Military Review

The calm before the storm. Stalin's speeches in 1939-1941

211

Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin is difficult to classify as the great silent. Not being as brilliant an orator as some revolutionary leaders, above all Leon Trotsky, he nevertheless spoke quite a lot and in front of a wide variety of audiences. However, if you try to find the texts of the Leader's speeches (especially those concerning not purely internal issues of the life of the USSR, but international politics) relating to one of the most difficult periods stories USSR, between the beginning of World War II and the Great Patriotic War, you will learn that all this time Joseph Vissarionovich was extremely laconic.


If he spoke on the above-mentioned topics, then, as a rule, this happened in an extremely narrow circle of trusted persons or in an environment that, by definition, did not imply the disclosure of what was said. It is clear that the main reason for this behavior of Stalin was the extreme complexity of the moment when his one and only word, interpreted in an inappropriate way, could lead to serious complications in the international arena, or even to a war, which the head of the Soviet state sought to avoid for as long as possible. ...

An excellent example of this is the long and extremely confusing story of "Stalin's speech of August 19, 1939", which he never actually uttered. Everything began with the publication by the French news agency "Havas" of the text of a speech allegedly made by Joseph Vissarionovich at a joint meeting of the Central Committee of the Politburo of the CPSU (b) and the leadership of the Comintern. In fact, the entire speech cited by the French news agency (and then immediately replicated by many Western media outlets) is nothing more than a recognition by the USSR leader that our country is interested in unleashing a major war in Europe, and a listing of the many benefits that its leadership is firm in. intends to extract from such.

I will not engage in citing this fake here, I will only limit myself to a statement of the fact: the fact that it is a fake has been established a long time ago and absolutely precisely. To begin with, no Central Committee meetings were held that day and could not be held, as evidenced by at least such serious documents as journals that recorded the movements of Soviet leaders in the Kremlin and their meetings. Moreover, the story of the "speech" was continued twice after the beginning of the Great Patriotic War, when it turned out that the author of this invention, Henri Ruffen, ended up in the territory of France controlled by the Nazis, and clearly actively collaborated with them. In any case, in 1941 and 1942 he began to publish "additions" to the original text, turning it into an increasingly clumsy anti-Soviet and Russophobic concoction akin to the mythical "Testament of Peter the Great."

No wonder the newspaper Pravda, a week after the informational stuffing of Havas, published its refutation, the authorship of which belonged personally to Stalin. Judging by the tone of this angry rebuke of Joseph Vissarionovich, the French demarche, which he called “lies fabricated in the cafe”, led him to extreme irritation. In his short but succinct speech, the head of the USSR speaks from an unequivocally pro-German position, blaming France and Great Britain for the outbreak of the war, which "attacked Germany" and "rejected the peace proposals of both Berlin and Moscow."

It should be noted that the absolute majority ... No, perhaps every single public speech of Stalin of that period (it does not matter whether oral or printed) is imbued with one leitmotif: “The Soviet Union is a reliable partner of Germany, does not build any hostile plans against it and is determined adhere to all agreements reached with Berlin. " Another example is another speech by Iosif Vissarionovich, all in the same publication, the Pravda newspaper, devoted to the reaction of foreign media to the conclusion of the Neutrality Pact between the USSR and Japan. There is no signature of the Leader under this publication dated April 19, 1941, but its authorship has been established reliably.

Here again, statements about "the ridiculousness of the assumption that the Japanese-Soviet pact is allegedly directed against Germany, and also that this pact was concluded under German pressure." Stalin clearly and unambiguously states:

The Soviet Union is pursuing its own independent, independent policy, alien to external influences and determined by the interests of the Soviet people, the interests of the Soviet state, and the interests of peace.

It would seem that all these speeches testify to one thing: the country's leader was in captivity of the deepest delusions and firmly believed in "Hitler's peacefulness", hoping that a military clash between the USSR and the Third Reich could be avoided. In fact, there was nothing of the kind. In order to be convinced of this, it is enough to familiarize yourself with at least one quote from Stalin's speech in front of a "closed" audience, in front of graduates of Soviet military academies on May 5, 1941. The official transcript of this event was simply not kept, but many memories of its participants remained, who later passed the Great Patriotic War and rose to considerable ranks.

According to one of them, Stalin said approximately the following: “We have not developed any friendship with Germany. A war with it is inevitable, and if our Soviet diplomats, headed by Comrade Molotov, manage to somehow delay its start - our happiness. And you, military comrades, go to the places of service and take measures now so that the troops are in a state of combat readiness. " Moreover, at the banquet that followed the solemn part, Iosif Vissarionovich raised a toast to "the future war with fascist Germany, which is the only salvation from millions of our Soviet people being destroyed and the rest enslaved, to the offensive and victory in this war."

It would be possible, in the absence of documentary evidence, to write off this case on the post-war generals' fantasies, but, firstly, not all of them immediately "got used to it". And secondly, this episode was one hundred percent confirmed by none other than Georgy Zhukov, moreover, in a conversation with the historian Viktor Anfilov, which took place already in 1965, when the Marshal of Victory spoke of the Supreme Commander without the slightest reverence and certainly had no reason to flatter him. Stalin knew everything, understood everything, foresaw everything. And not only in 1941.

Stalin's deepest insight is evidenced by his much earlier speech - a report at the 10th Party Congress on the work of the Central Committee of the CPSU (b), made on March 1939, XNUMX. In it, Joseph Vissarionovich not only reveals the essence of the "policy of non-intervention" of Britain and France and their unwillingness to fight back aggressive the encroachments of Hitler, which consists in the desire of these states to incite the Third Reich against the USSR. He directly speaks of the inevitability of a world war and that ultimately the British and Americans will want to let "the belligerents weaken and exhaust each other", "come on stage with fresh forces and dictate their terms to the weakened participants in the war." Isn't that what happened ?!
Author:
Photos used:
Wikipedia / I. V. Stalin
211 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. apro
    apro 22 September 2020 04: 57
    +4
    Reading articles and IVS in Tallinn, many authors think out for him. Put him in a position in which he was fictional. And look for answers to questions ... which they themselves answer.
    The figure of the IVS in Stalin today, for many, as it seems to them, is an example of success in the worst situation, but they forget about the situation, about the opportunities that the head of the country had. and for today there is no practical sense. Today there is a different situation. and other possibilities. And as IVS Stalin did then today it will not work.
    1. Far B
      Far B 22 September 2020 05: 31
      +7
      In any case, it is foolish to accuse Stalin that he was not aware that a war was on the way, when everything around was breathing war. Another thing is that the muddy behavior of potential allies, England and France, added confusion to the evolving situation. The Soviet-German pact did not go for a good life. But they were actively preparing for war - they prepared the industrial base, and developed / produced weapons, and increased the personnel of the Red Army.
      1. apro
        apro 22 September 2020 06: 15
        +8
        Quote: Dalny V
        Stalin is that he was not aware,

        Don't worry IVS Stalin was vkurse ...
        Quote: Dalny V
        that the murky behavior of potential allies, England and France,

        Not muddy, but thoughtful, and extremely tense about allies. Each had their own interest.
        Quote: Dalny V
        The Soviet-German pact did not go for a good life.

