims. It’s ridiculous.
                    Why are you "thrown"?

                    Because they promised the Poles a lot more.
                    Heard something

                    It is visible, excuse me.
                    1. Octopus 2 March 2020 12: 44 New
                      • 3
                      • 2
                      +1
                      Quote: strannik1985
                      now claim

                      Who! British for WWII?
                      Quote: strannik1985
                      promised the Poles a lot more.

                      I think the Polish government in London had time to discuss these issues. The Polish government is not in Moscow, for some reason, but in London.
                      1. strannik1985 2 March 2020 13: 32 New
                        • 1
                        • 1
                        0
                        Who?

                        Yes, at least someone.
                        I think

                        And who cares what the Polish government thought there? Precedent is important. What is the point of the USSR to fight the Reich in 1939, if France and England are not going to fight?
                      2. Octopus 2 March 2020 13: 58 New
                        • 2
                        • 2
                        0
                        Quote: strannik1985
                        who cares what the Polish government thought there?

                        You already decide whether you are interested in the claims of Poland or not.
                        Quote: strannik1985
                        What is the point of the USSR to fight the Reich in 1939, if France and England are not going to fight?

                        Well, they say the USSR, when life made him fight, there were some problems, no?
        3. Gene84 2 March 2020 09: 17 New
          • 11
          • 1
          +10
          1. The USSR regained its own.
          2. At the time of signing the border treaty, the USSR was not a participant in the World War. The West at that time generally waged its strange war.
          3.Britain and France, instead of active military operations against Germany, was engaged in planning a war against the USSR. Italy was not neutral, by this time Mussolini had captured Ethiopia, Albania, during the German blitzkrieg in France, tore off a piece of the territory of the latter.
          1. Octopus 2 March 2020 10: 35 New
            • 2
            • 1
            +1
            Quote: Gene84
            The USSR regained its own.

            You are absolutely right. The nuance is that of the countries that returned to their country in the early 40s, only the USSR is among the winners of fascism.
            Quote: Gene84
            2. At the time of signing the border treaty, the USSR was not a participant in the World War. The West at that time generally waged its strange war.

            You are absolutely right. The West waged a strange war with Germany, and the Red Army at that time went on liberation campaigns in the pro-British countries of Eastern Europe.

            Two of them - Finland and Romania - after that became pro-German. The rest became part of the USSR.
            Quote: Gene84
            Mussolini captured Ethiopia

            Mussolini's art in Africa, as a sin, does not fall into the official WWII framework.
            Quote: Gene84
            instead of active military operations against Germany, she was planning war against the USSR

            Hood and Bismarck sailors could discuss this with you in more detail.
        4. Olezhek 2 March 2020 19: 44 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Protocols to the Covenant. Neither Britain nor France in Munich seized a piece of Czechoslovakia.


          Look at things positively: they got a lot after WWII.
          Russia, as a result of an agreement with the Germans, regained the territories lost after the WWII (which it fought on the side of the Entente).

          "But you know, there is justice in the world, DG And the one who is right will survive ...."
          1. Octopus 2 March 2020 21: 21 New
            • 3
            • 1
            +2
            Quote: Olezhek
            positive things: they got a lot after WWII.

            I will tell you more. Pan Benesh made his way to Versailles with a map and felt-tip pens and then drew a lot of things. Not all of the case.
            Quote: Olezhek
            Russia as a result of an agreement with the Germans regained the territories lost after the WWII

            Russia, as it were, is not. At least that's what they said to the holders of royal bonds.
            Quote: Olezhek
            which she fought on the side of the Entente

            Here are those times. You do not recognize the Brest Peace?
      4. Orel 2 March 2020 10: 08 New
        • 3
        • 2
        +1
        Quote: Arlen
        What is the USSR to blame?


        There were a lot of things, if applied to the pre-war period, then an extremely militaristic policy, an openly aggressive attitude towards countries with a capitalist economy, the proclamation at the level of state policy of the world revolution and the destruction of capitalism and all states with such an economy, the creation of a united world of workers and peasants. It was difficult to come to an agreement with such introductory ones, and we didn’t want this, then the USSR army was the largest and strongest in the world in the number of any types of weapons, except perhaps the fleet. Therefore, it is now being said that we wanted peace, only we could prepare for a world revolution, and it is also possible by military means, and all the conditions of collective security provided for the mandatory deployment of a huge contingent of Red Army troops in Eastern Europe and Central Europe, which is clearly shown by the events. in the Baltic states, therefore, it was impossible to dream of collective security in Europe then, it was all invented with a back mind, there were no practical points of contact between the USSR and the West ki
        1. Olezhek 2 March 2020 12: 48 New
          • 5
          • 0
          +5
          It was difficult to come to an agreement with such introductory ones, and we didn’t want this, then the USSR army was the largest and strongest in the world in the number of any types of weapons


          belay
      5. Orel 2 March 2020 10: 11 New
        • 1
        • 2
        -1
        Quote: Arlen
        Maybe the USSR is to blame for the Munich agreement and the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia?


        No, the Allies are to blame, we have something else to answer for - the Winter War and the Secret Protocols to the pact with Germany
    2. ANB
      ANB 2 March 2020 09: 02 New
      • 3
      • 1
      +2
      . That the Munich agreement, that the Pact with Germany - one field of berries and everything is clear here, all these are crimes against independent states

      "I am the daughter of an officer and everything is not so clear here"? Can we still apologize to the Germans for Stalingrad, the Kursk Bulge and the capture of Berlin?
      Correctly the USSR concluded a pact. And whoever doesn’t like it, let them repent and return their territories. It is I who so subtly hint at Ukraine, Poland and Lithuania.
    3. Olezhek 2 March 2020 09: 32 New
      • 7
      • 1
      +6
      Hitler achieved such success thanks to the skillful game of diplomatic contradictions of the USSR and the West


      In fact, the USSR had one real opportunity to sign / not sign something before the war
      and that was the same "non-aggression pact with Germany"
      All
      There were no other options.
      Conversations were (general)
      In reality, the USSR was not invited to European politics.

      The USSR before WWII was not a full-fledged participant in international politics.
      He wasn’t.
    4. Same lech 2 March 2020 09: 44 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      As for me, another article in the spirit of "we're white and fluffy," but they are to blame for everything.

      That's exactly what it is ... who specifically waged a war with the Nazis at that time ...
      The USSR in Spain ... who constantly cajoled Hitler at that time .. England, France Italy, Poland ... it is these countries that are guilty of Hitler’s appetite not being cut back to the borders of Germany, so it’s at least strange to blame the USSR for then ... the USSR did everything to stop the impending World War .. but not fate.
  • Uncle lee 2 March 2020 06: 22 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    World War II could end without starting.
    Yeah ! But what about Drang nach Osten!?
  • svp67 2 March 2020 07: 32 New
    • 8
    • 0
    +8
    But for some reason, they poke us in the face with this same pact (in fact, this is a non-aggression pact) endlessly.
    Why poke? Due to our recognition of the existence of "secret additional protocols" ... Western diplomacy does not allow this, the British are silent about the circumstances of Hess's arrival, but no, no, but he skips about the information about certain "gentlemen's agreements" to which he referred after landing in England. It was on such agreements that the whole policy of the West was built and is being built ... One can "promise" not to expand NATO to the East, and then "forget" about it, the gentleman gave the word, the gentleman took the word back ...
  • apro 2 March 2020 07: 36 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    Was the non-aggression pact with Germany beneficial to the USSR? Undoubtedly, the military situation was improving. The lost territories were returned under Soviet control.
    Was such a treaty out of the ordinary? Many European countries signed similar treaties with Germany. And this was considered the norm.
    Is Russia worth condemning this treaty today? In its subordinate position it is her choice. To condemn everything Soviet. The goals pursued today by the Russian government are diametrically opposed to the actions of the USSR.
  • Jurkovs 2 March 2020 08: 18 New
    • 4
    • 2
    +2
    The pact with Germany was simply necessary, at least from an economic point of view. To continue industrialization, the USSR needed supplies of equipment. The equipment was supplied by the USA and Germany (France and England took a hostile position). Stalin understood that an alliance with the Anglo-Saxons meant the cessation of any deliveries from Germany and the closure of delivery routes from the United States. Japan and Italy simply would not have missed ships carrying goods for the USSR, and the organization of convoys to Murmansk could not have taken place. Together with the Pact, a Trade Agreement was signed and a loan was issued under which the USSR received equipment for a whole year. Stalin believed that the USSR would be enough for two years to equip military factories with the equipment they needed. His desire turned into an “opinion” and a collective mistake of the Soviet leadership. In this case, the main blame lies with the General Staff, the military must always be ready for war, despite the political statements of their leaders. There is no shame in the signing of the Covenant for the country and people. Shame lies in some of the consequences of the established special relationship with Germany, such as:
    1. In early October 1939, a German naval base was established 35 km north-west of Murmansk for refueling and repair of German military ships and submarines. The Germans used the base during the campaign in Norway, with which, as you know, the Soviet Union had normal diplomatic relations for many years. And now we are surprised that Norway is hostile to our country.
    2. In Murmansk, the German auxiliary cruisers, conducting military operations against England, were refueled with food and fuel. The USSR supplied the Germans with meteorological reports, which were then used by the Luftwaffe in the bombing of England.
    3. The Soviet icebreaker made a difficult journey along the Arctic Ocean in order to navigate through the Bering Strait the German raider "Shif-31". Once in the Pacific Ocean, this raider successfully sent several ships of England and its allies to the bottom of the sea.
    4. Under the pretext of the option of the Gestapo population, German and Austrian citizens were issued - anti-fascists, who had at one time found political asylum in the Soviet Union. There were 800 people, among them the organizer of the Austrian Communist Party, Fritz Korichoner.
    These are really shameful pages of our diplomacy and the like cannot be allowed in the future.
    1. sleeve 2 March 2020 09: 02 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      What is cipher31? Something I do not remember such a miracle operation. For the rest of the statements, I somehow doubt the same thing. Sooo
    2. Octopus 2 March 2020 11: 02 New
      • 1
      • 2
      -1
      Quote: Jurkovs
      Japan and Italy simply would not have missed ships with cargoes for the USSR,

