Military Review

Who framed Molotov under the Ribbentrop Pact?

384

About Signers and Subscribers



In August 1939, the USSR, which at that time had no real allies, had practically no alternatives to signing an agreement with Nazi Germany. Before the collapse of Poland, which Britain and France were ready to abandon by all indications and which by no means wanted Soviet help, there were only a few days left.

In the General Staff of the Red Army in the summer of 1939, they well understood the inevitability of a quick defeat of the Poles if it confronted Germany one on one. For a long time in Moscow, they did not want to believe that the British and French would not get into a fight, limiting large-scale criticism of the Munich Agreement in the media.

Moreover, through the Comintern, all the peace initiatives of London and Paris were also decided not to criticize, but simply to be taken for granted. Next was the notorious pact and the notorious Liberation Campaign, which allowed pushing the borders of the USSR far to the west.

And even further, many years later, territorial claims to Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova from neighboring European countries with their financial claims against the same "defendants" followed. The actual claims or possible ones are no longer so important, but they stem mainly not from 1939, but from 1989.

It is impossible not to clarify that the hands of those who were thirsty for Russian land were actually untied by the chosen people at the Congress of People's Deputies of the USSR on December 24, 1989. Let us recall quite a bit from the text of the resolution “On the Political and Legal Assessment of the Soviet-German Non-aggression Pact of 1939”.

Who framed Molotov under the Ribbentrop Pact?

So, in a document thirty years ago it was quite clearly said:

[quote] 2. The non-aggression treaty with Germany ... had one of the goals of averting the threat of the impending war from the USSR. Ultimately, this goal was not achieved. [/ Quote]
Really? Or almost two years just such a delay is simply not counted? Why was it so primitive to distort the realities of that situation?

But even from the work of people's deputies it suddenly turns out:

[quote] The protocol of August 23, 1939 and other secret protocols signed with Germany in 1939-1941 were a departure from the Leninist principles of Soviet foreign policy ”[/ quote]
And still, this decree, which de facto and de jure disputes the legitimacy of the modern western, southwestern and northwestern borders of the USSR (from October 1939 to July 1940), has not been revised by post-Soviet Russia. Apparently, because the Russian Federation is the successor of the USSR ...

By the way, from all countries of the world, only Albania officially condemned the decision of that congress of Soviet people's deputies - on December 26, as part of the statement of its Foreign Ministry. In Tirana directly called the decree

[quote] ... intentionally indulging the revanchism of Germany and other countries, as well as falsifications of the world stories. Soviet revisionism finally degenerated into an accomplice of imperialism and revenge. [/ Quote]
However, the position of the Albanian Communist Party in the Soviet media, of course, was not reported. On December 24, 1989, the former Stalinist leadership of the USSR got no less dirt and even outright lies than from Khrushchev at the notorious XX and XXII CPSU congresses. Even today, many are tormented by the question: why did this happen?

With all the Bolshevik generosity


In this regard, it will be recalled that in 1919-21. it was the leader of the Bolsheviks and the chairman of the Council of People's Commissars, V. Lenin, who initiated the transfer of Finland to a number of regions near Petrograd, Petrozavodsk and Murmansk, as well as Latvia and Estonia - a number of regions adjacent to them in the Leningrad and Pskov regions.

Interestingly, at the same time, most of Western Armenia and part of southwestern Georgia, even with Batumi, were transferred to Turkey. At the last moment, I. Stalin personally managed to prevent the transfer of the future capital of Soviet Adzharia to the Turks. Therefore, the document did not prudently specify what the real borderline accents of the "Leninist principles of Soviet foreign policy" were ...

But back to the lawmaking of the Soviet people's deputies. Further they noted:

[quote] The delineation of the "spheres of interests" of the USSR and Germany and other actions were, from a legal point of view, in conflict with the sovereignty and independence of a number of third countries. [/ quote]
Especially since

[/ quote] ... Soviet relations with Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia were regulated by a system of treaties. According to the peace treaties of 1920 and the non-aggression treaties concluded between 1926-1933, their participants pledged to mutually respect each other's sovereignty and territorial integrity. The Soviet Union had similar obligations to Poland and Finland. [/ Quote]
It turns out that it was only the USSR (Germany in general, it seems that it had nothing to do with it. - Auth.) Violated the sovereignty and territorial integrity of those countries! And from this “new thinking”, by definition, financial and territorial claims against the Russian Federation and the countries of the Western region of the CIS cannot but result.

We follow the text of the current regulation today:

[quote] 6. Negotiations with Germany on secret protocols were conducted by Stalin and Molotov secretly from the Soviet people, the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks and the whole party, the Supreme Council and the government of the USSR. Thus, the decision to sign them was essentially and in form an act of personal power and did not in any way reflect the will of the Soviet people, who are not responsible for this conspiracy. [/ Quote]
In a word, those agreements with Berlin, caused by the well-known (increasingly tense) military-political situation on the western and eastern borders of the USSR, are a “product”, it turns out, of the personal power of I. Stalin. Stanislavsky would definitely say: "I do not believe it!" The leader of the peoples, of course, then personally decided a lot, but Molotov did not have to be forced into anything. As forced by the international situation itself.


First, in Izvestia of August 27, 1939, and then at sessions of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR on August 31 and October 31, 1939, the People's Commissar for Foreign Affairs V. Molotov and the People's Commissar of Defense K. Voroshilov explained in detail the reasons why the USSR concluded a pact with Germany non-aggression. Further military-political measures of the USSR were clearly outlined, and these materials were published in all Soviet and many foreign media.

Why in 1989 such unreasonable flows of accusations against Stalin, Molotov and Voroshilov were required, even today it is not easy to explain. Was it really all about the “fashion” to smash everything Soviet? It is doubtful, even very.

Negotiations and negotiators


However, in the very decision of the Congress of People's Deputies a word was not said that from March to August 1939 very intensive negotiations were held between the USSR, Great Britain and France on mutual military assistance.

They ended in failure solely through the fault of the Western "partners", who gave their representatives practically no real powers. Firstly, their delegations did not even have the right to sign the corresponding agreement. And secondly, the governments of Great Britain and France refused to agree with Poland, Lithuania and Romania on the passage of Soviet troops to the borders of these countries with Germany and Czechoslovakia occupied by it.

By the way, those negotiations in Moscow began shortly after the German occupation without military action (mid-March 1939) with the connivance of London and Paris, not only the “post-Munich” Czechoslovakia, but also almost the entire Lithuanian Baltic coast.

In a broader context, according to the decision of the same congress, those political agreements of the USSR with Germany, it turns out, “were used by Stalin and his entourage (that is, not Germany, but only the Soviet Union. - Auth.) To present ultimatums and force pressure on other states, in violation of their legal obligations. ”

But with such a passage, all the more you can justify anything on the part of our new partners and opponents. One can justify the above-mentioned "promising" territorial claims of a number of East European countries against Russia. And at the same time with Russia and to Belarus, Ukraine and Moldova. Is it reasonable to suppose that the official direct territorial claims of the “victims” are likely to be put forward when they receive what is called American or NATO go-ahead?

In all likelihood, their territorial claims, based on the decision of the same congress of Soviet people's deputies, will soon be able to politically “activate” revanchist groups, for example, in Finland and Latvia with Estonia. Indeed, until mid-1940 they included a number of regions of the Karelian-Finnish SSR (since 1956 the Karelian Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic), the Leningrad, Murmansk, and Pskov regions.


By the way, maps of “lost territories” are not a rarity in museums and cities of these countries. This kind of “public” cartography, say, started in Suomi since the beginning of the 70s (see map). And all this bacchanalia began, as you know, from Damansky Island.

Recall that in 1969 this island abundantly watered with the blood of Soviet border guards managed to defend the island on the Ussuri River in a fierce conflict with the PRC. But ... already in 1971, it was secretly, and in 1991, it was officially handed over to China. But even in the 70s, Moscow did not respond to that Finnish cartography ... Historical truth recalls that the official cancellation of the dubious decision of the same deputy congress (at least the need for its objective review) is more than relevant today.
Author:
Photos used:
image.one, sun9-71.userapicom, katin-books.ru, from the authors archive
384 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Far B
    Far B 9 July 2020 04: 24
    29
    Who framed? .. Nobody framed, the situation required such a decision.
    And as for the aforementioned Congress of People's Deputies, there was generally a freak show: priests, Cossacks, some other city madmen ... Moreover, Gorbach himself admitted in one of his interviews to Pozner that in elections most often the people tried to vote for normal communists ( there were still such people, yeah), but it was wrong, not "perestroika". The same Sakharov, as far as he was promoted by that time, did not pass to the deputy. I had to connect the administrative resource. Democracy, yeah. As a result, they recruited gorlopanov from the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and dissidents, who also could not do anything but grind with their tongues - and got an analogue of what they tried to lead Russia in the interval between February and October 1917. The result was predictably similar. So it is impossible to take the decisions of those congresses seriously. These decisions generally need to be canceled en masse.
    1. Mavrikiy
      Mavrikiy 9 July 2020 05: 47
      +4
      Quote: Dalny V
      As for the aforementioned congress of people's deputies, there was generally a panopticon: priests, Cossacks, some other crazy city people ...

      Is it better now? I beg of you. People’s deputies, thinkers .... of the same cabbage soup, but pour a little thinner.
      1. mikh-korsakov
        mikh-korsakov 9 July 2020 07: 49
        10
        Mavrikiy. Your judgment is estimated. The bottom line is that in any self-respecting state, except by the way the United States and a few more countries, decisions are made by those people who know that they will have to decide the issues, rather than the wishes of the people's deputies. Therefore, discussions about the skill of clowns in a given era are unproductive. In 1989 there were city lunatics, now athletes and lawyers of the bourgeoisie, often also athletes - what's the difference. Those and other masters of the conversational genre. But they should not be given free rein. In 1989, the incompetent Gorbachev gave free rein. Hence the shoals that the author of the article convincingly described. I liked her.
      2. Korsar4
        Korsar4 9 July 2020 07: 52
        +2
        Now the show is not arranged. And then it was still new. Watched.

        But when their own leadership decides against their own country. Yes, they add oil to the fire - what can I say.
      3. Jura 27
        Jura 27 9 July 2020 08: 50
        14 th
        [quote] [/ quote] 2. The non-aggression treaty with Germany ... had one of the goals of averting the threat of the impending war from the USSR. Ultimately, this goal was not achieved. [/ Quote]
        Really? Or almost two years just such a delay is simply not counted? Why was it so primitive to distort the realities of that situation? [Quote] [/ quote]
        There was no purpose to avert the threat, the USSR received a common border with a potential (at that time) aggressor.
        The postponement did not fail, the GG strengthened and the USSR lost about 30 million. person.
        And it was possible not to sign anything with the GG and declare to her a sharp rejection of her aggression against Poland and that’s all, the GG would have sat on the ass without oil and other Soviet raw materials and would have sat on it straight, not jerking.
        1. Mordvin 3
          Mordvin 3 9 July 2020 09: 48
          +7
          Quote: Jura 27
          The postponement did not fail, the GG strengthened and the USSR lost about 30 million. person.

          I did it. The growth of military production increased sharply. And about 2 thousand productions were launched into operation. As for oil, the Germans used Romanian.
          1. zenion
            zenion 13 September 2020 15: 07
            0
            Mordvin 3. Not only that. The borders of the country were moved back 200 km or more, which the Germans had to stomp. Let traitors lived in these retreats, but it was passed through them, the Germans for the time being did not know who was there, and who was for advice.
        2. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 9 July 2020 09: 48
          11
          Quote: Jura 27
          And it was possible not to sign anything with the GG and declare to her a sharp rejection of her aggression against Poland and that’s all, the GG would have sat on the ass without oil and other Soviet raw materials and would have sat on it straight, not jerking.

          Already stated - a year before. And even concentrated the troops.
          Result - Poland and Germany put M120x200 on Soviet expressions of concern and calmly divided Czechoslovakia.
        3. Olgovich
          Olgovich 9 July 2020 10: 23
          16
          Quote: Jura 27
          And it was possible not to sign anything with the GG and declare to her a sharp rejection of her aggression against Poland and that’s all, the GG would have sat on the ass without oil and other Soviet raw materials and would have sat on it straight, not jerking.

          .1. The decision to attack Poland was made in APRIL 1939, long before the pact

          2. So France and England, etc. declared and even declared war. AND? Ah ... nothing.

          3. The USSR did not have ANY obligations to Poland; moreover, Poland very sharply refused the help of the USSR.
          And then, what side of the USSR is the conflict between two twin-aggressor states that are BOTH hostile to the USSR?

          4. Hitler went to Poland ... with Soviet raw materials7! lol
        4. Valerikk
          Valerikk 9 July 2020 12: 33
          +5
          Quote: Jura 27

          There was no purpose to avert the threat, the USSR received a common border with a potential (at that time) aggressor.

          You are so confident in asserting this, as if you were personally present at meetings in the Kremlin.
          Quote: Jura 27
          The postponement did not fail, the GG strengthened and the USSR lost about 30 million. person.

          The postponement has failed - the USSR has strengthened, including at the expense of Germany.
          Quote: Jura 27
          And it was possible not to sign anything with the GG and declare to her a sharp rejection of her aggression against Poland and that’s all, the GG would have sat on the ass without oil and other Soviet raw materials and would have sat on it straight, not jerking.

          Rare nonsense.
          Indeed, "to declare her a sharp rejection of her aggression against Poland and that's it." And the truth is - everything, they would get a common border with Germany a few kilometers from Minsk.
          About Soviet raw materials - this is quite a clinic.
    2. Finches
      Finches 9 July 2020 06: 55
      13
      Of course, I am not such a historian from God as the author of the article or Olgovich (a joke), but Stalin did everything right - in the interests of the USSR! But how was this decision made - business 10th. If it weren’t for this pact, the Germans would have crossed the 39th border, and 2 years, not all but, they allowed to do a lot!
      1. Doctor
        Doctor 9 July 2020 07: 10
        28 th
        Of course, I am not such a historian from God as the author of the article or Olgovich (a joke), but Stalin did everything right - in the interests of the USSR!

        Then it probably seemed right. Hitler's totalitarian socialism, albeit with a nationalistic connotation, was closer and more understandable than the Anglo-Saxon capitalism.
        But 22.06.1941/XNUMX/XNUMX it became clear that Stalin did everything wrong.
        1. Tuzik
          Tuzik 9 July 2020 07: 18
          16 th
          Quote: Arzt
          But 22.06.1941/XNUMX/XNUMX it became clear that Stalin did everything wrong.

          Most likely later, on the 22nd, there was certainly confidence in a quick victory
        2. Varyag_0711
          Varyag_0711 9 July 2020 07: 21
          18
          Arzt (Yuri)
          But 22.06.1941/XNUMX/XNUMX it became clear that Stalin did everything wrong.
          Sorry, but you are not ...? I mean, is everything normal with the head? Mom often dropped to the floor in childhood?
          The German attack on the USSR was a settled matter, and Stalin knew this very well! The question was the time of the attack. And since the war with Finland did not show the readiness of the Red Army for a big war, then Stalin this time as he could, and wondered.
          Only full degé fool rat could write what you wrote ...
          1. Pravodel
            Pravodel 9 July 2020 08: 20
            14
            I will add. If Stalin had not concluded a pact with Germany and had not pushed the USSR’s border 200-500 km away, then the Germans would have been much less marching to Moscow at 41, and the Finns would not have been 150, but 25 km. What would happen to Leningrad as early as June 41? ... So it turns out that Stalin did everything right.
            1. Doctor
              Doctor 9 July 2020 08: 32
              15 th
              I will add. If Stalin had not concluded a pact with Germany and had not pushed the USSR’s border 200-500 km away, then the Germans would have been much less marching to Moscow at 41, and the Finns would not have been 150, but 25 km. What would happen to Leningrad as early as June 41? ... So it turns out that Stalin did everything right.

              This is all IF.
              I will tell you differently: if Stalin had not attacked Finland, it would probably have remained neutral, and if it had concluded an agreement with England and France, then Hitler would probably not have gone any further.
              1. strannik1985
                strannik1985 9 July 2020 08: 39
                16
                if Stalin hadn’t attacked Finland

                You do not know the materiel?
                By 1939, there were two wars in the assets of Soviet - Finnish relations, in which the Finns were the aggressor, secret cooperation with Estonia and Sweden, for example, blocking the Baltic Fleet with the Gulf of Finland, one of the options for military doctrine involved participation in a coalition war against the USSR.
                and if you made an agreement with England and France

                Again the materiel, they were negotiating, the English envoy did not have any written authority, the instructions had an instruction to delay negotiations as much as possible, and the English representative in Berlin directly stated that negotiations with the USSR were a way to put pressure on Germany.
                1. Doctor
                  Doctor 9 July 2020 09: 15
                  -9
                  one of the variants of military doctrine involved participation in a coalition war against the USSR.

                  Post-war excuses.
                  Remind me please, what aggressive wars has Finland waged in its entire history?
                  1. strannik1985
                    strannik1985 9 July 2020 09: 19
                    10
                    Post-war excuses.

                    In 3 of 4 Soviet-Finnish wars, Finland acted as an aggressor wink
                  2. Mavrikiy
                    Mavrikiy 9 July 2020 10: 43
                    +5
                    Quote: Arzt
                    Remind me please, what aggressive wars has Finland waged in its entire history?

                    The history of Finland, curiously, what is it about? Oh yes, 100 years of history. Peaceful country.
                    During the 108 days of the civil war in Finland, about 35 people died. Even after its end, the white terror against the Social Democrats and those supporting them did not stop. In total, over 000 suspects of sympathy for the left were arrested, of whom 80 were imprisoned in concentration camps. Due to torture and anti-human conditions, 000 people (75%) died, in addition to 000 directly executed.

                    The Supreme Commander-in-Chief of the Finnish Army, General Gustav Mannerheim, pronounced “the oath of the sword,” in which he stated that “he will not put his sword into the scabbard before the last warrior and hooligan of Lenin is expelled both from Finland and from East Karelia”. At the end of March 1918, units of the Finnish “whites” entered North Karelia. Local self-government was organized there under the leadership of pro-minded supporters of the independence of Karelia. After the end of the civil war in Finland in May 1918, Finnish "white" units advanced to occupy East Karelia and the Kola Peninsula. As a result, the civil war in Finland gradually turned into a civil war in Karelia, called First Soviet-Finnish WarOn December 30, 1918, Finnish troops under the command of General Vetzer landed in Estonia, where they assisted the Estonian government in the fight against Soviet troops, which continued during the Civil War in Russia. The First Soviet-Finnish War ended on October 14, 1920, when the Tartu Peace Treaty was signed, fixing a number of territorial concessions on the part of Soviet Russia (at that time the Russian Socialist Federal Soviet Republic - RSFSR).
                    Subsequently, already on November 6, 1921, the invasion of Finnish troops in East Karelia began Second Soviet-Finnish War.
                    1. not main
                      not main 10 July 2020 00: 06
                      +2
                      Quote: Mavrikiy
                      After the end of the civil war in Finland in May 1918, Finnish “white” units advanced to occupy East Karelia and the Kola Peninsula. As a result, the Finnish civil war gradually turned into a civil war in Karelia, which was called the First Soviet-Finnish War. On December 30, 1918, Finnish troops landed under the command of General Vetzer in Estonia, where they assisted the Estonian government in the fight against Soviet troops, which lasted already in during the Civil War in Russia.

                      That's right! I will only add that already in Petrozavodsk there is an obelisk on which it is written "Here passed the last line of defense in 1919", And this is almost a city! Sulazhgora is called.
              2. Pravodel
                Pravodel 9 July 2020 09: 00
                +3
                You tell this at gatherings of liberals, traitors, banderlogs and Vlasovites. They will be very interested, and you will find a deep empathy among them.
                1. Doctor
                  Doctor 9 July 2020 09: 30
                  -7
                  You tell this at gatherings of liberals, traitors, banderlogs and Vlasovites. They will be very interested, and you will find a deep empathy among them.

                  Ooh, the normal arguments are over.

                  I hate Liberasts, Banderlogs and Vlasovites no less than yours.
                  But we are discussing the correctness of the political decision on an alliance with Hitler, in terms of good for our country and our people.

                  I am personally amazed at those who say that this is correct. Well then it was hard to figure it out, but now, when everyone understands that Hitler was not going to abide by the pact, but simply used time to win, what kind of talk could there be?

                  You put up with a simple thing, there are spots in the sun.
                  Comrade Steel was also mistaken. And it happened very big.
                  1. Pravodel
                    Pravodel 9 July 2020 10: 21
                    +3
                    "Do not believe in words, but believe in deeds! Or" Not by words, but by deeds, you will recognize him ... "So, after all, it is said ... Your hatred of liberals, Banderlogists, Vlasovites and other various traitors consists in blame for unleashing World War II on the Union = Russia. In this you perfectly agree with our former comrades: all sorts of Poles, Lithuanians, Estonians and other Anglo-Saxons. Therefore, any discussion with you is essentially not far-sighted, and You think that Stalin attacked poor torn apart Poland, that he started a war, well, God be with you, the wind is in your ass ... But you don't need to agitate here for the truth and for the people. It is better to do this in Poland, the Baltic states. There you will find worthy listeners and you can even create a name for yourself and become a mighty overthrower of the Stalin case - a bloodsucker, Hitler's accomplice. Just do not forget that after that you will have to return to Russia, where people extremely do not welcome such righteousness as you, - fighters for the truth.
                    The 90s passed, when it was possible to pour any dirt on the USSR and Russia. Now, such things just do not work.
                    "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. You will recognize them by their fruits." - Matt. 7: 15-20.
                    So with you - the false righteous, false seekers of truth, but in fact - predatory wolves.
                    1. Doctor
                      Doctor 9 July 2020 10: 35
                      -5
                      In this, you perfectly converge with our former comrades: all sorts of Poles, Lithuanians, Estonians and other Anglo-Saxons.

                      One feels a school of contempt for the weak and the small. wink
                      Prefer to respect a strong Hitler?
                      Well then, prepare a place on your forearm for a number tattoos.
                      1. Pravodel
                        Pravodel 9 July 2020 11: 23
                        +3
                        "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. You will recognize them by their fruits." - Matt. 7: 15-20.
                        Well, finally, we got to the bottom of it: liberals, banderlogs, Vlasovites and traitors defend obscurantism and ruffianism of different Poles, Balts and other Anglo-Saxons, and they accuse everyone who does not like it of fascism.
                      2. Doctor
                        Doctor 9 July 2020 11: 35
                        -1
                        Well, finally, we got to the bottom of it: liberals, banderlogs, Vlasovites and traitors defend obscurantism and ruffianism of different Poles, Balts and other Anglo-Saxons, and they accuse everyone who does not like it of fascism.