        He was profitable at that time and he solved certain problems.
    2. Turist1996
      Turist1996 23 September 2020 15: 59
      +1
      and for today there is no practical sense.

      Here I will allow myself to disagree with you - history must be known and remembered.
      And the rest - I agree.
  2. Uncle lee
    Uncle lee 22 September 2020 04: 58
    +2
    Stalin knew everything, understood everything, foresaw everything.
    And the performers are not very ...
    1. Doctor
      Doctor 22 September 2020 12: 14
      -8
      Stalin knew everything, understood everything, foresaw everything.
      And the performers are not very ...

      On the contrary. The performers saw everything, but they beat the hands from above.
    2. DrEng527
      DrEng527 23 September 2020 18: 28
      0
      Quote: Uncle Lee
      And the performers are not very ...

      and who appointed these performers? request
  3. cost
    cost 22 September 2020 06: 01
    +3
    Everything began with the publication by the French information agency "Havas" of the text of a speech allegedly made by Joseph Vissarionovich at a joint meeting of the Central Committee of the Politburo of the CPSU (b) and the leadership of the Comintern.

    This speech of Stalin was first published on August 25, 1939 in the Swiss newspaper Revue de droit internationale - that is, six days after he delivered it and two days after the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. In November of the same year, Stalin denounced this publication, made on the basis of an "absolutely reliable source" of the Havas news agency, as "absolutely false" from the pages of Pravda. This, by the way, is one of the rare cases when the Soviet leader honored with his personal attention this or that "fake"
    1. cost
      cost 22 September 2020 06: 04
      +3
      For understanding, I will give the full text of the angry Stalinist refutation:
      “This message from the Havas agency, like many of its other messages, is a lie. I, of course, cannot know in which cafe-chantan this lie was fabricated. But no matter how the gentlemen from the Havas agency lie, they cannot deny that:
      a) not Germany attacked France and England, but France and England attacked Germany, taking responsibility for the current war;
      b) after the opening of hostilities, Germany turned to France and England with peace proposals, and the Soviet Union openly supported Germany's peace proposals, for it believed and continues to believe that an early end to the war would radically ease the situation of all countries and peoples;
      c) the ruling circles of England and France grossly rejected both the peace proposals of Germany and the attempts of the Soviet Union to achieve an early end to the war.
      These are the facts.
      What can the cafe-chanting politicians from the Havas agency oppose to these facts? "
      JV Stalin, "Pravda"
      November 30 1939 years

  4. Ragnar Lodbrok
    Ragnar Lodbrok 22 September 2020 06: 07
    +9
    you will learn that all this time Joseph Vissarionovich was extremely laconic.

    "Better to be silent than empty lies."
    But now the long-winded verbiage unctuous about and without from the highest stands is pouring, even plug your ears.
    Stalin knew everything, understood everything, foresaw everything.

    He was wise.
    “We have not developed any friendship with Germany. A war with it is inevitable, and if our Soviet diplomats, headed by Comrade Molotov, manage to somehow delay its start - our happiness. And you, military comrades, go to the places of service and take measures now so that the troops are in a state of combat readiness. "
    1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
      Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 22 September 2020 08: 29
      +2
      Quote: Ragnar Lothbrok
      But now the long-winded verbiage unctuous about and without from the highest stands is pouring, even plug your ears.

      Let it be for you) Already then there were plenty of pretentious chatterboxes in the stands of various congresses and conferences). Yes, and oil and health resorts in a personal address was more.
      1. vlad106
        vlad106 1 October 2020 15: 55
        -1
        Quote: Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
        Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin can hardly be classified as a great silent person. Not being as brilliant an orator as some revolutionary leaders, above all Leon Trotsky, he nevertheless spoke quite a lot and in front of a wide variety of audiences. However, if you try to find the texts of the Leader's speeches (especially those concerning not purely internal issues of the life of the USSR, but international politics) relating to one of the most difficult periods in the history of the USSR, the interval between the outbreak of World War II and the Great Patriotic War, you will find out that all this time Joseph Vissarionovich was extremely laconic.

        "... Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin can hardly be classified as a great silent speaker. Not being such a brilliant orator as some revolutionary leaders, primarily Leon Trotsky, he nevertheless spoke quite a lot and in front of a wide variety of audiences. However, if you try to find the texts of the Leader's speeches (especially those concerning not purely internal issues of the life of the USSR, but international politics), relating to one of the most difficult periods in the history of the USSR, the interval between the outbreak of World War II and the Great Patriotic War, you will learn that all this time Joseph Vissarionovich was extremely laconic . "
        -------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------

        The talkers-orators of the Trotsky type who were the enemies of the Russian people were full.
        And Stalin, although he was laconic, was the true leader of the country who saved the people from extermination
    2. bandabas
      bandabas 22 September 2020 11: 02
      +4
      But now the long-winded verbiage unctuous about and without from the highest stands is pouring, even plug your ears.
      Unfortunately you are right.
  5. Olgovich
    Olgovich 22 September 2020 06: 17
    -9
    Stalin's deepest insight is evidenced by
    the statement that the author doesn't want know, because it refutes it: In a conversation with the General Secretary of the Executive Committee of the Comintern Georgy Dimitrov on September 7, 1939, Stalin announced WWII and his strategy:

    “The war is between two groups of capitalist countries. We are not averse to fighting them well and weakening each other. It’s not bad if the position of the richest capitalist countries (especially England) was shaken by the hands of Germany. Hitler, without realizing it and not wanting it, undermines, undermines the capitalist system

    We can maneuver, push one side against the other to get better. The non-aggression pact helps Germany to some extent. The next moment is push the other side. "


    Everything "worked out", they pushed further: one major ally, France, was destroyed, the second, England, was weakened.

    Only here Germany did not weaken, giving the unconquered strong USSR an opportunity to act as an arbiter and beneficiary, but it strengthened at times due to the resources of the defeated.

    As a result, the USSR took on itself, alone, the blow of a terrifying force from a united Europe.

    In his short but succinct speech, the head of the USSR speaks from a clearly pro-German position, blaming the outbreak of war on France and Great Britain, which "attacked Germany" and "rejected the peace proposals of both Berlin and Moscow».


    We are talking about the declaration of war on Germany by the Allies AFTER its invasion of Poland.
    Those. not Hitler on September 1 unleashed a war with an attack on Poland, but .... France and Germany, trying to stop the aggressor.

    And through the mouth of his mouthpiece, Molotov, the following was declared:
    "The war against Hitlerism is CRIMINAL"
    1. Krasnodar
      Krasnodar 22 September 2020 09: 03
      +2
      Stalin simply did not expect France to fall so quickly
      1. Olgovich
        Olgovich 22 September 2020 09: 09
        -6
        Quote: Krasnodar
        Stalin simply did not expect France to fall so quickly

        In order not to be mistaken, it was necessary to simply LEARN the lessons of WWI: France would inevitably and quickly disappear without Russia. And so it remained the MAIN recipient of Germany's blows.