      Very strange statement. The Pacific route LL is the main one.
      1. hohol95 2 March 2020 14: 55 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        D.V. LIVENTSEV, Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor (Voronezh)
        LOSSES OF THE CIVIL FLEET OF THE FAR EAST IN THE PERIOD
        GREAT PATRIOTIC WAR
        December 14, 1941 the Soviet steamships Svirsgroy, Sergey Lazo, Simferopol,
        being repaired in Hong Kong, they were subjected to a Japanese armed attack. As a result of shelling of vessels from the shore, the Krechet transport was flooded, other vessels were seriously damaged. Capturing the Soviet ships, the Japanese
        hung their flags on them
        . In total for 1941 - 1944 the Japanese detained 178 ships and sunk the transports “Krechet”, “Svirstroy”, “Maykop”, “Perekop”, “Angarstroy”, “Kola”, “Belarus”, “Peacock Vinogradov”, “Ob”, “Ilmen”, “ Transbalt. " Transports
        Ashgabat, the Collective Farmer, and Kiev were the victims of an unidentified submarine attack.

        Here you have the Pacific route ... It wasn’t calm there!
        1. Octopus 2 March 2020 15: 06 New
          • 0
          • 2
          -2
          Quote: hohol95
          transports “Krechet”, “Svirstroy”, “Maykop”, “Perekop”, “Angarstroy”, “Kola”, “Belarus”, “Peacock Vinogradov”, “Ob”, “Ilmen”, “Transbalt”

          Will we compare it with the north?
          1. hohol95 2 March 2020 15: 14 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            To compare the convoy system that broke through with strong enemy opposition and single-vessel raids without guarding through the battle zones of Japan and the USA is completely stupid!
            Can we still calculate the losses on the land route in Iran?
            But people died there too!
            1. Octopus 2 March 2020 15: 51 New
              • 1
              • 2
              -1
              Quote: hohol95
              To compare the convoy system that broke through with strong enemy opposition and single-vessel raids without guarding through the battle zones of Japan and the USA is completely stupid!

              Exactly. There were excesses with the Japanese, not a blockade.
              Quote: hohol95
              But people died there too!

              Or they died everywhere, time was not easy. The topic of LL LL came up after the statement above that the rejection of, um, mutual understanding with the Reich inevitably led to a blockade by neutral Italy and Japan.
        2. Olezhek 2 March 2020 18: 40 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Very strange statement. The Pacific route LL is the main one.


          Here you have the Pacific route ... It wasn’t calm there!



          Will we compare it with the north?



          But Japan has not officially fought with the USSR!
          And nevertheless, the world with honest Japanese looked very, very strange.
          And at any moment (at any!) The Japanese could cut off supplies
          1. Octopus 2 March 2020 21: 23 New
            • 1
            • 2
            -1
            Your transports go through the combat zone, actually. Naturally not a cruise.
            1. hohol95 2 March 2020 22: 33 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Your transports go through the combat zone, actually. Naturally not a cruise.

              That's just who created from the Pacific Ocean - the combat zone?
              God of the sea and oceans Poseidon?
              1. Octopus 2 March 2020 23: 52 New
                • 2
                • 2
                0
                Quote: hohol95
                WHO created from the Pacific - the combat zone?

                The Japanese are mostly.

                Let me remind you that it was
                Quote: Jurkovs
                Stalin understood that an alliance with the Anglo-Saxons meant the cessation of any deliveries from Germany and the closure of delivery routes from the United States. Japan and Italy simply would not have missed ships with cargoes for the USSR,

                Italy is neutral in the European war until 10.06.1940/22.06.1941/08.08.1945. From the USSR - until XNUMX/XNUMX/XNUMX. Japan in relation to the USSR until XNUMX/XNUMX/XNUMX.
                1. Arlen 3 March 2020 00: 08 New
                  • 14
                  • 0
                  +14
                  Quote: Octopus
                  From the USSR - until 22.06.1941/XNUMX/XNUMX

                  However, do not forget that Italy joined the Anti-Comintern Pact in November 1937. Thus, Italy, in absentia, became hostile to the USSR.
                  1. Octopus 3 March 2020 00: 20 New
                    • 1
                    • 2
                    -1
                    Quote: Arlen
                    Italy in November 1937 joined the Anti-Comintern Pact. Thus Italy, in absentia, became hostile to the USSR

                    Nevertheless, in the 37th year ships from America quite reached themselves. As for the Comintern, everyone had complaints against it, you know. In the 43rd, this organization, at urgent requests, was not covered at all by Italy (formally covered).
            2. Olezhek 3 March 2020 07: 40 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              Your transports go through the combat zone, actually. Naturally not a cruise.


              1 Where Soviet ships sailed most of the time there were no special battles
              2 Soviet ships go under the Soviet flag
              3 The Japanese fleet is very highly professional.
              4 Problems with the passage were even before the start of all hostilities

              Conclusion: these were quite conscious attacks on Soviet ships
              No need to sing songs about cruises in the war zone
              1. Octopus 3 March 2020 08: 36 New
                • 1
                • 1
                0
                Quote: Olezhek
                No need to sing songs about cruises in the war zone

                This is your song, sorry.
                Quote: Olezhek
                The Japanese fleet is very highly professional.

                It was as if the Japanese fleet was making efforts to guard Soviet ships. Drown - well, reach - to hell with them.
    3. Unknown 2 March 2020 20: 40 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      just do not need the Norwegians, here to expose white and fluffy. immediately after the revolution, they engaged in poaching with us, and not only that is what is known about it ........... The first of the most massive invasions of Norwegian vessels into the internal waters of the RSFSR occurred in April 1920. At least, as the well-known historian William Pokhlebkin claimed in his book Foreign Policy of Russia, Russia and the USSR for 1000 Years in Names, Dates, and Facts. According to Pokhlebkin, the account of foreign fishing ships went not to tens, but to hundreds. Poachers exterminated marine animals, including seals, by the thousands. Norwegians did not spare either pregnant females or hardly born cubs. It is worth noting that the destruction of fauna was carried out even in the Throat of the White Sea and the mouth of the Northern Dvina. However, the foreign traders did not seem to be embarrassed and were not going to leave of their own free will.

      Source: Seal War: what did Norwegian poachers do in the USSR
      © Russian Seven russian7.ru ............. and then repent to the Varangians here, it’s worth wondering the relations of Norway to us ,, ........ Everyone will try to grab the pieces to taste , in a weakening state it was, and it will be so. only strong powers pass by, they are afraid. The USSR liberated northern Norway, many of our soldiers were killed there, and as they entered into NATO, our military graves were destroyed ........ During the Second World War, about 100 thousand Soviet prisoners of war were sent to Norway. 3,7 of them died and were buried in about 100 different graves in Nordland, Troms and Finnmark. The book deals with them and how the remains of the deceased and the burial sites themselves were destroyed - in particular, exploded - in the early 1950s, and at the direction of the authorities. writes about this Suleim (Marianne Neerland Soleim) for the book "Operation Asphalt" with the subtitle "Cold War and military graves." so, that's where the whole war with monuments went, and not today.
  • Den717 2 March 2020 09: 21 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    But at this very first stage of Adolf Hitler it was not just easy to stop, but very easy. World War II could end without starting. Western democracies were simply required to clearly say no. No casualties and no risk were required from them.