                        No one is blaming anyone. A simple statement of facts.

                        1. In August 1939, the socialist USSR rejected the treaty with capitalist France and England and entered into a non-aggression treaty with National Socialist Germany.
                        2. In June 1941, National Socialist Germany treacherously violated the treaty and attacked the socialist USSR.
                        3. After this, the socialist USSR nevertheless changed his mind and concluded treaties with capitalist England, France and the USA and won the war by hoisting the flag over the Reichstag.
                        Together with various Poles, Balts and other Anglo-Saxons.

                        At the victory parade in Moscow, the troops were commanded by the Pole Konstantin Ksaverievich Rokossovsky.
                      3. Pravodel
                        Pravodel 9 July 2020 11: 55
                        +1
                        There is no need to build a righteous person who is supposedly seeking the truth. Actually it is - see further in the text.
                        "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. You will recognize them by their fruits." - Matt. 7: 15-20.
                        With liberals, Banderlogists, Vlasovites and traitors, they defend the obscurantism and ruphobia of various Poles, Balts and other Anglo-Saxons, they do not see any discussion, even if the discussion is "dressed in sheep's clothing." You can't hide: behind a seemingly simple discussion I look out predatory wolves.
                      4. Sugar Honeyovich
                        Sugar Honeyovich 9 July 2020 17: 09
                        0
                        Clause 2 is a fact.
                        paragraphs 1,3 - true, but exactly the opposite.
                      5. Doctor
                        Doctor 9 July 2020 17: 19
                        -1
                        paragraphs 1,3 - true, but exactly the opposite.

                        What is it like? Formulate in your interpretation.
                      6. Sugar Honeyovich
                        Sugar Honeyovich 9 July 2020 17: 53
                        +3
                        1. In August 1939, the capitalist France, England and Poland rejected - not the first time! - An agreement with the socialist USSR, in connection with which the latter was forced to conclude a non-aggression agreement with National Socialist Germany.
                        3. After 22.06.1941/XNUMX/XNUMX the capitalist England, the USA and later France, by virtue of the circumstances, willy-nilly finally concluded agreements with the socialist USSR, thanks to which they won the war.
                  2. aglet
                    aglet 13 July 2020 20: 24
                    0
                    "At the victory parade in Moscow, the troops commanded Pole Konstantin Ksaveryevich Rokossovsky "
                    He lived all his life in Poland, and then somehow became a marshal of the Soviet Union? Representatives of very many peoples lived in the USSR, including immigrants from Poland.
                  3. Doctor
                    Doctor 13 July 2020 22: 27
                    0
                    Representatives of very many peoples lived in the USSR, including immigrants from Poland.

                    About that and speech. If they wanted to, they agreed with Poland. But there was no thought.
        3. Olgovich
          Olgovich 9 July 2020 10: 43
          -2
          Quote: Arzt
          I am personally amazed at those who say that this is correct. Well then it was hard to figure it out, but now, when everyone understands that Hitler was not going to abide by the pact, but simply used time to win, what kind of talk could there be?

          The defeat of Poland is obvious and inevitable, so pushing the border under these conditions was, I think, the right decision.

          Hitler had to be hit in the back in May 1940, yes

          The pact did not push anything and did not push it back for a day, this is a fact.

          If there were no pact, NOTHING would have changed: there would have been both Poland and France under the USSR NEUTRALITY- "let the damned imperialists beat each other !.

          It was clearly identified by Stalin:
          The war is between two groups of capitalist countries. We are not averse to having them fight well and weaken each other. Not bad if the hands of Germany were the situation of the richest capitalist countries (especially England) has been shaken. Hitler, not understanding this and not wanting it, undermines, undermines the capitalist system.
          We can maneuver push one side against the other in order to get torn apart. The next moment is push the other side".:


          Gross mistake: Germany emerged from that fight, recruiting, not weakened, but repeatedly intensified
        4. Mavrikiy
          Mavrikiy 9 July 2020 10: 44
          +3
          Quote: Arzt
          about an alliance with Hitler,

          Are you talking about yourself? repeat
          1. Doctor
            Doctor 9 July 2020 20: 25
            -1
            Quote: Arzt
            about an alliance with Hitler,

            Are you talking about yourself? feel


            About you. This is you:

            satisfied with the decision
        5. Mavrikiy
          Mavrikiy 10 July 2020 08: 43
          0
          Quote: Arzt
          You put up with a simple thing, in the sun
          They will never be on your face, for there is not a single thought in your head.
    3. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 9 July 2020 09: 57
      +6
      Quote: Arzt
      and if he had concluded an agreement with England and France, then Hitler would probably not have gotten any further.

      The contract is a bilateral matter. How can you conclude an agreement with those who send a delegation, one part of which does not have the authority to sign any documents, and the other does not have authority at all? Some Spanish ski instructors. smile

      And were the Allies going to sign anything at all?
      In the spring and summer of 1939, England and France again tried to find an acceptable basis for an agreement with Germany, using the threat of rapprochement with the USSR to put pressure on Berlin. However, it was quite obvious that they were not eager to have Moscow as an equal partner - this completely contradicted their foreign policy strategy. It is no coincidence that at the end of July England informed Germany thatNegotiations with other countries “are only a reserve means for genuine reconciliation with Germany, and that these ties will disappear as soon as the only important and worthy goal is reached — an agreement with Germany.” It is clear that under these conditions, as negotiations in Moscow showed, England and France were not going to agree that the Soviet Union, along with them, would have the right to determine when Germany acted as an aggressor. This explains the futile discussion on the definition of "indirect aggression." As a result of the mutual suspicion and intransigence of the parties, the Anglo-Franco-Soviet negotiations actually failed by mid-July.

      However, an open recognition of this fact would deprive England and the USSR of a means of pressure on Germany, therefore, on July 23, London and Paris agreed to the military talks proposed by the Soviet side. It was not by chance that the composition of the Anglo-French military delegations was not too representative, and their instructions provided that "before conclusion; of a political agreement, the delegation should ... negotiate very slowly, following the development of political negotiations»
      © Meltiukhov M.I. Soviet-Polish war. Military-political confrontation 1918-1939
      1. Doctor
        Doctor 9 July 2020 10: 01
        -2
        And were the Allies going to sign anything at all?

        Transcripts of negotiations published. Gathered. But for MYSELF, and not for a third party not participating in the negotiations - Poland.

        And what's the difference, we have now, for example, with Turkey a difficult relationship.
        But this does not mean that you need to sign a pact with ISIS. wink
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 9 July 2020 11: 08
          +2
          Quote: Arzt
          And what's the difference, we have now, for example, with Turkey a difficult relationship.
          But this does not mean that you need to sign a pact with ISIS.

          And what does ISIS have to do with it? The Reich for 1939 is an ordinary European state with a recognized and handshake head.

          And his policy is quite European - Poland and Hungary will not be allowed to lie. smile
        2. aglet
          aglet 13 July 2020 20: 25
          0
          "But for YOURSELF, not for a third party not participating in the negotiations - Poland."
          it seems like Poland had an agreement with the English, no?
          1. Doctor
            Doctor 13 July 2020 22: 30
            0
            it seems like Poland had an agreement with the English, no?

            But this does not mean that the British could order the Poles.
    4. Valerikk
      Valerikk 9 July 2020 16: 53
      +4
      Quote: Arzt
      if he had concluded an agreement with England and France, then Hitler would probably not have gotten any further.

      Do not tell me how you can conclude an agreement with those who do not intend to conclude it?
      1. Vestovoi
        Vestovoi 9 July 2020 17: 15
        -6
        Quote: Valerikk
        Quote: Arzt
        if he had concluded an agreement with England and France, then Hitler would probably not have gotten any further.

        Do not tell me how you can conclude an agreement with those who do not intend to conclude it?

        Can I answer .... It was just necessary to destroy the USSR hi wink
        1. Doctor
          Doctor 9 July 2020 17: 25
          +1
          Can I answer .... It was just necessary to destroy the USSR hi wink

          Look for the roots of the collapse of the USSR In 1939.
          1. Vestovoi
            Vestovoi 9 July 2020 17: 35
            -2
            Quote: Arzt
            Can I answer .... It was just necessary to destroy the USSR hi wink

            Look for the roots of the collapse of the USSR In 1939.

            NOT ! The roots of the collapse began to sprout when Khrushchev came to power ...
            1. Aviator_
              Aviator_ 9 July 2020 18: 31
              +4
              That's right, the roots of the collapse of the USSR are in the report of Khrushchev Kukuruzny in 1956 at the XX Congress.
            2. Vestovoi
              Vestovoi 9 July 2020 18: 34
              -3
              Quote: Aviator_
              That's right, the roots of the collapse of the USSR are in the report of Khrushchev Kukuruzny in 1956 at the XX Congress.

              And from the Tashkent front, employees began to return, occupying all key posts in Moscow, etc. ..
              And began a godfather matchmaker brother, etc. First, quiet from the bottom
            3. Aviator_
              Aviator_ 9 July 2020 18: 55
              +4
              The last work on the socialist path of development was written by Stalin in 1952, it seems. And then - that’s it. And the regular cleaning of the apparatus stopped.
            4. Vestovoi
              Vestovoi 9 July 2020 19: 08
              -5
              Quote: Aviator_
              The last work on the socialist path of development was written by Stalin in 1952, it seems. And then - that’s it. And the regular cleaning of the apparatus stopped.

              Namely .. Zhukov’s clans were removed and rotten! It was the first call .. Well, then everyone knows. hi
  • Doctor
    Doctor 9 July 2020 17: 37
    -3
    Do not tell me how you can conclude an agreement with those who do not intend to conclude it?

    Have you read the transcripts of the negotiations?
    And what about Stalin’s instructions to Voroshilov before the talks?
  • Doctor
    Doctor 9 July 2020 08: 21
    -9
    The German attack on the USSR was a settled matter, and Stalin knew this very well!

    This bike was invented later.
    As well as the idea that the pact was concluded in order to delay time.
    On June 22, insight came and every citizen of the USSR asked himself a simple question - how is it that there seems to be an agreement?
    It took 11 days to come up with an excuse.

    What did we gain by concluding a non-aggression pact with Germany? We ensured peace for our country for a year and a half and the possibility of preparing our forces to fight back if Nazi Germany risked attacking our country contrary to the pact.
    Stalin's speech July 3, 1941



    Since then they have been repeating, but what else can you say if you were so mean?
    1. Mavrikiy
      Mavrikiy 9 July 2020 10: 46
      +4
      Quote: Arzt
      This bike was invented later.

      The whole world was preparing for war, and only you do not know this, oh you were not in this world, now it’s clear ...
  • parma
    parma 9 July 2020 08: 24
    -3
    Quote: Varyag_0711
    Arzt (Yuri)
    But 22.06.1941/XNUMX/XNUMX it became clear that Stalin did everything wrong.
    Sorry, but you are not ...? I mean, is everything normal with the head? Mom often dropped to the floor in childhood?
    The German attack on the USSR was a settled matter, and Stalin knew this very well! The question was the time of the attack. And since the war with Finland did not show the readiness of the Red Army for a big war, then Stalin this time as he could, and wondered.
    Only full degé fool rat could write what you wrote ...

    Well, everyone can insult the opponent, for this mind a lot is not necessary ...
    The German attack on the USSR was not a settled matter until the defeat of France, for how the war in the West ended at that moment was not clear ... and the question of the war as a whole in Europe was not resolved ... that England and France, that the USSR had war they didn’t want to, I’m not at all sure that Hitler really wanted it (but I was definitely mentally prepared for it) ... I think the possessed would continue playing with the “return” of German lands and on until the allies were tired (they were just with Poland and tired, then hit) or until Germany would become the most powerful country in Europe (but I think peacefully the Anglo-French would not agree to this in a beautiful dream)
    it was with a pact that the USSR wanted to take the war away from itself (but I think it was also ready to fight morally, because the weaknesses of the Red Army before the Finnish were not obvious) ... and Stalin needed time not for preparing for a defensive war, but for the World Revolution (Spain, China and other USSR participation in world politics is proof of that)
    PS: I also consider the phrase about more understandable National Socialism than capitalism nonsense .. both ideologies (that in Germany and in the USSR) have only one similarity - for everything good for the people and against everything bad, but that's it, everything is built on national mentality. For centuries, the inhabitants of Germany have been strong cities with private property and small business (which has grown into large family companies, the so-called burghers, which even feudal lords reckoned with, for example, the Hansa, which often could even replace entire states by force of arms) - this is what the Natsiks were oriented about. In tsarist Russia, there were not many wealthy citizens and farmers (and not many of them were consumed by the revolution and civil) for serfdom, strong nobility, etc., therefore, the councils promised everyone a little bit but evenly ..
  • Octopus
    Octopus 9 July 2020 08: 36
    -7
    Quote: Varyag_0711
    since the war with Finland did not show the readiness of the Red Army for a big war, then Stalin this time as he could, and wondered.

    Let me remind you that the war with Finland did not happen before the Pact, but as a result of the Pact.
    Quote: Varyag_0711
    The German attack on the USSR was a settled matter

    As the Pact, in fact, shows, even the attack on Poland was not a settled matter.
  • Far B
    Far B 9 July 2020 07: 30
    +7
    Where did you find Hitler's "socialism with a nationalist tinge"? What a wild fantasy you have, however
    1. Doctor
      Doctor 9 July 2020 08: 14
      -1
      Where did you find Hitler's "socialism with a nationalist tinge"? What a wild fantasy you have, however

      Nationalsocialist German Workers Party (German: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (NSDAP).

      In January 1919, Anton Drexler, the locksmith of the Munich railway depot, founded the German Workers 'Party. The first members of the party were mostly Drexler's colleagues - workers' depots.
      At the time of formation, the party consisted of approximately forty members [8].
      At the end of September 1919, Adolf Hitler joined the DAP.
      1. Far B
        Far B 9 July 2020 08: 40
        +4
        And what about the fact that she is a National Socialist? Do we have liberals and democrats in the LDPR? On the fence, too, what is written is known, but behind the fence, firewood
        1. Doctor
          Doctor 9 July 2020 09: 48
          -2
          And what about the fact that she is a National Socialist? Do we have liberals and democrats in the LDPR? On the fence, too, what is written is known, but behind the fence, firewood

          Do you doubt that Hitler was a socialist? In vain. He outlined his views in detail.
          Otherwise, ordinary people simply would not follow him.
          1. Far B
            Far B 9 July 2020 10: 06
            +4
            Hitler was not a socialist, otherwise a certain Goebbels would not have written his imperishable on the theme "the bourgeois Adolf Hitler must be expelled from the party." In the future, it was Goebbels who changed the shoe, not Hitler, do not build illusions
            1. Doctor
              Doctor 9 July 2020 10: 20
              -2
              Hitler was not a socialist, otherwise a certain Goebbels would not have written his imperishable on the theme "the bourgeois Adolf Hitler must be expelled from the party." In the future, it was Goebbels who changed the shoe, not Hitler, do not build illusions

              One of the four founding fathers of the German Workers' Party (which turned into the NSDAP), and its economic ideologist Gottfried Feder, published the pamphlet “To All, To All! The manifesto on the abolition of interest slavery ”, with the following slogans:
              “Workers of all countries, unite! Break percentage slavery with joint efforts! ”
              “Whoever wants to destroy capitalism must destroy interest slavery!”
              “The bourgeoisie is only one of the branches on the tree of mankind; the sooner this branch is cut down, the better! ”

              If this is not socialism, then what?
              1. Far B
                Far B 9 July 2020 10: 29
                +3
                Sorry, but where were the founding fathers of the NSPG at the time of signing the pact? Were they alive, had any weight in Germany? You seem to be arguing that socialism with a slight touch of nationalism was precisely in that period, in 1939, or are my eyes failing?
                1. Doctor
                  Doctor 9 July 2020 10: 38
                  -3
                  that socialism with a slight tinge of nationalism was precisely in that period, in 1939, or are my eyes failing?

                  Socialism in the NPF - the NSDAP has always been. Hitler simply gave it a nationalistic connotation.
      2. Alexander Greene
        Alexander Greene 9 July 2020 22: 11
        0
        Quote: Arzt
        National Socialist German Workers Party (German: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (NSDAP).

        In fact, it used to be written. what is the Nationalsocialist German labor party. And not socialist. Look, Ruge V. How Hitler came to power, Trans. with him. M.: Thought, 1985.-320 p.
        There is still a difference.
        1. Doctor
          Doctor 9 July 2020 22: 51
          +1
          In fact, it used to be written. that this is the National Socialist German Workers Party.

          Yes, they tried to dissociate themselves in all sorts of ways, including distorting the word socialism in translation.
          But in the original -Nationalsozialistische.
        2. Octopus
          Octopus 10 July 2020 05: 56
          -2
          Quote: Alexander Green
          There is still a difference.

          Quote: Alexander Green
          M.: Thought, 1985

          Yes, Soviet authors were very fond of telling Soviet readers that Hitler was a socialist.
  • aleksejkabanets
    aleksejkabanets 9 July 2020 08: 19
    +3
    Quote: Arzt
    Hitler's totalitarian socialism, albeit with a nationalistic connotation

    And what kind of socialism in Germany, at that time, do you write? Read what socialism is, and no longer confuse "God's gift with scrambled eggs".
    Quote: Arzt
    But 22.06.1941/XNUMX/XNUMX it became clear that Stalin did everything wrong.

    So you want to say that pushing the border and getting an extra two years was a mistake?
    1. Doctor
      Doctor 9 July 2020 08: 24
      -7
      So you want to say that pushing the border and getting an extra two years was a mistake?

      You repeat the excuse that you came up with after June 22, 1941.

      The documents of those years do not say anything about time and pushing the boundaries.
      On the contrary, we are talking about long-term cooperation (as Stalin thought) and the restoration of the USSR within the borders of the Russian Empire.
      1. aleksejkabanets
        aleksejkabanets 9 July 2020 08: 29
        +6
        Quote: Arzt
        The documents of those years do not say anything about time and pushing the boundaries.

        The border has not been pushed back? They pushed back. And they were preparing for war with Germany. Or do you think the USSR leadership did not understand what "Mein Kampf" was, did not see what Germany did with its communists? Stalin and the leadership of the USSR perfectly understood the inevitability of a war with Germany.
        1. Doctor
          Doctor 9 July 2020 08: 38
          10 th
          Hasn't the border been pushed back? Pushed back.

          And you look at the matter from the other side.
          A normal, equal, fair agreement with the Slavic state - with Poland.
          So there is no need to move borders, and Hitler will think about whether to attack a country with such an ally or not.
          Now we have Belarus. Do you think it is more profitable to leave it in the form of a buffer ally with NATO, or saw it with the Poles? laughing
          1. aleksejkabanets
            aleksejkabanets 9 July 2020 08: 43
            +8
            Quote: Arzt
            A normal, equal, fair agreement with the Slavic state - with Poland.

            You look at the relationship between Poland and the Soviet Union of those times, maybe you forgot that it was Poland that did not miss the Red Army to help Czechoslovakia? Poland, of those years was one of the main enemies of the USSR, there are many reasons for this.
            1. Octopus
              Octopus 9 July 2020 08: 45
              -8
              Quote: aleksejkabanets
              it is Poland that did not miss the Red Army

              This is not the same Red Army, which the Poles with great difficulty got rid of 17 years before discussing this issue?
            2. Doctor
              Doctor 9 July 2020 08: 46
              -4
              You look at the relationship between Poland and the Soviet Union of those times, maybe you forgot that it was Poland that did not miss the Red Army to help Czechoslovakia?

              Do you think the relationship with Germany before the pact was cloudless?
              Read Goebbels "Battle of Berlin", about how he fought the communists.
              Everything could have been done differently, rather than being rotated 180 degrees, scaring China and misleading former partners and communists in other countries.
              And after June 22, again at 180 to the previous course.
          2. Mavrikiy
            Mavrikiy 9 July 2020 10: 51
            +4
            Quote: Arzt
            A normal, equal, fair agreement with the Slavic state - with Poland.

            He needs a normal, adequate, honest, not Russophobian Poland. But she was not, is not and never will be. However, as well as herself. repeat
          3. Glory1974
            Glory1974 9 July 2020 11: 09
            +6
            Now we have Belarus. Do you think it is more profitable to leave it in the form of a buffer ally with NATO, or saw it with the Poles?

            If she is our ally, there is no point in sawing along with the Poles. But if she is our opponent, like Poland, then it is not necessary to cut it with anyone, but to be able to push our troops further to the west. Which was done. But Poland was going to fight against the USSR in alliance with Germany, that is, it could not be our ally.
            At a conference in Yalta, Stalin said: "The enemy used the territory of some countries bordering on the USSR to attack our country. Therefore, it would be logical, to increase the security of our country, to have our allies in the neighboring countries." There was nothing to object to this, therefore the USSR achieved the right to influence in Eastern Europe.
            1. Doctor
              Doctor 9 July 2020 20: 31
              0
              At a conference in Yalta, Stalin said: "The enemy used the territory of some countries bordering on the USSR to attack our country. Therefore, it would be logical, to increase the security of our country, to have our allies in neighboring countries."

              All right. To Yalta, he realized that a buffer from a union country is better than a direct border with the aggressor.
              Too bad late.
              1. Valerikk
                Valerikk 9 July 2020 21: 59
                0
                Quote: Arzt
                All right. To Yalta, he realized that a buffer from a union country is better than a direct border with the aggressor.
                Too bad late.

                Yeah. That buffer lasted for two whole weeks.
                PS. At the same time I do not want to belittle the courage of Polish soldiers.
              2. Glory1974
                Glory1974 10 July 2020 09: 54
                0
                that a buffer from an allied country is better than a direct border with the aggressor.

                Poland at that time was not an ally. The buffer became its own territory and troops on it, which is even better than an ally. Therefore, everything is in accordance with your logic.
                Glad you understood that.
          4. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 9 July 2020 14: 56
            +2
            Quote: Arzt
            A normal, equal, fair agreement with the Slavic state - with Poland.

