Military Review

Why traitors in 1945 fled specifically to the West, where they also “branded” Nazism

98
Why traitors in 1945 fled specifically to the West, where they also “branded” Nazism

Probably every person has some things that are disgusting to touch. Not even material, not tangible, not visible with the eye, but there is. This is how a person works so that he cannot take calmly what causes his gag reflex.


But you can develop a cynical attitude towards such things. A kind of cynicism of a doctor who does his job despite the patient’s torment. He does it simply because he knows that he must cure a person, he must destroy the source of suffering.

It’s often interesting for me to know the opinion of some event, not only “ours”, but also those who are “against us”. It is interesting to understand their logic, the reason for their actions and possible steps in the future. Modern means of communication make it possible to organize such communication quite simply. 

Traitors or fighters for their own beliefs


Some time ago, one of my interlocutors was the son of a traitor during the Great Patriotic War, a Vlasov saboteur who was awarded two Nazi medals for operations in the rear of the Red Army, who, thanks to the help of American allies, fled from Europe to Canada. He created a family there and lived quietly until, let's say, natural death.

We are used to the fact that such people should hide their past. In this case, this did not happen. As, according to my interlocutor, in other families of former Vlasovites. The son of a traitor was clearly proud of his father's rewards. And on the question of the killing of civilians during sabotage, the son answered with a standard phrase about losses during the war and the work of these people in military factories.

Probably the only fact that, I admit, did not surprise me at all, that all the descendants of the traitors stuck out as a merit of their parents, was not participation in punitive operations to destroy partisans, to clean villages and cities. All were either reconnaissance saboteurs or ordinary soldiers on the front lines. And even "cooks", "peddlers of letters and newspapers." And that is precisely why they came across the ocean.

In general, as it turned out, the descendants of the traitors live today as the "Soviet Union", while fiercely hating the Soviet Union. That Soviet Union, which did not exist in the postwar years, but then, in the prewar years. During the period of collectivization, industrialization, first white, then red terror and other cataclysms after the revolution, then the 20-40s of the 20th century.

They recall the ancestors who were exiled to Siberia as kulaks. They recall those who were "repressed for political crimes", although the direct question about what political crimes their ancestor committed as a peasant in a small Ural village is completely nonsense. It seems to be love for one girl, the chairman of the village council and their great-grandfather.

It was not for nothing that I mentioned the “union” of the descendants of the traitors. The children of Vlasov are in excellent contact with the children of Bandera and other traitors. They are not even united by hatred of the former homeland. They are united by resentment because they are there, and not in Russia. They sincerely believe that they fought for their beliefs. For the happiness of Russian, Ukrainian, Belarusian, Tatar and other peoples. But the people did not understand ... 

An apple from an apple tree ... can fall far


I was always struck by the somewhat cold attitude of emigrants to those who were from the “other wave”. Moreover, “somewhat cold” is the mildest expression that I could pick up. 

The descendants of those who left the USSR in the early years of Soviet rule try to ignore those who came after the Second World War. And all together they ignore those who came in the last years of the Soviet Union. And those who, for various reasons, arrived after the collapse of the USSR, in general, do not seem to be emigrants. I really wanted to understand why this is happening. 

Probably because the reasons for the move were different. The first left because they did not accept the new power, because they considered this power to be temporary. They did not betray Russia. They remained faithful to the oath given to the empire. The conclusion, of course, is controversial.

Opinions on this subject are divided even today. But, it was the choice of those who wanted to live in Russia, but in Russia without the Bolsheviks. Therefore, the white emigrants in the vast majority of Hitler did not accept as the liberator of Russia.

The latter, on the other hand, betrayed that country, which was sworn in. They fought against their own. What is unnatural for a Russian person. The concept of military honor among white emigrants survived even after several generations.

And one more paradox. The grandchildren of Vlasov, unlike children, did not inherit, again for the most part, hatred of Russia. On the contrary, it seems to me that the Russian soul wakes up in them. They are interested in Russia, they want to help, though they don’t know what. They are exaggerated Russian. Something like exaggerated Ukrainians today. Embroidery as a symbol of Ukraine.

Why traitors fled to a country that declared fascism (Nazism) as universal evil


In a recent program by Vladimir Solovyov, I heard a phrase that struck me with its simplicity and the power of thought embedded in it. The phrase somehow got lost in a series of speeches of the program participants. The author of the statement is Professor Vitaly Tretyakov. 

Where did the traitor collaborators flee to? They fled to China, Taiwan, Central Asia? They fled to the Americans! How so? Americans fought against evil ... Why would all collaborators be drawn there?
Look where the traitor is running! There you, a decent person, entry is prohibited!


In simple words, without beautiful science, Tretyakov arranged everything on the shelves. No wonder they say that a correctly posed question is 50% of the correct answer. I will try to answer the question of the master of journalism. Again, given the position of the descendants of those who fled to the American continent.

The answer has long been given by historians. Including American. The global West, including the United States, was well aware that the confrontation between Germany and the USSR would take on an uncompromising character. The regimes of both states could not coexist peacefully.

But if for France and Great Britain there was no choice and it was clear that war with Germany could not be avoided, then the United States took a clearly wait-and-see attitude. We will help those who will win and will enter the war at the last moment in order to pick up the "prize". Moreover, American firms made money by supplying products to both sides.

The American World War II is a war in the Pacific. The fighting in Europe is a campaign for the "prize". And it is quite reasonable to assume that in the event of the defeat of the Red Army, the American landing force could land in the Far East, as it was during the Civil War. Although I agree with the controversy of such a thought.

So why did the Americans not hesitate to give asylum to war criminals? The answer was again given by historians. Remember the plans for an attack on the USSR in the postwar years. It is doubtful that they began to be developed only after September 1945. What next?..

Abwehr’s intelligence networks well-trained and preserved after the victory in the USSR, prepared saboteurs and scouts from among the former citizens of the USSR, punishers who know the local conditions better than any scouts and others ... Moreover, all these people are well aware that they will face trial in their homeland possible supreme measure. Who will be scattered in such shots before the new war?

By the way, the same applies to the elite of the German army and special services. Most scouts and counterintelligence simply disappeared. They were not in the lists of prisoners. Died under the ruins of Berlin houses? It is very doubtful, given that fighting on the front lines is not the work of top-class intelligence officers.
 

The highest evil is a moral concept, not a political one.


Treason was, is and will be. Even where people who seem to have been tested repeatedly seem to work, betrayal is possible. The reasons for this are many. And sometimes the most idiotic from the point of view of an ordinary person. A man betrayed because of resentment that he was not promoted or given the next rank, for example. 

In the same way there were, are and will be numerous explanations for such acts from traitors. Even Judas once found an explanation for his betrayal. That is life. And it just needs to be taken for granted. 

The question is different. Should I believe the words, if things say otherwise? Is it worth pretending that nothing happens if the facts indicate that something serious is happening? Why do we care so much about the image of those who are against us? 

The latest White House publication on the victors in World War II - isn't it a spit on the graves of our grandfathers? Isn't it a spit in the face of each of us? T-34 with a German helmet on a pedestal is not a spit? And then what is the spit? What then is considered an insult to the whole people? There is no wrong, all the peoples of the USSR?

The situation in the world is tense. Everyone understands this. So what? Is that the reason why we should not respond to villainy, to evil? And do not tell us about good people and bad government. What comes of this we already see in real time. The neighbors from a neighboring state.

Instead of a conclusion


Betrayal is a terrible sin. Under no circumstances can forgive traitors. The betrayer will betray the second. However, the treachery of the allies is much worse. Betrayal of those who must cover your flank or rear. Betrayal of those who must help in a critical situation.