    It seems to me that the very question of the possibility of France to prevent a war is posed not entirely correctly. Firstly, at that time France itself did not have much to decide. She reached for the wake of British politics. Secondly, WWII itself was Britain's target. She wanted this war to happen. Therefore, everything else in politics happened as a derivative of the goals of Britain. In those days, Britain was the power that played the dominant role in the world, as the United States today. But so that no one could threaten her position in Europe, it was necessary to "besiege", and it is better to fragment the USSR for the development of its territory in the future. It must be remembered that the growth rate of the USSR economy far exceeded European values, which Britain regarded as a real threat to its power. Therefore, a strategy was developed to strengthen Germany for a clash with the USSR, despite the fact that it was necessary to control the strength of the Germans and not allow them to strengthen excessively by the Poles. Germany, reinforced by the Poles in terms of military potential, would become the strongest country in Europe, and already it would threaten the dominance of Britain. Therefore, everything that was given to Germany was given not out of oversight or fear of political complications, but on the basis of clear promising tasks. Today, the consolidated West is putting pressure on Russia. The MR Pact is a "far-fetched" reason for this pressure, and not a document "not understood" by anyone. There will not be this pact, they will find another reason, for example, an agreement with the Weimar Republic on military cooperation. Moreover, the NSDAP’s drive to power was also purposeful, for the Anglo-Saxons were not so afraid of anything as the alliance between the USSR and Germany. What was needed was a Nazi lean in German politics so that this alliance could not take place in principle. In general, this is a classic case where a crocodile brought up at his own expense (Germany) gained strength, got out of control of the author (Britain + USA) and chopped off his hand. About the same situation today with the IG, and in the future, and Ukrainian nationalism .... Something like this ... if very short.
  • Doctor 2 March 2020 09: 29 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Somehow it doesn’t seem very much that the agreement with Stalin in Berlin was given decisive importance.

    See for yourself whether it seems or not.

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

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

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

    At night, Hitler and I stood on the terrace and admired the rare game of nature. A very intense aurora {123} for a whole hour blazed with red light opposite, covered in legends of Untersberg, while above it the sky blazed with all the colors of the rainbow. It was impossible to imagine a more spectacular staging of the final “Twilight of the Gods”. Our faces and hands seemed unnaturally red. Hitler suddenly said to one of his military adjutants: “It looks like a stream of blood. This time, the use of force is indispensable. "
    Speer. Memories.
    1. Olezhek 2 March 2020 09: 55 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      He ran her eyes, for a moment, blushing in front of his eyes, he petrified, then hit his fist on the table so that his glasses shook and exclaimed: “I caught them! I caught them! ”


      On the evening of August 23 after Goebbels commented on the sensational news at a press conference,


      That is, it is a surprise, a sensation, something unprecedented.
      Hitler did not build serious relations of the USSR and did not focus his policy on the USSR.
      And here suddenly

      And do not sign Stalin's contract, and then what?

      Just the wild surprise of Hitler says a lot.
      1. Doctor 2 March 2020 10: 00 New
        • 4
        • 4
        0
        And do not sign Stalin's contract, and then what?

        Perhaps we would live in a different world. In which the USSR would not have lost millions of inhabitants and would not have been thrown back 30 years ago in technology.
        Stalin's biggest diplomatic mistake for the entire board.
        1. Olezhek 2 March 2020 10: 23 New
          • 3
          • 1
          +2
          Maybe we would live in a different world


          Definitely.

          In which the USSR would not have lost millions of inhabitants and would not have been thrown back 30 years ago in technology.


          And perhaps, being in complete isolation, he would have been routed utterly and disappeared from the political map of the world.

          Stalin's biggest diplomatic mistake for the entire board


          That he didn’t jump to defend the interests of the Polish brothers?
          1. Doctor 2 March 2020 10: 38 New
            • 1
            • 2
            -1
            That he didn’t jump to defend the interests of the Polish brothers?

            Including. They are Slavs and not Germans. But this is not the main thing.
            He did not understand who Hitler was. And he chose the wrong ally.
            History shows that the one who plays on the side of the Anglo-Saxons, as a rule, does not lose.
            And vice versa.
          2. Doctor 2 March 2020 10: 46 New
            • 2
            • 3
            -1
            And perhaps, being in complete isolation, he would have been routed utterly and disappeared from the political map of the world.

            In what isolation? We have developed normal relations with Americans, British and French. It was necessary to conclude an agreement with them, without stupid conditions with the passage of troops through Poland. Knowing that, in any case, a war was to be fought on 2 fronts, Adolf would have thought about whether to expand further or not.

            He even thought about it with us.

            "... Among the observations that were kept in my memory, with all its whimsicality, there was a clear, somewhat comic picture: the Italian ambassador Bernardo Attolico a few days before the attack on Poland, grabbing air on the run, bursts into the Reich Chancellery. He rushed to the news that Italy at first would not be able to fulfill its allied obligations, and Duce put this refusal into impossible demands for the immediate supply of such a mass of military and national goods, the result of which could only The weakening of the German armed forces Hitler praised Italy’s military potential, especially its navy, reorganized and equipped with a large number of submarines, the same opinion was with respect to the Italian Air Force, and at some point Hitler thought that his whole strategy was dying, since he believed that Italy’s determination to go to war would further frighten the Western powers. After hesitating, he postponed for several days the attack on Poland, which had already been ordered. "
            Speer. Memories.


            Conclude an agreement with the British and French and Hitler in isolation.
            1. Olezhek 2 March 2020 18: 50 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              In what isolation? We have developed normal relations with Americans, British and French


              Of course, they developed, and at that moment German divisions were deployed along the Polish border.

              Conclude an agreement with the British and French and Hitler in isolation.


              For this it was necessary to have some other British and French.
              Apparently from parallel reality.

              You read the article inattentively.
              Frenchs could crush Hitler legally and in "one muzzle".
              1. Doctor 2 March 2020 19: 12 New
                • 1
                • 4
                -3
                For this it was necessary to have some other British and French.
                Apparently from parallel reality.

                And what, after June 22, they came from another reality? However, he concluded contracts, has not gone anywhere. And in Yalta, and in Tehran, and in Potsdam. And brandy drank with the enemies of the working people.
  • Pavel73 2 March 2020 10: 22 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Hitler back in 1923 in his Mein Kampf declared the need to expand living space for Germans in the east, by which he means "only Russia and its subordinate states." After that, any state in the world that has signed a treaty or pact with it, voluntarily or involuntarily, directly or indirectly, becomes an ally of the Nazis against Russia.
  • NordUral 2 March 2020 10: 32 New
    • 7
    • 0
    +7
    What is the USSR to blame?
    He was guilty, even as he was guilty!
    I am guilty of the whole West for my existence as a socialist state, as an example for their peoples, as the West’s fear of its peoples. And differently, the History of that time could not have happened. Everything else is a word game.
  • Bagatur 2 March 2020 10: 36 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Polish governments are no different. But if in 39 missed the Red Army with Polsh happened what happened after 45 ...
  • smaug78 2 March 2020 11: 12 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Vasily50
    WWII began with the genocide of the Germans

    You, of course, confirm this with documents?
  • Pashhenko Nikolay 2 March 2020 12: 35 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Easy to reason with your hind mind. In style if yes.
  • Doctor 2 March 2020 13: 23 New
    • 2
    • 4
    -2
    Until the very last moment, Stalin wanted to negotiate with the English-French, and now at the very last moment ... when it became clear that the train was almost gone. Here in the "scalded cat mode" had to negotiate with the Germans.


    Nothing like this. Negotiations were planned to "fill up" from the very beginning.