            Mmmm ... this, by the way, is not that Slavic Poland, which, along with the Germans, chopped off the territory of the Slavic Czechs, and then also swung to Ukraine? wink
            As soon as the implementation of the Munich Agreement was completed, Germany on October 24, 1938 proposed Poland to resolve the problems of Danzig and the “Polish corridor” on the basis of cooperation within the framework of the Anti-Comintern Pact. Warsaw was invited to agree to the inclusion of Danzig in the Third Reich, to allow the construction of extraterritorial highways and railways through the "Polish corridor" and to join the Anti-Comintern Pact. For its part, Germany was ready to extend the agreement of 25 for 1934 years and guarantee the existing German-Polish borders. Thus, Germany would solve the problem of rear cover from the East (including from the USSR) in anticipation of the final occupation of Czechoslovakia, partially revise its eastern border, established in 1919, and significantly strengthen its position in Eastern Europe. At the same time, Warsaw developed plans for a joint solution with Romania of the “Ukrainian issue” by tearing the Ukrainian SSR from the Soviet Union and intensifying anti-Soviet policies in Transcaucasia. Polish leaders also liked to speculate about the weakness of Soviet Russia.
          5. aglet
            aglet 13 July 2020 20: 30
            0
            "A normal, equal, honest treaty with the Slavic state - with Poland."
            But did Poland want to conclude an agreement with the USSR? Hitler was closer to her. Teshinsky volost, for example
        2. Doctor
          Doctor 9 July 2020 08: 43
          -9
          Stalin and the leadership of the USSR perfectly understood the inevitability of war with Germany.

          Nothing like this. No inevitability, only OPPORTUNITY. As well as the possibility of war with any other state.
          Documents of those years speak of intentions for long-term cooperation.
          Read the TASS statement of June 13, 1941? Comrade Stalin himself tells you - do not succumb to provocations! laughing

          The USSR, as it follows from its peace policy, has observed and intends to comply with the conditions of the Soviet-German non-aggression pact, which is why rumors that the USSR is preparing for war with Germany are deceitful and provocative.
          1. Glory1974
            Glory1974 9 July 2020 11: 02
            0
            Read the TASS statement of June 13, 1941? Comrade Stalin himself tells you - do not succumb to provocations!

            and at that time divisions from internal districts were already advancing to the western border. True, this was done in an atmosphere of secrecy. But now - everything is already known, and it is clear who Stalin turned to, reporting inaccurate information.
            1. Doctor
              Doctor 9 July 2020 20: 40
              0
              True, this was done in an atmosphere of secrecy. But now - everything is already known, and it is clear who Stalin turned to, reporting inaccurate information.

              Nothing is known. Not then, not now.
              There are known cases of executions of our pilots for the downing of fascists on the 3rd day of the war. Is this such a level of secrecy? What do not even the NKVD know?
              So it is with now. Attempts to present a case that everyone knew, but misled Hitler.
              Tipo HPS - Stalin’s cunning plan.
              1. Sugar Honeyovich
                Sugar Honeyovich 10 July 2020 05: 36
                +2
                Quote: Arzt
                There are known cases of executions of our pilots for the downing of the Nazis on the 3rd day of the war.

                For example?
              2. Glory1974
                Glory1974 10 July 2020 08: 55
                +1
                Nothing is known. Not then, not now.

                Is it still a secret for you that units and formations began to advance to the western border since the end of May?
                There are known cases of executions of our pilots for the downing of the Nazis on the 3rd day of the war.

                except you, unknown to anyone. Because they were not there.
                Attempts to present a case that everyone knew, but misled Hitler.
                Tipo HPS - Stalin’s cunning plan.

                The military is always misleading the enemy. They are obliged to do this according to the requirements of the combat regulations. Therefore, mobilization in the USSR was not announced. Also, remembering the story when Germany declared war on Russia, learning about the fact of mobilization of Russian troops, all activities were conducted secretly. Documents are open, you can even find articles on this topic on this site.
                1. Doctor
                  Doctor 10 July 2020 10: 34
                  +1
                  except you, unknown to anyone. Because they were not there.

                  I recall the source, lay out, but the question is in a principled approach.
                  They shook hands before the start of the war, it is well known.

                  The situation on the eve was well outlined by Kuznetsov in the book "The Eve" wink

                  Nice conversation between the Fleet Commander and his Air Defense Chief.
                  Threats immediately by shooting and own fear of decision-making.

                  And then also:
                2. Glory1974
                  Glory1974 10 July 2020 10: 38
                  0
                  They shook hands before the start of the war, it is well known.

                  naturally. Experience has shown that Germans (and not only them) often start hostilities with provocation. Conclusions were drawn and orders were given. Maybe they are not perfect, but in this environment they were used.
                3. Tuzik
                  Tuzik 10 July 2020 20: 50
                  0
                  You’ve arranged a cool shootout! I barely read it. )) Bold plus you for the discussion.
    2. strannik1985
      strannik1985 9 July 2020 08: 44
      +4
      You repeat the excuse that you came up with after June 22, 1941.

      If Germany occupies these territories, then it will advance by ~ 300 km closer than in reality.
      T.N. The "allies" were not going to fight in 1939, they betrayed their ally - Poland for the sake of momentary interests.
      1. Doctor
        Doctor 9 July 2020 08: 51
        -4
        T.N. The "allies" were not going to fight in 1939, they betrayed their ally - Poland for the sake of momentary interests.

        You misunderstand the relationship between England and Poland. The British could not ORDER the Poles what to do, they respected their sovereignty, therefore, when Voroshilov in the negotiations began to demand the passage of troops, the British replied - contact Poland yourself.
        Of course, for Voroshilov’s mentality this was not clear. laughing
        1. strannik1985
          strannik1985 9 July 2020 08: 54
          +1
          You misunderstand the relationship between England and Poland.

          Poland had guarantees of military assistance from France and England, which were expressed in the dumping of leaflets and imitation of fighting (Saar offensive).
          1. Doctor
            Doctor 9 July 2020 08: 56
            -2
            Poland had guarantees of military assistance from France and England, which were expressed in the dumping of leaflets and imitation of fighting (Saar offensive).

            Be that as it may, England and France declared war on Germany. And really fought. Let it fail.
            And we looked from the side. More precisely, they acted on the side of Hitler.
            1. strannik1985
              strannik1985 9 July 2020 09: 00
              +4
              Be that as it may, England and France declared war on Hitler.

              Yeah, they call her "Strange" and "Fake", and they started fighting on May 10, 1940, 9 months after it began, when the Germans themselves attacked.
              1. Doctor
                Doctor 9 July 2020 09: 12
                -3
                Yeah, they call her "Strange" and "Fake", and they started fighting on May 10, 1940, 9 months after it began, when the Germans themselves attacked.

                What matters is what we did.
                I once asked the Englishman why they opened the second front late?
                So he was very surprised, and then he asked himself: England entered the war with Hitler on September 3, 1939 and the USSR on June 22, 1941.
                So whose front is SECOND?
              2. strannik1985
                strannik1985 9 July 2020 09: 17
                +5
                What matters is what we did.

                Namely, the USSR must observe its interests. Why would the Union start a war two years earlier alone? Explain, please.
                So whose front is SECOND?

                This merely demonstrates your ignorance of the subject. What did England do after September 3, 1939? Bomb 1 (ONE) seaport and dropped ~ 6 million leaflets, that's all participation in the battles until May 1940.
              3. Doctor
                Doctor 9 July 2020 09: 23
                -3
                This merely demonstrates your ignorance of the subject. What did England do after September 3, 1939? Bomb 1 (ONE) seaport and dropped ~ 6 million leaflets, that's all participation in the battles until May 1940.

                Another's war always seems insignificant. Have you read Churchill's memoirs? They cut the metal of the fence of the London castles, they almost did not come kirdyk, flyers AHA.
              4. strannik1985
                strannik1985 9 July 2020 09: 25
                +4
                Another's war always seems insignificant.

                Another biased commentator wink The shortage of weapons and military equipment happened after Dunkirk and losses in May - June 1940.
              5. Doctor
                Doctor 9 July 2020 09: 56
                -2
                Another commentator with a biased position wink Lack of weapons and military equipment happened after Dunkirk and losses in May - June 1940.

                Already better. Dunkirk remembered. So we get to the battle of England in the air and at sea.
                How would you like the "Bismarck" near Arkhangelsk in July 1941?
                And if near Leningrad?
              6. strannik1985
                strannik1985 9 July 2020 10: 01
                +5
                Already better. Dunkirk remembered.

                "Battle of Britain" was AFTER May 1940, the Germans were leading an air attack on England.
                Can you tell me what this has to do with "Fake War"? It was finished by the Germans, not the French and the British.
              7. Doctor
                Doctor 9 July 2020 10: 10
                0
                "Battle of Britain" was AFTER May 1940, the Germans were leading an air attack on England.
                Can you tell me what this has to do with "Fake War"? It was finished by the Germans, not the French and the British.

                For some reason, you divide the events after August 3, into the period of the "Strange War" and active actions. But this does not negate the very fact of the DECLARATION of war on Hitler by Britain and France.
                And if we talk about the reasons for the delay, then they are not political, as we think, but the military.
                The British had to cross the continent, and until then the French chose to sit behind the Maginot Line.
              8. strannik1985
                strannik1985 9 July 2020 10: 20
                +3
                England needed to cross to the continent

                Again materiel laughing
                The British Expeditionary Force (BAS) in 1939 - only 4 divisions, the 5th in December 1939 had just begun the transfer. By August 1939, the French army totaled 108 divisions.
              9. Doctor
                Doctor 9 July 2020 10: 23
                -3
                Again laughing materiel
                The British Expeditionary Force (BAS) in 1939 - only 4 divisions, the 5th in December 1939 had just begun the transfer. By August 1939, the French army totaled 108 divisions.

                Do not get the discussion off the main issue, England and France at the very least fought with Hitler, but what did the USSR do?
              10. strannik1985
                strannik1985 9 July 2020 10: 37
                +5
                Do not get the discussion off the main issue

                Bad - poor - it’s nothing at all, the so-called the allies declared war, but did not fight with Germany, the USSR did not declare and did not fight. In fact, they did the same thing, only the Union of Poland did not betray.
              11. Doctor
                Doctor 9 July 2020 10: 43
                -4
                Bad - poor - it’s nothing at all, the so-called the allies declared war, but did not fight with Germany, the USSR did not declare and did not fight.

                But how did they not fight, but how did Hitler end up in Paris? And who drowned the Bismarck, the Martians?
                Union did not betray Poland

                Hard. laughing But the truth.
                You can betray your own, and Poland from the very beginning was seen as an enemy. What is the point.
              12. strannik1985
                strannik1985 9 July 2020 10: 47
                +5
                But how not to fight

                So, they were sitting in the trenches, they were bored, they bought football balls until Hitler began active fighting on May 10. Reich began to fight, comes to? laughing
                Hard

                By whom? For France and England, Poland is an unconditional ally, but what's the point? If they betrayed the Poles, then what should the USSR expect?
              13. Doctor
                Doctor 9 July 2020 10: 54
                0
                Reich began to fight, comes to? laughing

                Here I agree 100%. Hitler - the locomotive of European politics in the 30s. The rest only had time to adjust and maneuver. Churchill was right - it was impossible to drive Germany into a corner after the WWII. Sooner or later Hitler would have appeared in any way.
                If they betrayed the Poles, then what should the USSR expect?

                What is this new mantra? Why do you think you betrayed? They did everything possible in those conditions, they took the government to their place, declared war, after June 22, Poles were otmazyvayut before Stalin, as they could. What is the betrayal?

                Ask the Poles how they think the British betrayed them or not.
              14. strannik1985
                strannik1985 9 July 2020 11: 01
                +4
                Why do you think you betrayed?

                Because they gave guarantees about military assistance that they did not provide. Moreover, the possibilities to provide it since 1938 were abundant.
              15. Doctor
                Doctor 9 July 2020 11: 04
                -3
                Because they gave guarantees about military assistance that they did not provide.

                How not to have !!!
                Yes, for them they fit into an unnecessary war on the continent !!!
                Would you do that?
              16. aglet
                aglet 13 July 2020 20: 51
                0
                "Yes, they fit into an unnecessary war on the continent for them !!!
                Would you do that? "
                Well, they rested on the coast, and then jumped home. and where does Poland?
          2. aglet
            aglet 13 July 2020 20: 49
            0
            "Ask the Poles how they think the British have betrayed them or not?"
            at the poles?
      2. aglet
        aglet 13 July 2020 20: 45
        0
        "But how did they not fight, but how did Hitler end up in Paris?"
        Yes, because it’s bad and poor, it was easier for them to give up in order to preserve their cultural values. which they did. Well, how did Stalin fight with such allies? France for the Germans was a sanatorium, a brothel, a source of food and a booze, and also a source of trophies on technology
      3. Doctor
        Doctor 13 July 2020 22: 00
        0
        how to fight stalin with such allies?

        Just. As after 22.06.1941/XNUMX/XNUMX.
      4. aglet
        aglet 13 July 2020 22: 09
        0
        "Simple. As after 22.06.1941/XNUMX/XNUMX."
        so he fought, without them
  • aglet
    aglet 13 July 2020 20: 41
    0
    "Do not take the discussion away from the main issue, England and France fought at the very least against Hitler, but what did the USSR do?"
    that’s exactly what is bad is poor. and the USSR did not fight Hitler, they did not have a land border, and the Angles and French did not conclude an agreement with the USSR, why, interesting?
  • Doctor
    Doctor 13 July 2020 22: 02
    0
    the USSR did not fight Hitler, they did not have a land border

    How was it not?
  • aglet
    aglet 13 July 2020 22: 06
    0
    "How was it not?"
    in 1939? or in 1940? it was a little, but did not fight, the contract is called, we were not at war. and the Wangles, French and Poles all had- and the land border, and the state of war- but did not fight — they waited until Hitler attacked the USSR. not everyone came to the truth
  • aglet
    aglet 13 July 2020 20: 38
    0
    "How would you like the Bismarck near Arkhangelsk in July 1941?"
    And if near Leningrad? "
    somehow dispensed with Bismarck, and in general, the kriegsmarin did not fight against the USSR, there was nowhere
  • Doctor
    Doctor 13 July 2020 22: 06
    0
    somehow dispensed with Bismarck, and in general, the kriegsmarin did not fight against the USSR, there was nowhere

    Managed. Some guys drowned him in between rest on the coast.
  • aglet
    aglet 13 July 2020 22: 30
    0
    "No problem. Some guys drowned him in between holidays on the coast."
    Bismarck was sunk on May 27, 1941, when these guys, having rest on the coast, had long been drinking beer in their pubs. You greatly exaggerate the role of Bismarck in the war, approximately, like the English admirals.
  • Doctor
    Doctor 13 July 2020 23: 03
    0
    greatly exaggerating the role of Bismarck in the war, approximately, like the English admirals.

    Each has its own war, the sea and air deprived the British of no less strength than our land. And Hitler, respectively, too. Do you need armada of tanks? Is war fake without them? Or does Bismarck seem like a kid?
    Well then name at least one giant destroyer Kringsmarine, which sank our Navy.
  • aglet
    aglet 14 July 2020 17: 35
    0
    "Well, name then at least one gigantic destroyer Kringsmarine that sank our Navy."
    the fleet, and the kriegsmarine, in particular, were dangerous only to the Angles, their whole island’s life was fed from sea trade, raw materials, food, tea, tobacco — everything came from overseas, on ships. Naturally, the naval blockade was fatal for them, and they needed a fleet to secure the sea routes of supply. the USSR was not connected with the seas and the fleet as tightly as the Angles, and the fleet, by and large, we did not need. therefore, the hygienic destroyers didn’t drown, and they didn’t swim towards us
  • aglet
    aglet 13 July 2020 20: 36
    0
    "They cut the metal of the fences of London castles"
    well, what sacrifices, I’ll pay right now. And there were a lot of castles in London? Oh yes, I forgot, he handed over copper pennies to the defense fund, this is a feat, yes
  • Doctor
    Doctor 13 July 2020 22: 46
    0
    what sacrifices, I’ll pay right now. And there were a lot of castles in London? Oh yes, I forgot, he handed over copper pennies to the defense fund, this is a feat, yes

    It is incomparable with us, but England was on the verge of collapse.
  • aglet
    aglet 14 July 2020 17: 38
    0
    "It is incomparable with us, but England was on the verge of collapse."
    how? not a single German stepped on the island, the fleet is completely intact and the best in the world, aviation and air defense work fine, the church’s whiskey and cigars did not end, what kind of collapse are we talking about? the Germans could not even organize a naval blockade
  • aglet
    aglet 13 July 2020 20: 33
    0
    "England entered the war with Hitler on September 3, 1939"
    supposedly Hitler then attacked England? Or did the Angles simply declare war on the Germans, and that?
  • Glory1974
    Glory1974 9 July 2020 11: 12
    +4
    And we looked from the side. More precisely, they acted on the side of Hitler.

    We spoke on our side. Or do you propose to fight for the interests of England until the last Russian soldier?
    1. Doctor
      Doctor 9 July 2020 11: 18
      -3
      We spoke on our side. Or do you propose to fight for the interests of England until the last Russian soldier?

      So still had to! But why for the interests of England? For their own, of course. It is necessary to correctly vibrate allies, such that interests coincide.
      In Syria and the Donbass for whose interests we are fighting?
    2. Sugar Honeyovich
      Sugar Honeyovich 9 July 2020 16: 05
      0
      Quote: Arzt
      It is necessary to correctly vibrate allies, such that interests coincide.

      That's right. Only England, France, and especially Poland misunderstood their interests. Unlike the USSR. what
    3. Doctor
      Doctor 9 July 2020 17: 09
      0
      Only England, France, and especially Poland misunderstood their interests.

      Until June 41st, all normal in Europe had one interest. Stop Hitler. What is wrong?
    4. Sugar Honeyovich
      Sugar Honeyovich 9 July 2020 17: 56
      0
      In normal ones, yes. It is wrong that before September 01.09.1939, XNUMX, unlike the USSR, not everyone had an interest in stopping Hitler. Were they crazy? How to know!
    5. Doctor
      Doctor 9 July 2020 18: 36
      -1
      It is wrong that before September 01.09.1939, XNUMX, unlike the USSR, not everyone had an interest in stopping Hitler.

      Now I understand.

      The USSR had an interest in stopping Hitler.
      For this, he concluded a pact with Germany in 1939.
      And everything worked out, Hitler was stopped.
      In 1945.

      Am I confused anything?
    6. Sugar Honeyovich
      Sugar Honeyovich 10 July 2020 05: 39
      +1
      Quote: Arzt
      Am I confused anything?

      As in the Armenian radio, almost nothing, but one clarification: the USSR had an interest in stopping Hitler, but the so-called the civilized world did not share this interest. As a result, everything else.
    7. aglet
      aglet 13 July 2020 20: 56
      +1
      "For this, he entered into a pact with Germany in 1939."
      the last in Europe, I must say
  • aglet
    aglet 13 July 2020 20: 54
    0
    "Until June 41, everyone normal there was one interest in Europe. Stop Hitler. What's wrong? "
    very strange they stopped him, surrendering in rows and columns. and from June 22, 1941 they sighed freely - now the abnormal people began to fight for them, right?
  • Glory1974
    Glory1974 10 July 2020 09: 59
    +1
    If England and France did not fight against Hitler, why should we do this without having an appropriate treaty with them? For just that, for thanks, which no one will say?
    And when the interests coincided, they established allied relations.
    In Syria and the Donbass, we are fighting for our interests, not for the English.
  • Mavrikiy
    Mavrikiy 9 July 2020 10: 56
    +1
    Quote: Arzt
    T.N. The "allies" were not going to fight in 1939, they betrayed their ally - Poland for the sake of momentary interests.

    You misunderstand the relationship between England and Poland. The British could not ORDER the Poles what to do, they respected their sovereignty,

    Yes, they did not order, but promised and betrayed. It’s business, for the British it’s a common thing. And the Poles opened the mittens and carefully watched the carrots.they respected their sovereigntyrather supported impudence and dullness.
    1. Doctor
      Doctor 9 July 2020 11: 22
      -3
      Yes, they did not order, but promised and betrayed. It’s business, for the British it’s a common thing. And the Poles opened the mittens and carefully watched the carrots. They respected their sovereignty and supported impudence and stupidity.

      Look at the matter with an open mind. Disconnect the imposed TV hatred of the Poles.
      Why should one state represent its territory for the passage of troops of another state? Especially considering the prehistory.

      Again, ask the Poles, how do they feel the British betrayed them or supported them? Even morally.
      1. Sugar Honeyovich
        Sugar Honeyovich 9 July 2020 16: 26
        +2
        Quote: Arzt
        Why should one state represent its territory for the passage of troops of another state?

        In order to confront an external enemy. The German countries — in the wars against Napoleon, France — in the 1st MV, Mongolia — in 1939, and others did so. Elementary simple and reasonable.
      2. aglet
        aglet 13 July 2020 20: 59
        0
        "Why on earth should one state present its territory for the passage of the troops of another state?"
        according to the agreement, to protect allies. but the Poles needed a teshinsky volost
  • Sugar Honeyovich
    Sugar Honeyovich 9 July 2020 16: 23
    +3
    Quote: Arzt
    for Voroshilov’s mentality, it was not clear

    It was absolutely clear to Voroshilov with his mentality that he had communicated to the Anglo-Franks in an intelligible form. They found his argument "extremely frank and logical, and for us, unfortunately, irrefutable." The French tried to bring this to the attention of the Poles, but ... the Polish mentality then (and was it only then ?!) differed from ... the human one. repeat
  • Sugar Honeyovich
    Sugar Honeyovich 9 July 2020 16: 04
    0
    Quote: Arzt
    excuse that came up after June 22, 1941

    More precisely: which became clear after June 22, 1941.
  • Doctor
    Doctor 9 July 2020 08: 29
    -4
    And what kind of socialism in Germany, at that time, do you write? Read what socialism is, and no longer confuse "God's gift with scrambled eggs".

    Socialism (from lat. Socialis "public") - Ryad economic and social systems characterized by state and / or public control over the economy, means of production and distribution of resources, as well as political theories and movements associated with them.

    Socialism is different. There is the socialism of Marx, Plekhanov, Lenin, Stalin, Mao.
    Here, many people constantly shout, they say that Stalin has the right socialism, but Khrushchev’s not quite. And with Gorbachev, he is not at all correct.