        But someone decided to go their own way ...
        1. Krasnodar
          Krasnodar 22 September 2020 09: 19
          +2
          In the First World War, yes, but Stalin counted on the fact that Kaiser and Hitler's Germany were two different countries in terms of military power.
          1. Olgovich
            Olgovich 22 September 2020 09: 45
            -10 qualifying.
            Quote: Krasnodar
            In the First World War, yes, but Stalin counted on the fact that Kaiser and Hitler's Germany were two different countries in terms of military power.

            Different, yes.

            Is France NOT different?

            Another, and even HOW!

            1. Krasnodar
              Krasnodar 22 September 2020 09: 56
              +1
              This is what he did not take into account
            2. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
              Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 22 September 2020 18: 54
              +4
              Quote: Olgovich
              Another, and even HOW!

              So how is it?
              Through the efforts of Pétain and Debeny, military doctrine has evolved into crap. The charter of 1921, if it repeated the charter of 1913 in the part that "first a maneuverable war, then a continuous front and defense", then after the construction of L. Maginot in the edition of the charter of 1936, the maneuver stage of the war practically disappeared. The General Staff turned into a closed body, outside of criticism, outside of innovation, a bank with conservative spiders. And this:
              … Technological progress has not changed the tactical rules established by our predecessors.
              - generally a song!))
              Damn, a new tank manual came out only in 1939, but (!) Was classified - General Deveaux, com. The 3rd TD said that he never received the COPY! Nobody knew how and where to move the tanks and whether to move at all!
              Ironside, after his meeting with Gamelin in October 1939, made a very definite position for himself - the French will not attack, the Germans will smash their heads against the fortifications, and then the French will begin to counterattack and, as our patriots mold on their cars - "To Berlin!"
              Well, and so on.

              What exactly
              Quote: Olgovich
              and HOW!

              Olgych?
          2. Sergey Oreshin
            Sergey Oreshin 22 September 2020 09: 48
            +5
            Well, it would seem obvious that Hitler's Germany was more powerful than the Kaiser's)) Kaiser's generals in the years 14-18. could only dream of such aircraft, tanks, etc., which the Wehrmacht had in 39-40.
            1. Krasnodar
              Krasnodar 22 September 2020 09: 58
              +7
              Guderian wrote that before the invasion of Poland, he could only dream of a German soldier of the 1914 model, and planes, tanks, etc., incl. better quality than the Germans, were both the French and the Brit
              1. Sergey Oreshin
                Sergey Oreshin 22 September 2020 10: 00
                +3
                I agree that the Wehrmacht by the 39th was still unfired and represented a kind of "unknown size".
                1. Krasnodar
                  Krasnodar 22 September 2020 10: 04
                  +3
                  The Polish Company, according to the same Guderian, revealed many of the shortcomings of the Wehrmacht, which became known to the same Stalin.
                  1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
                    Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 22 September 2020 18: 58
                    +1
                    Quote: Krasnodar
                    revealed many shortcomings of the Wehrmacht, which became known to the same Stalin.

                    Well, I suppose, in the same way OKH became aware of the results of the "debriefing" on SFV in April 1940)
                    1. Krasnodar
                      Krasnodar 22 September 2020 19: 00
                      +1
                      Naturally, many historians believe that Hitler decided to go to war with the USSR largely due to the results of this war))
                      1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
                        Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 22 September 2020 19: 07
                        +5
                        After it, it seems, he gave out about the "colossus on clay ..."?
                      2. Krasnodar
                        Krasnodar 22 September 2020 19: 48
                        0
                        Precisely - and thus signed the death warrant for Sete
              2. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
                Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 22 September 2020 11: 29
                +2
                Quote: Sergey Oreshin
                I agree, the Wehrmacht was still unfired by the 39th

                well and
                Quote: Sergey Oreshin
                German soldier sample 1914
                was it fired upon when the empire entered the war?
                It became shelled only in 1918, when training methods appeared, according to which, in fact, soldiers were trained in von Seeckt's "one hundred thousandth Reichswehr" and later.
                1. Sergey Oreshin
                  Sergey Oreshin 22 September 2020 12: 05
                  +3
                  And I agree with you. The last time a fully-fledged German army fought in 1870 against France. Colonial wars against blacks and Chinese don't count
            2. mat-vey
              mat-vey 22 September 2020 13: 38
              0
              Quote: Krasnodar
              and airplanes, tanks, etc., incl. better quality than the Germans, were both the French and the Brit

              But no one had mechanized formations like the Germans ...
              1. Krasnodar
                Krasnodar 22 September 2020 15: 59
                +1
                And compounds and techniques for their use
                1. mat-vey
                  mat-vey 22 September 2020 16: 01
                  +1
                  Quote: Krasnodar
                  And compounds and techniques for their use

                  So this is an inseparable whole ... This provided (despite some adventurism) success ..
                  1. Krasnodar
                    Krasnodar 22 September 2020 16: 04
                    0
                    Well, how ... can you, like the French, spray tanks among the infantry units. You can divide reconnaissance units on armored vehicles and with motorcyclists and transfer to each regiment))
                    1. mat-vey
                      mat-vey 22 September 2020 16: 07
                      +1
                      The Germans had a qualitative transition (yes, the captain is obvious) - they were the first to understand what "motors" mean and allow ...
                    2. Krasnodar
                      Krasnodar 22 September 2020 16: 14
                      +2
                      I read Guderian and Kurt Mayer - a motor + a non-standard approach to the conduct of hostilities + constant preparation of already formed formations for different scenarios of the development of a battle, for crossings, etc.
                    3. mat-vey
                      mat-vey 22 September 2020 16: 17
                      +1
                      And a properly balanced package - everything should be on the "motors" ... The enemy simply does not have time to elementarily gather and reform ..
                  2. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
                    Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 22 September 2020 19: 04
                    0
                    Quote: mat-vey
                    they were the first to understand what "motors" mean and allow ...

                    well, not that the first ... In France there was even a term "tyranny of motors", everyone perfectly understood the technocratic nature of modern war. The moralist du Pic, with his snot, that war is primarily a rivalry between will and morality (a loud reading of his book "Combat Studies" with this crap was arranged in the trenches in the first war) went to the trash can.
                  3. mat-vey
                    mat-vey 22 September 2020 19: 18
                    0
                    Quote: Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
                    well, not that the first ..

                    Only they had tank groups ..
                  4. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
                    Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 22 September 2020 19: 28
                    +1
                    Quote: mat-vey
                    Only they had tank groups ..

                    Well, yes, the French were preparing for the defense, what the hell is TG?) They proceeded from their stupid concept of a "continuous front", they mainly needed PTAs and thick-skinned hippopotamus-like fortresses on tracks with destructive firepower and no mobility or power reserve ... Although no, I shouldn't be talking about a hippopotamus - he's a pretty nimble little belly))
                  5. mat-vey
                    mat-vey 22 September 2020 19: 31
                    +1
                    Quote: Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
                    well, yes, the French were preparing for defense

                    As life has shown, they did not "prepare" for that at all, just because they did not "understand" at all that the war had changed thanks to the "motors" ..
                  6. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
                    Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 22 September 2020 19: 41
                    0
                    quite rightly.
  • Olgovich
    Olgovich 22 September 2020 10: 13
    -4
    Quote: Sergey Oreshin
    Well, it would seem obvious that Hitler's Germany was more powerful than the Kaiser's))

    As if the opposite is obvious:

    Kaiser's Germany was preparing for war during TEN years and without any restrictions.