    INSTRUCTIONS TO THE PEOPLE'S DEFENSE COMMISSIONER OF THE USSR K. E. VOROSHILOV, HEAD OF THE SOVIET DELEGATION AT THE NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE MILITARY MISSIONS OF THE UK AND FRANCE
    7 1939 of August
    Secretly
    1. Secrecy of negotiations with the consent of the parties.
    2. First of all, lay out their authority to negotiate with the Anglo-French military delegation on the signing of the military convention, and then ask the leaders of the English and French delegations if they also have the authority from their governments to sign the military convention with the USSR.
    3. If they do not have the authority to sign the convention, express surprise, shrug and “respectfully” ask for what purpose their government sent to the USSR.
    4. If they answer that they are sent for negotiations and to prepare the case for signing a military convention, then ask them if they have any plan of defense for the future allies, that is, France, England, the USSR, etc. against aggression by the aggressor bloc in Europe.
    5. If they don’t have a specific defense plan against aggression in one way or another, which is unlikely, then ask them, on the basis of what questions, what kind of defense plan do the British and French think
    to negotiate with the military delegation of the USSR.
    6. If the French and the British will nevertheless insist on negotiations, then the negotiations will be reduced to discussion on certain issues of principle, mainly about the passage of our troops through the Vilnius corridor and Galicia, as well as through Romania.
    7. If it turns out that the free passage of our troops through the territory of Poland and Romania is excluded, then declare that without this condition an agreement is impossible, since without the free passage of Soviet troops through these territories the defense against aggression in any of its variants is doomed to failure, which we do not consider it possible to participate in an enterprise that is doomed to failure in advance.
    8. Upon requests for the French and English delegations to show defense plants, institutes, military units and military schools, to say that after the pilot Lindberg visited the USSR in 1938, the Soviet government banned the display of defense enterprises and military units to foreigners, with the exception of our allies, when they appear.
    1. Olezhek 2 March 2020 18: 45 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Nothing like this. Negotiations were planned to "fill up" from the very beginning.


      Do you have any thoughts in your head? Or is it possible to spread only “sheets”?
      1. Doctor 2 March 2020 19: 08 New
        • 2
        • 4
        -2
        Do you have any thoughts in your head?

        How many people, so many thoughts. I do not spread sheets, but documents refuting your thoughts. Not all of course.
        Everyone will agree with these.
        "... at this very first stage of Adolf Hitler it was not just easy to stop, but very easy."
        "... Studying the history of the Third Reich, you never cease to be amazed how easy it was to stop everything."
        "... The French could well crush the Reich 36 with a peacetime army."
        Yes, only: "I would have known the ransom, I would live in Sochi." Alternative specialists have been chewing these topics for years.

        Well, the fact that Stalin had no choice is not so. He made his choice.
        1. Olezhek 2 March 2020 19: 29 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          I spread not sheets but documents refuting your thoughts


          Of course, I greatly apologize, but let's all start spreading scans of documents for that period-
          the fun will begin! So sheets of 10-15!
          1. Doctor 2 March 2020 19: 47 New
            • 2
            • 4
            -2
            Of course, I greatly apologize, but let's all start spreading scans of documents for that period-

            All is not necessary, only one.

            You expressed the idea that Stalin allegedly really wanted to agree with the British, but they pulled the cat by the tail. And he was FORCED to agree with the Germans.

            I expressed the idea that it was the other way around, the British came to negotiate, and we pulled, waiting for the Germans to mature.

            As proof, I cited a scan of Stalin’s instructions to Voroshilov, which confirms that from the very beginning it is necessary to find fault with different points, and at the end to put an impossible, independent condition.

            How can ENGLAND guarantee passage through POLAND? These are different states.
            1. Olezhek 2 March 2020 19: 51 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              I expressed the idea that it was the other way around, the British came to negotiate, and we pulled, waiting for the Germans to mature.


              Stalin was not crazy
              For nothing, he did not need a common border with the Reich
              (do not read Rezun at night and will be for you)
              Option of agreement with the English-French much more interesting.
              but he was absolutely unattainable.
              1. Doctor 2 March 2020 20: 02 New
                • 2
                • 4
                -2
                Stalin was not crazy. For nothing, he did not need a common border with the Reich

                Come on you. They got along very well, because they are both SOCIALISTS.
                Here is another sheet from Speer to feel the spirit of the era.

                "On September 29, Ribbentrop returned from Moscow from the second Moscow meeting with the German-Soviet treaty of border and friendship, which enshrined the fourth partition of Poland. At the table at Hitler, he said that he had never felt as good as among Stalin’s staff:"As if I were in the middle of the old partiigenossen, my Fuhrer! ” Hitler with a stone face said nothing about this explosion of enthusiasm for the usually so dry Foreign Minister. Stalin seemed, as Ribbentrop said, to be satisfied with the border agreement, and after the negotiations ended he personally drew a pencil on the frontier, now Soviet territory, area that he presented to Ribbentrop under a huge hunting reserve. This gesture immediately provoked Goering’s reaction, which could not agree that the Stalinist increase went to the Foreign Minister personally and expressed the opinion that it should go to the Reich and, therefore, to him, the Imperial huntsman. Because of this, a fierce debate broke out between the two gentlemen-hunters, ending for the Minister of Foreign Affairs with heavy chagrin, as Goering was more assertive and punchy. "
                1. strannik1985 2 March 2020 20: 13 New
                  • 0
                  • 1
                  -1
                  Come on you

                  Lies, in 1933 all joint programs were curtailed at the request of the German side.
                  1. Doctor 2 March 2020 20: 33 New
                    • 1
                    • 4
                    -3
                    Lies, in 1933 all joint programs were curtailed at the request of the German side.

                    Right. Hitler cleaned the country from political opponents, communists in the first place. They were enemies from the very beginning.

                    Remember how Goebbels had in The Battle of Berlin:

                    “Many fragments of this battle eventually faded from memory. However, some of them remained conscious. As I now see a picture in front of my eyes - there is still a young, hitherto unknown attack aircraft and violently throws everything that comes to hand into the flying red rabble. Suddenly, a mug hits his head, blood flows down his temples, with a groan he drops to the floor. But after a few seconds he rises again, grabs a sprained bottle and throws it back into the hall, where it breaks with a bang on the enemy’s head. "

                    But then Hitler needed a reliable rear in the East.
                    And the programs have unfolded again.
                    1. strannik1985 3 March 2020 05: 27 New
                      • 0
                      • 1
                      -1
                      But then to Hitler

                      Not this way laughing
                      Someone on both sides of the English Channel decided ... fate, pushing the foreheads of the USSR and Germany in 1939. The MP Pact was signed after long but unsuccessful negotiations in the summer of 1939 with the British and French.
                      1. Doctor 3 March 2020 10: 37 New
                        • 1
                        • 3
                        -2
                        Someone on both sides of the English Channel decided ... fate, pushing the foreheads of the USSR and Germany in 1939.

                        Everyone wanted to sit out. We also rejoiced when Germany grappled with France and England.
                        This is what Hitler played.
                2. Olezhek 3 March 2020 07: 43 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  Come on you. They got along very well, because they are both SOCIALISTS.


                  Native - tell similar things in Ukraine
                  and you will be hype.
                  1. Doctor 3 March 2020 09: 33 New
                    • 1
                    • 3
                    -2
                    Native - tell similar things in Ukraine
                    and you will be hype.

                    But is there really something?
                    Do you need to decipher the letter C in the abbreviation of the NSDAP?
                    Then no one thought that there would be Auschwitz. Therefore, they communicated with Hitler, as with any other politician.
                    And the word "socialist" in the name of his party misled some comrades.
                    1. Olezhek 3 March 2020 11: 06 New
                      • 1
                      • 0
                      +1
                      Do you need to decipher the letter C in the abbreviation of the NSDAP?


                      And before the WWII, both Russia and Germany were led by monarchs,
                      Moreover, Nicholas II and William II were relatives
                      So what?

                      Yuri, you spread sheets or decipher letters
                      original, but a little too original
                      1. Doctor 3 March 2020 12: 12 New
                        • 1
                        • 4
                        -3
                        So what?

                        I do not understand what the kings have to do with it. But it doesn’t matter. Another thing is important.

                        Hitler was persuaded by the military in a temporary alliance with the USSR in order to get rid of the French and British. He did not intend to conclude any long-term agreements for fundamental ideological reasons.

                        DIARY OF THE Plenipotentiary Representative of the USSR in the Great Britain I.MAYSKY
                        23 1939 of August
                        Secretly
                        "... In this regard, Benesh said that in early August, the adviser to the German embassy in Moscow, Hilger arrived from Moscow to Berlin and made a report on the Anglo-Franco-Soviet negotiations at a meeting of some leading German officials, mainly military. At this meeting, it was decided that to counter England and France immediate conclusion of a non-aggression pact with the USSR is necessary. Hitler at first resisted, but the military managed to convince him, deftly using the argument about the danger of war on two fronts. The result was Ribbentrop’s trip to Moscow. "


                        But the German regime saw Stalin closer in spirit than the bourgeois West, after all, Marxism was originally from Germany. He was even ready to fit in with Germany if something happened.