When it comes to a particular person, there are times when a traitor sacrifices himself to wash away the shame. But there are no cases when states sacrifice themselves. Moral principles in interstate relations have not been valid for a long time, if at all they have ever acted ...
Author:
Photos used:
wikipedia.org/Bundesarchiv/Teadmata
98 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Ros 56
    Ros 56 15 May 2020 20: 51 New
    +3
    Because they fled to their own kind, all the rot comes from the West. In the east, the traitors quickly unscrewed the heads.
  2. alone
    alone 15 May 2020 20: 58 New
    +2
    Politics and Morality ....
    It sounds very romatic love but far from realism lol
  3. tihonmarine
    tihonmarine 15 May 2020 20: 59 New
    +6
    Why traitors in 1945 fled specifically to the West, where they also “branded” Nazism
    I will answer this question with a couple of photos.
    This is in Kiev.
    Vlasovites ...
    And Vlasov himself and his comrades. They knew the west would not execute them, and Stalin would hang them. Hung .... Judah ..
  4. veritas
    veritas 15 May 2020 21: 00 New
    10
    Why traitors in 1945 fled specifically to the West, where they also “branded” Nazism

    Because for the traitor ideology is not important, selfish interest is important.
    1. soloveyav
      soloveyav 15 May 2020 22: 07 New
      +5
      I don’t agree, there are ideological ones. And they are much more dangerous. Because skins are usually cowards and if they’re afraid they’re sitting quietly. But ideological will operate even in conditions of great risk for them personally and stopping them is much more difficult. After all, they come into contact with enemy intelligence voluntarily, and with such activity the risk is enormous.
      1. Ross xnumx
        Ross xnumx 16 May 2020 05: 41 New
        +7
        Quote: soloveyav
        I don’t agree, there are ideological ones.


        Let me ask, what ideas underlie betrayal? The desire to return the socio-economic structure in the country, in which he - "beloved" was "warm and damp"?
        Maybe animal fear of physical destruction? At the heart of any betrayal lies the moral character of the individual, his desire to derive benefit from the situation for himself.
        It becomes clear that, taking the Oath, each person WRITTEN in advance under a sentence, where everything was taken into account:
        If I break my solemn oath, then let me suffer the harsh punishment of Soviet law, the universal hatred and contempt of the Soviet people.

        Today, introducing a moratorium on the death penalty, society is faced with the highest degree of cynicism of individual citizens, for whom the concepts of humanity, mercy, honesty have covered the "green papers".
        What ideas guided Boris Mintz when leaving for London and taking with him the official money of the PF? What urges motivate people who, in a pandemic, “exhort” citizens in different ways? So, for example, what is the essence of the idea - to take away a bag of groceries and five thousand rubles from a pensioner, as a result of which she died from a “heart attack” ...
        And what better traitors were those who during the WWII in the markets changed stolen products for furs, jewelry, collectibles?
        So it turns out that there are no ideological traitors. There is a mercantile interest, the size and scale of which give these moral degenerates the right to turn a blind eye to the probable moral censure of society. It is moral, because physical impact on them is the most effective way to fight.
        We have a negative attitude to the NSC. There is a reason. But it was during his reign that the concepts of speculation were introduced, for which he was threatened with “up to 5 years of confiscation”, and currency fraud was “rewarded” with an exceptional measure.
        Returning to the ideological traitors and the idea, I subtract the post by the fact that the idea cannot bring material benefits and benefits in an illegal way. You can die for an idea. This is exactly what ideological fighters did: for me, D.M.Karbyshev was such a hero from childhood. Could ideological traitors take their foul step (betray) at the cost of life?
        1. soloveyav
          soloveyav 16 May 2020 12: 38 New
          +4
          For example, many of those who worked for Soviet intelligence, especially in the interwar period and immediately after the war, were ideological communists, some paid their lives for espionage. Moreover, in those years, the army was conscripted i.e. all of them gave military oath to their countries and, from the point of view of the law, traitors. So why did these people risk their lives - many came into contact voluntarily, the USSR could not offer something serious to them. Only an idea remains.
          Yes, these are much less common than lovers of warm places and money, but this does not mean that they are not.
        2. evgeniy.plotnikov.2019mail.ru
          evgeniy.plotnikov.2019mail.ru 18 May 2020 14: 06 New
          +2
          Here it is worth distinguishing, dear ROSS 42, the betrayal of the state, which, “steers,” in the territory of your country and the betrayal, in fact, of your country, of your historical homeland.
          Those who did not show much desire to fight for the state of the USSR, those who transferred to the enemy’s armed forces (as a new interesting work) in 1941-42. , undoubtedly there were SERIOUS QUESTIONS to the Soviet state. For example, about the dominance of Jews in government. In particular, in the bodies of the NKVD. Why were representatives of this people supposed to occupy the highest posts in the repressive organs of the state ,, USSR ,,? Did the Russians (Ukrainian, Belorussian ...) really feel the excitement of the red commanders who were interrogated, with a predilection for a Jew - an “enkavedeshnik”? For example, about the real plot of Tukhachevsky. Why did this ,, take place to be ,,? Who made the bias? What kind of party politics is? ... ,, The answer ,, flew immediately. As soon as the Germans entered, for example, Kiev, Jewish pogroms began. Pogroms were carried out by LOCAL, not Nazi Germans. Strange (in the view of this part of the people) the state ,, USSR ,, imposed on the country ,, the Jewish question ,,, the indigenous peoples (the very ,, part ,,) gave such an answer. ,,QUESTION ANSWER,,.
          For centuries, Russia has been the Orthodox Church. The state ,,, USSR, decided that it should be different. Who specifically decided for the Russian people? What kind of party politics is? What for the sake of the pentagram (the symbol of Satan) should ,, decorate ,, the helmets of the defenders of the Fatherland, aircraft, armored vehicles? The people gave their answer. He was not eager to defend this country in 1941-42. Millions of prisoners. The collapsed, instantly ending the existence under the blows of the enemy Soviet ARMY (!). ,,QUESTION ANSWER,,
          The state, USSR, has changed dramatically since 1943. The people reciprocated. Whole divisions yesterday sided with the partisans, volunteers, and policemen. So it was ... The Soviet state and the people of the world became more TRUE to themselves and to people. Moreover, nemchura began to listen more carefully to Soviet radio and think about her fate after OUR victory. And some badges ceased to cling to themselves and behave in the occupied territory became quieter (not everywhere and not all). And the traces of their crimes began to be hidden more thoroughly.
          This must be taken into account when evaluating personalities, traitors. ,, Country ,, and ,, state ,, are different concepts. And their assessment by a person can radically differ
  5. Avior
    Avior 15 May 2020 21: 04 New
    +8
    The article is long, and the answer to the title question is well-known, the Vlasovites who had long fled to the west and others did not know that there was an agreement between the USSR and the Allies on the extradition of collaborative Soviet citizens.
    Someone was able to escape, who had a more complicated case, but the allies gave the bulk of the return.
    hi
    1. alone
      alone 15 May 2020 21: 23 New
      +5
      Quote: Avior
      Someone was able to slip away, who had a more complicated case,

      Mostly those who were not citizens of the USSR, as well as those limited number of people who were of interest to intelligence services, absolutely rightly noticed .. They didn’t know the contract between the allies .. And Krasnov, Shkuro and others. This is a separate case
    2. NordUral
      NordUral 15 May 2020 22: 30 New
      +3
      Someone was able to escape, who had a more complicated case, but the allies gave the bulk of the return.
      They gave the USSR useless to the West.
      1. Octopus
        Octopus 16 May 2020 22: 24 New
        -2
        Quote: NordUral
        They gave the USSR useless to the West.

        At first they were packing more or less all. The concept did not change even after Fulton, but by the end of the 40s.
        1. NordUral
          NordUral 16 May 2020 22: 33 New
          -1
          I agree, very much their French and Italian communists scared.
          1. Octopus
            Octopus 16 May 2020 22: 46 New
            0
            Quote: NordUral
            very much their French and Italian communists scared.