    The Wehrmacht, only ....4 years , after years of sanctions of everything and everyone ...
  • Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
    Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 22 September 2020 09: 54
    +1
    Comparable, I think) It's a matter of strategy and military doctrine, I guess. Assault und drang instead of blunt trench gatherings. In addition, the USSR did not have any allied obligations to the victims of aggression, so Hitler was not in danger of a war on two fronts, like the Kaiser.
    1. Krasnodar
      Krasnodar 22 September 2020 10: 02
      +4
      Incomparable - Imperial Germany was an economically developed country with an ally in the form of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Germany of Hitler in 1939, even after the capture of Austria and the Czech Republic, has not yet fully recovered from the results of the Versailles Peace
      1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
        Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 22 September 2020 11: 09
        0
        Quote: Krasnodar
        with an ally in the form of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

        by the way - so-so ally) In the conditional rating of the main participating armies (I do not take into account the Belgian one), I would give her a solid last place (sorry for the swing)). The only thing in which it was superior to the RI army was the speed of mobilization and concentration.

        Quote: Krasnodar
        imperial Germany was an economically developed country


        Well, at the heart of German military doctrine was the premise that it was impossible to wage a long war. And already on two fronts ... Germany lost the Schlieffen-Moltke plan already on the Marne in early September.
        1. Krasnodar
          Krasnodar 22 September 2020 11: 34
          +1
          I absolutely agree with everything, however, the Austro-Hungarian troops were a more preferable ally of Kaiser's Germany than Fascist Italy and Japan, which had already directly drawn into the war against the States (due to Hitler's adventurousness and wrong calculation, but still).
          1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
            Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 22 September 2020 12: 00
            +1
            Quote: Krasnodar
            than Fascist Italy

            oh-oh, yes-ah .....))
            Actually, the version that to save the ass of the Duce in Greece, the Fuhrer had to postpone Barbarossa, having lost a month that would be very useful to him in the East, has a right to exist, I think. And the fact that the Fuehrer was fatally unlucky with the allies, I think, is beyond doubt. Is that the Magyars remained faithful to the end (and even then after some coercion with a coup and the abduction of the regent's son)
            1. Krasnodar
              Krasnodar 22 September 2020 12: 03
              -1
              Magyars - yes, they just fought. But at Stalingrad, the breakthrough of the front line along the flanks was carried out by strikes against the Hungarians, Italians and Romanians.
    2. Olgovich
      Olgovich 22 September 2020 10: 16
      -4
      Quote: Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
      In addition, the USSR there were no allied commitments before the victims of aggression, so Hitler was not threatened with a war on two fronts, like the Kaiser.

      There were some more: Franco-Soviet Mutual Assistance Pact - agreement about military assistance between France and the USSR, concluded 2 May 1935 years.

      Didn't want to apply ours, yes, but that's another question
      1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
        Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 22 September 2020 11: 43
        +3
        Quote: Olgovich
        There were also some: the Franco-Soviet Pact of Mutual Assistance - an agreement on military assistance between France and the USSR, concluded on May 2, 1935.

        Olgych, agree that already in 1939, a very eventful year, this contract cost less than the paper on which it was printed. Especially interesting, of course, is the Moscow meeting. Having signed the Pact with the Reich in August, the Soviets immediately rushed to reassure the French and British that the 35 treaty was still in force. Well, then, as they say, it started - German-Polish, Liberation campaign, Winter campaign, etc.
        1. Olgovich
          Olgovich 22 September 2020 12: 13
          -6
          Quote: Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
          Olgych, agree that already in 1939, a very eventful year, this contract cost less than the paper on which it was printed.

          Why so?

          Nobody tore it up: they could use it, but they didn't want to.
          1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
            Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 22 September 2020 12: 26
            +3
            Quote: Olgovich
            could use it, but they didn't want to.

            could not. France herself declared war on Germany, rather than being a victim of aggression. The pact applies only to those cases when one of the contracting parties is "the subject of threats or danger of attack from some European state." Or direct aggression. With the same success, Olgych, one could then demand from France to provide assistance in the Winter War against Finland))
            1. Olgovich
              Olgovich 22 September 2020 12: 50
              -6
              Quote: Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
              France itself declared war on Germany, and was not a victim of aggression.

              Somewhere stipulated the RIGHT of Germany to attack and the OBLIGATION of France to remain silent?
              1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
                Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 22 September 2020 13: 02
                +2
                Quote: Olgovich
                Somewhere stipulated the RIGHT of Germany to attack


                to Poland?
                Quote: Olgovich
                and France's OBLIGATION to remain silent?

                why? She was also associated with Poland by obligations, although under the supervision of Britain (after Locarno)
              2. naidas
                naidas 24 September 2020 22: 33
                +1
                France's obligation to remain silent

                for this you need to know the essence of the 1935 treaty and the continuation in 1939.
                An additional agreement, which was supposed to determine the practical aspects of cooperation of the 1935 treaty, was not concluded at first due to P. Laval's unwillingness (the treaty was ratified only after his retirement). Practical measures to repel aggression were discussed at the 1939 Moscow talks, which did not lead to an agreement.
              3. Nikolai Korovin
                Nikolai Korovin 29 September 2020 23: 40
                +1
                No practical measures were discussed at the Moscow talks. The Anglo-French delegation had no credentials. The standard answer to all the concrete proposals of the Soviet delegation is to ask London (Paris, Warsaw, Bucharest). We cannot compare the level of the heads of delegations - the people's commissar of defense and the semi-staff vice-admiral. The sole purpose of these negotiations on the part of England and France is to delay the time until the clarification of relations between Warsaw and Berlin. The Poles were going there, as it were, led by Marshal Rydz-Smigly, so the desire for a clash was mutual. Apparently, the French were not delighted with this, but on the eve of the crisis, the French ambassador was not allowed into the Polish Foreign Ministry. So who attacked the radio station in Gleiwitz? The Polish point of view prevailed - that these were SS men, dressed in Polish uniforms. However, Dr. Goebbels, and he is, of course, a well-known specialist - for that he is a doctor, was of the opposite opinion. Um, um ...
                Well, Hitler, long before the conclusion of the pact, decided to attack Poland first. It would be absolutely impossible to prepare an invasion in 8 days from the moment of signing the pact. It was the signing of the pact that was the only way to prevent Hitler's complete occupation of the entire territory of Poland, without starting a war with him. In addition, the pact took into account the interests of Poland. The zone of Soviet interests included the territory of central Poland, including Warsaw, bounded by water lines, on which, as it was assumed in the General Staff of the Red Army, the Poles would be able to organize a defense, and in the early days some assistance was provided to the Poles on the sly. No one, however, imagined that the Polish army, more numerous than the Wehrmacht, would actually simply scatter. The fact of the occupation by Hitler of a significant part of the zone of Soviet interests had to be reconciled so as not to aggravate relations. So Hitler broke the pact from the very beginning. The campaign to Western Ukraine and Belarus began only after the flight of the Polish government to Romania (September 17).
          2. hjvtp1966
            hjvtp1966 30 September 2020 19: 45
            0
            It sounds as if Stalin was eager to help the noble French, but as a real gentleman and knight he was, alas, bound by the letter of the treaty.
    3. dzvero
      dzvero 22 September 2020 12: 02
      +4
      Such agreements usually involve assistance in the event of aggression against one of the parties. And since France has declared war on Germany, the treaty is inapplicable (although there may be reservations). And at that time, the USSR had a non-aggression pact with Germany. The situation, however, is that one "partner" attacked another "partner". How to be? Moreover, the first "partner" essentially refused the contract. Here it looks more logical to send Soviet troops to the Western Front in October 39th ... I agree, the logic is paradoxical, but in the dark nooks of the world political backstage the devil himself will break his leg smile
      1. Olgovich
        Olgovich 22 September 2020 12: 21
        -10 qualifying.
        Quote: dzvero
        And since France has declared war on Germany, the treaty is inapplicable (although there may be reservations)