                        "The transcript of the conversation between I.Fon Ribbentrop and I.V. Stalin and V.M. Molotov on September 27, 1939, began at 22 p.m. and lasted three hours. The conversation was attended by: from the Soviet side - the plenipotentiary of the USSR in Germany A. A. Shkvartsev, on the German side - German Ambassador to the USSR F. Schulenburg.
                        ... As for the relations of the Soviet government to the English complex of issues, then he (Stalin) I would like to note that the Soviet government never had sympathy for England. It is only necessary to look into the writings of Lenin and his students in order to understand that the Bolsheviks always criticized and hated England most of all, moreover in those days when there was no talk of cooperation with Germany.
                        Mr. Stalin said that the Minister in a cautious form hinted that Germany did not mean any kind of cooperation (the word is written by hand) and does not intend to draw the Soviet Union into the war. This is very tactful and well said. The fact that Germany currently does not need someone else’s help and, possibly, will not need someone else’s help in the future. However, if, contrary to expectations, Germany finds itself in a difficult situation, then she can be sure that the Soviet people will come to Germany's aid and will not allow Germany to be strangled. "The Soviet Union is interested in a strong Germany and will not allow Germany to be thrown to the ground."
        2. Olezhek 2 March 2020 19: 45 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Well, the fact that Stalin had no choice is not so. He made his choice.


          Waiting for the German army to invade the old border without having agreements with anyone? belay
          1. Doctor 2 March 2020 20: 48 New
            • 2
            • 3
            -1
            Waiting for the German army to invade the old border without having agreements with anyone?

            Agree with the British on their terms, without getting into Poland.
            Without a sheet in any way:

            "General Dumenk gives the following concept: the troops of France and England, like the troops of the USSR, are located on their borders; in case of an attack, the General Staff of the Allies will ask the USSR launch an air attack on Germany and her communications; Poland and Romania will ask for help in supplying their armies from the allies, and this assistance will be provided. Admiral Drake adds that if Poland and Romania do not ask for help from the USSR, they will soon become provinces of Germany. But if the USSR will be in union with us, they will certainly turn to him for help, and to get an exact answer to this question, you need to turn to Poland. Comrade Voroshilov reveals the complete failure of this "concept" and as a prerequisite for further negotiations, he poses a clear answer to the question of the passage of Soviet troops through Poland and Romania. In response to this, the Anglo-French mission advocates a declaration stating that “the simplest and most direct method” would be to directly appeal to the governments of the USSR government
            Poland and Romania
            regarding the political issue of the passage of Soviet troops through their territory. However, they do not mind raising this issue with their governments. "
            1. Tuzik 3 March 2020 23: 43 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Thank you so much Yuri for such a bunch of interesting information, it is clear that on this topic you have eaten more than one dog. )) I still thought why Hitler canceled the attack on the 26th, it was not clear for Halder, it turns out that the Italian scared. If it’s not difficult for you, I have a couple of questions:
              1. Why did the Allies declare war on Germany as early as the 3rd? Halder seemed to be negotiating, how close were they to the world? Did our representatives participate in them?
              2. How do you think the situation would develop if the Poles ceded to Hitler Danzig before the pact? And what if after the pact?
              1. Doctor 4 March 2020 13: 08 New
                • 1
                • 3
                -2
                Why did the Allies declare war on Germany as early as the 3rd?

                After the pact with us, they realized that war was inevitable and tried to slow down Hitler:
                ... On August 25, the British government announced the conclusion of a formal agreement with Poland in support of this guarantee. With this step, they hoped to give the best chance of resolving the dispute between Germany and Poland through direct negotiations in the light of the fact that in the event of a failure in the negotiations England would support Poland.
                Goering stated in Nuremberg:
                “On the day when England gave an official guarantee to Poland, the Führer called me on the phone and said that he had canceled the planned invasion of Poland. I asked if it was canceled temporarily or permanently. He said: “No, I will have to see if it is possible to eliminate the possibility of British intervention” ”
                In fact, Hitler postponed the day of the attack from August 25 to September 1 and entered into direct negotiations with Poland, as Chamberlain wanted.
                His goal, however, was not to reach an agreement with Poland, but to give the government of His Majesty all the opportunities to evade the fulfillment of his guarantees. However, the British government, like parliament and the people, was thinking about something completely different.


                But it didn’t work out:
                ... September 1, at dawn, Germany attacked Poland. On the same day in the morning there was an order to mobilize all our armed forces. The Prime Minister asked me to visit him in the evening on Downing Street. He told me that he did not see any hope of preventing a war with Germany, and that he planned to create a small military cabinet composed of ministers who did not head any ministries to guide it. As he understood it, the Labor Party did not want to participate in the national coalition. But he hopes that the liberals will join him. He invited me to join the military cabinet. I accepted his proposal without objection, and on this basis we had a long conversation about people and plans ...

                They handed the protest note immediately:
                ... Later, on September 1, I found out that on September 1, at 9 hours and 60 minutes in the evening, England presented a note to Germany and that on September 3 at 9 am an ultimatum followed. In the morning broadcasts of September 3, it was reported that the Prime Minister would speak on the radio at 11 a.m. Since it was clear that Great Britain, as well as France, would immediately declare war, I prepared a short speech, which I believed would correspond to this solemn and crucial moment in our life and in our history ...

                Then you need to get the approval of the parliament.
                ... I was surprised that throughout the day on September 2, when the situation became aggravated to the extreme, Chamberlain remained silent. I wondered if there was an attempt at the last minute to keep the peace, and I turned out to be right. However, when parliament met in the afternoon, there was a short but rather heated debate, during which the indecisive statement of the prime minister was sharply criticized. When Greenwood climbed the podium to speak on behalf of the Labor opposition, Emery, a conservative, shouted to him: "Speak on behalf of England!" This remark was greeted with thunderous applause. There was no doubt that the chamber was in favor of war ...

                Churchill. The Second World War.
                1. Tuzik 4 March 2020 13: 44 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Thank. But about the negotiations themselves, you have only one phrase:
                  "... It surprised me that throughout the day on September 2, when the situation escalated to the extreme, Chamberlain remained silent. I wondered if there was an attempt to maintain peace at the last minute, and I was right."
                  Nothing is known about them?
                  1. Doctor 4 March 2020 14: 42 New
                    • 1
                    • 3
                    -2
                    Nothing is known about them?

                    The Poles did not agree.

                    DIARY OF THE Plenipotentiary Representative of the USSR to the UK I.M. MAY
                    28 1939 of August
                    Secretly
                    Here are the details of the Anglo-German talks over the past 4 days:
                    On the 25th after dinner, Hitler invited N. Henderson and had a conversation with him, which lasted over an hour. In this conversation, Hitler declared with full determination that he should immediately receive Danzig and the "corridor" ....
                    Hitler immediately boastfully declared that after the conclusion of the German-Soviet pact, the situation of Poland was hopeless and that it would not risk going to war. In conclusion, Hitler asked Henderson to personally go to London and report to the British government about the conversation.
                    On the 26th afternoon, Henderson flew to London. In the evening of the 26th, 27th and 28th, cabinet meetings took place, the result of which was the response of the British government to Hitler, who was taken away by Henderson to Berlin today. The British government consulted with Washington, Paris, and Warsaw regarding the response. The essence of the answer is as follows: the British government recommends resolving the difficulties that have arisen through peace negotiations between Berlin and Warsaw and, if accepted by Hitler, promises to further consider at the conference those more general problems that he raised in a conversation with Henderson on the 25th. At the same time, the British government firmly announces its intention to fulfill all its obligations towards Poland. Today at 10 o’clock. 30 minutes. in the evening, Henderson handed Hitler a British response.