    Hitler considered himself a socialist. Stalin also considered Hitler a socialist. At least a great socialist than Chamberlain.
    Therefore, he concluded a contract.
    1. aleksejkabanets
      aleksejkabanets 9 July 2020 08: 36
      +1
      Quote: Arzt
      Socialism is different. There is the socialism of Marx, Plekhanov, Lenin, Stalin, Mao.
      Here, many people constantly shout, they say that Stalin has the right socialism, but Khrushchev’s not quite. And with Gorbachev, he is not at all correct.

      Stalin, as a Marxist (in this, I hope you have no doubt?), Understood socialism as the first phase of building a communist society. In your opinion, he believed that Germany is building communism?
      Quote: Arzt
      Stalin also considered Hitler a socialist.

      Why do you think so? I would be grateful for references to the sources where Stalin writes this.
    2. Sugar Honeyovich
      Sugar Honeyovich 9 July 2020 16: 27
      0
      Quote: Arzt
      Therefore, he concluded a contract.

      Not at all because.
  • Octopus
    Octopus 9 July 2020 08: 43
    -8
    Quote: aleksejkabanets
    was it a mistake to push the border and get an extra two years?

    Move the border closer to the Wehrmacht and lead the Red Army into future boilers? Certainly a mistake.
    Quote: aleksejkabanets
    Read what socialism is,

    Land to peasants, water to sailors. Hitler did this mainly, and much more honestly than the Soviet regime. Under Hitler, the welfare of German workers really grew. For the time being.

    Oh yes, by the way.
    Quote: aleksejkabanets
    push the border

    It is nice to see how the occupation of several states and repressions against several peoples are still not considered a problem by the Russians. Push the border, what could be wrong with that?
    1. strannik1985
      strannik1985 9 July 2020 09: 31
      +6
      Certainly a mistake.

      One is the Bialystok-Minsk environment, the rest are in the "old" territory.
      Under Hitler, the welfare of German workers really grew.

      Who would argue when you refuse to pay reparations, but there is no reaction to this, when you occupy neighboring countries "peacefully" and not very much, it is always easier than for your own laughing
      Glad to see

      Everything is in the spirit of the times, for example, the British occupation of Iceland, at that time the Danish colony.
      1. Octopus
        Octopus 9 July 2020 09: 50
        -4
        Quote: strannik1985
        for example England’s occupation of Iceland

        Yes, I also love this example very much, thanks. The occupation of Iceland by the Anglo-Americans, Denmark by Germany and the Baltic states of the USSR. The results for the occupied countries are more than obvious.
        1. strannik1985
          strannik1985 9 July 2020 09: 54
          +2
          Yes, I also like this example very much

          And also Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria - are not occupied, but directly or indirectly support the Reich. Suppose the USSR does not occupy these territories, it does Germany. Who is better?
          1. Octopus
            Octopus 9 July 2020 10: 01
            -5
            Quote: strannik1985
            Suppose the USSR does not occupy these territories, it does Germany. Who is better?

            Suppose that the USSR attacked all three of these countries, which were neutral at the time of the attack. Apparently, the USSR became better.
            1. strannik1985
              strannik1985 9 July 2020 10: 03
              +5
              Apparently, the USSR became better.

              Yes. Do not tell me, is there a hope that these countries will remain neutral by June 1941, if the USSR does not take them?
              1. Octopus
                Octopus 9 July 2020 10: 19
                -5
                Quote: strannik1985
                Do not tell me, is there a hope that these countries will remain neutral by June 1941, if the USSR does not take them?

                Some kind of strange question. These countries were neutral before the attack (in the case of Romania - annexation of territories) by the USSR. In particular, Bulgaria did not fight the USSR at all, and when Comrade Liberator reached it Tolbukhin, fought with Germany.
              2. strannik1985
                strannik1985 9 July 2020 10: 34
                +5
                Some kind of strange question.

                http://www.tinlib.ru/transport_i_aviacija/aviacija_i_vremja_2001_01/p6.php
                Bulgaria - fought, and also replaced the German troops in Yugoslavia, who went to the Eastern Front. Romania occupied Bessarabia, the transfer of the territory of the USSR never recognized, in 1940 transferred Hungary Northern Transylvania, and Bulgaria Southern Dobrudja.
                No, are you serious right now? Hitler will not use the territory of the Baltic countries, Western Ukraine and Belarus to deploy troops?
              3. Octopus
                Octopus 9 July 2020 11: 19
                -4
                Quote: strannik1985
                Bulgaria - fought, and also replaced the German troops in Yugoslavia, who went to the Eastern Front

                There is nothing to do with Great Bulgaria and its relations with Greece and Yugoslavia, the USSR. Neither Yugoslavia, nor even Greece of the USSR are native.
                Bulgaria also fights with the United States and Britain, but the last Soviet assistance in the war with Bulgaria, as far as I know, has not been requested.
                Quote: strannik1985
                Romania occupied Bessarabia, the transfer of the territory of the USSR never recognized

                His problems. The status of Bessarabia was regulated by the results of the WWII until the USSR appeared on the map.
                Quote: strannik1985
                Hitler will not use the territory of the Baltic countries, Western Ukraine and Belarus to deploy troops?

                Hitler is not there in the 39th year, I recall.
              4. strannik1985
                strannik1985 9 July 2020 11: 24
                +3
                To Great Bulgaria

                But Bulgaria has up to Soviet submarines. The unconditional neutral that fights against the USSR.
                His problems.

                Namely, before the appearance and without taking into account the will.
                Hitler is not there

                What will prevent him from entering the troops?
              5. Octopus
                Octopus 9 July 2020 11: 45
                -3
                Quote: strannik1985
                But Bulgaria has up to Soviet submarines

                How did Soviet submarines end up in neutral Bulgaria?
                Quote: strannik1985
                before the appearance and without taking into account the will.

                Why on earth should someone take into account the "will" of some St. Petersburg buzoters?
                Quote: strannik1985
                What will prevent him from entering the troops?

                Well, it’s difficult to introduce something into Finland, Hungary is already its ally (but the USSR managed to bomb the first one), there’s no reason to enter Bulgaria somehow, the Balkans already hold 20 German divisions, it makes sense to enter Romania, but they came there anyway his friends to power, amid just Bessarabia and similar problems with other neighbors.
              6. strannik1985
                strannik1985 9 July 2020 12: 07
                +3
                How Soviet submarines

                Because Bulgaria is not neutral, but an ally of the Reich.
                Why on earth should anyone

                Should not, but from 1922 to 1940 the Romanian authorities could resolve the issue. They didn’t - they lost much more.
                Well, to Finland

                You don’t need to go to Finland, participation in a coalition against the USSR is one of two variants of military doctrine.
                It is not necessary to Bulgaria, thanks to the Germans they acquired 42 thousand square km. Of territory and 1,9 million population.
                Romania is also not necessary, the main consumer of oil is the Reich, they were promised territories in return for the lost.
                The Germans are so occupied with Western Ukraine and Belarus, but the Reich occupies the Baltic states anyway.
              7. Octopus
                Octopus 9 July 2020 12: 26
                -3
                Quote: strannik1985
                Bulgaria is not neutral, but an ally of the Reich.

                Bulgaria is neutral. This is a fact, not an interpretation. The USSR declared war on Bulgaria on September 5, 1944.

                So the question is exactly the opposite. What did Soviet submarines do off the coast of neutral countries?
                Quote: strannik1985
                Romanian authorities could resolve the issue.

                The USSR was not going to regulate this issue. He somehow does not need it, from the point of view of the USSR, territorial claims are an asset.
                Quote: strannik1985
                lost a lot more.

                They lost the whole country in the end. But there were practically no good outs.
                Quote: strannik1985
                You don’t need to go to Finland, participation in a coalition against the USSR is one of two variants of military doctrine.

                Finland was assigned by the Pact to the Soviet zone of interests. But then she found a scythe on a stone.
                Quote: strannik1985
                No need for Bulgaria

                Well, you see. Bulgaria could and was a neutral of the German-Soviet war.
                Quote: strannik1985
                the main consumer of oil is the Reich, they were promised territories in return for the lost.

                However, until the 40th year Romania was pro-British.
                Quote: strannik1985
                The Germans are so occupied with Western Ukraine and Belarus, but the Reich occupies the Baltic states anyway.

                This is how the Germans will occupy these territories?
              8. strannik1985
                strannik1985 9 July 2020 12: 41
                +3
                Bulgaria is neutral.

                No, the neutral cannot provide territory for the deployment of troops, bases, replace occupation troops, etc.
                The USSR was not going to regulate this issue.

                Going, sheet music was presented. No negotiation - no settlement.
                Nevertheless

                It makes no difference, since June 1940, England has been unable to help Romania.
                This is how the Germans will occupy these territories?

                Anyone, for example, will be invited by those who organized into armed demonstrations in June 1941.
              9. Octopus
                Octopus 9 July 2020 13: 19
                -2
                Quote: strannik1985
                No, the neutral cannot provide territory for the deployment of troops, bases, replace occupation troops, etc.

                No need to fool around. Bulgaria is neutral in relation to the USSR. Similarly, for example, Japan after 41 years.
                As for relations with other countries, they do not concern the USSR. For example, comrade Marinov, whom the Greeks demanded to be extradited as war crimes, completely blended into the people's power under the Communists.
                Quote: strannik1985
                Going, sheet music was presented

                "Give it back"? Oh well.
                Quote: strannik1985
                , from June 1940 England can not help Romania.

                Since the spring of the 41st, the capture of Germany the Balkans and Greece.
                Quote: strannik1985
                Anyone, for example, will be invited by those

                That is the real Antonescu.
              10. strannik1985
                strannik1985 9 July 2020 13: 54
                +1
                No need to fool around. Bulgaria is neutral in relation to the USSR.

                Yeah, but the German troops on the territory of Bulgaria are neutral in relation to the USSR? laughing
                EMNIP officially Bulgaria's non-combatant ally of the Reich
                Oh well

                The right of a strong thing is inconsistent, now you are strong, and tomorrow there is no ..
                Since the spring of the 41st

                There is nothing, after Dunkirk they collect from the world on a thread for the army, they planned to "protect" Romania by sabotage on the routes of delivery of oil products.
                That is the real Antonescu

                Mannerheim, Antonescu, Horthy, Bangersky - there were enough betting on Hitler.
              11. Sugar Honeyovich
                Sugar Honeyovich 9 July 2020 16: 34
                0
                Quote: Octopus
                Bulgaria is neutral in relation to the USSR.

                And in relation to the UK and the USA?
              12. Octopus
                Octopus 9 July 2020 16: 46
                -1
                And the United Kingdom and the United States comrade Stalin is not native. See Japan.
              13. Sugar Honeyovich
                Sugar Honeyovich 9 July 2020 17: 16
                0
                Comrade Stalin - yes, but did Bulgaria neutral them or not?
              14. Octopus
                Octopus 9 July 2020 17: 25
                -1
                In WWII - neutral, in WWII - no.
    2. Sugar Honeyovich
      Sugar Honeyovich 9 July 2020 16: 31
      +1
      Quote: Octopus
      This is how the Germans will occupy these territories?

      To anyone. Before that, they occupied different territories in different ways.
    3. aglet
      aglet 13 July 2020 21: 09
      0
      "Bulgaria is neutral. It's like a fact, not an interpretation."
      bulgaria, as a bae, Hitler's ally - "Bulgaria officially entered the Second World War on the side of the Axis countries on December 13, 1941"
      as be, a fact, not an interpretation
  • aglet
    aglet 13 July 2020 21: 06
    0
    "Hungary is already its ally (but the USSR managed to bomb it first)"
    what did the first USSR do there? "On November 20, 1940, Hungarian Prime Minister Pal Teleki signed the Triple Pact (Berlin Pact), which meant Hungary's entry into a military alliance with Italy, Japan and Germany."
  • Octopus
    Octopus 14 July 2020 02: 06
    +1
    Another one is internationally better than Comrade. Molotov.
  • Captivity
    Captivity 9 July 2020 11: 24
    -4
    Romanians occupied Bessarabia populated by Romanians? Oh well. Just the same occupation. And in 1918, they probably did not know about the existence of the USSR.
  • strannik1985
    strannik1985 9 July 2020 11: 33
    +4
    Materiel. Sfatul Tsarii voted on the accession at gunpoint of the Romanian machine guns, dissenting deputies were shot, including one of the deputies - women.
    Yes, it’s called occupation.
  • Octopus
    Octopus 9 July 2020 11: 50
    -4
    Quote: strannik1985
    Sfatul Tsarii voted

    And what does the Sfatul Tsariy have to do with it? Did the Bolsheviks once recognize him?

    The Bolsheviks relied on the agreement of the 18th year, which Romania did not sign with great mind the Romanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, but from the Bolsheviks several muddy comrades, mainly future enemies of the people. A month later, the Romanians forgot about this treaty and thought about it, the Bolsheviks immediately traveled to those places, but the Bolsheviks did not forget, hid it and in the year 40 presented.
  • strannik1985
    strannik1985 9 July 2020 11: 59
    +3
    And what does Sfatul Cerius have to do with it?

    Despite the fact that it is a local authority expressing the desire of the population of Bessarabia. De jure there are no legal authorities at all since February 1917.
  • Octopus
    Octopus 9 July 2020 12: 05
    -4
    Quote: strannik1985
    local government expressing the desire of the population of Bessarabia

    How interesting.

    And what is Sfatul Cerium? He asked the USSR and Germany to include Bessarabia in the Pact? And cut a little Bukovina?
  • strannik1985
    strannik1985 9 July 2020 12: 11
    +3
    How interesting.

    No, according to relics and fir trees. They rejected by force and received the same thing.
  • Octopus
    Octopus 9 July 2020 12: 31
    -4
    Quote: strannik1985
    Torn away by force

    From whom were they torn away?
    Quote: strannik1985
    got the same thing.

    Received, first of all, the inhabitants of Bessarabia. Both under the Soviets and the Romanian fascists.
  • Liam
    Liam 9 July 2020 12: 42
    -3
    Quote: Octopus
    Did the Bolsheviks once recognize him?

    Recognized.
    Quote: Octopus
    The Bolsheviks relied

    The Bolsheviks relied on the right of the strong. How did Finland, the Baltic states, or Poland help recognition and treaties with the USSR when their time came? All these recognition / non-recognition on the part of the USSR is nothing more than demagogy and diplkin diploma ...were not worth the paper on which they were written
  • Octopus
    Octopus 9 July 2020 13: 24
    -2
    Quote: Liam
    The Bolsheviks relied on the right of the strong

    By itself.
    Quote: Liam
    Recognized.

    As part of the RDFR.
  • Liam
    Liam 9 July 2020 13: 31
    -1
    Quote: Octopus
    RDFR

    I probably missed ... And when did the RDFR create it and when did the Bolsheviks recognize it?
  • Octopus
    Octopus 9 July 2020 13: 44
    -1
    MDR was established in December 17th. As part of the RFDR, and not as a sovereign state. The Bolsheviks at that time had not yet decided whether they or who the RFDR.
  • Liam
    Liam 9 July 2020 14: 00
    0
    Quote: Octopus
    As part of the RFDR

    Which the Bolsheviks destroyed at that time). But they recognize the MDR as part of the Entrepreneur of the RFDR itself, which does not exist. Sfatul Tsarii is a legitimate body that is recognized by the Bolsheviks. Another thing is that when the SC made other decisions within its powers that the Bolsheviks did not like, they had already changed their minds about recognizing it. But this is from another opera. The Bolsheviks acknowledged a lot of things and many didn’t. But this does not mean that these organs became illegitimate. These tricks are used only by website demagogues who are underdeveloped of all stripes.
    Romania had a clear position on the topic - Bessarabia became part of Romania legitimately, recognized by international treaties and there is no need for any additional agreements with the USSR (which is not the legal successor of the Republic of Ingushetia to Bessarabia), although the USSR in the 20s / beginning The 30s repeatedly proposed the recognition of Bessarabia to Romania in exchange for Romania’s refusal to return the kingdom’s gold reserve seized by the Bolsheviks.
    In the final analysis, Romania’s position was right from the position of after-mission. A peace treaty with the USSR would not have saved her from June 1940. And they didn’t make up their hands once again by signing a meaningless piece of paper.
  • Sugar Honeyovich
    Sugar Honeyovich 9 July 2020 16: 12
    0
    Quote: Liam
    The Bolsheviks relied on the right of the strong

    To live with wolves ....
    Quote: Liam
    How did Finland, the Baltic states, or Poland help with recognition and treaties with the USSR when their time came?

    In the same way, the USSR would not have been helped by all these treaties when its time had come. Just the Soviet Union tried to work ahead of the curve.
  • Captivity
    Captivity 9 July 2020 22: 26
    0
    Romanians got the desired result when voting Sfatul Tsarii. Why would they shoot someone because of this?
    And if someone was shot there for espionage and provocation? Do not know what to say. Not at all Bolshevik
  • strannik1985
    strannik1985 10 July 2020 07: 09
    0
    Materiel. Shot before the vote laughing EMNIP 5 deputies of men and one woman, another one of those who were against managed to escape. Officially, Romanian troops were introduced to protect the railways and other facilities, naturally there were those who looked a little further than their own noses.
    The logic of the Ukrainians from the anecdote: "And what about us ?!"
  • Liam
    Liam 10 July 2020 07: 26
    -2
    Quote: strannik1985
    Materiel. Shot before the vote

    It will not be difficult to name the names of the executed?
  • strannik1985
    strannik1985 10 July 2020 07: 32
    0
    Of course - Rudyev, Kataros, Prahnitsky, I. Pantsir, P. Chumachenko, amendment - Nadezhda Grinfeld was killed while trying to escape.
  • Liam
    Liam 10 July 2020 09: 09
    -2
    Escape from where?
    And the rest when and where?
  • strannik1985
    strannik1985 10 July 2020 09: 55
    0
    From Bessarabia. Dear, can you first read something on the topic?
  • Liam
    Liam 10 July 2020 11: 05
    -1
    Don’t worry. I’m better acquainted with the topic. Therefore, I ask questions.
    You don’t know Grinfeld’s biography. She didn’t know when and where she was engaged. In any case, she was a member of Sfatul Tsariy from November 21 to December 29, 1917, she died in January 1918 when she was no longer a deputy when leaving Bassarabia. had accession to Romania on March 27, 1918 — even you find it difficult to say.
    135 deputies participated in the voting on the accession (out of 148 members) .86 voted For, 3 Against, 36 abstained. No one subsequently was subjected to any repression, regardless of how they voted.
    But in 1940, the Soviet government arrested all those who were able to find and killed everyone. Naturally, the same, regardless of how they voted
  • strannik1985
    strannik1985 10 July 2020 11: 47
    0
    Greenfeld’s biography you don’t know.

    Something does not look like, because the annexation took place on December 7, when the Romanian troops invaded the territory of Bessarabia. Voting on the need to send troops took place on December 28, in protest, members of the faction of the United Socialist Bloc resigned from Sfatul Cerium. And in January, she and other deputies (the above and Nikolai Kovsan) were shot by Romanian gendarmes while trying to cross the Dniester.
    Repeat again? There were two votes - on the entry of troops (December 28) and accession (March 27, 1918).
  • Captivity
    Captivity 10 July 2020 08: 06
    0
    It remains only to explain how it happened that the dissenters were shot - before the vote.
    And those who later voted against the unification, lived a long interesting life until they came to the USSR.
    Two legally emigrated to the USSR in 30 years. They were shot at by denunciations.
    The third was arrested by the NKVD in 1940. He died while under investigation. Already the dead were sentenced to 10 years in prison.
  • strannik1985
    strannik1985 10 July 2020 09: 59
    0
    Funny situation - are you trying to appeal without knowing the history of the issue?
    Romanian troops entered under the pretext of guarding the railway and suppressing unrest, without waiting for the end of negotiations. Those who disagree with the introduction of troops were killed; those who were lucky fled. And then there was a vote on the accession of Bessarabia to Romania.
  • Captivity
    Captivity 10 July 2020 11: 37
    0
    Well, troops were also brought into the Baltic states under one pretext, and then they were also shot, and the application of the Baltic states to the USSR. Is not it?
    In Bessarabia, however, the deputies were able to vote against and still live and work after that. And they accepted death just from those to whom they sought.
  • strannik1985
    strannik1985 10 July 2020 11: 53
    0
    Yes, there would be someone against it, the Romanians realized the right of the strong - they could and took away. But there was one caveat - this right is valid until someone has become stronger. The USSR became stronger and exercised its right, exactly what the Romanians did in 1917 - 1918.
    By the time of the vote on the accession of dissenting deputies, who were already former at that time, they were shot while trying to leave the region. I have no idea by what principle the Romanians separated some of those who disagree with others, this does not make the legal annexation.
  • Captivity
    Captivity 10 July 2020 13: 23
    0
    When these deputies were shot, the question of unification with Romania simply did not stand. They openly sided with Rumcheroda and fought against the Sfatul Tsarii.
    So the unification of Bessarabia with Romania is not affected.
  • strannik1985
    strannik1985 10 July 2020 13: 33
    0
    So the unification of Bessarabia with Romania is not affected.

    When they were shot by the de facto accession issue was already resolved (from December 7), it is naive to believe that the Romanians will withdraw their troops without external influence.
  • Captivity
    Captivity 10 July 2020 13: 41
    0
    The French and Greeks also introduced troops in Odessa. And this is far from their borders. In Romania itself, Russian troops were buzzing. And even more so in Bessarabia. So reassured
  • Olgovich
    Olgovich 9 July 2020 11: 40
    +1
    Quote: Octopus
    These countries were neutral before the attack (in the case of Romania - annexation of territories)

    Bulgaria fought on the side of Germany, as did Hungary (nude with the bombing of the lousy SLOVAK town, as a pretext for Hungary’s campaign near Voronezh, leave it to yourself) and Romania. All of them climbed over the ALIEN, as Poland and the same Hungary were already climbing in 1938.

    Romania has already returned the annexed territories on June 28, 1940.
    But she wanted ... Odessa also climbed.
  • Octopus
    Octopus 9 July 2020 12: 13
    -3
    Quote: Olgovich
    Bulgaria fought on the side of Germany, like Hungary

    Not from the USSR.
    Quote: Olgovich
    bombardment of a lousy SLOVAK town, as a reason for the campaign of Hungary near Voronezh

    Kosice has been Hungarian since 1938. The USSR should be clarified beforehand.
  • Olgovich
    Olgovich 9 July 2020 12: 31
    +1
    Quote: Octopus
    Not from the USSR.

    what is the gender difference?