        And what, the agreement stipulates the right of Germany to ATTACK Poland and France's obligation not to react to it?

        The aggression of Germany in 1939 gave the right to apply the treaty
        Quote: dzvero
        The situation, however, is that one "partner" attacked another "partner". How to be?

        choose the RIGHT partner.

        And the choice was ...
        1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
          Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 22 September 2020 12: 50
          +1
          Quote: Olgovich
          choose the RIGHT partner.

          And the choice was ...


          Olgych, I do not want to offend the French, but they are quite cunning and mercantile guys. I hope you know that French Foreign Minister Monsieur Laval, after the signing of the Pact, summoned the German ambassador and expressed himself in the spirit that, they say, we signed a paperwork with the Soviets, but it doesn't mean a damn thing, and France will refuse at any moment from her for the sake of the Franco-German agreement. Moreover, he ordered the French envoy in Berlin to convey this position to Herr Hitler. And after that he went to Moscow.
          1. Olgovich
            Olgovich 22 September 2020 14: 35
            -3
            Quote: Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
            , we here with the Soviets signed a paper, but it doesn’t mean a damn thing, and France will refuse it at any moment in favor of the Franco-German agreement. Moreover, he ordered the French envoy in Berlin to convey this position to Herr Hitler. And after that he went to Moscow.

            Let's not talk about WORDS when there are DOCUMENTS. Moreover, they were not disavowed by anyone.

            And what else could the French say, mortally afraid of Germany?
            1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
              Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 22 September 2020 14: 49
              0
              Quote: Olgovich
              Let's not talk about WORDS

              these are not just words, but a position.
              Quote: Olgovich

              And what else could the French say, mortally afraid of Germany?

              Wonderful. Well, why the hell to get into a war for these capitulators, if they, "mortally afraid", can surrender in a week or conclude a separate peace behind your back, and you are already stuck in a conflict with their the enemy that you made by political dementia their? ("You" I use, of course, without regard to those present, Olgych)
              To paraphrase the famous phrase of Monsieur Dea - "Why die for Alsace?"
            2. Olgovich
              Olgovich 22 September 2020 15: 14
              -6
              Quote: Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
              these are not just words, but a position

              Verbal position: one one, the other, the other. Everything is logical.
              Quote: Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
              Wonderful. Well what the hell to get into into a war for these capitulators, if they, "mortally afraid", can capitulate in a week or conclude a separate peace behind your back, and you are already stuck in a conflict with their enemy, whom you have made your own due to political dementia? ("You" I use, of course, without regard to those present, Olgych)

              Then, the war is inevitable anyway.

              And if it is inevitable, then let them beat France, and so that she does not give up, we will help her.

              They would have hit the rear of the weak Wehrmacht in May 1940, and not in January 1945 and May 45 would have been in 1940

              The position of the USSR was this: WWII is an imperialist war and the USSR has nothing to do with it and does not participate.

              But WHO would it asked?
            3. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
              Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 22 September 2020 15: 21
              +2
              Quote: Olgovich
              Would have hit the rear of the weak Wehrmacht in May 1940

              Well, yes, well, yes .... 100 days before that we could not cope with the shutskor, and the Wehrmacht was definitely in the teeth, yeah.
            4. Olgovich
              Olgovich 22 September 2020 15: 43
              -3
              Quote: Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
              .. 100 days before that we could not cope with the shutskor, and the Wehrmacht was definitely in our teeth, yeah.

              Wehrmacht model 1940 against the combined Armed Forces of the USSR, France and England -nothing.
            5. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
              Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 22 September 2020 15: 59
              +2
              well, not that absolutely "nothing", but two front would not pull, yes)
              By the beginning of WWI, the Entente also outnumbered the Reichswehr and the AVI army by half (there is not even a talk about the fleet), but somehow this did not really help her in the 14-15th to immediately reason with the Kaiser.
            6. Olgovich
              Olgovich 22 September 2020 16: 02
              -2
              Quote: Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
              well, not that absolutely "nothing", but two front would not pull, yes)

              Did not pull
              Quote: Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
              By the beginning of WWI, the Entente also outnumbered the Reichswehr and the AVI army by half (there is not even a talk about the fleet), but somehow this did not really help her in the 14-15th to immediately reason with the Kaiser.

              And in PMV-NOT pulled ...
  • naidas
    naidas 24 September 2020 22: 35
    0
    The agreement did not mean practically anything, the agreement of intent, practical steps were discussed in 1939, but rested on Poland.
  • Sugar Honeyovich
    Sugar Honeyovich 22 September 2020 15: 39
    +2
    Quote: Olgovich
    In order not to be mistaken, you just had to LEARN the lessons of PMV

    And they were taught and guided by them. That's why they were wrong.
    Quote: Olgovich
    France would inevitably and quickly disappear without Russia.

    This does not follow from WW1 experience.
    Quote: Olgovich
    someone decided to go their own way.

    Все.
    1. Olgovich
      Olgovich 22 September 2020 15: 50
      -7
      Quote: Sahar Medovich
      And they were taught and guided by them. That's why they were wrong.

      They did NOT learn, were NOT guided, and went directly in the OPPOSITE way. Therefore, we made a mistake
      Quote: Sahar Medovich
      This does not follow from WW1 experience.

      Russia is at war, there is France. does not fight, no France. Remember, yes.
      Quote: Sahar Medovich
      Все.

      no, only the smartest
      1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
        Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 22 September 2020 16: 19
        0
        Quote: Olgovich
        Russia is at war, there is France. does not fight, no France.


        but somehow in 1917, Russia did not fight very much. And then completely ...
        1. Beringovsky
          Beringovsky 22 September 2020 19: 22
          +3
          Quote: Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
          Quote: Olgovich
          Russia is at war, there is France. does not fight, no France.


          but somehow in 1917, Russia did not fight very much. And then completely ...