                    REPORTING STAFF OF THE PEOPLE'S COMMISSARIAT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF THE USSR V.N. PAVLOV TO THE PEOPLE'S COMMISSIONER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF THE USSR V.M. MOLOTOV
                    1 September 1939 of
                    Secretly
                    Vyacheslav Mikhailovich, at 11 o’clock. Hilger appeared on September 1 and gave me some messages for you.
                    1. Hilger said that in view of the rejection by Poland of Hitler's proposal for a peaceful settlement of all issues through the mediation of England, made to Poland by Poland on August 29, Hitler issued an order to the troops on September 1. Translation of the order is attached.
                    Then Hilger asked me to tell you that Ribbentrop, who called Schulenburg today, is extremely pleased with the content of his speech. Ribbentrop warmly welcomes what you said and is very pleased with the utmost clarity of your speech.
                    2. Today, further said Hilger, Hitler, whom the head of the Danzig state Forster addressed with an appropriate appeal on behalf of the population, received Danzig in the fold of the German empire ....
                    1. Tuzik 4 March 2020 14: 54 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      Thank. interesting. It turns out, most likely, the first and second Britons begged the Poles to give Danzig with a corridor. But here it is not clear whether the Poles categorically refused, as before the first day, or was Hitler already not enough?
                      And if possible, what are your thoughts on the second question?
                      1. Doctor 4 March 2020 15: 45 New
                        • 1
                        • 3
                        -2
                        what are your thoughts on the second question?

                        Hitler was uniquely determined to deal with Poland even without a pact with us:

                        "... Message from the Head of the Eastern Department of the Chancellery I. Ribbentrop P. Kleist in an informal conversation (between June 17 and 19, 1939):
                        “The Führer will not allow the outcome of the Anglo-Franco-Russian negotiations on the pact to influence his will to radically resolve the Polish question. The German-Polish conflict will be resolved by Berlin both on the condition of a successful and unsuccessful outcome of the negotiations on the pact. However, neither the Führer nor Ribbentrop believe that the Soviet Union will take part in the hostilities of England and France against Germany. This opinion was worked out by the leaders of the empire, not only during the Anglo-French-Russian negotiations, but, above all, the behavior of Moscow in recent years towards Berlin. Moscow made it clear to us that it wants to negotiate with us, that it is not at all interested in a conflict with Germany, and that it is also not interested in fighting for England and France ”(Archive of the former KGB of the USSR, 33019). - 1-613. "


                        And the fate of Poland both saw the same, regardless of the consent of the Poles to Danzig:

                        Transcript of a conversation by I.Fon Ribbentrop with I.V. Stalin and V.M. Molotov September 27, 1939

                        Hitler's position
                        "... During the Moscow talks on August 23, 1939, the plan to create an independent Poland remained open. Since then, it seems that the idea of ​​a clear division of Poland has come closer to the Soviet government. The German government understood this point and decided to make an exact distinction. The German government believes , that an independent Poland would be a source of constant concern. German and Soviet intentions in this matter are going in the same direction.

                        The position of Stalin.
                        "... On the question of the final outline of the border, Stalin stated the following.
                        During his last conversation with Count von Schulenburg, he expressed his thoughts on this issue. He must repeat them today. The solution of the Polish question opens up the following possibilities. The original intention was to leave independent, but curtailed Poland. Both governments abandoned this idea, realizing that an independent truncated Poland will always be a constant source of concern in Europe. The Poles will do everything to pit Germany and the Soviet Union with each other. Understanding this fact, both sides abandoned the idea of ​​creating an independent Polish state.
                      2. Tuzik 4 March 2020 16: 06 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Thank. Also very interesting. But I asked a little about something else. German demand Danzig and the corridor. If the Poles agreed to give, sell or in exchange for something, would Hitler, in your opinion, dwell on this? He stated that this was the last territorial issue. And in it you can understand, divided Germany, the German port of Danzig.
                        And what difference would it be if the Poles would make this concession after the pact?
                      3. Doctor 4 March 2020 16: 54 New
                        • 1
                        • 3
                        -2
                        If the Poles agreed to give, sell or in exchange for something, would Hitler, in your opinion, dwell on this?

                        Until the end of July 1939, it is possible.
                        DIARY OF A TEMPORARY ATTORNEY IN THE CASES OF THE USSR IN GERMANY GA ASTAKHOVA
                        July 20-26, 1939
                        Secretly
                        Regarding Poland: Kleist speaks of the bitterness that all Germans invariably experience as they drive through the corridor. But the Poles do not find any answer to all attempts by the German side to pose this problem, except: "If you do not like the corridor, then give us East Prussia, and there will be no corridor." The German government does not lose hope of resolving these problems through negotiations, but it will not repeat the proposals that the Führer once made and which were rejected by Poland. The solution of the question that arose from these proposals will no longer satisfy Germany.


                        And what difference would it be if the Poles would make this concession after the pact?

                        After the pact, everything was already decided.

                        TELEGRAM OF THE Plenipotentiary Representative of the USSR in the UK I.M. MAYSKIY IN THE PEOPLE'S COMMISSARIAT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF THE USSR
                        30 1939 of August
                        Out of turn. Owls secretly
                        Transmitting the response of the British government on August 28 in the evening
                        To Hitler, Henderson also said that if Hitler agrees to
                        direct negotiations with Poland, the British government, for its part, will make efforts to ensure that the Polish government appoints a representative for such negotiations.
                        In a reply transmitted last night to Henderson, Hitler agrees to direct negotiations with Poland and asks the British government to use his influence to immediately receive the plenipotentiary representative of Poland. This part of the answer is edited as if Hitler was expecting the arrival of the Polish Gaha in Berlin. However, Hitler in advance requires Poland’s consent for the return of Danzig Germany and the “corridor”. Direct negotiations should only sanction this, and, moreover, serve to "regulate" Polish-German relations in the economic field, which, obviously, must be understood as the establishment of an economic protectorate of Germany over Poland. The new border of Poland should be guaranteed with the participation of the USSR.
                        Hitler’s response also includes all fiction about his desire to strengthen friendly relations with England, as well as his willingness to recognize Poland’s independence, but this is already devoid of practical significance.
                      4. Tuzik 4 March 2020 17: 15 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: Arzt
                        After the pact, everything was already decided.

                        Here I do not agree a bit. It would have been all decided; he would not have canceled the advance of the 26th. But the fact that he increased the requirements is logical. It seems to a greater extent this fact did not agree on the first and second, when the Poles with the Britons already realized who they ran into.
                        "The German government does not lose hope of resolving these problems through negotiations, but it will not repeat the proposals that the Führer once made."
                        I wonder what the offer was? What did he offer in exchange?
                      5. Doctor 4 March 2020 20: 30 New
                        • 1
                        • 3
                        -2
                        I wonder what the offer was?


                        On October 24, 1938, in a conversation with the Polish ambassador, Lipsknm Ribbentrop put forward proposals for a “general settlement of the contentious issues between Poland and Germany." These proposals included, inter alia: joining the third Reich of Danzig (with the preservation of economic benefits in Danzig for Poland); Germany's construction of an extraterritorial motorway and railway line through the Polish Pomerania
                      6. Tuzik 4 March 2020 20: 42 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Wow, you did find it. Thank. Not greasy of course they offered. But if before that there was a blitzkrieg over the Czechs. Military. Or over someone else, the Poles would probably agree. And so they certainly did not represent all the power of the Wehrmacht. Remembering the battles with the Red Army, they were surely sure of a long stubborn defense, until the Allies arrived.
                        Since I managed to catch you here, here's another question:
                        What were the allied combat plans? Were they? Or while they were gathering headquarters and thinking Poland had disappeared?
                      7. Doctor 4 March 2020 21: 05 New
                        • 1
                        • 4
                        -3
                        What were the allied combat plans? Were they? Or while they were gathering headquarters and thinking Poland had disappeared?

                        Of course there were and provided for different options, depending on Hitler's actions. They were discussed in Moscow with Voroshilov. And very frankly, as with a future ally, which was later very regretted.

                        "... The meeting then hears the message of General Dumenka on the plan of defense of the western borders. The French army consists of 110 divisions. Three divisions comprise
                        corps, four corps - the army. The division has three infantry regiments and two artillery regiments. Army corps and armies have their own artillery and tanks. The French army has 4000 modern tanks and 3000 cannons of caliber from 150 to 420 mm (except for tanks, 75 mm cannons and howitzers that are part of the divisions). To this must be added 200 Republican troops of Spain, which may be accepted into the French army. Troops in fortified areas can be put on alert for 000 hours. Fortifications run along the entire French border, and the Maginot line continued to the sea. The mobilization of the French army can be carried out within 6 days. For the concentration of troops in various sectors of the front, for their regrouping and supplying with everything necessary, there are 10 roads - 8 railways and 4 highways with a depth of 4 km.
                        The army has a six-month supply of material resources.