            I did not quite understand the idea. Scared when they gave out or scared when they stopped giving out?
            1. NordUral
              NordUral 17 May 2020 16: 37 New
              -1
              It is strange that they did not understand. They scared me when they became represented in governments, before any extradition to us.
              1. Octopus
                Octopus 17 May 2020 17: 12 New
                -1
                All issuance to us began immediately in the spring and summer of the 45th. The idea of ​​the unacceptability of the infiltration of the Comintern into the authorities visited the Americans much later, 47-48 years, the Marshall Plan.
                1. NordUral
                  NordUral 17 May 2020 18: 28 New
                  0
                  Thank you, I didn’t.
  6. Dmitry from Voronezh
    Dmitry from Voronezh 15 May 2020 21: 04 New
    +2
    The West only formally condemned Nazism. Conviction of their own exclusiveness is a long-standing feature of the Western peoples: the British, French, Germans. Take a look at America - they are not shy about publicly speaking about their chosenness. Hitler did not invent Nazism, he simply brought it to perfection. If the West was not Nazi, would it support Nazism in Ukraine, the Baltic states, and Poland?
    1. Obliterator
      Obliterator 15 May 2020 21: 53 New
      +7
      Quote: Dmitry from Voronezh
      Conviction of their own exclusiveness is a long-standing feature of the Western peoples: the British, French, Germans.

      Rather, generally all nations. It’s just that someone can afford to talk about it out loud, but someone can’t.
      1. Sergey Zhikharev
        Sergey Zhikharev 16 May 2020 10: 33 New
        +2
        The conviction that YOUR people are the best is normal.
        It’s not normal (just fascism) when they start proving this with a gun.
    2. Normal ok
      Normal ok 15 May 2020 22: 24 New
      +9
      Quote: Dmitry from Voronezh
      Conviction of their own exclusiveness is a long-standing feature of the Western peoples: the British, French, Germans.

      As well as many commentators in.
  7. vavilon
    vavilon 15 May 2020 21: 17 New
    +3
    Nazism is the brainchild of the capitalist world created for enmity between peoples and it has an artificial origin and is constantly fueled by Western money, and to this day it is relevant
    With the help of Nazism, the Soviet Union collapsed and now in the post-Soviet space the peoples not only became strangers but also fought with each other.
    Ukraine to you as an example
    1. Obliterator
      Obliterator 15 May 2020 21: 46 New
      +1
      Quote: vavilon
      Nazism is the brainchild of the capitalist world created for enmity between peoples and it has an artificial origin and is constantly fueled by Western money, and to this day it is relevant
      With the help of Nazism, the Soviet Union collapsed and now in the post-Soviet space the peoples not only became strangers but also fought with each other.
      Ukraine to you as an example

      Do not confuse Nazism (it is National Socialism - the state ideology of the Third Reich) with banal xenophobia. Xenophobia is generally a characteristic feature of humanity.
      1. vavilon
        vavilon 15 May 2020 23: 20 New
        -1
        And in what did you see my confusion?
        1. Obliterator
          Obliterator 16 May 2020 00: 10 New
          +3
          Quote: vavilon
          And in what did you see my confusion?

          The fact that you confuse ideology with the instinctive rejection of strangers. Don't you think that, for example, the Chechen gangs of Ichkeria were inspired by Mine Kampf?
          1. vavilon
            vavilon 16 May 2020 00: 44 New
            -6
            What religious zealots have, that the ideologists of Nazism have one master
            1. Obliterator
              Obliterator 16 May 2020 01: 10 New
              +2
              Quote: vavilon
              What religious zealots have, that the ideologists of Nazism have one master

              I repeat, religious fanatics read mine kampf?
              1. Vladimir_2U
                Vladimir_2U 16 May 2020 05: 33 New
                0
                Quote: Obliterator
                religious fanatics read mine kampf?

                But surely Hitler, by the way where he was, was interested in the phenomenon of religious fanaticism.
              2. vavilon
                vavilon 16 May 2020 11: 28 New
                -1
                You can’t understand me in any way, it’s not whether they read it or not, I’m talking about whether in any radical Islamism Nazism or the like acquires global development only when it has a source of financing and it is always the same .
                1. Obliterator
                  Obliterator 16 May 2020 12: 10 New
                  -1
                  Quote: vavilon
                  You can’t understand me in any way, it’s not whether they read it or not, I’m talking about whether in any radical Islamism Nazism or the like acquires global development only when it has a source of financing and it is always the same .

                  Sources are different. The West is also not monolithic in itself in its politics. Well, in the end, not only those whom you had in mind have money and ambition.
              3. vavilon
                vavilon 16 May 2020 21: 57 New
                0
                And you do not ask
  8. Old Horseradish
    Old Horseradish 15 May 2020 22: 09 New
    +3
    About the betrayal, which the author of the article so superficially argues. First, our people betrayed Imperial Russia, and the Soviet Union was awarded the same fate 70 years later. Question: what's next? And if we all betrayed the Soviet Union, there is no need to look for those responsible in the West. Maybe look at their faces in the mirror?
    1. soloveyav
      soloveyav 15 May 2020 22: 31 New
      0
      You would be a little more careful, after all, the USSR has not existed for 29 years, i.e. already have children from those who the USSR did not find and did not swear. And in the Russian Empire they swore allegiance to the emperor, he denied it - everything, you can swear allegiance to another. Therefore, when the emperor was changed, an oath was carried out. And in the USSR, as far as I know, there was a reservation about by order of the Soviet government, but there wasn’t such a communist oath when joining the CPSU — this drastically reduces the list of traitors to those who by the year 91 didn’t leave the party and didn’t leave for partisan forests for the USSR. But the fact that the perpetrators need to be looked for in their own right is noted.
      1. Old Horseradish
        Old Horseradish 15 May 2020 22: 58 New
        0
        when the emperor was changed, an oath was carried out

        Re-oath to another Emperor, but not to fellow commissars.
        As for the abdication of Nicholas II - the topic is muddy. And we do not seem to know the truth. And the betrayal of the Emperor by the people, the army, the clergy, etc. historical fact. This is confirmed by the murder of the royal family without trial.
        As for the Soviet Union, where there were tens of millions of party members, and the rest were "sympathizers", in an instant all these millions of active fighters "for the happiness of humanity" disappeared.
        This is a story. The most interesting thing is what will happen next? Who's next in line? Although, the question is ridiculous.
        PS Personally, I am deeply outraged by the fact that those dodges who recommended me to the Komsomol in the distant 80s are now again in power and in full force, despite their senility, serve the interests of the local oligarchy. And I don’t have to brainwash the machinations of the West.
        1. soloveyav
          soloveyav 15 May 2020 23: 29 New
          +3
          The text of the oath was to the emperor and heir, and Nicholas 2 denied himself and his son, his brother refused. The story is certainly muddy, but the maximum who can be blamed here is those who directly forced them to sign the renunciation (only if forced by force). But the king annulled the oath, since then, in fact, everyone is free as if leaving citizenship. Although here you can discuss. But they still killed the royal family when they were in the status of Romanov citizens. This crime is certainly a serious crime, but there were many murders without trial in a civil one.
          Those who were sympathizers were not party members, i.e. formally free or bound only by a military oath (but with a reservation). With party another question. There can be three points of reference - the abolition of article 6 of the constitution, the ban on the CPSU after the Emergency Committee and the Bialowieza Agreement. Which of them is the main big question, but those who left the party officially before its ban ceased to be bound by an oath. Those. still fewer people remain, in the region of 10-15 million. And those whom you refer to as dwellers (with which I agree) can be either traitors (if, for example, you didn’t leave the party or take the oath of the Russian Federation but work for foreign services) or you can be scum and thieves, who don’t paint them.
          And I repeat - you are right that the problem is with us, and the perpetrators must be sought from us.
          1. soloveyav
            soloveyav 15 May 2020 23: 32 New
            +1
            I also add that such issues need to be addressed at the state level, to attract historians and lawyers for this, and having worked through the documents. This will help to avoid many mistakes in the future.
          2. Obliterator
            Obliterator 16 May 2020 00: 20 New
            -6
            Quote: soloveyav
            The text of the oath was to the emperor and heir, and Nicholas 2 denied himself and his son, his brother refused. The story is certainly muddy, but the maximum who can be blamed here is those who directly forced them to sign the renunciation (only if forced by force). But the king annulled the oath, since then, in fact, everyone is free as if leaving citizenship.