          Russia from 14 to 17 years old fought so well. If the forces that opposed Russia were thrown into the Western Front, the Germans would have marched across Paris in the fall of the 14th.
          1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
            Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 22 September 2020 19: 40
            0
            Quote: Beringovsky
            If those forces

            If my grandmother had Matvienko's pension .... I'm talking specifically about 1917. And the 1918th can also be here. Ludendorff called this period 17/18 the most favorable for the empire.
          2. naidas
            naidas 24 September 2020 22: 55
            0
            And if you look at the other side of the front, the Germans did not fight on the eastern front as on the western. In the west, the enemy, but in the east, their German capital (second after the French). Do you intend to fight against your capital a good idea? They traded bread with Germany through Finland. Under pressure from England, the tsarist government in October 1916 banned trade with hostile countries.
      2. Sugar Honeyovich
        Sugar Honeyovich 22 September 2020 18: 18
        +1
        Quote: Olgovich
        They did NOT learn, were NOT guided, and went directly in the OPPOSITE way. Therefore, we made a mistake

        That is why they made a mistake because they went the opposite way. And they went - because they learned. We wanted to be very smart ... in a new way. But this is not about the USSR.
        1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
          Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 22 September 2020 20: 03
          0
          Quote: Sahar Medovich
          But this is not about the USSR.

          and what lessons did the USSR learn from WWI?))
          1. Sugar Honeyovich
            Sugar Honeyovich 23 September 2020 10: 03
            +1
            He tried many times to create a coalition against Germany in order to prevent a new massacre of the 1914-1918 model. But he did not succeed. And therefore - most importantly - he created an industrial base so that in the event of a very likely war he could be strong himself, and not wait for help from someone (for which there is little hope).
            1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
              Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 23 September 2020 11: 56
              0
              Quote: Sahar Medovich
              Tried many times to create a coalition against Germany

              "many times" is how much? In my opinion, the main attempt was Litvinov's proposal forwarded to the British in March 1939 to convene Conference to counter the so-called. "German aggression". And even then after the information about the impending ultimatum of Hitler to Romania. There was something to worry about, of course. And the fact that the result of such a conference would be an anti-German coalition is not a fig not a fact. It was a political probe, nothing more.
              1. Sugar Honeyovich
                Sugar Honeyovich 23 September 2020 15: 30
                +2
                Quote: Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
                in March 1939

                And a year earlier - after the Anschluss of Austria. And also - in April 1939 - an official note. After that, it took 4 months to persuade them to finally start discussing a specific plan. And this discussion continued for two weeks, which ended in nothing. This is at least that much.
                Quote: Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
                It was a political probe, nothing more.

                No, more than a probe. Specific proposal.
                Quote: Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
                that the result of such a conference would be an anti-German coalition is not a fig not a fact.

                This is very plausible. For obvious reasons.
                1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
                  Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 23 September 2020 15: 46
                  +1
                  And a year earlier - after the Anschluss of Austria.


                  what is wrong with Austria? There was a referendum on accession. Is this a reason to collect an interpretation "something needs to be done with Germany!"

                  Quote: Sahar Medovich
                  After that, it took 4 months to persuade them to finally start discussing a specific plan. And this discussion continued for two weeks, which ended in nothing.

                  Well, yes, while the British and French were grimacing, Ribbentrop flew in, signed a pact, as reported to the British and French on August 25. And the next day they flew away from Moscow. The flywheel of history turned a little more.
                2. Sugar Honeyovich
                  Sugar Honeyovich 23 September 2020 16: 48
                  +1
                  Quote: Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
                  Is this a reason to collect an interpretation "something needs to be done with Germany!"

                  Is it really a reason? Is there a reason "to do something with Germany" after the occupation of the Rhineland? And after the build-up of the army in violation of the terms of Versailles? And then Munich turned out to be no reason, right? And in the end Comrade Stalin is to blame fool
                3. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
                  Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 23 September 2020 17: 17
                  +1
                  Do not mold Comrade Stalin into a kind of disinterested peacemaker who cares only about peace in the whole world by any means. He was a tough statesman, from an alliance with an eventual adversary, which was Britain, he wanted benefits for his country, in particular - to participate in deciding the fate of Europe and in redrawing its map - that the Versailles system would somehow spread at the seams, no doubt no one had it. The question is - at what cost and with whose profit. He needed his piece of the pie, but a compromise with the British is a utopia. Those were afraid (and not without reason, by the way) that their gesheft with the Soviets would push all the hesitant and undecided towards Hitler. The British set conditions that were deliberately unacceptable for Stalin - for example, control of Soviet exports. But the Reich gave Stalin guarantees in the section of spheres of interest.
                  Quote: Sahar Medovich
                  Is there a reason "to do something with Germany" after the occupation of the Rhineland?
                  What does the USSR care about the Rhineland?
                4. Sugar Honeyovich
                  Sugar Honeyovich 23 September 2020 18: 22
                  +2
                  And no one molds a peacemaker from him. Moreover, who cares about the world by any means. But to sculpt from him the only culprit or, even more abruptly, the organizer of the war, even more should not be.
                5. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
                  Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 23 September 2020 19: 01
                  +2
                  Quote: Sahar Medovich
                  But to sculpt from him the only culprit or, even more abruptly, the organizer of the war, even more should not be.


                  у world there can be no war the only the culprit. All persons involved and participants are responsible for it. The content and degree of guilt may vary, but, nevertheless, the responsibility is collective. In the chain of interbellum sequences that led to WWII, everyone has a role to play. Concrete, formal, indirect, direct, hidden, but - a role. All these "appointments of the guilty" are the political dementia of opportunists and double standards (which, however, were already demonstrated in Nuremberg)
                6. Sugar Honeyovich
                  Sugar Honeyovich 24 September 2020 03: 39
                  +1
                  It would be nice to explain this to those for whom Hitler was a Stalinist puppet on a string, and the other politicians of the world were naive fools ...
  • Olgovich
    Olgovich 22 September 2020 20: 31
    -8
    Quote: Sahar Medovich
    That is why they made a mistake because they went the opposite way. We wanted to be very smart ... in a new way. But this is not about the USSR.

    And this is about the USSR.

    The result is the worst military catastrophe in the history of 41-42.
    1. Sugar Honeyovich
      Sugar Honeyovich 23 September 2020 10: 05
      -1
      Quote: Olgovich
      it is about the USSR.

      About many, but not about the USSR.
      Quote: Olgovich
      the worst military disasters in the history of 41-42.

      Our trouble, but not our fault. The fault is not ours.
      1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
        Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 23 September 2020 15: 33
        0
        Quote: Sahar Medovich
        Our trouble, but not our fault. The fault is not ours.


        and whose, I wonder? Is the Pope to blame for the cauldrons of the 41st?
        1. Sugar Honeyovich
          Sugar Honeyovich 23 September 2020 16: 45
          0
          Those who did not agree to our proposals for an alliance. Before the war.
  • Kwas
    Kwas 22 September 2020 18: 56
    +2
    Quote: Olgovich

    In his short but succinct speech, the head of the USSR speaks from an unequivocally pro-German position, blaming France and Great Britain for the outbreak of the war, which "attacked Germany" and "rejected the peace proposals of both Berlin and Moscow."