                        The August 16 meeting begins with a report by Marshal of British Aviation Burnet. The main task of British aviation is its joint action with French aviation on the Western Front. A significant part of it to increase the radius of action will operate from French territory. English aviation has recently been training in flights over French territory with return without landing to its base. Burnet believes that the number of first-line aircraft should be kept constant throughout the first 6 months of the war. England now has 3000 first-line aircraft. The system of training aviation personnel. After the initial flight training, young people are sent to military schools. There are 15 such schools. At the end of these schools, fighter and bomber aircraft pilots are sent directly to units, and military aviation pilots take preliminary short-term courses in their specialty. There are also schools for the training of technical personnel, which are given considerable attention in connection with the complication of the material part of modern aircraft. The aviation industry provides 700 monthly military aircraft when working in one and (rarely) in two shifts.
                        The report on French aviation is made by General Valen. French aviation has 2000 first-line aircraft. The reserve corresponds to this amount: for fighter aircraft - 200%, for other deliveries - 100%. Two-thirds of these aircraft are modern and have speeds of 2-450 km / h for fighters, 500-400 for bombers with a radius of action of 450 to 800 km for them and a bomb load of 1000 to 1 thousand kg. In 2,5, French aviation will have 1940 first-line aircraft and will be maintained at this level during the first 3000 months of the war, with subsequent excess of production over losses. Training of personnel passes through flying clubs and special schools. Numbers are not given. A large place in the message was given to ground organizations
                        bases Each 20-aircraft unit has three bases that it can use of its choice - depending on the situation. This allows you to quickly transfer aircraft to the desired points. These bases are equipped with everything necessary for the operation of the connection for several days ... "


                        All this and much more went to the Germans ...
                      8. Tuzik 4 March 2020 21: 26 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        The number of troops, aviation, blockade, this is understandable. Details are interesting for OKH. But I mean, did they have a plan for the offensive by September XNUMXst? And if there was, why couldn’t it be applied?
                      9. Doctor 4 March 2020 21: 34 New
                        • 1
                        • 3
                        -2
                        The number of troops, aviation, blockade, this is understandable. Details are interesting for OKH. But I mean, did they have a plan for the offensive by September XNUMXst? And if there was, why couldn’t it be applied?

                        Yes, because these plans provided for us as allies. I had to redraw everything.
                      10. Tuzik 4 March 2020 21: 48 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        And, well, that means, as I expected, there was not enough time and aspiration. There are also two countries, it is necessary to coordinate, each looks at the other, wants fewer victims. I see, thanks.
                        My other assumption, on a past question, is refuted or supported? I assume that in those negotiations after the pact until the third day, the Britons probably offered the Germans an option in which they get the part of Poland they need in exchange for a reversal of the Wehrmacht against the USSR, part of which will go to Poland as compensation. Playing on the fact that Bolshevism is the main evil of Europe, for all kapstran, and offering support in such actions. For the British, this would be logical.
                      11. Doctor 4 March 2020 22: 22 New
                        • 1
                        • 3
                        -2
                        I assume that in those negotiations after the pact until the third day, the Britons probably offered the Germans an option in which they get the part of Poland they need in exchange for a reversal of the Wehrmacht against the USSR, part of which will go to Poland as compensation.

                        Then you dug deep. wink Question - why? What do you really want to know? Only then did the British offer Hitler to attack the USSR?
                      12. Tuzik 4 March 2020 22: 36 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Yeah, I want to know all the words of those negotiations. After which such a mochilo happened. After all, Hitler was uncertain, and especially OKH. And after Poland they suffered not childishly))
                        The Britons have many secrets that they do not reveal. Is this what they hide about the arrival of Hess in May 41st? What is your option?
                      13. Doctor 4 March 2020 22: 46 New
                        • 1
                        • 3
                        -2
                        I want to know all the words of those negotiations

                        Clear. We won’t recognize all the words, but if the British suggested Hitler to attack the USSR, they would never admit it.

                        At least the Germans answered us like this:

                        TELEGRAM OF A TEMPORARY ATTORNEY IN THE CASES OF THE USSR IN GERMANY N.V. Ivanova to the People's Commissariat of Foreign Affairs of the USSR
                        29 1939 of August
                        Immediately. Owls secretly
                        Today, in an interview with me, Ribbentrop asked me to inform the government of the following: before Henderson left for England, he conveyed to Hitler the desire of the English government to resolve the Polish question peacefully and improve relations between Germany and England. Hitler replied that he himself would like to improve relations with England, but the Polish question, under all conditions, would sooner or later be resolved. As a prerequisite in negotiations with England on improving relations, Hitler put two points:
                        1. The agreement between the USSR and Germany, of course, is not subject to revision, remains valid and is a turn in Hitler’s policy for many years. The USSR and Germany will never in any case use weapons against each other.
                        2. Improving relations between Germany and England does not affect Germany’s friendly relations with Italy in the same way as England and France. Henderson brought back the answer of the English government yesterday: the British want to improve relations, they want to end the Polish question peacefully. They hope that direct negotiations between Poland and Germany are possible. Hitler is studying this answer now, and Ribbentrop promises to keep us informed. Now he, Ribbentrop, asks to convey to the Soviet government that the change in Hitler’s policy towards the USSR is absolutely radical and unchanging. Germany will not participate in any international conference without the participation of the USSR. On the question of the East, she will make all her decisions together with the USSR.
                      14. Tuzik 4 March 2020 23: 02 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Hitler was able to powder brains of course. As Manstein said there, people came to him with their own point of view, and came out with Hitler's point of view.)) After all, the British knew that he treated them with warmth, I thought he called his brothers in the maynkampf, they also knew that he hated the "Jewish bunch of Bolsheviks seized power in Russia. " Surely they played on it back then in the 38-39th. And they played in the 40-41st. And the flight of Hess seems not the last role in this played. Can you share your opinion on this?
                      15. Doctor 4 March 2020 23: 19 New
                        • 1
                        • 3
                        -2
                        And the flight of Hess seems not the last role in this played


                        Speer describes it this way:

                        While I was leafing through my sketches once more, I suddenly heard a fierce, almost animal-like cry. Then there was a roar: “Immediately Bormann! Where is Bormann? ” Bormann urgently needs to contact Goering, Ribbentrop, Goebbels and Himmler. All personal guests were asked to retire to their rooms on the top floor. Many more hours passed before we found out what happened: Hitler's deputy flew into the enemy England at the height of the war.
                        Outwardly, Hitler soon regained his usual tone. He was only worried that Churchill could take the opportunity to present this episode to the Allies of Germany as a probe of the possibilities of the world: “Who will believe me that Hess didn’t fly there on my behalf, that this is not a cheating game behind my allies?” It could even change Japan’s policies, he noted with concern. From the head of the technical services of the Luftwaffe, the famous military pilot Ernst Udet, Hitler ordered to find out whether Hess's twin-engine aircraft could reach its destination in Scotland and what meteorological conditions he would find there. Soon, Udet gave a note on the phone that Hess, due to only navigational reasons, should break, it is likely that with a strong crosswind he would fly past England into the void. Hitler immediately perked up: “If only he drowned in the North Sea! Then it would be believed that he simply disappeared without a trace, and we would have time for a harmless explanation. " But after a few hours he was again seized by doubts and, in any case, to forestall the British, he decided to give a notice on the radio that Hess had lost his mind. Both adjutants were captured, as was customary for dealing with messengers who arrived with bad news at the courts of despots.

                        Hitler’s entourage has since barely mentioned the name of Hess. Only Bormann was busy with this business for a long time. He carefully delved into the life of his predecessor, with a particularly picky meanness pursued his wife. Eva Brown tried, albeit unsuccessfully, to intercede for her before Hitler, and subsequently rendered her some support behind him.

                        After a quarter of a century, Hess in all seriousness assured me in Spandau prison that the idea of ​​above-ground forces was sent to him in a dream. He was not at all going to act as an opponent of Hitler, or even just put him in a difficult position. “We guarantee England her world empire, and for this she gives us free hands in Europe,” was the content of the message with which he arrived in England.
                      16. Tuzik 4 March 2020 23: 35 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: Arzt
                        We guarantee England her world empire, and for that she gives us free hands in Europe, ”was the content of the message with which he arrived in England.