    In 1941, Bulgaria signed The Berlin Pact, having entered into a military alliance with the Axis countries and their allies. Bulgaria in the Second World War fought on the side of the German Reich.
    She fought on the side of absolute evil, freed TENS of evil divisions for war on the allied fronts.
    Punished for this the Allies in 1947
    Quote: Octopus
    Kosice has been Hungarian since 1938.

    And before that, Slovak. And before that, Czechoslovak.

    And?

    No wonder whose bombing is a reason for HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS to go to seize, kill, torture, near Stalingrad and Voronezh? "Revenge" for словацкий Kosice? fool
  • Octopus
    Octopus 9 July 2020 12: 35
    -2
    Quote: Olgovich
    what is the gender difference?

    Maybe you don’t have one, but people sentimentally inclined towards Russians may be interested in whether the Bulgarians killed the Russians. And about the Greeks - not very interesting, let the Greeks understand there.
    Quote: Olgovich
    Unfamiliar whose bombing is an occasion FOR HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS to go seize, kill, torture, near Stalingrad and Voronezh?

    In fact - yes. What is the question?
  • Olgovich
    Olgovich 9 July 2020 13: 31
    0
    Quote: Octopus
    Maybe you don’t have any, but people sentimentally inclined towards Russians may be interested in whether the Bulgarians killed the Russians

    It makes no difference to anyone: an ally of EVIL is evil.

    Punished Allies in 1947
    Quote: Octopus
    In fact - yes.

    In fact, nonsense.
    And ... what is the question? request
  • Octopus
    Octopus 9 July 2020 14: 18
    -2
    Quote: Olgovich
    It makes no difference to anyone: an ally of evil is evil

    Well, it’s specifically for you there is no difference between the destruction of the Russians and participation in the endless Balkan massacre.

    And there are others.
  • Olgovich
    Olgovich 9 July 2020 20: 18
    0
    Quote: Octopus
    Well, it’s specifically for you there is no difference between the destruction of the Russians and participation in the endless Balkan massacre.

    In Russian, express your, ts, "thought" - what kind of destruction of the Russians - in what .. "massacre, with what difference?

    SHO for nonsense? belay lol
  • Sugar Honeyovich
    Sugar Honeyovich 9 July 2020 16: 08
    0
    Quote: Octopus
    These countries were neutral before the attack (in the case of Romania - annexation of territories) by the USSR

    And so they would be neutral until the German politics were drawn into the orbit and before the German attack on the USSR yes repeat
  • Glory1974
    Glory1974 9 July 2020 11: 22
    +1
    Move the border closer to the Wehrmacht and lead the Red Army into future boilers? Certainly a mistake.

    Otherwise, the boilers would have been near Moscow. So this is not a mistake. A mistake in the conduct of hostilities, but not in the strategy.
    Land to peasants, water to sailors. Hitler did this mainly, and much more honestly than the Soviet regime.

    So the Soviet government also did all this. To the land, to peasants, factories, workers. Why is Hitler more honest? Although he really is the only politician in the world who has fulfilled all campaign promises.
    It is nice to see how the occupation of several states and repressions against several peoples are still not considered a problem by the Russians. Push the border, what could be wrong with that?

    It is nice to see that there were people in Russia who really worried about their people, and not about the peoples of neighboring countries.
    If the neighboring country is preparing aggression against the USSR, or the territory of this country is used to commit aggression, then appropriate measures must be taken.
    Repression against peoples is a liberal stamp. USA is also Japanese, Indians, etc. drove to the reservation if necessary, and everything is quite normal.
    1. aglet
      aglet 13 July 2020 21: 15
      0
      "Otherwise, the boilers would have been near Moscow. So this is not a mistake."
      boilers were near Moscow. Have you heard about Vyazma?
      1. Glory1974
        Glory1974 14 July 2020 10: 00
        0
        I heard that confirms my opinion. And if there were several of these near Moscow?
        1. aglet
          aglet 14 July 2020 17: 24
          0
          "And if there were several of these near Moscow?"
          and if green men had landed from Mars? don't multiply entities, enough of what was enough
          1. Glory1974
            Glory1974 15 July 2020 09: 53
            0
            don't multiply entities, enough of what was enough

            The question was whether to push the border as good or not. I believe that is good.
            You wrote a couple of comments, but I still did not understand your position.
  • strannik1985
    strannik1985 9 July 2020 08: 30
    +6
    On June 22.06.1941, XNUMX, it became clear that Stalin did NOT everything right.

    The Moscow talks led to the MP pact in the summer of 1939, more precisely, the reluctance of the English and French representatives to agree on military assistance. Hitler here and now (in August 1939) proved to be a contracting party.
    Explain what Stalin did wrong in this situation?
    1. Octopus
      Octopus 9 July 2020 08: 46
      -2
      Quote: strannik1985
      more precisely, the reluctance of the English and French representatives to agree on military assistance

      Let me remind you that neither France nor Britain paid the price of the Second World War.
      1. strannik1985
        strannik1985 9 July 2020 08: 50
        +1
        Let me remind you that neither France nor Britain paid the price of the Second World War.

        Are we not talking about the USSR now? If you enter the war in 1939 the price will be less?
        1. Octopus
          Octopus 9 July 2020 09: 51
          -1
          Quote: strannik1985
          And aren’t we talking about the USSR now

          About the USSR.

          So whose problem was the failure of the negotiations?
          1. strannik1985
            strannik1985 9 July 2020 09: 56
            +2
            About the USSR.

            And he decided it, starting to fight two years later.
            1. Octopus
              Octopus 9 July 2020 10: 03
              -1
              Quote: strannik1985
              he decided it, starting to fight two years later.

              Well, if the events of the 41st year are a decision, then OK.
              1. strannik1985
                strannik1985 9 July 2020 10: 07
                +4
                Ah, well, if the events of the 41st year

                Compared to what?
                Start a war two years earlier alone? T.N. the allies will sit behind the Maginot Line, the Germans will fight - boilers, concentration camps, all the same. That's just the victory in May 1945 does not shine.
                1. parma
                  parma 9 July 2020 10: 33
                  -2
                  Quote: strannik1985
                  Ah, well, if the events of the 41st year

                  Compared to what?
                  Start a war two years earlier alone? T.N. the allies will sit behind the Maginot Line, the Germans will fight - boilers, concentration camps, all the same. That's just the victory in May 1945 does not shine.

                  Um, are you sure that the balance of power of the Wehrmacht with the Red Army in 1939 and 1941 is the same? In 1939 there was still a chance to defeat the Germans with little blood and on foreign territory, and in 1941 we know that there is no ....
                2. strannik1985
                  strannik1985 9 July 2020 10: 43
                  +2
                  Um, are you sure that the balance of power of the Wehrmacht with the Red Army in 1939 and 1941 is the same?

                  No, much worse. The army began to mobilize during the 1939 BUS only on September 7, 1939, the problems of the Polish campaign, Khalkhin-Gol, the Finnish war, only many times more, because the enemy was the Germans. And then the Unthinkable.
                3. parma
                  parma 9 July 2020 11: 28
                  -1
                  Quote: strannik1985
                  Um, are you sure that the balance of power of the Wehrmacht with the Red Army in 1939 and 1941 is the same?

                  No, much worse. The army began to mobilize during the 1939 BUS only on September 7, 1939, the problems of the Polish campaign, Khalkhin-Gol, the Finnish war, only many times more, because the enemy was the Germans. And then the Unthinkable.

                  First: what about the fact that the Germans? The Polish company, although it went according to plan, revealed huge problems for the Wehrmacht (with supplies, with gouging the lower ranks) .. even in terms of number, the Wehrmacht could bring out 5 times fewer soldiers and 2,5 vehicles in the field than in 1941 (taking into account allies of course), I am silent about quality ... And the weaknesses of the red army surfaced later than the signing of the act ... and Stalin’s line was still capable of fighting ... so here one grandmother said who whom whom in 1939 ...
                  Second: why do proponents of conspiracy theory and the party’s only top way cling to the "unthinkable"? This is a PLAN! Which had neither the possibility nor the political will! In addition, the plan itself was dictated by the MR pact and the subsequent cooperation of the USSR and Germany in the framework of the blockade of the latter and the waging of a war of attrition .. why does not one of you recall the "color" plans of the USA? For example, red with the occupation of Canada?
                  PS: the USSR’s unilateral statement on guaranteeing the sovereignty of Poland could have prevented the war altogether ... yes, it was impossible for political reasons - the USSR considered all 30 to be Poland’s main enemy, so I think the principle “but the neighbor’s summer house burned out” played its role ... yes, this could make Germany more accommodating to the Allies, but Hitler promised the Germans to get even with the French for humiliation, he himself wanted war and was still that adventurer ... I can’t even imagine what he would do in such a situation ...
                4. strannik1985
                  strannik1985 9 July 2020 11: 40
                  +1
                  First: what about the fact that the Germans?

                  You yourself want to fight them since 1939.
                  Second: why do conspiracy theorists

                  This is not a theory, according to Churchill’s order, the KNS did develop a plan of war with the USSR, then the balance of power stopped, in your version the allies have been sitting in LM since 1939, they are accumulating forces.
                5. parma
                  parma 9 July 2020 12: 13
                  -1
                  Quote: strannik1985
                  First: what about the fact that the Germans?

                  You yourself want to fight them since 1939.
                  Second: why do conspiracy theorists

                  This is not a theory, according to Churchill’s order, the KNS did develop a plan of war with the USSR, then the balance of power stopped, in your version the allies have been sitting in LM since 1939, they are accumulating forces.

                  Once again, unilateral guarantees from the USSR of Poland’s independence had quite considerable chances to stop the war! For in 1939 Germany had no chance against the USSR-France-England ligament! But, without guarantees from the Allies (and they did not give guarantees), the leadership didn’t do it .. Well, Stalin was not an adventurer, he liked more intrigues (take the same China in 1927)! But Hitler seemed quite negotiable, besides, who knew that France would burst from a single push, they expected that there would be a war for a couple of years, and the USSR would pull out technologies from Germany in exchange for the resource and rebuild the army so as not to repeat the panic of 1927 ...
                  Regarding the "unthinkable" - it was not the alignment of forces that decided everything, but politics ... the allied forces could not stop the red army, they could not have thrown them into the English Channel (given the almost exhausted mob reserves of the alliance), but a protracted war would definitely wait .. and this is still 3-5 years of post-shootings (those British will live peacefully 10-12 years after the first shots of 1939) ... but the new prime minister didn’t want this (Churchill left the office in the summer of 1945) ... and with Japan not decided ... besides what to fight for? Again for Poland? On the one hand, from what they went to that and came (the freedom and independence of a “very interesting” people among ordinary British people) only people don’t appreciate it, the USSR doesn’t pretend to British colonies, and only drank and drank together yesterday, and Natsik in Europe rolled out ... in general, there were no political goals, everyone bit off a piece more than they could chew (well, except for the shaving with the French, but they were also quite happy that they did not bite them much) ...
                6. strannik1985
                  strannik1985 9 July 2020 12: 18
                  +1
                  I’ll repeat again

                  Not with that government, which was up to suicide, even their own mobilization was stopped at the request of the Allies.
                  Regarding the "unthinkable"

                  103 Allied divisions versus 264 equivalents. And here only France will have more than a hundred divisions.
                7. parma
                  parma 9 July 2020 12: 40
                  -1
                  Quote: strannik1985
                  I’ll repeat again

                  Not with that government, which was up to suicide, even their own mobilization was stopped at the request of the Allies.
                  Regarding the "unthinkable"

                  103 Allied divisions versus 264 equivalents. And here only France will have more than a hundred divisions.

                  The number is not an indicator ... the Allies would have a complete advantage in the air (and the cars are stronger, and there are more of them and there are fewer problems with fuel) + thousands of strategists, but they won’t be able to defeat the red army, but to bring down the logistics like that .. so the question is good, whether they stopped or in the English Channel the forces of the allies flew away, but these discussions do not add political goals, why fight? if we discuss 1945
                  In 1939, only Germany had at least a somewhat mobilized army, France and Britain didn’t have time to get mobilized to Poland, that’s why the “strange” war started ... I recall - the French crossed the border on September 7 to check how the Germans were doing ... it turned out that from -for the mobilization of France and a German company in Poland at about the same speed, there is no way to help the pshek- the advantage by the 7th at the front is minimal (10-15 percent in numbers), and by the end of the mobilization and the beginning of the offensive (September 20th), the Germans will finish the Poles and begin to transfer troops to the fortifications on the border ... the Britons didn’t have time to transfer either by that time ... and as a result, the Allies were with their pants down (about the same as after 2 years) and decided to sit and arrange a blockade of Germany, perhaps the Wehrmacht from hunger he will die about LM himself ... but the Germans did not die of hunger (thanks also to our country) and somehow they did not want to kill LM, they decided to take a walk along the sea ...
                  PS: I do not call the MR pact a crime and so on and so forth, it was a geopolitical mistake ... that cannot be corrected already, after the summer of 1940 ...
                8. strannik1985
                  strannik1985 9 July 2020 12: 47
                  +1
                  The number is not an indicator ..

                  8798 against 11 Soviet with a double superiority in strategic aviation. I repeat, in your version there is no Dunkirk, i.e. plus French planes, a multiple of most.
                  For 1939 only Germany

                  Negotiations along the Danzig corridor took about a year, before my eyes there was an example of Austria, Czechoslovakia, at least a year, in order to mobilize the army in advance (under the guise of a bus, new states of units and formations). They didn’t want to - they didn’t prepare.
                9. parma
                  parma 9 July 2020 13: 16
                  -1
                  Quote: strannik1985
                  8798 against 11 Soviet with a double superiority in strategic aviation.

                  These are only English planes (the unthinkable was not agreed with the Americans) both based in the World Bank and Europe at the front ... there were still about 10 thousand American planes in Europe and 40 (!) Thousand houses ready for deployment ... all in all there were almost 70 (!) thousand Anglo-Americans! Plus, German planes (they also wanted to put them into action, along with prisoners of war) If we take into account that 12 thousand were at that time quiet, then collecting airfields in Europe could only be prevented by the presence of airfields ... but I repeat, there was no political will! Nobody needed this war ... for what? Poles?
                  Quote: strannik1985
                  Didn’t want - didn’t prepare

                  Yes, I’m talking about that! Neither the Shavers nor the Frogs of War wanted! And the USSR didn’t want either, they just ALREADY threw them more than once before the signing of the MR pact and the allies did not concede .. and our country still didn’t take part in such a “mmm” (and it itself actively spoiled everything to the Germans in Spain that Britons in China), I wanted to look from the side at the fight between Europeans among themselves ... only now the French burst at the first press, the Britons piled onto their island and left us face to face with a mad dog ...
                10. strannik1985
                  strannik1985 9 July 2020 13: 37
                  0
                  These are only English planes.

                  No, these are all allied aircraft. Yes, it is possible to collect, only the USA is fighting a little bit on maintenance with Japan and they need Soviet help in Manchuria.
                  The Americans do not need all this fuss in Europe at all, why actually everyone let the brakes down.
                  Yes, I’m talking about that!

                  And I, get involved - we get the same thing, but two years earlier.
                11. parma
                  parma 9 July 2020 13: 53
                  0
                  Quote: strannik1985
                  No, these are all allied aircraft. Yes, it is possible to collect, only the USA is fighting a little bit on maintenance with Japan and they need Soviet help in Manchuria.
                  The Americans do not need all this fuss in Europe at all, why actually everyone let the brakes down.

                  These are only British planes (I know where we got data on the number of cars from Wikipedia, but the figure is not right there)!
                  Regarding the necessary assistance to the Americans in the war with the Yapis, do not tell I.V. slippers Stalin, even he understood that no one needed any help, because a) the Kwantung army was just rabble (the German army of May 1945 had more combat readiness than these units) b) it was not possible to transfer these units to somewhere else because of the Allied fleet , and in half a year the war will end ... for this very reason no one threw Lend-Lease planes to the east, they saved good equipment like cobras in case of the "unthinkable", but tanks, for example, are quite imaginary ...
                  Quote: strannik1985
                  The Americans do not need all this fuss in Europe at all, why actually everyone let the brakes down.

                  That's it! The Americans have no need to fight, since they have already bitten off a huge chunk - they became the leader of the Western world and the greatest power in Asia ... and Poland (for which Churchill wanted to fight again) didn’t give up to them .. and since later the new prime minister it was not needed, everyone took the plan, except for our fans of the theory of the terrible west ...
                  Quote: strannik1985
                  And I, get involved - we get the same thing, but two years earlier.

                  No, the Wehrmacht in 1939 even in numbers was 3 weaker than in 1941! About quality and production base, and I'm not talking. I don’t even speak about the Allied armies! The coalition with the Anglo-French had a chance before the offensive in 1940, then it lost its meaning ...
          2. Octopus
            Octopus 9 July 2020 13: 38
            0
            Quote: parma
            allies would have been a complete advantage in the air (and cars are stronger, and there are more and fewer fuel problems) + thousands of strategists, but they won’t be able to defeat the red army

            The problem is that the Unthinkable implied the defeat of the Red Army in the border tank battle between the Oder and the Vistula, that is, he repeated it to Barbarossa. Such a scenario was the least beneficial for the Allies, the weakest component of their forces against the strongest component of the Soviet, which Churchill was told about. This leaves out the position of Americans who did not consider the USSR an enemy.
      2. Octopus
        Octopus 9 July 2020 13: 33
        0
        Quote: parma
        Regarding the "unthinkable" - it was not the balance of power that decided everything, but politics ...

        Oh my God.
        Quote: parma
        the allied forces could not stop the shaft of the red army,

        More than.
        Quote: parma
        the new prime minister didn’t want this

        More importantly, Truman did not want this. When I wanted to - it was too late.
        Quote: parma
        and with Japan the issue has not been resolved.

        Just with Japan there are no special problems.
        Quote: parma
        for what to fight?

        The evil empire has no place on earth.

        True, only Reagan was able to pose this question. What is characteristic, he did not need to fight for this.
      3. parma
        parma 9 July 2020 14: 23
        0
        Quote: Octopus
        Quote: parma
        Regarding the "unthinkable" - it was not the balance of power that decided everything, but politics ...

        Oh my God.
        Quote: parma
        the allied forces could not stop the shaft of the red army,

        More than.
        Quote: parma
        the new prime minister didn’t want this

        More importantly, Truman did not want this. When I wanted to - it was too late.
        Quote: parma
        and with Japan the issue has not been resolved.

        Just with Japan there are no special problems.
        Quote: parma
        for what to fight?

        The evil empire has no place on earth.

        True, only Reagan was able to pose this question. What is characteristic, he did not need to fight for this.

        Regarding the advantage - the General Staff immediately rejected the quick war as unreal, forces rejected the war without amers in principle .. there was no political will to continue the war, maybe in 1945 there were no goals (Churchill saw goals in the war for Poland, but I think that only he I saw ... maybe I hoped to stay in power like this, they say that Germany was taken over with me, you won’t be able to cope with me .. maybe I hoped to keep the WB’s pouring supremacy in the world like that, I won’t say it ..) The USSR became a red plague later when they could " chew ”WWII’s booty, but so far the politicians didn’t care ... the question + with Yap was resolved, but so far the outcome is clear, they cannot turn the tide of the war alone (intervention of the USSR in the case of the unthinkable didn’t solve much, maybe the question was in the Navy and not among the bayonets) but the work needs to be completed ...
        PS: a plan into the "unthinkable" generally resembles an analytical report more than a military plan, because I don’t understand why everyone clings to it so much
  • Octopus
    Octopus 9 July 2020 12: 15
    -1
    Quote: strannik1985
    This is not a theory, the KNS commissioned Churchill to really develop a war plan with the USSR, then the balance of power stopped

    Churchill had many different plans; he was an alternative in his soul.

    Not only Americans were not familiar with the Unthinkable, but Alexander and Monti were not acquainted.
  • strannik1985
    strannik1985 9 July 2020 12: 23
    +1
    Not just familiarized, on June 8 the OKNSh gave its opinion on the offensive version of Operation Unthinkable.
  • Octopus
    Octopus 9 July 2020 13: 39
    -1
    Quote: strannik1985
    OKNSh gave his opinion

    OKNSH is Brooke, not Monty and not Alexander, the commanders of the armies.
  • strannik1985
    strannik1985 9 July 2020 14: 01
    0
    No, are you serious ??? Do you really think that the army commanders did not know why the Mueller army group, Hungarian, Estonian, and Latvian units remained in the British zone of occupation?
  • Octopus
    Octopus 9 July 2020 14: 58
    0
    Quote: strannik1985
    Mueller’s army group remained

    "Müller's Army Group" is a Soviet propaganda stuffing in November 45. At that moment, the USSR had already received all the tops and roots that it could, and began to just scramble.

    By the way, in November of the 45th year in Britain, Churchill did not command, but the leftist and great friend of the USSR Attlee. The same one, with engines from the MiG-15.
    Quote: strannik1985
    Hungarian, Estonian, Latvian units?

    Hungarian, and especially Latvian and Estonian units are, of course, an ace of trumps. No atomic bomb is needed with them.
    By the way, Britain is not at war with either Latvia or Estonia.

    For your reference. The command of the Allied forces ceased operations on July 14, officially disbanded on August 1. From this moment until the formation of NATO headquarters, there is no single command in Europe.
  • strannik1985
    strannik1985 9 July 2020 15: 19
    0
    "Mueller's Army Group"

    You tell Montgomery this, the Soviet side made a complaint at the meeting of the Control Council and he recognized their competence.
    https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/3149709
    Two corps groups of ~ 100 thousand each, about a million German military units not transferred to the status of prisoners of war, 12 thousand Hungarians, 3500 Estonians, 21 thousand Latvians and Lithuanians.
    For your reference.

    The offensive version of Operation Unthinkable was discussed in June, and the Committee gave its assessment on 8 June.
  • Octopus
    Octopus 9 July 2020 15: 38
    0
    Quote: strannik1985
    Control Council and he recognized their competence.