            Those who killed him and his family took the path of betrayal long before his abdication.
            1. soloveyav
              soloveyav 16 May 2020 12: 44 New
              +2
              This is a moot point; you need to look at the biography of each person. And most likely most of them were still murderers, not traitors. They killed citizens, no longer the king. Yes, they killed because of their origin (now they would say because of professional activities) and the risk of the revival of the monarchy, but all the same, murder and treason are different crimes.
              1. Obliterator
                Obliterator 17 May 2020 02: 00 New
                -3
                Quote: soloveyav
                This is a moot point; you need to look at the biography of each person. And most likely most of them were still murderers, not traitors. They killed citizens, no longer the king. Yes, they killed because of their origin (now they would say because of professional activities) and the risk of the revival of the monarchy, but all the same, murder and treason are different crimes.

                I hope you do not seriously consider that for people who have been members of the party for many years, which aimed at overthrowing the monarchy, its abdication meant a lot? They would have killed the Romanovs at every opportunity, with or without titles.
                1. soloveyav
                  soloveyav 17 May 2020 12: 32 New
                  0
                  But formally this is another article (unfulfilled intentions are not punishable), plus the big question is whether they swore allegiance to the tsar - half of the participants in the execution could be said to be professional revolutionaries and did not serve in the troops. So you do not need to be compared to bad regimes and ascribe additional crimes to them. Enough for them.
                  1. soloveyav
                    soloveyav 17 May 2020 12: 35 New
                    0
                    And then there is a fashion to declare in the betrayal of their political rivals what is not always true - betrayal is a betrayal of the oath or oath, everything else is called differently.
                  2. Obliterator
                    Obliterator 17 May 2020 22: 14 New
                    -1
                    Quote: soloveyav
                    But formally this is another article (unfulfilled intentions are not punishable), plus the big question is whether they swore allegiance to the tsar - half of the participants in the execution could be said to be professional revolutionaries and did not serve in the troops. So you do not need to be compared to bad regimes and ascribe additional crimes to them. Enough for them.

                    Quote: soloveyav
                    And then there is a fashion to declare in the betrayal of their political rivals what is not always true - betrayal is a betrayal of the oath or oath, everything else is called differently.


                    That is, if someone did not take the oath, then he is not a citizen (or subject)? And to organize a rebellion and cooperate with foreign services for him is not something bad either? Cool logic. We then have such non-citizens more than half of the country will be.
                    1. soloveyav
                      soloveyav 18 May 2020 00: 30 New
                      0
                      Cooperation with foreign services is either espionage or undercover activity (depending on the results), and the overthrow of the government is not always equal to treason. In the code of laws of the Russian Empire, treason and regicide were different crimes. That’s why I made a reservation about the oath - because if you swore an oath to a person and kill him then this is treason (but this is in case if you do not consider the abdication legal). Just like now, if you decide to kill the president, it will not be equal to treason.
                      So if someone who shot the tsar’s family earlier (before the revolution abolished the old laws) did something that falls under the article of high treason, he is a traitor, if not, then the killer and then on the list of sins.
                      Similarly, if the current citizen does something that falls under the article of high treason, then he is a traitor, if he cheats on the military oath, he is also a traitor, and for everything else there are still a bunch of articles of the criminal code and not all of them are softer. But if he renounced his citizenship or was deprived and expelled, then he will not become a traitor.
                      1. soloveyav
                        soloveyav 18 May 2020 00: 37 New
                        0
                        I’m just trying to explain that treason from the point of view of the law can be either treason or an oath of treason, the rest can be treason from the point of view of morality. But these are still different things.
                        Therefore, you need to think about what and to whom you swear and if this does not correspond to your beliefs do not swear, there are options - from slanting to alternative service. Well, or honestly say that the traitor and you on the drum for moral torment, but be prepared to pay for it laughing
                      2. Obliterator
                        Obliterator 18 May 2020 01: 55 New
                        -1
                        Quote: soloveyav
                        That’s why I made a reservation about the oath - because if you swore an oath to a person and kill him then this is treason (but this is in case if you do not consider the abdication legal).

                        You already decide what kind of betrayal we are talking about. Because legally this will not be treason. They will be judged by a specific article and this is not state. treason.
                        Quote: soloveyav
                        Similarly, if the current citizen does something that falls under the article of high treason, then he is a traitor, if he changes the military oath, he is also a traitor

                        It is precisely that there is no difference whether you swore or not. Only citizenship (citizenship) matters.
                      3. soloveyav
                        soloveyav 18 May 2020 10: 56 New
                        0
                        For treason, yes, no difference. Just under modern Russian law, the oath falls out of the legal field - and this is a flaw. This should be at least an aggravating circumstance. But in the Russian Empire the concept of treason was in the military charter, and only military men fell under it, i.e. swearing. And based on the text of the oath, it could be considered a betrayal of the oath of murder acting emperor and heir.
                        Although in the current conditions it would be more logical to either replace the oath with a contract or introduce the practice of universal oath - because at the moment the oath is only a symbol. But if you introduce a universal oath upon reaching adulthood and in connection with it give part of the rights like participating in elections and the right to occupy government posts, then it will become much more logical. An oath - in which case they are judged by high treason, did not give - there are many more articles.
  9. Virus-free crown
    Virus-free crown 15 May 2020 23: 08 New
    +4
    Quote: Old Horseradish
    About the betrayal, which the author of the article so superficially argues. First, our people betrayed Imperial Russia, and the Soviet Union was awarded the same fate 70 years later. Question: what's next? And if we all betrayed the Soviet Union, there is no need to look for those responsible in the West. Maybe look at their faces in the mirror?

    You can clarify - this is when our people betrayed the Russian Empire ?! belay
    1. Obliterator
      Obliterator 16 May 2020 00: 27 New
      -6
      Quote: Corona without virus
      You can clarify - this is when our people betrayed the Russian Empire ?!

      In World War I, when the country needed unity, everyone decided that his interests were more important to him.
      1. prior
        prior 16 May 2020 10: 06 New
        +1
        But why the hell did the people need this First World War ?!
        And Nikolashka, who pulled Russia into this war, answered his deserts.
        And at first he pulled in, got offended, and then disowned. Is this not a betrayal?
        1. Obliterator
          Obliterator 16 May 2020 10: 58 New
          -1
          Quote: prior
          But why the hell did the people need this First World War ?!
          And Nikolashka, who pulled Russia into this war, answered his deserts.
          And at first he pulled in, got offended, and then disowned. Is this not a betrayal?