                        And she nodded))
                        After which he notified Hitler through spy channels.
                        It is likely that the idea was his. Surely he, too, considered himself responsible for the fate of Germany. And in the case of an acceptable peace conclusion for everyone, I would surely return home.
                        In the 90s, it seemed to me that that's it and everything will be declassified according to the Second World War, now I can’t live it)
                        But I’ll torment you until you get tired. )
                        What were our plans for the straits, and for Turkey itself in the 40th?
                      17. Doctor 4 March 2020 23: 41 New
                        • 1
                        • 3
                        -2
                        And she nodded

                        Maybe. But she answered us like this:

                        Conversation of the Ambassador of the USSR in the Great Britain I.Maysky with the Parliamentary Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of the United Kingdom R.O. BUTLER
                        16 May 1941 city
                        Secretly
                        "... In the end, I asked Butler if he could tell me anything about Hess now. Butler replied that Hess came to England of his own free will, and not as an emissary of Hitler. Hess deeply believes in Mine Kampf in particular, he is convinced of the need for friendship between the “two great northern nations" - German and British. Is there any significant group at the top of the National Socialist Party behind Hess that is hard to say. It is possible that he fled from Germany, just saving his own skin. the case indicates that not everything is successful in Germany, but it would be dangerous to draw too far conclusions from here.
                        ... If Hess had a strange idea that he would find crowds of “quislings” here who are just waiting for that, as if to lend a hand to Germany, then he has already become convinced or will soon be convinced of his mistake. Hope Hessa once again testifies to the unrealistic atmosphere in which the leaders of modern Germany live. Hess remains in England and will be regarded as a prisoner of war. There can be no talk of his meeting with Churchill ... "


                        And most importantly, she did so.
                      18. Tuzik 4 March 2020 23: 56 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: Arzt
                        It is possible that he fled from Germany, just saving his skin.

                        In cunning, they tried to show us some kind of power struggle among the Fritz. )
                        Interesting of course. But what about Stalin’s plans for Turkey?
                    2. Doctor 5 March 2020 00: 02 New
                      • 1
                      • 3
                      -2
                      What were our plans for the straits, and for Turkey itself in the 40th?

                      We wanted to steer the straits only with Turkey, the Germans - four of them with them and Italy.

                      But to us - the Indian Ocean! Together with Iran, Iraq and other lifeless deserts! If only we knew what lay beneath these deserts ...

                      TELEGRAM OF THE CHAIRMAN OF THE COUNCIL OF PEOPLE'S COMMISSARS OF THE USSR, PEOPLE'S COMMISSIONER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF THE USSR V.M. Molotov to the Secretary General of the Central Committee of the CPSU (B.) I.V. STALIN
                      November 14 1940 city
                      Strictly secret
                      STALIN. Today, November 13, a conversation took place with Hitler for three and a half hours and in the afternoon, in addition to program discussions, a three-hour conversation with Ribbentrop.
                      Ribbentrop persistently insisted that, on the issue of the Black Sea straits, we spoke out for a revision of the Montreux Convention and for a new convention with the participation of Turkey, the USSR, Italy and Germany with the giving of guarantees for the territory of Turkey and the promise to satisfy the USSR’s legitimate request for non-admission of military vessels to the Black Sea non-Black Sea powers. I replied that the USSR should come to an agreement with Turkey on this issue, bearing in mind that for Germany and Italy, which are not Black Sea powers, the issue of the straits is not significant from the point of view of their security, and for the USSR the issue of straits is not only related to the conclusion of a new agreement with Turkey, but also with real guarantees of security for the USSR. The issue of such guarantees concerns not only Turkey, but also Bulgaria in the sense I have indicated, that is, giving guarantees for Bulgaria itself.
                      Ribbentrop introduced, or rather read, draft drafts (“raw thoughts”) of the draft joint open statement of the four powers and two draft secret protocols:
                      A) On the delimitation of the main areas of interest of the four powers with the avoidance of our sphere towards the Indian Ocean.
                      B) On the Straits - in the spirit of the agreement between Turkey, the USSR, Italy and Germany, Ribbentrop proposed to discuss these projects in the usual diplomatic manner through ambassadors.
                      I said that I do not mind such an order of discussion of these projects. Thus, Germany does not raise the question of the arrival of Ribbentrop in Moscow.
                      These are the main results. There is nothing to brag about, but at least I found out Hitler’s current mood, which I have to reckon with.
                      I have not yet decided what kind of communiqué to give about my departure from Berlin, as I have just returned from Ribbentrop, and I have no suggestions about this from him. If you have time to give advice, please do so.
                    3. Tuzik 5 March 2020 00: 15 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      Interesting. It seems like we were dragged into a triple alliance. And our two chairs tried to sit.
                      But did our somehow press on Turkey itself? Did you make any demands?
                    4. Doctor 5 March 2020 00: 32 New
                      • 1
                      • 3
                      -2
                      It seems like we were dragged into a triple alliance.


                      In the quadruple laughing

                      POLITICAL LETTER OF THE Plenipotentiary Representation of the USSR in GERMANY
                      November 19 1940 city
                      Ow. top secret
                      "... In private conversations, the Germans repeatedly expressed the idea of ​​the desirability of the Soviet Union joining the pact of the three powers, which, in their words, would be beneficial for the USSR as well, for example, a prominent employee of the German General Staff, professor von Niedermeier spoke at a reception November 7 to the First Secretary of the Embassy, ​​Comrade Pavlov: "Our affairs with England are bad. We need a pact of four and then everything would have changed, and you would have benefited a lot from this."
                      In conversations with our naval attaché, Vorontsov, the head of the eastern intelligence department, Lt. Col. Hyman and other German officers and Foreign Ministry workers, half-jokingly, half-seriously stated that if the USSR joined the pact of three powers, the world would belong to only 4 powers.
                      .... Then plans were developed for 4 “spaces” (European-African, Soviet-Asian, Far Eastern and American), as well as transparent allusions were made to the possibility of accession to the pact of other powers as well ... "
                    5. Tuzik 5 March 2020 20: 32 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      She and Halder have something that suggested we join. It seems to me that much played that the USA was on the other side. That wagged between the blocks. We wanted the best, but it turned out as always)
                      Is there anything else interesting about our relationship with the Turks? There was a book at the turn of the century. I don’t remember the author, it was called, like, "Stalin’s Southern Campaign", where the author assumed a campaign to Istanbul. I have not yet met such a look.
  • parusnik 2 March 2020 17: 55 New
    • 4
    • 1
    +3
    When they talk about the 1939 Moscow treaty, they don’t touch the treaty ... Don’t crime. And usually they mention secret protocols in vain ... Gad Stalin, he took from Hitler the white and fluffy Baltic “democracies”, which, well, were friendly to the USSR, and also with good Romania, Bessarabia, and also torn away Western Ukraine and Belarus from Poland ... But in fact, it was probably said: the Baltic states today are “pro-English”, the day after tomorrow it will become pro-German, and tomorrow German troops will be at Leningrad ... Western Ukraine and Belarus ... This is not serious, just not in earnest ... German troops right next to Minsk and Kiev .. no, no, you are Germans we are peaceful people .. If peaceful .. leave these territories .. alone ... Bessarabia .. excuse me, Soviet Russia since 1918 recognizes the occupation of Bessarabia, do you want the USSR to recognize it? It will not work ... So what we were talking about, let it be in the zone of Soviet influence and do not meddle in these matters .... And the USSR should have told the world about this in 1939 ...laughing In today's interpretation, it turns out that Stalin did not have to fight for Soviet influence in the above territories, but honestly give in, and let the Germans have fun there ... in the name of peace and democracy laughing
  • Karaul73 4 March 2020 20: 36 New
    • 0
    • 2
    -2
    What prevented Stalin in the 39th clash with Hitler in Poland? Even then they were afraid of conviction of partners? If this happened, the Red Army would no doubt crush the Germans. There would be no defeat for 41 years.
  • Selevc 6 March 2020 14: 14 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    But for some reason, they poke us in the face with this same pact (in fact, this is a non-aggression pact) endlessly.
    Demagogy around the Molotov Pact is half-truth ... Tell you who are the masters of writing half-truths and juggling history ???
    The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact from a historical fact became a hysterical fact in the hands of Western propaganda ...

    They always consider separately the events of the 39th year from the events of the 38th !!!

    That is, in the 38th year, the collective West simply made a mistake by agreeing with whom ??? !!! - with the Nazis !!! - with the aggressor !!! - with Hitler !!! Well, they were mistaken - well, who doesn’t happen to ...

    And in the 39th year of the USSR, having agreed with the same Hitler, he committed a crime !!!
    True, theirs there in the West are all written with a pitchfork on water ...
    1. Selevc 6 March 2020 14: 16 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      To tell a half-truth is also a technology for conducting a modern info-war !!! Separate information taken out of the general context often draws the whole meaning of what is conveyed on the contrary ... Euro-liberal mass media use it to the full !!!