    Montgomery admitted that German units with an undefined legal status really exist. In Norway, they sat until the 46th year, did not bother anyone.
    Quote: strannik1985
    about a million German w / sl not prisoners of war

    There was no a / p at all, if you don't know. Eisenhower coined the term "disarmed forces of the enemy" so that he himself would not later fall under the tribunal for the same violation of the Geneva Convention.

    And in order to use someone for some reason, one must not "transfer to status" back and forth, but either take over command (and supply), or urgently build a German government and take the oath.
  • strannik1985
    strannik1985 9 July 2020 15: 49
    0
    Montgomery admitted

    Admitted, but had no idea why they collected it? Are you seriously?
    And for someone to use for some reason

    No, first you need to interest the Americans, they don't need fuss in Europe, Japan needs to be finished off. Therefore, the undefined status, the transition from the "offensive" option to the "defensive" and so on.
  • Octopus
    Octopus 9 July 2020 16: 36
    0
    Quote: strannik1985
    No, first you need to interest Americans

    I remind you that at the time of Zhukov’s demarche, Churchill was in opposition for half a year.
    Quote: strannik1985
    had no idea why they collected

    Collected them OKV. Montgomery was required to filter and dissolve them. Naturally, up to this point it is reasonable to keep them together.
    Quote: strannik1985
    first you need to get interested

    It doesn’t work like that. The withdrawal of American units began in May.

    As for the fact that Monty and Alexander were not informed about the war with the USSR, it is quite obvious that, having in mind a similar prospect, Monty would have found the opportunity to send the English flag to Bornholm, which the USSR occupied on May 9, and Alexander did not miss the Yugoslavs at least Trieste, as a maximum in Croatia and Slovenia, where the reds also appeared in the second decade of May.
  • strannik1985
    strannik1985 9 July 2020 17: 22
    0
    I remind you that at the time of the demarche

    At the time of the demarche, the offensive plan had long been abandoned.
    Collected them OKV.

    Yes, filtering should be carried out with military equipment, combat training exercises and wearing awards laughing
    It doesn’t work like that.

    This is an English plan on paper, you confuse awareness and implementation.
  • Octopus
    Octopus 9 July 2020 17: 34
    0
    Quote: strannik1985
    you confuse awareness and implementation.

    You confuse it, you have November in the yard, Churchill is gone, the Americans have left, and the British are still realizing something incomprehensible there.
    Quote: strannik1985
    filtering should be carried out with military equipment, combat training exercises and wearing awards

    Well, about the equipment and combat training of Comrade Let’s say, Zhukov.
    Quote: strannik1985
    the moment of the demarche the offensive plan has long been abandoned.

    Then why did you even remember "Mueller's army group"?
  • strannik1985
    strannik1985 9 July 2020 18: 09
    0
    You confuse it

    Materiel, first offensive option, then defensive. Could the British military have plans for the use of German troops in case of conflict?
    Well, about the technology and combat training of Comrade Zhukov

    Link?
    Then why did you remember

    That is, in June, these troops did not exist? laughing
  • Octopus
    Octopus 9 July 2020 18: 33
    0
    Quote: strannik1985
    Matrimony

    I, you see, in the know.
    Quote: strannik1985
    then defensive.

    Which was an evacuation plan.
    Quote: strannik1985
    Link?

    What is another link? In Kommersant, to which you referred, the text of the Soviet statement is given. It would be strange to believe in any Soviet statements.

    In particular, the statement that Montgomery, in secret from the English Treasury, managed to accept about 100 unaccounted divisions for supply.
    Quote: strannik1985
    didn’t these troops exist in June?

    In June, these and many other forces were by no means included in the structure of the high command, and also from May 23, they were not subordinated to the liquidated government of Dönitz. Accordingly, no management, supply and military transportation system is operational.

    If the Allies were less stupid people - the new German government would enter Germany on the Shermans, and all the available German forces, except for guarding Hitler's bunker, would simply overshadow the right government and that’s all.

    Or even including security of the bunker, there were already all sorts of options.
  • strannik1985
    strannik1985 10 July 2020 07: 18
    0
    Which was an evacuation plan.

    So what? The Dunkirk operation was also an evacuation, but the defense had to be kept.
    What is another link?

    Dear opponent, decide what you believe and what not. If Montgomery acknowledged that the claims are eligible, then this confirms the veracity of the information provided. If you do not believe any of the statements, then give reasons in your favor. And then you have a chamomile, then I believe, here I do not believe. The English government did not know about these troops? Link?
    Respectively

    Allied supply system is not working ???
  • Octopus
    Octopus 10 July 2020 08: 24
    0
    Quote: strannik1985
    So what?

    And the fact that during the evacuation of a convoy of one and a half million snouts is not needed.
    Quote: strannik1985
    confirms the veracity of the information provided

    Of course not. And this is not a believe-believe question, but a question of intellectual, so to speak, hygiene. It should be divided what is fact and what is not.

    The fact is the demarche of the Soviet side. On the Soviet side, in the fall, love for the Allies falls down the cliff, primarily on issues of the Straits, South Armenia and South Azerbaijan. Naturally, Soviet diplomacy acts in the spirit of our Masha, it is very organic for her.

    It is a fact that the significant forces of the Wehrmacht, including those retaining structure, command and combat readiness, were practically not affected by the war, primarily in the north - Denmark, Norway. This was a zone of English responsibility, but the British did not see any problems with it and actively used parts of the former Wehrmacht as heavi - a lot of blockages formed in the Harris area.

    It is a fact that the Soviet side, unlike the British, knew that the war was not over, so it tried to remove any extra "forces that retained the structure, command and combat capability" in Europe. For the time being, she did it.

    It is a fact that in November of the 45th year neither the German state nor the Allied Command existed. Accordingly, these forces, combat-ready or not, were not an army.

    The place that you like so much — that Monti allegedly provided combat training for the million-strong group — is a draft of the Soviet side of Mr. Fan and nothing but the statements of the most honest Soviet diplomacy in the world is confirmed.

    Allied supply system is not working ???


    Of course not. The Americans are conducting the Magic Capet, the idea of ​​getting supplies to the Wehrmacht in the amount of an army group might surprise them.
  • strannik1985
    strannik1985 10 July 2020 10: 53
    0
    And the fact that during the evacuation of the convoy

    That is, even with a successful defense, the British must be evacuated? And you can confirm this by referring to documents, or at least the memories of contemporaries of those events?
    Of course not.

    Those. you don’t have sources; you appeal to logic. Good.
    Let's forget for a second about Operation Unthinkable, Churchill's telegram and so on, suppose that the British planned to use the Germans as "hivi" - what were they doing?
    https://arsenal-info.ru/b/book/3761193529/22
    Mine clearance is a type of combat support, i.e. education and training for mine clearance = combat training.
    Communications is a type of combat support, if the British used German infrastructure to organize communications (we recall the five regiments of communications in the Soviet report), someone (infrastructure) should be kept in good order, respectively ...
    Air defense - German radar, infrastructure - respectively ...
    Medicine - injuries in the frontline zone, including in case of explosions, norm, resp. orderlies in units (which also need to be trained) and infrastructure to hospitals inclusive.
    Even water production (at least in CA / RA) is a form of combat support.
    Thus, simple logic says that combat training is necessary if using soldiers at work is more difficult than sorting out rubble and restoring roads.
    Of course not.

    Those. did the people in the report not exist or starve to death?
  • Octopus
    Octopus 10 July 2020 11: 53
    0
    Quote: strannik1985
    That is, even with a successful defense, the British must be evacuated?

    Have you read the defensive version of the unthinkable?
    Quote: strannik1985
    Those. you don’t have sources, you appeal to logic

    Source availability you don’t have anything. You pass off an unproven Soviet draft as an idiot. Source sucking nothing can be, this is a usual propaganda muhlezh.
    Quote: strannik1985
    if you use a soldier at work, it’s more difficult to sort out blockages and restore roads.

    You are absolutely right. The sole purpose of the Soviet demarche was to make life as difficult for the British as possible, for the use of German personnel it had to be arranged somehow, and the British had paws.
    Quote: strannik1985
    did the people in the report not exist or starve to death?

    The people indicated in the report were not an army. And everyone, including Zhukov, was well aware of this.
  • strannik1985
    strannik1985 10 July 2020 12: 09
    0
    Have you read the defensive version of the unthinkable?

    What for? It does not correspond to the situation for 1945, the plan is not agreed with the Americans, purely English fantasies on the topic.
    You give out for istonik

    Those. Now again you completely do not believe in Soviet arguments laughing
    To believe or not to believe is your personal affair; I do not discuss issues of faith.
    You are absolutely right.

    Wrong, the legal status of the German w / sl in captivity was discussed at conferences in 1943 and 1945, signed - please do.
    The French also used the Germans to mine, in the status of prisoners of war and there were no complaints against them.
    Reported

    De jure no, de facto yes.
  • Octopus
    Octopus 10 July 2020 13: 10
    +1
    Quote: strannik1985
    It does not correspond to the situation for 1945

    What are you discussing then? Secret plan is unthinkable?
    Quote: strannik1985
    do not believe in soviet arguments

    This is not a matter of faith. No the Soviet document is not a source for German or English affairs. And, unfortunately, not always according to Soviet ones.
    Quote: strannik1985
    signed - so please perform.

    The procedure for managing the zones of occupation is an internal affair of the administration concerned, and not an obligation to the Soviet side.
    Quote: strannik1985
    The French also used the Germans for mine clearance as prisoners of war

    Not interested. But if so, this is a war crime, the Geneva Convention of the 29th year, Article 32.
    Quote: strannik1985
    De jure no de facto yes

    A de facto crowd of armed men will pass for the army in the conditions of the GV in Russia. In conditions of WWII - no, from the strength of the partisans.
  • strannik1985
    strannik1985 10 July 2020 15: 06
    0
    What are you discussing then?

    The initial premise was that the USSR starts the war in 1939 or 1940, after several years of war, it receives Operation Unthinkable instead of meeting on the Elbe.
    This is not a matter of faith.

    We found out that the German military could not help but engage in combat training, i.e. the information of the Soviet side was true. We know that the German units were indeed in the English occupation zone. Do you have another source of information characterizing the number of these parts?
    The procedure for managing the zones of occupation

    In the issue of status of the Revolutionary War 3, the Reich is not.
    Not interested.

    Of course, NJP the British simply did not attribute mine to hazardous work.
    De facto crowd of armed people

    Not a crowd, but an army group / corps groups - i.e., unification, formations, military units and units, one stroke of the pen and they receive the status, for example, of auxiliary units of the British Rhine Army. The vertical of power remained.
  • Octopus
    Octopus 10 July 2020 18: 27
    0
    Quote: strannik1985
    The USSR starts the war in 1939 or 1940, after several years of war it receives the operation "Unthinkable"

    This is a meaningless conversation, too broad an alternative. It is not known how the USSR itself will behave. During the construction phase of the French People’s Republic, yes, problems may arise.
    Quote: strannik1985
    We found out that

    We found out that with the help of demagogic balancing act you out of the presence of hospitals and minesweepers led the millionth group of armies.
    Quote: strannik1985
    German units were indeed in the English occupation zone.

    Such a state did not exist from May 45 to May 49. Accordingly, its parts did not exist.
    Quote: strannik1985
    In the issue of status of the Revolutionary Military District 3

    The Reich ceased to exist in May 45. Only the population of the occupation zones remained.
    Quote: strannik1985
    the British simply did not classify mine as hazardous work

    You just wrote that v / p in these works used by the French. The British, these people were not in / p.
    Quote: strannik1985
    one stroke of the pen and they receive the status of, for example, auxiliary units of the British Rhine Army

    One stroke of the pen of whom? Socialist Attlee?
  • strannik1985
    strannik1985 11 July 2020 12: 10
    0
    This is a meaningless conversation.

    Why? It is well known how England and France will behave in 1940 if the USSR independently begins to fight the Reich.
    We found

    That is, you do not have other numbers - here I believe, here I do not believe.
    Reich ceased to exist

    But his armed forces are not, the Germans, not only for Hitler can fight.
    The British, these people were not v / p

    There were, more precisely managed to be in the status, mine clearance went until 1947.
    One stroke of the pen of whom?

    Anyone, the French and the British is much stronger, they do not need to take into account the opinion of the Americans, respectively. and requests more.
  • Octopus
    Octopus 11 July 2020 13: 59
    0
    Quote: strannik1985
    Anyone, French and English

    You have specifically de Gaulle and Attlee. Try to fit the revived Wehrmacht into a picture of the world of that of that of the other.
    Quote: strannik1985
    mine clearance lasted until 1947.

    And for what purpose are you discussing this?
    Quote: strannik1985
    But his armed forces are not

    Armed forces do not exist separately from industry and transport. The sun, apart from all this, is the dad of 1919.
    Quote: strannik1985
    you do not have numbers

    That you do not have numbers. You rely on the statements of Masha Zakharova that the blacks are lynched, or, conversely, are not lynched, but you should have your own speculations about the fact that Monti should (to whom?) Close German hospitals.
    Quote: strannik1985
    It is well known how England and France will behave in 1940 if the USSR independently begins to fight the Reich.

    In England and France, I recall, the war with the Reich and claims to the USSR in the 39th year precisely on this part. And until the Unthinkable, then Churchill began to glance at the ax when it became clear that the Sikorsky government recognized by the USSR was no longer included in the Soviet concept of beauty. And then, alas, far from immediately began to glance. Churchill would take care of this issue on time, in the summer and fall of the 44th — maybe it would have happened, including at least pulling Marshall and Truman to the side of evil. This alone could save millions, tens of millions of people from Soviet power.
  • strannik1985
    strannik1985 11 July 2020 16: 03
    0
    You have specifically de Gaulle and Attlee.

    Once again - the USSR intervenes in the war in 1940, there is no Dunkirk, "Catapult", Vichy France, de Gaulle is the commander of the 4th DLM, Clement Attlee is the deputy prime minister.
    Armed forces

    Schlesving - Holstein desert, the British can not arrange the registration and issuance of trophies?
    That you do not have numbers.

    Of course - of course, they lie because they can lie. Honestly. True Montgomery could not say that the statement of the Soviet side is a lie, but it doesn’t matter, do you know better? laughing
    In France and England, I will remind

    And I understand them, a fake war is much better than a real one, if the USSR had intervened, there would have been no "Gelb" plan, there would have been no defeat and evacuation. But as a citizen of the Russian Federation I cannot accept such a position, I don’t understand why the Union should drag chestnuts out of the fire for someone.
  • Sugar Honeyovich
    Sugar Honeyovich 9 July 2020 16: 14
    0
    Quote: parma
    In 1939 there was still a chance to defeat the Germans with little blood and on foreign territory

    We don’t know that either. And most importantly - then no one knew this.
  • Octopus
    Octopus 9 July 2020 11: 09
    -1
    Quote: strannik1985
    Start a war two years earlier alone?

    Why did Hitler agree to the Soviet occupation of the Baltic states? That is, why does Stalin understand this, why did Hitler agree?
  • strannik1985
    strannik1985 9 July 2020 11: 16
    +1
    That is, why does Stalin understand this, why did Hitler agree?

    It makes no difference to him. Germany was stronger in 1939-1941, though not as much as Hitler thought.
  • Octopus
    Octopus 9 July 2020 11: 22
    -1
    Quote: strannik1985
    He doesn’t care

    If there is no difference, then why pay more?

    What Stalin bought was clear, but what bought Hitler by this pact?
  • strannik1985
    strannik1985 9 July 2020 15: 28
    0
    If there is no difference, then why pay more?

    Who cares? It seems to me the Balts were included in the list at the request of the Soviet side.
  • Octopus
    Octopus 9 July 2020 15: 30
    -1
    Quote: strannik1985
    It seems to me the Balts were included in the list at the request of the Soviet side.

    Of course.
    Quote: strannik1985
    Who cares?

    Hitler agreed to the Soviet occupation of the pro-German, as a whole, Baltic. In exchange for what?
  • strannik1985
    strannik1985 9 July 2020 15: 34
    +1
    In exchange for what?

    To the quiet rear in 1939 - 1940.
  • Octopus
    Octopus 9 July 2020 15: 40
    -1
    Quote: strannik1985
    quiet rear in 1939 - 1940.

    What is still free rear? He was going to fight with whom? And if he had not received such guarantees, then what?
  • strannik1985
    strannik1985 9 July 2020 15: 53
    +1
    What is still free rear?

    In the war with Poland, and then with the allies. And without guarantees, the accidental clashes of Soviet and German troops in 1939, which were already so, could escalate into war.
  • Sugar Honeyovich
    Sugar Honeyovich 9 July 2020 16: 50
    0
    Quote: Octopus
    why did Hitler agree?

    Maybe because, why did you allow the USSR to sell the latest weapons and equipment?
  • Doctor
    Doctor 9 July 2020 08: 54
    +1
    Explain what Stalin did wrong in this situation?

    He did not count Hitler. I did not understand why Germany needed this pact.
    No matter how surprisingly it sounds for you, for the same reason why the USSR would allegedly later gain time and get rid of Europe without fear for the rear.
    One by one. As Bismarck taught.
    1. strannik1985
      strannik1985 9 July 2020 08: 56
      +3
      He did not count Hitler.

      Wonderful. And how do you think Stalin should have acted?
      1. Doctor
        Doctor 9 July 2020 09: 06
        -3
        Wonderful. And how do you think Stalin should have acted?

        Yes, just do not go on about Hitler and do not conclude a contract. On the contrary, to demonstrate the desire for an indestructible alliance with the allies in the WWII.

        Put on the Angolaxians, and not on the Teutons, we have suffered more from them.
        1. strannik1985
          strannik1985 9 July 2020 09: 12
          +3
          On the contrary, to demonstrate the desire for an indestructible alliance with the allies in the WWII.

          You ignore reality.
          Former WWII allies came to negotiate without firm authority, dragged on time, declared to the other side that they did not want to sign anything with the USSR. And after they acted even worse - they betrayed their unconditional ally - Poland.
          What is the benefit for the USSR and Stalin? Start a war against Germany alone 2 (TWO) years earlier?
          1. Doctor
            Doctor 9 July 2020 09: 19
            -3
            You ignore reality.

            It is you who are in virtual reality, which the politicians have formed for us for 50 years.
            Hitler began probing the treaty with the USSR in the spring of 1939. By August, Stalin had already chosen an alliance with Germany.
            Therefore, he instructed Voroshilov to delay negotiations and impose impracticable conditions, such as passage through the territory of a third country.
            1. strannik1985
              strannik1985 9 July 2020 09: 23
              +1
              That you are in virtual reality

              Wonderful good , Moscow talks were held from April to August, and during these negotiations, Stalin leaned towards the MR pact.
              How to fight if there is no common border and the troops do not touch in any way? Occupy Poland?
              1. Doctor
                Doctor 9 July 2020 09: 40
                -4
                How to fight if there is no common border and the troops do not touch in any way? Occupy Poland?

                Yes, you restart the processor, shake off the hassle of the political leaders, just remember what happened next!
                War with Hitler the USSR, England, USA, France and Poland (Anders) allies, Victory, flag over the Reichstag!
                I will help you, here is a shot from the film about the military friendship of the three Poles, a Georgian and a German: laughing


                Well, remember?
                It was perfectly normal to be friends with the Poles in 1939, Rokossovsky would not lie.
              2. strannik1985
                strannik1985 9 July 2020 09: 50
                +3
                Well, remember?

                Yes you are just phenomenal good
                This Poland was formed by the CPC, and the "Polish Army" (in 1943 a corps - 1 infantry division, by May 9 the army - 5 infantry divisions) was created by the Red Army. The government that was in power fled to England and by 1943-1945 did not have real power in Poland, but actively supported any opposition, for example, AK-vtsev.
                Dear, you need to repeat the history textbook.
              3. Doctor
                Doctor 9 July 2020 11: 01
                0
                Yeah you're just phenomenal good
                This Poland was formed by the CPC, and the "Polish Army" (in 1943 a corps - 1 infantry division, by May 9 the army - 5 infantry divisions) was created by the Red Army. The government that was in power fled to England and by 1943-1945 did not have real power in Poland, but actively supported any opposition, for example, AK-vtsev.
                Dear, you need to repeat the history textbook.

                Correctly state the facts. I agree with everything. In addition to the interpretation and motives of these facts.
                What prevented Stalin from forming the Polish army in 1939?
              4. strannik1985
                strannik1985 9 July 2020 11: 10
                +1
                What prevented Stalin from forming the Polish army in 1939?

                Meaning? This is a pure policy, in 1943 there were over 500 rifle (infantry) divisions.
              5. Doctor
                Doctor 9 July 2020 14: 03
                +1
                Meaning?

                And what's the point of keeping them in the camp? And what is the point of making neighboring people hostile for decades?
              6. strannik1985
                strannik1985 9 July 2020 14: 15
                0
                And what's the point of keeping them in the camp?

                No, the Anders army did not make sense to form at all, the wrong people.
                Poland became hostile back in 1919, when the Poles broke off plans for the great Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.
      2. Octopus
        Octopus 9 July 2020 11: 35
        -1
        Quote: Arzt
        It was perfectly normal to be friends with the Poles in 1939, Rokossovsky would not lie.

        Rokossovsky, as far as I remember, at that time was grumbling with comrade Beria on the fact of his espionage in favor of Japan.
        And Poland. See Polish military organization.

        Then no. There was no option of friendship with the USSR. The United States could still have illusions about this, but not Poland.
      3. Sugar Honeyovich
        Sugar Honeyovich 9 July 2020 16: 54
        0
        Quote: Arzt
        It was normal to be friends with the Poles in 1939

        It was impossible at all. They were against.
  • Aitvaras
    Aitvaras 9 July 2020 12: 35
    -1
    I agree with this statement that Comrade It was then that Stalin "... chose an alliance ...". At the negotiations in 1939 with the Entente, the USSR demanded from the allies the Baltic and other "liked" countries, "... in the event of a political reorganization ...", The Allies understood what this meant in practice. France agreed to give these countries to the USSR, Britain refused. Hitler was more compliant and generously gave Comrade. Stalin the Baltic states, and part of Poland, to boot.
    In general, this Molotov-Ribbentrop treaty was a strategic miscalculation of the USSR. The Germans were very afraid of the repetition of the WWII and the war on two fronts, so it turned out that Hitler crushed the foundations for himself. part of Europe, without fear of the USSR, a stab in the back in 1940. The whole power of Germany was used against the Entente, then the resources of occupied Europe against the USSR in 1941-Osm. g. with all the consequences.
    1. Doctor
      Doctor 9 July 2020 14: 18
      +1
      In general, this Molotov-Ribbentrop treaty was a strategic miscalculation of the USSR.