    We are talking about the declaration of war on Germany by the Allies AFTER its invasion of Poland.
    Those. not Hitler on September 1 unleashed a war with an attack on Poland, but .... France and Germany, trying to stop the aggressor.

    What's wrong? Germany on September 1, 1939 began a local war with Poland, which was clearly not right, oppressing Danzig and the Germans in the territories captured after Versailles. And England and France on September 3 and 4 turned the local conflict into a pan-European (later world) war.
    1. Olgovich
      Olgovich 22 September 2020 21: 02
      -7
      Quote: Kwas
      What's wrong? Germany on September 1, 1939 began a local war with Poland,

      It was GERMANY that started the absolutely unfair predatory war.

      And it is absolutely natural and LEGAL that France and England took the side of the victim, on the basis of agreements with Poland. About which Hitler knew perfectly well, i.e. attacking Poland, he automatically unleashed a war with France and England absolutely deliberately..

      Do not forget that on September 1 and 2, the allies AGAIN tried to reach an agreement with Hitler in the world, but he did not give a damn about everything.
      Quote: Kwas
      oppression of Danzig and the Germans in the territories captured after Versailles

      What does "captured" mean, what is the matter with you? These territories LOSER Genrmania gave away according to the Versailles agreement signed by it - everything is legal.
      And yes, for the oppression of dozens-kill..tens of thousands?!
      Quote: Kwas
      And England and France on September 3 and 4 turned the local conflict into a pan-European (later world) war.

      Hitler turned-see above.
      1. DrEng527
        DrEng527 23 September 2020 18: 32
        +1
        Quote: Olgovich
        absolutely unjust, aggressive war.

        controversial ... he only wanted the Germanic lands taken away by Versailles ... request
        1. Olgovich
          Olgovich 23 September 2020 21: 37
          +1
          Quote: DrEng527
          controversial ... he only wanted Germanic lands taken away by Versailles ...

          Therefore he half Poland just did Germany?
          1. DrEng527
            DrEng527 25 September 2020 14: 03
            -1
            Quote: Olgovich
            So he just made half of Poland Germany?

            this is already the result of the war ... request Before the war, the claims were more modest ... it's like the IVS with Finland ... request
            1. Olgovich
              Olgovich 26 September 2020 07: 33
              +2
              Quote: DrEng527
              this is already the result of the war ... BEFORE the war, the claims were more modest

              BEFORE the war, he requested a corridor to Prussia, not Versailles losses.

              But he wanted half of Poland, taking, in the end, all
              1. DrEng527
                DrEng527 26 September 2020 13: 30
                0
                Quote: Olgovich
                BEFORE the war, he requested a corridor to Prussia, not Versailles losses.

                what am I talking about? Just like the IVS with Finland - before the war, he wanted to move the border a little and even promised compensation ... request
                Quote: Olgovich
                But he wanted half of Poland, taking, in the end, all

                What did you mean? In 39g, the USSR took 50% during the Liberation campaign. bully
                1. Olgovich
                  Olgovich 27 September 2020 08: 25
                  +2
                  Quote: DrEng527
                  what am I talking about? Just like the IVS with Finland - before the war he wanted to move the border a little and even promised compensation.

                  The USSR really wanted to move the border, and Hitler wanted ALL of Poland, the corridor was just an excuse, like the Sudetenland, to take the whole Czech Republic
                  Quote: DrEng527
                  What did you mean? In 39g, the USSR took 50% during the Liberation campaign.

                  What ..... 50%? belay

                  And this is not Poland: see Curzon Line - internationally approved border of 1919
                  1. DrEng527
                    DrEng527 28 September 2020 11: 52
                    0
                    Quote: Olgovich
                    The USSR really wanted to move the border, and Hitler wanted ALL of Poland, the corridor was just an excuse, like the Sudetenland, to take the whole Czech Republic

                    you have 2 standards, no more ...
                    Quote: Olgovich
                    And this is not Poland: see Curzon Line - internationally approved border of 1919

                    and again you write strange - the border between Poland and the USSR is the result of negotiations after the war of 20g. and practically corresponds to the border of 1793, and the Curzon line is just wishes from afar, which the Central Committee of the RCP (b) rejected ... hi
                    1. Olgovich
                      Olgovich 28 September 2020 11: 56
                      +2
                      Quote: DrEng527
                      you have 2 standards, no more ...

                      These are the FACTS from the documents: see Hitler's PLANS back in April 1939
                      Quote: DrEng527
                      and again you write strange - the border between Poland and the USSR is the result of negotiations after the war of 20g. and practically corresponds to the border of 1793, and the Curzon line is simply wishes from afar, which the Central Committee of the RCP (b) rejected.

                      The Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks represented by the General Secretary was precisely this line, as INTERNATIONAL RECOGNIZED, and justified the borders of Poland in the east in 1943 in Tehran
                    2. DrEng527
                      DrEng527 28 September 2020 12: 20
                      0
                      Quote: Olgovich
                      These are the FACTS from the documents: see Hitler's PLANS back in April 1939

                      The conversation was about the Polish corridor - no more than the USSR wanted to move the border a little bit of Leningrad ... and after the war everything changed and rightly - the balance of forces changed ... By the way - to remind how the government of Finland was created in the USSR? bully
                      Quote: Olgovich
                      The Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks represented by the General Secretary was precisely this line, as INTERNATIONAL RECOGNIZED, and justified the borders of Poland in the east in 1943 in Tehran

                      1) should 1918 and 1943 be confused?
                      2) The border is recognized based on POWER!
                    3. Olgovich
                      Olgovich 28 September 2020 12: 51
                      +1
                      Quote: DrEng527
                      The conversation was about the Polish corridor - no more

                      Yeah, plan WEISS April 1939 - Help you.

                      What is the "corridor"? belay
                      Quote: DrEng527
                      By the way - to remind how the government of Finland was created in the USSR?

                      NOT in the USSR, but on the territory of Finland and AFTER the start of the war and the failure of long negotiations.

                      The WEISS plan, in APRIL 1939, provided for the complete capture of Poland.
                      Quote: DrEng527
                      ) should be confused 1918 and 1943?


                      1919 year. Stalin RECOGNIZED the Curzon Line and called it INTERNATIONAL.

                      Everything is clear, everything is logical.
                    4. DrEng527
                      DrEng527 28 September 2020 13: 00
                      0
                      Quote: Olgovich
                      Yeah, plan WEISS April 1939 - Help you.

                      Quote: Olgovich
                      and the failure of long negotiations.

                      Hitler negotiated with 38g about the corridor ... I don't see the difference ...
                      Quote: Olgovich
                      NOT in the USSR, but in Finland and

                      and the Karelo-Finnish USSR? wink
                      Quote: Olgovich
                      Stalin RECOGNIZED

                      and who is the IVS in 1919? If the Central Committee is against?
                    5. Olgovich
                      Olgovich 28 September 2020 13: 10
                      +1
                      Quote: DrEng527
                      Hitler negotiated with 38g about the corridor ... I don't see the difference ..