          And no one would ask Russia if she wants to participate in the war. Germany and Austria were the first to declare war on Russia. Germany had a plan (Schlieffen's plan) to defeat France with the first blow, then, together with Austria-Hungary, attack Russia to chop off a decent part of European territories from it. And to expel nemchuru, who did not need to keep the western front, would be much more difficult. The Great Patriotic War showed this.
        2. Carnifexx
          Carnifexx 20 May 2020 10: 00 New
          0
          And why the **** people needed this First World War ?!
          Yes, civil is much more fun. Well, do not forget about the Soviet-Polish war when they went to bring "peace and good" to the proletariat in Europe.
          And Nikolashka, who pulled Russia into this war, answered his deserts
          Is killing children normal? RI was attacked so-and-so.
      2. Sergey Zhikharev
        Sergey Zhikharev 16 May 2020 10: 14 New
        0
        So the soldier with the front line (used to feed lice in the trenches for a couple of years) and the bourgeois (who eats pineapple in the grouse restaurant) are equally united?
        1. Carnifexx
          Carnifexx 20 May 2020 10: 01 New
          0
          No, but the secretary general at the former royal dacha (Stalin had 17) and the proletarians are apparently equal.
          1. Sergey Zhikharev
            Sergey Zhikharev 20 May 2020 12: 30 New
            0
            Well, the hand has five fingers and they are not equal, what do you want from people?
            There has always been inequality; there were those who are richer and those who are poorer.
            But stick out your wealth for show, while others are starving ....
  10. domokl
    16 May 2020 06: 20 New
    +1
    Again the old song that our people are not right? How we love to solve problems of a cosmic scale. Is there life in the constellation of Orion ... The whole nation cannot be a traitor. A traitor is a specific type, a specific person. And the people can be dissatisfied with the power and as a source of this power it can simply be replaced by another.
  • iouris
    iouris 15 May 2020 22: 16 New
    0
    Quote: "Betrayal is a terrible sin." End of quote.
    All traitors swore an oath.
    In Russia and the USSR, until a certain moment, an oath was considered the most serious criminal offense. Since (conditionally) since 1985, there is no such crime.
    If the Russian Federation is the "successor", then when will we start calling "names-passwords-attendance"? This would be the starting point of the succession.
  • Normal ok
    Normal ok 15 May 2020 22: 22 New
    +2
    Who is the author of the article? The anonymous article in the "opinions" section is strange to say the least.
    1. domokl
      16 May 2020 06: 24 New
      +2
      It happens. I am an author. Just forgot to subscribe .. Is this something changing?
      1. iouris
        iouris 16 May 2020 11: 29 New
        0
        From Ivanov Ivan Ivanovich
        ANONYMO
  • Aristarkh Lyudvigovich
    Aristarkh Lyudvigovich 15 May 2020 22: 27 New
    +3
    75 years ago, units under the command of General Holmston-Smyslovsky, hiding from the Soviet army, found refuge in Liechtenstein. On the memorial stone erected in honor of these events, it is written: "Here, in Hinterschellenberg, on the night of May 2 to 3, 1945, in search of refuge, the remnants of the 1st Russian National Army of the German Wehrmacht under the command of General Major A. Holmston-Smyslovsky in the number of about 500 people with full weapons. The first negotiations took place at the Wirtschaft Zum Löwen, leading to the granting of asylum in the Principality of Liechtenstein. for half a year the Russians were given the opportunity to travel to countries of their own choice. " Most of the Russian soldiers and officers later left for Latin America. The film "Wind from the East" was made about those events, where General Holmston-Smyslovsky was played by Malcolm McDowell.
  • Strashila
    Strashila 15 May 2020 22: 32 New
    +2
    "who, thanks to the help of American allies, fled from Europe to Canada," to begin with, the Americans did not suffer from charity. So he worked out this escape to Canada. Specialists were protected and used.
    And those who were "cooks", "peddlers of letters and newspapers" were actually handed over to the Soviet administration for reporting.
  • A. Privalov
    A. Privalov 15 May 2020 22: 37 New
    +1
    I must upset the author. Most of the Nazi criminals fled not to the "west" at all, but rather to the "southeast". There they were not just received with open arms! Thousands of Nazis and officers of the German army who fled to the Arab East after the defeat of Nazi Germany, found in Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia not only political asylum, but also work in their government institutions, military circles, police and even in the propaganda apparatus.
    For their transfer to Arab countries, a special "Arab-German Center for Emigration" was created, which was engaged in particular in the recruitment of former Wehrmacht officers for military service in the armies of the Arab states. The head of the center was a former officer in the headquarters of Field Marshal Rommel, Lt. Col. Hans Müller: he converted to Islam and acted under the guise of a Syrian citizen Hassan Bey. With its help, 1500 Nazi officers were transported to the Arab East, and, according to researchers, about 8 Wehrmacht officers who entered the armed forces of various countries of the region fled to the Arab countries.

    In Syria, the head of the German military mission, which led the training of the local army, was a former colonel of the Hitlerite General Staff Kribl. The Gestapo officer Rapp simultaneously reorganized the intelligence service of the Syrian army. The Nazis, entrenched in the military structures of Syria, established close ties with the most ardent anti-Israeli elements in the country and took an active part in numerous coups d'etat. So, Rapp, for example, was one of the organizers of the military coup in Damascus in March 1949.


    The Nazis also played a large role in Syria during the dictatorship of General Shishekli. 11 Nazis from among German military advisers constituted a special group of advisers on the implementation of his plan to unite all Arab countries.

    In Iraq, the republican government created after the overthrow of the monarchical regime in July 1958 included the former officer of the Hitler division "Brandenburg" Jabar Omar, who served as Minister of Education. The then Iraqi Minister of National Construction, Saddik Shanshal, was closely connected with German agents.

    Thousands of Nazis "converted" to Islam, took Arabic surnames and carefully studied a new language for themselves. Up to Yemen, there was no Arab country wherever the presence of the German military was noted. In the early 50s, Adolf Eichmann spent some time in Kuwait, being “his people” surrounded by a local ruler. Then, he moved to Argentina.
    Already in 1951, an unofficial German military mission began in Egypt, consisting of 60 officers, led by Hitler's General Farmbacher. His deputy was the prominent German authority on tank warfare, General Munzel. The mission paid special attention to the preparation of the landing units of the Egyptian army. Former officers of the German navy Bechtolsheim and Sprecher tried to infiltrate the British naval base in Alexandria. Then, the former SS officer Tiefenbacher was entrusted with the training and education of the Cairo police. The former head of the special forces of the SS troops in Ukraine joined the Egyptian army, Hitler's executioner Oscar Dirlewanger, who, after the overthrow of King Farouk in July 1952, was entrusted by the Nasser government with training saboteurs for deployment to Israel.


    Even before the surrender of Germany, the development of plans for the flight of German military and political figures to Argentina began. There was a large German diaspora, where you could hide by mixing with it. The Nazis were transported to Argentina by obtaining a passport at the Rome Office of the Red Cross; then they got an Argentine tourist visa. Thus, Emil Devouatin, Kurt Tank, Reimar Horten, Adolf Eichmann, Josef Mengele and many others ended up in the country.
    The Israelis fired Eichmann there.

    By the way, the future president of Egypt, Anwar Sadat, spent two and a half years in an English prison for activities in favor of Germany.
    1. RoTTor
      RoTTor 16 May 2020 00: 44 New
      +1
      It is difficult to throw a stone at Egyptian and Syrian figures who fought with the British and French colonialists along with German and Italian fascists.

      But the turn of the Middle East policy of the USSR from Israel, created with the help of the USSR and obviously pro-Soviet, to the Arab countries, where the former fascists and the Araian leaders who supported them played a very big role - there is no reasonable explanation.
      Money and efforts thrown to the wind ...
      1. Octopus
        Octopus 16 May 2020 22: 42 New
        -1
        Quote: RoTTor
        from created with the help of the USSR and obviously pro-Soviet Israel

        )))
        Israel was only pro-Soviet in Soviet reporting. The Bolsheviks, with their bright future, could fall in love with anyone, but not Jews, after all.
  • Virus-free crown
    Virus-free crown 15 May 2020 23: 27 New
    +1
    I would like to say that the traitors did NOT run specifically to the West - they, like rats, scattered in different directions ... And in Argentina, after the defeat of the Third Reich, they even created their own "communes" there ...
  • Radikal
    Radikal 15 May 2020 23: 27 New
    -1
    Why traitors in 1945 fled specifically to the West, where they also “branded” Nazism
    A strange and suspicious question. Rather, provocative, offering discussion. What for? In my opinion, and so it is clear, and - I hope everyone will agree that traitors run to their masters. Except for those who were left to "settle". sad
  • Pvi1206
    Pvi1206 15 May 2020 23: 46 New
    +2
    the enemy cannot betray ... only a friend whom you trusted ... betrays
    if there is no spouse, no one will change ... if there is no friend, no one will betray ... this is on a personal level .. but there is a betrayal of another level - a betrayal of your family, kind, your people, your homeland ....
  • Doctor
    Doctor 16 May 2020 00: 24 New
    +7
    The author, as always, left the main question behind.
    WHY?
    Why in the USSR there were 1,5 million people who fought on the side of the enemy?
    How did it happen that instead of their wise people's leader (as many people think in the military academy), people chose a paranoid sadist who prepared the gallows for them all?