      Exactly. And they are trying to pass him off as almost a brilliant decision.
    2. Sugar Honeyovich
      Sugar Honeyovich 9 July 2020 16: 46
      0
      Maybe this is an "almost brilliant" decision, but in that situation it was certainly the right one.
  • aglet
    aglet 13 July 2020 21: 29
    0
    "Hitler was more compliant and generously" from the master's shoulder "gave Comrade Stalin the Baltic countries, and part of Poland, in addition."
    he knew about barbarossa, not otherwise, and therefore he promised a lot of the USSR
  • Octopus
    Octopus 14 July 2020 02: 09
    +1
    Quote: aglet
    he knew about barbarossa

    Of course not. There was no Barbarossa in the summer of the 39th. Then there was not even Gelba.
  • aglet
    aglet 14 July 2020 17: 27
    0
    "Of course not. There was no Barbarossa in the summer of 39. Then even Gelb was not there."
    I do not argue, it was not. but there was a desire, which then took shape in barbarossa, and, accordingly, movements in foreign policy, promise that it’s nice, anyway, then we’ll take
  • Octopus
    Octopus 14 July 2020 17: 53
    +1
    Quote: aglet
    anyway, then take

    Hitler's psychoanalyst again in the comments.

    Germany did not have a plan for a major war in the summer of the 39th. Hitler to Poland so many times just got his way on a greyhound and apron, what could have gone wrong?
  • aglet
    aglet 14 July 2020 18: 15
    0
    "Germany did not have a plan for a big war in the summer of 39."
    with a plan, without a plan, but a big war began in 1938. I was not mistaken in 1938.
    "just on a greyhound and a fortune, what could have gone wrong?"
    he could not do anything on a greyhound and a fart, there were plans, there were allies, there were wallets. which led to what was
  • Octopus
    Octopus 14 July 2020 18: 37
    +1
    You greatly underestimate the possibilities of greyhounds and luck.
    the great war began in 1938. I was not mistaken in 1938.

    It didn’t start, for a big war two big sides are needed. If you are about Asia, then in the 37th.
  • aglet
    aglet 14 July 2020 19: 12
    0
    "It did not start, for a big war you need two big sides. If you are talking about Asia, then in the 37th."
    the war in Asia is part of the Second World War, and in Europe it began in 1938 - Austria, Czechoslovakia, etc. and there were two sides - Germany, and all the rest
  • Octopus
    Octopus 14 July 2020 20: 03
    +1
    Quote: aglet
    Germany and everyone else

    How interesting.

    In the case of Austria, Mussolini seemed to be most opposed.

    That is, World War II began as a war between the Nazis and Hitler.

    This is wonderful, I think.
  • Sugar Honeyovich
    Sugar Honeyovich 9 July 2020 16: 53
    0
    Quote: Arzt
    in virtual reality, which the politicians formed for 50 years.

    Are foreign historians also political? laughing
    1. Doctor
      Doctor 9 July 2020 17: 30
      +1
      Are foreign historians also political? laughing

      Which ones?
    2. Sugar Honeyovich
      Sugar Honeyovich 9 July 2020 18: 04
      0
      Shearer, for example.
    3. Doctor
      Doctor 9 July 2020 18: 49
      +1
      Shearer, for example.

      Shearer is serious. But it requires verification.
      If it is true that Goering was waiting for Goering at the airport for negotiations with Chamberlain, I agree that Stalin had no choice.
      It is necessary to declassify the archives of special services about this moment.
  • hohol95
    hohol95 9 July 2020 10: 54
    0
    On the contrary, to demonstrate the desire for an indestructible alliance with the allies in the WWII.

    Was there such a union?
    And the USSR was in it, as a full member of this union?
    1. Doctor
      Doctor 9 July 2020 10: 59
      +1
      Was there such a union?
      And the USSR was in it, as a full member of this union?

      Political regimes and country names may change, but their interests and approaches remain.
      Hitler headed for revenge after the WWII. It was possible to predict that he would try to get rid of ALL former enemies in the WWII.
      And put on the right horse and in the right race.
      1. hohol95
        hohol95 9 July 2020 11: 03
        +1
        It turns out that Messrs. Chamberlain and Daladier put themselves on the wrong horse !!!
        And the Poles were not going to "be friends" with the USSR at all.
        1. Doctor
          Doctor 9 July 2020 11: 11
          +1
          It turns out that Messrs. Chamberlain and Daladier put themselves on the wrong horse !!!
          And the Poles were not going to "be friends" with the USSR at all.

          Sure. Hoping to sit over the ocean. And why would they be friends with the Communists who nationalize them.
          Churchill, therefore, is considered the greatest Englishman in history to manage to peer into the future. It won't work out. Hitler flips everyone one by one.
          Remember how he told Chamberlain by the way:
          "If a country, choosing between war and shame, chooses shame, it receives both war and shame."

          For us, too, relevant.
        2. Octopus
          Octopus 9 July 2020 12: 01
          -2
          Quote: Arzt
          Remember how he told Chamberlain by the way:
          "If a country, choosing between war and shame, chooses shame, it receives both war and shame."

          Churchill is an ordinary talker. He blamed all sins on Chamberlain, as in the dashing 90s.

          Declared war - Chamberlain. The battle for Britain was mostly through his labors, although Churchill was already prime minister.
  • aglet
    aglet 13 July 2020 21: 28
    0
    "Bet on the Angolsax, not the Teutons, we have suffered more from them."
    from whom, from the Anglo-Saxons? totally agree with you
  • Mavrikiy
    Mavrikiy 9 July 2020 11: 00
    0
    Quote: Arzt
    He did not count Hitler. I did not understand why Germany needed this pact.
    No matter how surprisingly it sounds for you, for the same reason why the USSR would allegedly later gain time and get rid of Europe without fear for the rear.
    One by one. As Bismarck taught.

    Teach Bismarck well further, Hitler did not teach him, and began the war with us without ending with England. Result.....
  • Glory1974
    Glory1974 9 July 2020 11: 33
    0
    I did not understand why Germany needed this pact.

    to gain time and deal with Europe without fear for the rear.
    One by one. As Bismarck taught.

    How can you calculate Hitler when he does the opposite. Not ending the war in the west, he began the war in the east, on two fronts. Not at all as Bismarck taught.
  • Sugar Honeyovich
    Sugar Honeyovich 9 July 2020 16: 45
    0
    Quote: Arzt
    for the same reason why, and supposedly then the USSR, was to gain time and deal with Europe without fear for the rear.

    To do this, it was necessary to know in advance how it will turn out with Europe. Those. possess the gift of clairvoyance. Hitler needed a pact in order to prevent an alliance against himself - only this ensured his rear. And Stalin understood this perfectly.
  • Mavrikiy
    Mavrikiy 9 July 2020 10: 25
    0
    Quote: Arzt
    it became clear that Stalin did everything wrong.

    Only stupid liberals, yesterday and today.
  • Sugar Honeyovich
    Sugar Honeyovich 9 July 2020 15: 58
    0
    The point is not in the system, but in real politics. And then it seemed not right, but forced. The best of the worst. And, as is now clear - it was the right move. In those circumstances, of course.
  • Olgovich
    Olgovich 9 July 2020 10: 04
    0
    Quote: Finches
    Stalin did everything right — in the interests of the USSR! And how was this decision made - business 10th.

    Eugene, hi
    certainly was done correctly: the capture and defeat of Poland were then OBVIOUS and inevitable, and it was either that the Nazis would stand against us near Minsk or 200 km west.

    The choice was obvious and it was made.
    Quote: Finches
    If it weren’t for this pact, the Germans would have crossed the 39th border, and 2 years, not all but, they allowed to do a lot!

    NOT ONE DAY The pact of war did not set aside: there were NO Hitler's plans to attack us in 1939 after Poland, for didn't have him for this no strength, no means, no resp. the setting.. He did it only then when fully prepared.

    And he spat on the pieces of paper more than once.

    we had to hit Hitler in the back of May 1940 and there was an example of 1914 ...

    missed ..

    and we became stronger over this period, by interest, and Germany, at times
    1. Sugar Honeyovich
      Sugar Honeyovich 9 July 2020 16: 58
      0
      Quote: Olgovich
      because there was an example of 1914.

      In 1914, the Anglo-French acted differently than in 1940.
      1. Olgovich
        Olgovich 9 July 2020 20: 27
        0
        Quote: Sahar Medovich
        In 1914, the Anglo-French acted differently than in 1940.

        Yes, the same people were, practically.

        BUT! There was no blow, not even a specter of danger from the East. And even the ghost of HOPE from there, too, was not ...

        Surrender turned out to be easier ...
  • Hagen
    Hagen 9 July 2020 07: 00
    -8
    Quote: Dalny V
    As for the aforementioned congress of people's deputies, there was generally a panopticon: priests, Cossacks, some other crazy city people ...

    It is useful for some comrades praying for the Soviet period of Russia's life to remember that this was still Soviet power, the USSR. Those "democrats", who today are customary to scold with all the power of the Russian language, have not yet come to power. The main anti-Soviets were the Soviet government itself, represented by the Congress of People's Deputies.
    1. atos_kin
      atos_kin 9 July 2020 08: 13
      +2
      Quote: Hagen
      ..... it was still the Soviet government, the USSR. ...

      The USSR was still there, and the "Soviet power" was killed in 1953.
      1. Hagen
        Hagen 9 July 2020 17: 24
        +1
        Quote: atos_kin
        The USSR was still there, and the "Soviet power" was killed in 1953.

        Then cut the truth-uterus to the end. In 1934-38, Stalin tried to give power precisely to the councils of deputies, but the old party members staked it for the party bodies and did not allow the introduction of elections from alternative candidates. As a result, the main opponents of the Soviet regime turned out to be the CPSU (b) -KPSS.
        1. atos_kin
          atos_kin 10 July 2020 16: 20
          +1
          I cut it: in 37-38 there were too many "undershoots" and "shifters", and the war was approaching. Therefore, Comrade Stalin (under pressure from the Central Committee) was forced not to touch the "caste" at the helm. But after the second attempt to divert party leaders from governing the country, which meant death for the "caste", this "caste" quietly ruined him.
          1. Hagen
            Hagen 11 July 2020 10: 38
            +1
            Quote: atos_kin
            But after the second attempt to divert party leaders from governing the country, which meant death for the "caste", this "caste" quietly ruined him.

            Half measures .... In the end, it is necessary to name the true enemies of Soviet power. They will be the party nomenclature of the CPSU (b) -KPSS.
  • apro
    apro 9 July 2020 04: 26
    -2
    The author ... What did you want to say ????
    1. codetalker
      codetalker 9 July 2020 05: 32
      +1
      I think I wanted to say that it is time to legislatively “whitewash” the pact. Rumor has it that such an initiative will be put forward this fall ...
      1. SOVIET UNION 2
        SOVIET UNION 2 9 July 2020 06: 25
        +6
        Will the initiative be launched ?! From whom? From anti-advisers? Will they step on the throat of their own song? Then it is necessary to recognize Katyn as a German provocation. Judging by the signs of May 9, do not recognize! There is no spirit in power to resist the West! Power even arranged a constitution! They did not change. Just prescribed the service instruction of the supreme power!
      2. apro
        apro 9 July 2020 07: 19
        0
        Quote: codetalker
        I think I wanted to say that it is time to legislatively “whitewash” the pact

        This is not possible. Yes, and why? The USSR concluded treaties based on its own interests and capabilities at that time. Today the situation is somewhat different. As a result of the anti-communist coup, the zone of influence has narrowed significantly. And there are no methods of influence on the former territories ...
  • Doctor
    Doctor 9 July 2020 06: 46
    -8
    The point is not the moral side of this treaty; after all, this is a treaty on NOT an attack, not an attack.
    The question is the correctness of the political decision for the fate of the country, as such.
    Further events showed that this is not a crime, but worse.
    This is mistake.
    1. Mavrikiy
      Mavrikiy 9 July 2020 11: 02
      0
      Quote: Arzt
      The question is the correctness of the political decision for the fate of the country, as such

      We are satisfied with the decision, and every liberal angry .... goes by the forest.
      1. Doctor
        Doctor 9 July 2020 11: 06
        -2
        We are satisfied with the decision, and every liberal angry .... goes through the woods.

        You (babies) are certainly satisfied, but those who remained lying under Rzhev at the new monument are unlikely.
        1. Mavrikiy
          Mavrikiy 9 July 2020 11: 09
          0
          Quote: Arzt
          We are satisfied with the decision, and every liberal angry .... goes through the woods.

          You (babies) are certainly satisfied, but those who remained lying under Rzhev at the new monument are unlikely.

          Well, why, not only we, but also 90% of the population are enough, and the liberal scum is screaming, it can’t die, they don’t see sins. repeat
          1. Doctor
            Doctor 9 July 2020 11: 14
            -1
            Well, why, not only we, but also 90% of the population are enough, and the liberal scum is screaming, it can’t die, they don’t see sins. feel

            A 90 percent survey yourself conducted? Or from a training manual took? wink
  • Olgovich
    Olgovich 9 July 2020 07: 01
    -4
    The non-aggression treaty with Germany ... had one of the goals of averting the threat of the impending war from the USSR. Ultimately, this goal was not achieved.
    Really? Or almost two years just such a delay is simply not counted? Why was it so primitive to distort the realities of that situation?


    belay
    Did Hitler plan ... to attack in 1939 g to the USSR? Or in 1940m? belay lol
    There is NO document about it!
    He attacked strictly when he was fully prepared (he solved issues with Poland, France, etc., concentrated his troops). He did not give a damn about pacts and occasions, which he proved more than once.

    At the same time, the Protocols were concluded quite correctly: for in the conditions of the long-planned war between Germany and Poland and the inevitable defeat of Poland, they DID NOT allow millions of people and lands to be captured by the Nazis and stopped the front 200km west
    The protocol of August 23, 1939 and other secret protocols signed with Germany in 1939-1941 were a departure from the Leninist principles of Soviet foreign policy. ”

    The Leninist principle of categorically REFUSING secret contracts was officially proclaimed from the first day of the Thief as the cornerstone of Bolshevik politics.

    Which turned out, of course, to be a lie, but officially it was just that !.


    And even further, many years later, territorial claims to Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova from neighboring European countries with their financial claims against the same "defendants" followed. The actual claims or possible ones are no longer so important, but they stem mainly not from 1939, but from 1989.

    It is impossible not to clarify that the hands of those who were thirsty for Russian land were actually untied by the chosen people at the Congress of People's Deputies of the USSR on December 24, 1989. Let us recall quite a bit from the text of the resolution “On the Political and Legal Assessment of the Soviet-German Non-aggression Pact of 1939”.


    Let me remind the authors that the borders between the USSR, Poland, Romania were established on the basis of international (Paris) and interstate (with Poland) relevant treaties of 1945,1947,1951,, concluded on the basis of decisions of the victorious countries of WWII and have nothing to do with the Covenant.
    their territorial claims, based on the decision of the same congress of Soviet people's deputies, will soon be able to politically “activate” revanchist groups, for example, in Finland and Latvia with Estonia. Indeed, until mid-1940 they included a number of regions of the Karelian-Finnish SSR (since 1956 the Karelian Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic), the Leningrad, Murmansk, and Pskov regions.

    They will not be able to: the borders are also set AFTER WWII.

    Thus, modern borders are the result of WWII and the corresponding decisions of the victorious countries, rather than pacts, etc.
    1. strannik1985
      strannik1985 9 July 2020 08: 46
      +1
      There is NO document about it!

      It doesn’t attack - in two years the line from which the German offensive will begin is ~ 300 km closer. It's better?
      1. Olgovich
        Olgovich 9 July 2020 10: 57
        -1
        Quote: strannik1985
        It doesn’t attack - in two years the line from which the German offensive will begin is ~ 300 km closer. It's better?

        He didn’t understand anything: when he doesn’t attack, who doesn’t attack?
        1. strannik1985
          strannik1985 9 July 2020 11: 06
          +1
          Understood nothing

          The USSR does not attack. France and England are not our ally (which Operation Unthinkable seems to be hinting at). In 1940, according to your version, the USSR starts a long, bloody war in order to finally get 4 enemies in Europe - Germany, France, England, the USA.
          1. Olgovich
            Olgovich 9 July 2020 13: 43
            -1
            Quote: strannik1985
            The USSR does not attack.

            When, what year?
            Quote: strannik1985
            In 1940, according to your version, the USSR begins a long, bloody war, in the end to get 4 enemies in Europe - Germany, France, England, USA.


            ALL literate people have ALREADY a SUCCESSFUL historical experience of 1914. Where the main cannon fodder is Anglo-French. And the main front is in the West. What then ... "enemies" France, etc.? belay Given that Hitler is ALREADY recognized by ALL as an absolute EVIL? Nonsense....

            But someone went their own way, thought that he would receive weakened enemies, but received a multiply strengthened enemy.
            1939, SEPTEMBER:
            “The war is between two groups of capitalist countries. We are not averse to having them fight well and weaken each other. Not bad if with your hands Germany was shaken by the position of the richest capitalist countries (especially England) We can maneuver push one side against the other in order to get torn apart. . The next moment is push the other side».


            pushed .... it turned out the exact opposite ...
            1. strannik1985
              strannik1985 9 July 2020 14: 05
              0
              When, what year?

              1939 or 1940, the position of the allies did not change.
              ALL literate people

              Poland looks at the 1914 experience with bewilderment, along with Czechoslovakia and Austria. It seems to me that someone underestimated someone.
              1. Olgovich
                Olgovich 9 July 2020 20: 31
                0
                Quote: strannik1985
                1939 or 1940, the position of the allies did not change.

                and?
                Quote: strannik1985
                Poland looks at the 1914 experience with bewilderment, along with Czechoslovakia and Austria. It seems to me that someone underestimated someone.

                Can't he watch in generalbecause them and did not exist in general.
                1. strannik1985
                  strannik1985 10 July 2020 07: 05
                  0
                  And?

                  And what is the benefit, at that time, for the USSR to intervene in the war alone?
                  Can't he watch

                  So what? The same characterizes the allies in relation to Germany, they then existed in 1914.
                  1. Olgovich
                    Olgovich 10 July 2020 11: 05
                    0
                    Quote: strannik1985
                    And what is the benefit, at that time, for the USSR to intervene in the war alone?

                    And ... France-England 1940? belay
                    Quote: strannik1985
                    So what? The same characterizes the allies in relation to Germany, they then existed in 1914.

                    Austria itself was not opposed, the Czech Republic itself did not mind, because of Poland, WWII began.
                    Or the Czech Republic ... is it Serbia 1914 ?!

                    Everything was SAME, only the mind to hit Hitler in the back was not enough. What they got in the end is known
                    1. strannik1985
                      strannik1985 10 July 2020 11: 29
                      0
                      And ... France-England 1940?

                      They perfectly showed their desire to fight in 1939. Unlike the USSR, Poland signed military assistance agreements with these countries.
                      Austria itself was not against

                      Maybe, but the plebiscite was carried out after the German troops were introduced, and the Austrian prime minister was sent to prison. Not the point, we are not talking about that. The countries - guarantors of Versailles, France, England and, separately, the United States, stare blankly and directly push the neighbors into the arms of the Reich, the British even returned the Czech gold reserve. Was this behavior typical before 1914? Is this not evidence of a change in the policies of these states?
                      1. Olgovich
                        Olgovich 10 July 2020 12: 17
                        0
                        Quote: strannik1985
                        They perfectly showed their desire to fight in 1939. Unlike the USSR, Poland signed military assistance agreements with these countries.

                        No, they showed their desire in 1940 and it was, after all, a real war.

                        But, without, Russia, a priori unsuccessful.
                        Quote: strannik1985
                        . Was this behavior typical before 1914?

                        It is certainly characteristic, although not on such a scale: the Bosnian crisis with BiH in 1908, given to you as an example by AB
                      2. strannik1985
                        strannik1985 11 July 2020 12: 16
                        0
                        No, they showed their desire in 1940

                        Nuance - the Germans themselves attacked. Suppose the USSR attacks, the Germans stop active operations on the Western Front. Why do the Allies fight? What interest?
                        Certainly characteristic

                        Again a nuance - the Austrians were able to interest the main participants, even if by deception, like Russia. Plus, the scale is smaller, AVI with all the desire does not pretend to be a superpower, and recently there was a bloody war with Germany. Returning to our example - what interested the Germans of the French, British and Americans?
                      3. Olgovich
                        Olgovich 11 July 2020 20: 37
                        -2
                        Quote: strannik1985
                        Nuance - the Germans themselves attacked. Suppose the USSR attacks, the Germans stop active operations on the Western Front. Why do the Allies fight? What interest?

                        FEAR for your skins.
                        Quote: strannik1985
                        Again a nuance - the Austrians were able to interest the main participants, even if by deception, like Russia.

                        Austria pacified as Germany in 1938
                        Quote: strannik1985
                        Plus, the scale is smaller, AVI with all the desire does not pretend to be a superpower, and recently there was a bloody war with Germany.

                        She didn’t, but Germany declared her FULL support and readiness to speak on her side.

                        Germany was ready for CF
        2. Sugar Honeyovich
          Sugar Honeyovich 9 July 2020 17: 02
          -1
          Quote: Olgovich
          someone went their own way, thought he would get weakened enemies

          And someone went their own way, believing that the war would be somewhere out there, but would not touch him. And she first touched him, and then went there. 1914 - not 1939-40 !!
          1. Olgovich
            Olgovich 9 July 2020 20: 45
            -1
            Quote: Sahar Medovich
            And someone went their own way, believing that the war would be somewhere out there, but would not touch him.

            Right! yes
            “The war is between two groups of capitalist countries. We are not averse to fighting them well and weakening each other. It would be nice if the hands of Germany shook the position of the richest capitalist countries (especially England). We can maneuver, push one side against the other, so that we’re better torn. . The next moment is to push the other side. ”.

            COMPLETE FAILURE of the "forecast" and the policy of "pushing" the parties.

            Germany was pushed, but France didn’t even manage to push verbally, she gave up without Russia immediately.

            And where is ......... "weakened" Germany? belay request No. Ah ..... NO such ...

            Multiply strengthened by the whole of Europe given to him with France, including, the ENEMY menacingly stood face to face with the USSR.