    And what will happen if the new enemy is smarter and comes not with the gallows, but with sneakers.
    1. Obliterator
      Obliterator 16 May 2020 01: 24 New
      +2
      Quote: Arzt
      WHY?
      Why in the USSR there were 1,5 million people who fought on the side of the enemy?

      Someone just wanted to live, someone was very offended by the Soviet government.
    2. domokl
      16 May 2020 06: 36 New
      0
      Quote: Arzt
      Why in the USSR there were 1,5 million people who fought on the side of the enemy?

      Read the beginning of the article. Treason was, is and will be. For the Russian Federation, Belarus and Ukraine, less than 1% of citizens have become traitors. As they say, within the margin of error.
      I hope you do not think that today there is a country or a place where there will be no traitors in the event of a mess. Society is always made up of people. Satisfied and discontented, bold and cowardly, disinterested and vomiters ...
      So the betrayal has nothing to do with the USSR .. And about who the people chose ... They went on the attack shouting "For the Motherland! For Stalin!" And they died too. Let's take an objective look at those events. By the way, in the same basket to you. But what about the tens of thousands of rehabilitated officers and generals who have become the pride of the SA? What to do with tens of thousands of criminals who voluntarily went to penal companies to defend the USSR, which, in your opinion, they hated. What about the partisans who lived in the "territories liberated from the tyrant"?
      1. Doctor
        Doctor 16 May 2020 12: 40 New
        +3
        Treason was, is and will be. For the Russian Federation, Belarus and Ukraine, less than 1% of citizens have become traitors. As they say, within the margin of error.

        I think you remember one of the laws of dialectics - the transition of quantitative changes to qualitative ones.
        Both Vlasov and Paulus are traitors. But Paulus did not assemble an army against Germany, and it is unlikely that he would have succeeded.
        One and a half million collaborators is a whole front (or a group of armies).
      2. Doctor
        Doctor 16 May 2020 12: 57 New
        +2
        So the betrayal has nothing to do with the USSR ..

        In 1812, Napoleon came to us. He, too, was not a gift, but still not Hitler, at least we do not remember the French concentration camps. Moreover, in words, he carried the Republic to Russia - the liberation of the peasants, the Freedom of Equality, the Brotherhood.
        It would seem that hundreds of thousands of Russian peasants should have met him with bread and salt.
        Instead, "the club of the people's war."

        In the Russo-Japanese War, the defenders of Port Arthur also did not send bayonets at the officers' barchuk, and the prisoners of the defeated Russian squadron did not go en masse to engage in Japanese battleships, even for money, even the revolutionary Novikov Priboy.

        Even on the fields of the First World War, the half-decayed RIA troops were doing their best to "fraternize" with the enemy. And this is against the background of the active demoralizing work of the revolutionaries.

        And in the Second World War, when it came to the existence of the country, death for the majority and slavery for the survivors, we see 1,5 million traitors.

        Even as it is connected with the USSR. Directly.
        More precisely, not with the USSR as such, but with the attitude of the ruling elite to the majority of the population and with the appropriate methods of warfare.
        Well, the population paid with the same coin.
        1. Andrey Zhdanov-Nedilko
          Andrey Zhdanov-Nedilko 16 May 2020 19: 35 New
          0
          Quote: Arzt
          Even as it is connected with the USSR. Directly.
          More precisely, not with the USSR as such, but with the attitude of the ruling elite to the majority of the population and with the appropriate methods of warfare.
          Well, the population paid with the same coin.

          - alas, but that too! You're right.
      3. Doctor
        Doctor 16 May 2020 13: 23 New
        0
        But what about the tens of thousands of rehabilitated officers and generals who have become the pride of the SA? What to do with tens of thousands of criminals who voluntarily went to penal companies to defend the USSR, which, in your opinion, they hated. What about the partisans who lived in the "territories liberated from the tyrant"?

        I agree, most of them were people who defended their country.
        But.
        Any normal officer between a stupid, painful death in prison and the opportunity to fight with honor at the front will choose the front.
        Among the criminals who exchanged the zone for penal companies of ideological thieves were minuscule. Mostly "household workers", that is, the same Soviet citizens.
        And the partisans were largely created by the Germans themselves with a cruel attitude, plus tight control of the movement from the "mainland".
        1. Andrey Zhdanov-Nedilko
          Andrey Zhdanov-Nedilko 16 May 2020 19: 40 New
          0
          But about the tight control from the "mainland" - I bet. Where, how and in different ways.
          And the conditions for the partisan movement were different - the dense forests of Karelia or Belarus are one, and the steppes of the south of Ukraine or the Kuban are completely different.
      4. Doctor
        Doctor 16 May 2020 13: 55 New
        +1
        They went on the attack shouting "For the Motherland! For Stalin!" And they died too. Let's take an objective look at those events.

        What is objectivity? Here is an eyewitness account.
        Nikolai Nikolayevich Nikulin, a professor at the Hermitage, went through the whole war in the trenches of the front line, and ended up as a sergeant. Miraculously survived.

        "Having entered the neutral zone, they did not shout at all" For the Motherland! For Stalin! ", As they write in the novels. A hoarse howl and thick obscene language was heard above the front line, until bullets and shrapnel did not plug the screaming throats. Before Stalin was there when death Where, now, in the sixties, has the myth again arisen that they won only thanks to Stalin, under the banner of Stalin? I have no doubt about this. Those who won either perished on the battlefield or drank themselves, crushed by the post-war hardships. After all, not only the war, but also the restoration of the country took place at their expense. Those of them who are still alive are silent, broken. Others remained in power and retained their strength - those who drove people into camps, those who drove into meaningless bloody attacks in the war. They acted in the name of Stalin, they are still shouting about it. Was not on the front line: "For Stalin!" The commissars tried to drive it into our heads, but there were no commissars in the attacks. All this is scum ... "
    3. Sergey Zhikharev
      Sergey Zhikharev 16 May 2020 10: 08 New
      +2
      Why in the USSR there were 1,5 million people who fought on the side of the enemy?

      For the same reasons that people are fighting for another Poland / France / Norway / China / Ukraine / Turkey / Sweden ......
      How did it happen that instead of their wise people's leader (as many people think in the military academy), people chose a paranoid sadist who prepared the gallows for them all?

      a) the gallows - this is the propaganda of the terrible Regime, in fact he is a sweetheart, white and fluffy.
      b) the gallows for the supporters of this regime, and I am for the new government, they will not touch me.
      And what will happen if the new enemy is smarter and comes not with the gallows, but with sneakers.

      In the late 80s, he came, not with atomic missiles or gallows, but with sneakers and Coca-Cola.
      1. Doctor
        Doctor 16 May 2020 13: 02 New
        +2
        For the same reasons that people are fighting for another Poland / France / Norway / China / Ukraine / Turkey / Sweden ......

        Already wrote above.
        Many Russians went to fight for Napoleon, the Japanese in the REV, the same Germans in the WWI?
        The point is the scale. Something did not work for Paulus to assemble at least a division.
        Yes, he was not going to.
        1. Sergey Zhikharev
          Sergey Zhikharev 16 May 2020 14: 23 New
          +1
          Already wrote above.
          Many Russians went to fight for Napoleon, the Japanese in the REV, the same Germans in the WWI?
          The point is the scale. Something did not work for Paulus to assemble at least a division.
          Yes, he was not going to
          .
          And what didn’t you like? If a Pole / Frenchman / Norwegian / Chinese / Ukrainian / ... is fighting for his other country, then the current one does not suit him.
          To give statistics on how many Russians went for Napoleon, the Japanese and Germans can not.
          Decide whether "Paulus was able to assemble a division" or "Paulus was not going to assemble a division."
          1. Doctor
            Doctor 16 May 2020 14: 34 New
            0
            If a Pole / Frenchman / Norwegian / Chinese / Ukrainian / ... is fighting for his other country, then the current one does not suit him.

            Right. This is the question - why there were so many people who want from the former military of the Red Army to fight against the Red Army.
            Why Vlasov, who was awarded and cited as an example, did not just sit in captivity, but agreed to lead the army.
            The author of the article did not answer this MAIN question.
            1. Sergey Zhikharev
              Sergey Zhikharev 16 May 2020 17: 58 New
              -1
              Right. This is the question - why there were so many people who want from the former military of the Red Army to fight against the Red Army.

              Maybe because many of the military were from recently joined lands - the Baltic states, Poland (Western Ukraine and Western Belarus), Bukovina, Bessarabia. And they had a somewhat relative relation to the Soviet country.
              Or maybe because if a person is put on the brink of survival, when they are being broken for several months, then the proposal "to go after the enemy there at least is possible", then there will be those willing. Some with the thought "let me out - I will run away", others "but I don't give a fuck what to kill."
          2. Doctor
            Doctor 16 May 2020 14: 40 New
            +3
            Decide whether "Paulus was able to assemble a division" or "Paulus was not going to assemble a division."

            Both.
            Paulus agreed to testify in Nuremberg against the top of the Reich, but in battle he did not raise arms against his own.
            And he didn’t try, because he knew that they wouldn’t want to gather a lot of people who wished, they wouldn’t want to.
            And the third.
            We perfectly understood this, and therefore did not even offer it.
            If theirs surrender in regiments, then the Germans will immediately run over, because they know that no one there will send them to the camp, on the contrary, they will send them on vacation to rest, then they will be awarded a medal for the "Stalingrad Cauldron", and then they will be sent back to the active army.
            But given the merits already in warm France.
            Do you feel the difference in approaches to war?
            1. Old Horseradish
              Old Horseradish 16 May 2020 17: 00 New
              +4
              Looked at your comments. You are asking "why?" Although you yourself know the answer.
              I’ll add on my own: in the 41st, we had a civil war throughout. Including and in the Red Army. Hundreds of thousands of repressed (destroyed) in the Red Army - is that not a civil war? And what do you think, some of the military did not prepare a change of power? Or, at least, was mildly dissatisfied with the existing system? Hence the mass repression. But what are Tukhachevsky, Yakir, Blucher, Egorov and many thousands of others called? Who are they? Conspirators, traitors or patriots of the Soviet Union? Here in this civil war lies the key to understanding everything that happened, including in 41-42.
            2. Sergey Zhikharev
              Sergey Zhikharev 16 May 2020 17: 48 New
              -1
              Do you feel the difference in approaches to war?

              No.
              The troops recruited from Soviet collaborators were not used by the Germans themselves against the Soviet troops. Send Vlasov units to the eastern front = transition to the side of the USSR. At the same time, having been a policeman, maybe even having shot a dozen people, a "Vlasovite" being captured in the Soviet army could also atone for his guilt with blood. And many have redeemed.
              Therefore, the Vlasovites were used mainly against the allies (although they fled there) and against the partisans.
              Yes, there were troops from the "new Aryans" of all Balts, Bendera, Tatars - they fought well against the partisans, but for some reason they immediately merged in order to stop the Soviet army. Although, in theory, they should have been vitally interested in confronting the Soviet army as a symbol of the bloody regime.
              If the Germans surrender their regiments, then the Germans

              Read more about surrendering Soviet regiments.
  • RoTTor
    RoTTor 16 May 2020 00: 38 New
    +1
    Tretyakov, of course, correctly and accurately said everything.
    He knows by himself: at first he was a nomenclature Soviet journalist,
    then he made a career in perestroika overthrowing everything Soviet in "Moscow News", which stood on a par with the sneaky "Ogonek" by Korotich,
    then he organized "Nezavisimaya Gazeta", the mouthpiece of Russophobic liberals,
    For 1 year I was Berezovsky's informal "six" and was blissed out for his money,
    and sold it to the American lackey, Remchukov.

    Do you like foul language, mediocrity and Russophobia of state TV channels?
    So it is the pupils of Tretyakov, who has been cherishing the MSU Higher School of Television Journalism for 12 years.

    Therefore, faith in him - as Vlasov and Judah

    https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A2%D1%80%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%8C%D1%8F%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2,_%D0%92%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D0%A2%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Slon1978
    Slon1978 16 May 2020 02: 20 New
    -1
    The author of the article is a big plus. I really read the answers to some of my questions. And these answers formed correctly, without contradictions after their analysis.
  • Free wind
    Free wind 16 May 2020 05: 48 New
    0
    Well, the Crimean Tatars and other representatives of the Muslim battalions fled to the Middle East. Many fled to Argentina, well, it seems there were real Germans, and it happens that Hitler was taken out, and he lived there until old age, and burned a double. Those who were needed were taken to Canada and America, often they were taken on bail by ethnic Russians and Ukrainians, of whom, in principle, there were quite a few in the US and Canadian armies. SSovtsev seemed to be shot without talking, they had their own tattoos on their left side.
  • parusnik
    parusnik 16 May 2020 08: 00 New
    +1
    ..Many already modern Russian officials dismissed having seized a denyuzhka, left for the West .. Who else has dual citizenship and accounts, property abroad ... Ah, this is not a betrayal, it is allowed by law ...
  • Vadim Golubkov
    Vadim Golubkov 16 May 2020 08: 04 New
    -2
    Remember, they say, we will help to overthrow Bolshevism and Stalin? And Vlasovites and others justified themselves by fighting against Stalin and the Communists, and not against the Motherland. I’m here a liberal and a communist liberal (posting fake videos and pictures taking them from liberal resources, speaks face to face like liberals) who madly hate Putin, I ask if they attack Russia, as in 41 g and the attacker says, we they say we will help overthrow Putin and his regime, who will you fight for? You like to say that the people in 41 fought not for Stalin and his regime, but for their homeland, and now that is, the people will fight for Putin, and not for their homeland? And you yourself, for whom will you fight? ... And both begin to wag, move away from a direct answer, flog all kinds of nonsense ... I think these are ready-made Vlasovites, voluntary. Ask your friends of the so-called opposition leaders and everything will be clear then.
  • Procyon lotor
    Procyon lotor 16 May 2020 09: 55 New
    +1
    There are no wrong answers, but wrong questions. Therefore, the question of why they fled to the west, soon a rhetorical question. In general, this process is called voting by feet and this applies not only to those who are called traitors on the light hand, but the subject is more extensive. In this regard, the right question would be why so many wanted to escape to the west. I hope no one will argue that the number of those who fled to the west is not comparable to those who wanted to get into the USSR or the same Eastern Bloc. So why?
    1. Procyon lotor
      Procyon lotor 16 May 2020 11: 32 New
      -2
      Little inaccuracy. The right question is, why did so many people run away from the USSR and the Eastern Bloc?
  • cniza
    cniza 16 May 2020 13: 39 New
    +2
    Look where the traitor is running! There you, a decent person, entry is prohibited!