            Lesson 1914 stupidly walked (themselves, they say, with a mustache), as a result of unprecedented military disasters of 1941-42.
            1. poppy admiral
              poppy admiral 9 July 2020 23: 02
              0
              Sorry, but this also works in the opposite direction. This is me about England and France. And where was their help to Poland. They had an agreement with her. Not a fan of Stalin, but I think it’s not necessary to blame everything on him.
              1. Olgovich
                Olgovich 10 July 2020 10: 45
                0
                Quote: Poppy Admiral
                Sorry, but this also works in the opposite direction. This is me about England and France. And where was their help to Poland. They had an agreement with her.

                who whitewash England and FR?
                and how do their cowardice and shortsightedness justify others? request
            2. Sugar Honeyovich
              Sugar Honeyovich 10 July 2020 06: 02
              0
              Quote: Olgovich
              Right!

              Still not true!
              ““ It may happen that Germany will quickly put an end to Poland, and although a state of war (between England and Germany) is declared, at this stage it could be waged by both sides as a defensive war, that is, although the borders will be properly protected by a blockade and artillery, the bombing of open cities will not take place, which could lead to ineradicable hatred.In the event of an early end of the German-Polish conflict, this hypothesis would still have the possibility of a quick elimination of the war, since the British Empire and Germany cannot risk their entire future for the sake of a state that will practically cease to exist by that time. "
              "Hitler will restore order in the house. What if the French territory is occupied by the Wehrmacht, once we will be forever rid of the nightmare of occupying factories."
              So pushing was not required - they themselves jumped.
              Quote: Olgovich
              Lesson 1914 stupidly walked (themselves, they say, with a mustache)

              But this is wrong - carefully studied and taken into account. But only the USSR!
              1. Olgovich
                Olgovich 10 July 2020 10: 57
                0
                Quote: Sahar Medovich
                So pushing was not required - they themselves jumped.

                Someone thought that it was necessary to push those and these: until they “turn white, but these don’t turn red. And then he will pan.

                An went out a brutal bummer ... And precisely because they the lesson of 1914 was stupidly walked Apparently, in 1914, more pleasant worries were lost than the lessons.
  • BAI
    BAI 9 July 2020 10: 23
    +1
    Did Hitler plan ... to attack the USSR in 1939? Or in 1940m?

    Hitler planned to attack the USSR in 1925, which he directly stated in "Mein Kampf" - "the living space of Germany - in the East." He came to power with this slogan in 1933 and never deviated from this slogan in subsequent years.
    1. Octopus
      Octopus 9 July 2020 11: 06
      0
      Quote: BAI
      Hitler planned to attack the USSR in 1925, which he directly stated in Mein Kampf

      And who is Hitler from the times of Main Kampf? Landsberg Prisoner, if not mistaken?
      Quote: BAI
      He came to power with this slogan in 1933

      Seriously? So he directly slaughtered Hindenburg, appoint me Chancellor-and attack the USSR, the century of will not to see?

      How interesting.
      1. Sugar Honeyovich
        Sugar Honeyovich 9 July 2020 17: 03
        0
        Quote: Octopus
        Landsberg Prisoner, if not mistaken?

        He is. And after that - the head of Germany.
    2. Avior
      Avior 9 July 2020 13: 25
      +1
      A little bit wrong
      Hitler there argues that while the Tsarists ruled the Russians, the Russians flourished, and when the Russians fell under the rule of the Jews, the country began to fall apart
      Actually, at that time, many expected the USSR to go wrong, as it was not viable.
      Hitler planned to get this space when the USSR collapses and the earth becomes orphaned
      Directly about the war there is no question.
    3. Olgovich
      Olgovich 9 July 2020 13: 46
      0
      Quote: BAI
      Hitler planned to attack the USSR in 1925, which he directly stated in "Mein Kampf" - "the living space of Germany - in the East"

      The Germans planned and went east after him from the XNUMXth century, as in WWI.
      And?
      And:
      Quote: BAI
      never deviated from this slogan.
      1. Octopus
        Octopus 9 July 2020 14: 11
        -1
        Quote: Olgovich
        The Germans planned and went east

        Before they took Rome, after or together?
        1. Olgovich
          Olgovich 9 July 2020 20: 48
          0
          Quote: Octopus
          Quote: Olgovich
          The Germans planned and went east

          Before they took Rome, after or together?

          what purpose are you interested in? request
  • Avior
    Avior 9 July 2020 07: 02
    +3
    Any reasoning is worth something, if they are based on facts.
    Of course, I understand that now there will be aggressively minus everything and everything that they don’t like, but there’s no strength to look at this article, repeating the cliches, :)
    1. There is a moment in Churchill's memoirs why, in his opinion, the treaty broke down in 1939 between the USSR, England and France. Memoirs are generally a crafty thing, especially for politicians, but this is the case that they explain a lot.
    There was a strong distrust between the parties. The USSR believed that if Germany attacked Poland, then England and France would not declare war on Germany, but would leave the USSR to fight Germany.
    As it became known two years later, they declared war, which later became known as World War II, although at first it was not very active, the fact of the declaration of war itself had a strong influence on Hitler.
    On the other hand, in the West, Churchill believed, they were afraid that in countries where the Soviet troops would gain superiority, the Soviet Union would put pro-Soviet governments in one way or another. Which quite proved to be true both before the war and after, by the way.
    2. Regarding the border. The authors mistakenly believe that the post-war border was determined by pre-war agreements with Germany.
    In fact, the USSR annulled them in 1941, in a little-known treaty with us, which was called Maisky Sikorsky, and later the border was drawn on completely different legal principles. Basically, the issue was resolved at the Tehran Conference, when the USSR decided to transfer the lands of Poland, and to the Poles to compensate for this at the expense of the lands of Germany, the well-known story about three Churchill matches, when he measured the movement of borders with matches on the map.
    This was finally enshrined in the main official final document of the Second World War in Europe - decisions of the Potsdam Conference.
    Thus, when you consider an article, it seems that the authors took a book of the 70s of the last century, and are not aware that the information possibilities have greatly expanded.
    And even if they do not agree with something from what I wrote, it’s worth mentioning important facts at least to show that the authors know about them :(
    1. Gardamir
      Gardamir 9 July 2020 07: 17
      +1
      On the other hand, in the West, Churchill believed, they were afraid that in countries where the Soviet troops would gain superiority, the Soviet Union would put pro-Soviet governments in one way or another. Which quite proved to be true both before the war and after, by the way.
      The main thing is to choose a point of view. As we asked in childhood, why is our courageous intelligence officer, and if an enemy, then a vile spy. Correctly, everything depends on the point of view. Pro-Soviet governments annoy you. But why did you keep silent about pro-American governments. As an example, the mayor of Prague is an ardent Russophobe and pro-American.
      1. Tuzik
        Tuzik 9 July 2020 07: 24
        +1
        Quote: Gardamir
        The main thing is to choose a point of view.

        Do you mean pain? And why can not treat history as just history?
        1. Gardamir
          Gardamir 9 July 2020 07: 33
          +1
          [quote how simple are the stories?] [/ quote] How do you imagine this? I do not remember the 39th year, because I have not yet been born. But I remember well the 60s, 70s, 80s. This is life for me. And current politicians lie about those years as if they were a thousand years ago. From which I conclude, if they lie about the 70s, then they also lie about the 39th.
          1. Tuzik
            Tuzik 9 July 2020 07: 37
            -1
            I understand you have a lot of boiling))
      2. Avior
        Avior 9 July 2020 07: 25
        0
        Pro-Soviet governments annoy you.

        And where did you read this from me?
        There is nothing to do with the point of view.
        It's about facts only.
        The Poles, the French and the British were afraid that if the Soviet troops went to Poland, it would end with the Soviet government in Warsaw.
        1. Gardamir
          Gardamir 9 July 2020 07: 46
          -2
          The Poles, the French and the British were afraid that if the Soviet troops went to Poland, it would end with the Soviet government in Warsaw.
          It is good that the current Russian government is not afraid of anything. the urgent task of making a pro-Western government in Belarus. Here in VO you can write different articles. but partner with Poroshenko, partner with Zelensky. What difference does the West fear.
          If we return to the events of those years, it means that they were afraid of Soviet troops in Poland, and we are not afraid of NATO troops at a distance of 600 km from Moscow.
          1. Avior
            Avior 9 July 2020 07: 55
            0
            And let's not leave the discussions of those years in general.
            They were not afraid of the Soviet troops, but of the consequences of their appearance there.
            And do not forget, we are talking about Churchill's explanation of why the agreement was not concluded.
            1. Gardamir
              Gardamir 9 July 2020 08: 21
              0
              And let's not leave the events of those years in the discussion.
              Come on, but hard. you probably mean the Fulton speech of Churchill. Then in advance I disagree with you about everything.
              1. Avior
                Avior 9 July 2020 08: 37
                -1
                Of course not
                Fulton's speech is after the war
                We are talking about that place in Churchill's memoirs, in which he gives his own view on why an agreement was not concluded between the West and the USSR.
                According to Churchill, due to distrust of each other.
                1. Octopus
                  Octopus 9 July 2020 09: 46
                  0
                  Your opponent is partially right. Firstly, Churchill was not in the government at that time, so he knows the events under discussion at best from other people's words, and at worst he invents himself. Secondly, he writes his memoirs in the realities of the Cold War.

                  Churchill was not so smart in the 40s. In particular, the same Churchill agreed on some percentage of influence there in Eastern Europe. Although, it would seem, it is obvious that whoever has time to hang someone will have all percentages.
                  1. Avior
                    Avior 9 July 2020 13: 27
                    0
                    And I do not think that his memoirs are the ultimate truth.
                    But in this case, we see that a theory has been shortly and successfully formulated that explains most of the facts.
        2. apro
          apro 9 July 2020 07: 49
          0
          Quote: Avior
          if the Soviet troops get to Poland, it will end with the Soviet government in Warsaw.

          And which government is beneficial to you? on that moment...
      3. Octopus
        Octopus 9 July 2020 09: 42
        -2
        Quote: Gardamir
        But why did you keep silent about pro-American governments.

        )))
        Because the pro-American government can protect the interests of its country and its people, like Adenauer, Park Jung Hee, Chiang Kai-shek, and can just lie and steal, like a number of Ukrainian and not only governments.

        With pro-Soviet governments easier. Cannibals without options.
    2. Octopus
      Octopus 9 July 2020 08: 48
      0
      Quote: Avior
      authors took a book of the 70s of the last century

      And there is. If you have not started the 50s
    3. The comment was deleted.
    4. Olgovich
      Olgovich 9 July 2020 11: 18
      -1
      Quote: Avior
      This was finally enshrined in the main official final document of the Second World War in Europe - decisions of the Potsdam Conference.

      .

      At the Potsdam Conference, the Western border of Poland was finally approved.

      East finally agreed at the Yalta Conference (Curzon Line)
      1. Avior
        Avior 9 July 2020 13: 28
        +1
        I will not argue, but the fact that this is not connected with the change in pre-war borders.
        1. Olgovich
          Olgovich 9 July 2020 20: 55
          0
          Quote: Avior
          I will not argue, but the fact that this is not connected with the change in pre-war borders.

          Certainly hi : ALL mentioned boundaries are WWII RESULT ,, i.e. decisions of victorious countries in WWII.

          Let, therefore, seekers of "justice" on the pact, turn to the United States and the South Caucasus and the UN! yes

          And the authors did not say a word about this, but this is a key moment, which would fundamentally flag the article ...
          1. Octopus
            Octopus 9 July 2020 21: 47
            -1
            Quote: Olgovich
            Let, therefore, seekers of "justice" on the pact, turn to the United States and the South Caucasus and the UN!

            You are absolutely right. The Yalta disaster and WWII should be shared. Yalta cost Europe and the world more than the war itself. Similar to Versailles.

            The Allies do not want to acknowledge their shame, but a shift in discussion in this direction is inevitable.
            Quote: Olgovich
            In Russian, express your, ts, "thought"

            Quote: Olgovich
            Maybe you don’t have any, but people sentimentally inclined towards Russians may be interested in whether the Bulgarians killed the Russians

            It makes no difference to anyone:

            You stated that for you there is no difference between the warring and non-warring (at least in the Second World War) allies of Germany. The thought of a true internationalist.
            Quote: Olgovich
            what purpose are you interested in?

            In order to inform that you, as usual, lied. The Germans expanded in all directions, and above all - in the direction of more than they themselves developed countries. Which is not surprising.

            It is especially sweet that you decided to remind the Germans of the XNUMXth century. When in the territory of conditional Russia Batu and his local jackals ordered.
            1. Olgovich
              Olgovich 10 July 2020 10: 32
              0
              Quote: Octopus
              You are absolutely right. The Yalta disaster and WWII should be shared. Yalta cost Europe and the world more than the war itself. Similar to Versailles.

              WHERE did I separate Yalta and WWII, where Yalta is its integral, logical and integral part? belay
              Quote: Octopus
              You stated that for you there is no difference between the warring and non-warring (at least in the Second World War) allies of Germany.

              Not for me, but for International LAW the personification of which was the decisions of the winning countries: an ally of absolute EVIL, is EVIL, RECOGNIZED by this right and, accordingly, PUNISHED
              Quote: Octopus
              In order to inform that you, as usual, lied. Germans expanded in all directions

              Refute it, spotless: prove that the Germans ... did not go to the East lol
              Sho again no? lol
              1. Octopus
                Octopus 10 July 2020 11: 57
                0
                Quote: Olgovich
                Germans ... did not go to the East

                The Germans walked in all directions. But Moscow, as far as I remember, was never taken. Unlike Rome and Paris.
                1. Olgovich
                  Olgovich 10 July 2020 12: 25
                  0
                  Quote: Octopus
                  But Moscow, as far as I remember, never did not take. Unlike Rome and Paris.

                  You definitely have problems with the Russian language: it was claimed that they went to the EAST from the 13th century. AND WHAT do you refute this? belay fool
                  1. Octopus
                    Octopus 10 July 2020 13: 00
                    0
                    I am not going to refute that they were going to the East, especially in the Pskov region. But Pskov was never the main direction of German expansion.
                    1. Olgovich
                      Olgovich 10 July 2020 14: 10
                      0
                      Quote: Octopus
                      I am not going to refute that they were going to the East, especially in the Pskov region. But Pskov was never the main direction of German expansion.

                      Quote: Octopus
                      But Pskov was never the main direction of German expansion.

                      Did you see the word somewhere ... "chief"? Or .... "Pskov?

                      Then what are you talking about, my dear? belay request
  • Undecim
    Undecim 9 July 2020 10: 12
    +2
    This article needs another article in which the authors would explain what they actually wanted to write about, since the title is not at all connected with the meaning of the article, and the meaning of the article is not at all connected with reality.
    First, even at the time of the conclusion in 1939, both the Nonaggression Treaty between Germany and the Soviet Union, and the secret protocols thereto did not define any state borders. That is, there were no state borders between any countries established in accordance with the Non-Aggression Treaty of 1939. Therefore, the ranting of the authors about some territorial claims caused by the condemnation of the Non-aggression Treaty by the Congress of People's Deputies is an empty air shock for propaganda purposes.
    In addition, the Non-aggression Treaty between Germany and the Soviet Union itself has not been effective since June 22, 1941, because all conversations around it, condemnation and approval, have no international legal consequences.
    In a word, the article is an empty agitation for provoking another holivar.
    1. Avior
      Avior 9 July 2020 12: 08
      0
      In addition to the Nonaggression Treaty, there was also the Treaty of Friendship and the Border with Germany.
      https://ru.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Договор_о_дружбе_и_границе_между_СССР_и_Германией
      There was also a map with a marked border line.
      This agreement is also canceled by the agreement of Maisky-Sikorsky
  • BAI
    BAI 9 July 2020 10: 13
    +4
    In 1939, Stalin brilliantly emerged from the difficult situation and, to the maximum advantage of the USSR, used the current situation. Solving your problems at the expense of others, and not at the expense of your own state, is aerobatics of high politics.
  • ee2100
    ee2100 9 July 2020 10: 32
    +3
    A pact is a formal agreement (wiki), and the pact dated 22.08.39/22.06.41/XNUMX was called a "non-aggression pact". Do you feel the difference? The word "pact" was specially introduced into circulation to belittle the meaning of the peace treaty. The site discusses "right or wrong", "profitable or not profitable", "mistake or not mistake", etc. This agreement should be treated as a fait accompli, and that's all, but the fact that society is involved in the discussion of this agreement in this way - one must ask the question "who benefits from it?" The comments indicate that this treaty was denounced on XNUMX. one of the parties who signed it. Later, other treaties were concluded and the borders in Europe after WWII were fixed, and the main one is the Helsinki Agreement.
    All actions aimed at denigrating this treaty is one of the points to discredit the USSR and equalize it with the GG. A lot of this program has already been completed. The main beneficiary of this is Germany. If they recognize at the world level that these two states are anti-people and still aggressors, then this is an occasion to review the results of WWII. Let's pour water on the mill of Great Germany!
    1. Avior
      Avior 9 July 2020 12: 09
      0
      There was a second agreement with Germany.
      Friendship and border treaty
      https://ru.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Договор_о_дружбе_и_границе_между_СССР_и_Германией
  • iouris
    iouris 9 July 2020 12: 03
    +1
    What a pact there! The communists socialized the means of production, land and mineral resources, banned the exploitation of man by man - villains !.
  • Kapellan23
    Kapellan23 9 July 2020 15: 39
    -1
    Who framed Molotov under the Ribbentrop Pact?


    "Comrade Stalin did not know anything, the enemies made their way into the Central Committee."
  • poppy admiral
    poppy admiral 9 July 2020 22: 23
    +1
    Nevertheless, I believe that in 1939 Stalin did everything right. Any agreement is better than the Germans 100 km from Minsk! Here they wrote a lot about the credentials of Western delegations (which were not). And who thought that if we signed an agreement with them, they would not have acted with us as with Poland (a strange war).
  • Nikolai Korovin
    Nikolai Korovin 9 July 2020 23: 00
    0
    It is said a lot. However, for some reason everyone forgets that at the time of the signing of the pact the USSR was actually waging a war with Japan. Ground forces on both sides were relatively small (tens of thousands of people on each side), but the intensity of air battles (sometimes tens of downed planes per day on each side) was still unprecedented in history, and not always in our favor. Given the remoteness of the theater, the situation was very serious. The Anglo-French delegation, without any authority, headed by the semi-retired Vice Admiral Drax, who traveled to Leningrad on a cargo-passenger ship for two weeks in July, simply stupidly dragged on time - how would it end.

    As for the position of Poland, the French ambassador was not received at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on the eve of September 1. The French still bothered the situation. But the pans always suffered from delusions of grandeur. Go talk to those! They themselves were going to Berlin. No one assumed that the huge Polish army was completely uncomfortable. Hitler on the eve of September 1 said that the struggle would be difficult, but surrender could not be considered (exactly like that!). I remember very well that Rokossovsky was a Pole. But he was not a pan.

    But Hitler miscalculated. The losses of the Wehrmacht in the very first days showed that the cheerful walks in Europe were over, and the war would not be for life, but for death. True, Halder wrote in his diary on July 14.07 that the war with Russia was won in three weeks, but he, apparently, also did not quite control the situation. TASS statement on pact 14.06 - it is clear that the trial ball. Stop, pigeons, ponder. They didn’t hear, didn’t react at all. Not without reason Ribbentrop, when Dekanozov was finally summoned to the ministry on June 22 afternoon, after the announcement of the German note, he caught up with the Soviet delegation and feverishly spoke out that he was against the war. Berezhkov testifies that it looked like he had accepted the notes before the announcement. He was very upset. After all, he studied at one time in a gymnasium in St. Petersburg and understood better than anyone else from the German leadership what war with Russia is. But OKW and OKH believed that the USSR was a colossus with feet of clay. Hitler was of the same opinion.

    But Stalin was right after all. In 1939, as the main fighter, we had an outdated I-16, not to mention the presence of a still large number of I-15 and I-153 biplanes, which did not really pull even against the Japanese, and the Germans already had Messerschmitts ". Bombers - the Ju-88 was much more effective than the SB, of which there were few, not to mention the outdated TB-3. IL-2 was not. By 1941, they managed to build TB-7 and DB-3 in single copies, which made it possible to bomb Berlin in August. Then they stopped getting it. Tanks - T-34 and KV, too, were not even in sight. German T4 and even T3 were far superior to BT-7 and T-28. There was no Katyusha. All the new equipment appeared in two years, and in 1941 it was still greatly lacking, but it was already better than the German one.

    The ratio of the number from 1939 to 22.06.1941/1941/XNUMX also changed in favor of the Red Army, although the number of the Wehrmacht was even much larger, not to mention the presence of satellites. But their fighting qualities are known. "Strange War" is a signal to Hitler. It's time to Drang nah Osten! I didn’t obey. Suddenness is for simpletons. It's just that the Germans managed to concentrate the troops, but we did not, due to the difference in distances and the degree of development of the railway network. And the Germans' equipment was all modern, and we still had a lot of old stuff. Since the Germans were ahead in concentration and deployment, it was impossible to declare mobilization and begin transporting troops openly - it could have turned out even worse. The Germans, it seems, were still somewhat replaced before the start, and this gave a small gain in time. In particular, the TASS statement probably gave several days. Yes, Stalin hoped that in XNUMX the war would be avoided. I think he said it to Hopkins. It seems that he miscalculated. But the situation was stalemate. It is foolish, in my opinion, to just scold your leadership, not considering that the enemy is not and is acting actively, skillfully and purposefully.
    1. poppy admiral
      poppy admiral 9 July 2020 23: 21
      -1
      In general, I agree. But I think that by May 1941, Stalin realized that the war would be in 1941. But when exactly? Reconnaissance did not give exact data. Delayed with the deployment of troops.
  • fif21
    fif21 17 July 2020 09: 49
    0
    Soviet diplomacy has done a lot in the interests of the USSR! And there is nothing shameful in this! And those who are trying to make the USSR guilty of unleashing World War 2, you just need to send on a long erotic journey. hi
  • Yuri Mikhailovsky
    Yuri Mikhailovsky 18 July 2020 17: 08
    0
    The author is a chef by profession? Then why so many noodles?
  • Yuri Mikhailovsky
    Yuri Mikhailovsky 4 October 2020 00: 12
    0
    An important, necessary and forward-looking decision.