    You can’t say better ...
  • Alexey G
    Alexey G 17 May 2020 01: 31 New
    -1
    The West has stigmatized Nazism as it is now stigmatizing terrorism! Stigmatizes and quietly supports! Nazism-is an offshoot emanating from the fundamental ideas of Western civilization! This is indicated by much of what happened in their cultural and historical development.
    Firstly, the idea of ​​God-chosen Western Christian civilization and its special significance in the history of mankind, which was expressed in the Crusades, the colonization of territories discovered by seafarers, the enslavement of other nations, which, according to Western theorists, are not God-chosen and must accept European culture and primacy. Protestantism, also following Catholicism mired in debauchery, supported this idea. If you are lucky in business, then the Lord favors you, Lutherans think ... So you can rob other nations if it brings money and respect for fellow citizens and neighbors ... What the Nazis did!
    Secondly, capitalism is built around the idea of ​​capital accumulation and enrichment. But if liberals robbed people through deception, then the Nazis, like the nobility in the era of feudalism, do this by openly attacking and robbing other nations! But the main thing is enrichment. Hitler promised the Germans a sweet life, material wealth, namely the land in the East, slaves in the form of Slavs and other far from spiritual blessings. In fact, the Germans did with the Slavs what the British did with the Africans and Indians, and went even further than their English comrades by building Auschwitz, that is, they brought the English idea of ​​superiority over other races to their logical conclusion. In the words of the movie
    White Tiger
    K. Shakhnazarova: “We did what (the Germans) dreamed of all Western Europeans! What the husbands were afraid to say aloud to their wives. We decided to drive the Jews out of Europe and tame the wild Russians.” Centaur living in the east! More or less like this. Very precise formulation from the authors of this film. In World War I, the Germans wanted to take part of their colonies from Britain. During World War II, they decided to conquer lands that did not belong to the Angles, going with them to peace.
    Thirdly, Vlasovites are people who shared all of the above ideas. Vlasov himself hated Bolshevism and supported the idea of ​​the revival of private property, they all subservient to the West, wanted the same thing that Gorbachev and Yeltsin ultimately achieved, because in their years there were attempts to change the attitude from negative to positive towards Vlasovites.
    That is why all the Nazis and their accomplices sought west.
    1. agond
      agond 17 May 2020 21: 44 New
      +1
      Betrayal ... is wounded, for example, a person enrolled in a flight school, studied for free, graduated, became an officer, received money for the service, was given an apartment and he drove the Mig-25 to Japan, or a young man was forcibly drafted into the army, forced to take the oath, free sent to fight in Afghanistan where he went to the Mujahideen, or a serf, or what serf they called for 25 years and he fled to the French before the battle of Borodino. After all, these are all different cases and different times, though the punishment is the same. On the issue of the oath, a kind of oath of allegiance to one’s homeland, to conduct this unilateral action of a citizen in favor of the homeland, which silently takes the oath and not only gives the citizen any additional guarantees beyond those prescribed in the constitution, but even limits them to the charter of military service. After all, according to logic, there should be some kind of connection between responsibility, duties and rights, that is, if the rights are minimal or there are none at all, then how to be with responsibility and can there be equal punishment without the right and those with ravami. There is no logic, people are drafted into the army by the side of their desires and are required to take an oath of allegiance, but let’s say people come to the party themselves, and they don’t require an oath of allegiance.
  • 1536
    1536 18 May 2020 08: 47 New
    +1
    I always asked myself the question: I.V. Stalin read the books of the English writer R. Kipling? After all, wolves have "friends" only in his fairy tales. But if Stalin did not condescend to thoroughly bourgeois writers, he knew history well and understood that the “comrades” from the United States and Britain could not be any “allies”. From the word "never". For the press, for public consciousness, so that later on, yesterday's heroes of the Civil War, who fought against the bourgeoisie and the world eaters, including foreign invaders, and their children inadvertently would not move the butt of someone's insolent face when meeting on some German river, of course, this term "allies" was coined. (For example, the United States made good money on Land Lease. And what is this, "allied" relations, to sell equipment or stew for gold to a country where people wash themselves in blood, grinding fascists in fierce battles?)
    In the East they say that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. In a sense, yes. At the time of the end of the Great Patriotic War, Vlasov's army had 120-130 thousand people. And this, according to German sources, with the total number of prisoners of war in the Red Army in 5-6 million, but this is for the entire Great Patriotic War. I don’t know how many of them returned to Russia and spent time in camps, judging by the current situation in the country, quite a lot. But the rest, for the most part, were scattered throughout the countries of the capitalist world and went "...wide brim"through some" Brazilian swamps "until the end of their days. Some were more fortunate, others less fortunate. Hitler considered the Vlasovites unreliable. The Germans did not let them go to the front. Punishers, auxiliary troops in the occupied territories - this is their lot. A normal person it always caused a feeling of disgust.
    But, approximately, by the end of the 1970s - beginning of the 1980s, somewhere on the banks of the Potomac River, someone realized that the Vlasovites might be useful in the future confrontation between "states with different social systems." No one then could have guessed that it would turn out so "well". First, we found their families at home, as they say, since the FBI worked well. Then, taking advantage of the criminal "perestroika" that was born in the minds of the "Kremlin madmen", they established strong ties with the "Vlasovites" inside the country. I always wondered how the tiny worms sitting under the leaves of some red viburnum devour its leaves in a matter of days, leaving only one black skeleton.
    What's the main thing now? That's right, money. And if earlier General Vlasov attracted Russian prisoners with a plate of stew and a warm barracks, now, behind the expensive Cruiser, you can sell anything you like along with Russia. In the United States, they understand this well (or they have studied the legacy of the Nazis well), therefore, the Vlasovites are still not allowed "to the front line". They are waiting for an opportune moment so that some next "Prague" could be "liberated" with their help, or a book in the "ZhZL" series about the traitor-general could be squeezed into a state publishing house. And there, you see, and somewhere in the "control" to push ... Such are the "worms" are obtained.
    1. agond
      agond 18 May 2020 09: 58 New
      +1
      That there would be fewer traitors, it is better to have an army of volunteers, and not of compelled military servicemen and the oath they swear is a controversial thing, since the obligation given under compulsion should not have legal force and Jesus Christ called in the Sermon on the Mount, " at all: ... "that is, the oath should be replaced by an agreement in which the balance of interests of the parties is respected, wherever there is symmetry in nature, balance we see reliable stability and durability, this is a reasonable approach.
  • Dzafdet
    Dzafdet 21 May 2020 16: 00 New
    0
    Quote: ROSS 42
    Quote: soloveyav
    I don’t agree, there are ideological ones.


    Let me ask, what ideas underlie betrayal? The desire to return the socio-economic structure in the country, in which he - "beloved" was "warm and damp"?
    Maybe animal fear of physical destruction? At the heart of any betrayal lies the moral character of the individual, his desire to derive benefit from the situation for himself.
    It becomes clear that, taking the Oath, each person WRITTEN in advance under a sentence, where everything was taken into account:
    If I break my solemn oath, then let me suffer the harsh punishment of Soviet law, the universal hatred and contempt of the Soviet people.

    Today, introducing a moratorium on the death penalty, society is faced with the highest degree of cynicism of individual citizens, for whom the concepts of humanity, mercy, honesty have covered the "green papers".
    What ideas guided Boris Mintz when leaving for London and taking with him the official money of the PF? What urges motivate people who, in a pandemic, “exhort” citizens in different ways? So, for example, what is the essence of the idea - to take away a bag of groceries and five thousand rubles from a pensioner, as a result of which she died from a “heart attack” ...
    And what better traitors were those who during the WWII in the markets changed stolen products for furs, jewelry, collectibles?
    So it turns out that there are no ideological traitors. There is a mercantile interest, the size and scale of which give these moral degenerates the right to turn a blind eye to the probable moral censure of society. It is moral, because physical impact on them is the most effective way to fight.
    We have a negative attitude to the NSC. There is a reason. But it was during his reign that the concepts of speculation were introduced, for which he was threatened with “up to 5 years of confiscation”, and currency fraud was “rewarded” with an exceptional measure.
    Returning to the ideological traitors and the idea, I subtract the post by the fact that the idea cannot bring material benefits and benefits in an illegal way. You can die for an idea. This is exactly what ideological fighters did: for me, D.M.Karbyshev was such a hero from childhood. Could ideological traitors take their foul step (betray) at the cost of life?


    And what prevents the leadership from finding Mints in London and returning the money to their homeland? Laziness, or did he get mad?
  • beer-youk
    beer-youk 31 May 2020 20: 08 New
    0
    "And it is quite reasonable to assume that in the event of the defeat of the Red Army, the American landing force could land in the Far East ..."

    It is no less reasonable to assume that in this situation the Naglosaxon world would turn into Honduras, at best, and at worst - in Zimbabwe.