                      But, as you can see, I did NOT want a corridor
                      Quote: DrEng527
                      and the Karelo-Finnish USSR?

                      Dumb notion, criminal, but again not 1939
                      Quote: DrEng527
                      and who is the IVS in 1919? If the Central Committee is against?

                      there is no talk of 1919 recognition, he said this in 1943.

                      BUT-as a matter of course for a long time
                    6. DrEng527
                      DrEng527 29 September 2020 18: 23
                      0
                      Quote: Olgovich
                      wanted NOT a corridor

                      I'm happy for you - you know what he wanted bully
                      Quote: Olgovich
                      Dumb notion, criminal, but again not 1939

                      yes, 1940, possibly a criminal one (but what is better than the Kazakh SSR?) but then there are 2 questions at once:
                      1) About preparation for the 2nd war ...
                      2) About who started the war between the USSR and Finland in 41 ... request
                      Quote: Olgovich
                      he stated this in 1943.

                      Let me remind you of the banality - 1918 was earlier and this policy led to the Peace of Riga and the border of 1793 ... so the opinion of the IVS in 1943 is just a continuation / legitimization of the partition of Poland in 1939 request
                      Quote: Olgovich
                      BUT-as a matter of course for a long time

                      and this is for Tukhachevsky and the IVS - they lost the campaign in 1920 wink
                    7. Olgovich
                      Olgovich 30 September 2020 08: 34
                      0
                      Quote: DrEng527
                      I'm happy for you - you know what he wanted

                      Didn't get it? PLAN WEISS - once again to help - and you will finally find out what he wanted.
                      Quote: DrEng527
                      yes, 1940, possibly criminal (but what is better than the Kazakh SSR?)

                      Nothing better - just as criminal
                      Quote: DrEng527
                      About preparing for the second war ...
                      2) About who in 41 started the war between the USSR and Finland.

                      Finland.
                      Quote: DrEng527
                      Riga Peace

                      In the opu Riga "agreement" - there was an agreement on October 24 1795 g
                      Quote: DrEng527
                      so the opinion of the IVS in 1943 is just a continuation / legalization of the partition of Poland in 1939

                      The Volstochnaya border of Poland, if you have already crossed over to it, is the decision of ALL COUNTRIES-WINNERS of WWII, and this is the basis of international law and sow the day, whether you like it or not. And yes, it was secured by the Agreement between Poland and the USSR. and is not disputed by her
                      Quote: DrEng527
                      BUT-as a matter of course for a long time

                      and this is at Tukhachevsky and the IVS - they lost the campaign in 1920

                      This is to the Curzon line, legalized by the countries that won the WWI.
                    8. DrEng527
                      DrEng527 30 September 2020 15: 31
                      0
                      Quote: Olgovich
                      Finland.

                      Seriously? and who first bombed them?
                      Quote: Olgovich
                      In the opu Riga "agreement" - there was an agreement on October 24, 1795

                      other countries concluded it, and the RSFSR refused all the RI treaties ... request
                      Quote: Olgovich
                      and is not disputed by her

                      you are wrong - see the latest events in Belarus
                      Quote: Olgovich
                      This is to the Curzon line, legalized by the countries that won the WWI.

                      let's go in a circle ... let's just say - does England's opinion about the borders of Russia matter to you? bully
                      Quote: Olgovich
                      Didn't get it? PLAN WEISS - once again to help - and you will finally find out what he wanted.

                      you don’t want to hear - there were MANY plans, it’s important that we rolled out the negotiations at the beginning ...
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Beringovsky
    Beringovsky 22 September 2020 19: 05
    +1
    Quote: Olgovich
    In a conversation with the General Secretary of the Executive Committee of the Comintern, Georgy Dimitrov, on September 7, 1939, Stalin announced about WWII and his strategy:

    “The war is between two groups of capitalist countries. We are not averse to fighting them well and weakening each other. It’s not bad if the position of the richest capitalist countries (especially England) was shaken by the hands of Germany. Hitler, without realizing it and not wanting it, undermines, undermines the capitalist system

    We can maneuver, push one side against the other to get better. The non-aggression pact helps Germany to some extent. The next moment is push the other side. "


    This is how Stalin took it, and he told about all his secret plans comrade. Dimitrov?
    And suddenly he would have blabbed how ashamed it would have been to Comrade Stalin in front of Comrade Hitler. In words, friend, and here it is ... Confusion, mipardon ... crying
    Well, sorry, it smells like another fake.
    1. Olgovich
      Olgovich 22 September 2020 21: 22
      -8
      Quote: Beringovsky
      This is how Stalin took it, and he told about all his secret plans comrade. Dimitrov?
      And suddenly he would have blabbed how ashamed it would have been to Comrade Stalin in front of Comrade Hitler. In words, friend, and here it is ... Confusion, mipardon ...
      Well, sorry, it smells like another fake.

      NOBODY, except you, did not dispute this FACT.

      Personal diaries Dmitrova (secretary of the Ispocom of the Comintern) published in Bulgaria in 1997 and his meeting with Stalin on September 2, 1939, they are described in detail.
  • Avior
    Avior 22 September 2020 06: 31
    +1
    The undoubted fact is the pro-German position of the USSR during this period, which boiled down to the fact that Britain and France attacked Germany and are waging an aggressive war against it, which must be stopped, and the author is right about that.
    This is known both from the statements of Stalin himself, and from Molotov's public speeches, including at the congress. And these were not only words.
    For example, the Communist Party of the United States, which was under Soviet control, at that moment strongly opposed the entry of the United States into the war against Germany; other communist parties were disoriented.
    It is known from Putin's article that the USSR did not have any plans to attack Germany, which, in my opinion, may indicate that the war with Germany in the USSR was not expected, no matter what is now said in his memoirs, otherwise there is no even just plans there is no explanation for the attacks.
    Taking into account the fact that weapons were built in large numbers, the conclusion is, of course, unexpected, but it is rather difficult to make another, except for the concept of a world armed to the teeth with Germany, so that temptations would not be violated, taking into account the known facts.
    1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
      Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 22 September 2020 08: 58
      0
      Quote: Avior
      This is known both from the statements of Stalin himself, and from Molotov's public speeches, including at the congress.

      at what convention?
      1. Avior
        Avior 22 September 2020 09: 09
        +3
        ... Report of the Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR and People's Commissar for Foreign Affairs, comrade VM Molotov on the foreign policy of the Government. October 31, 1939

        Government Foreign Policy Report
        (at the Extraordinary Fifth Session of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR)

        31 1939 October, the

        http://www.doc20vek.ru/node/1397
        For Perhaps, I used the word congress not entirely incorrectly, I apologize
        1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
          Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 22 September 2020 09: 28
          +3
          And, that's what you mean by "congress", of course.
          In principle, in his speech already at the 18th Congress in March 1939 (just in those days when the Reich was chewing on the "Versailles misunderstanding" of the Czechoslovak Republic), Comrade Stalin outlined the vague outlines of his forthcoming priorities in foreign policy - rapprochement with Germany, complete control of their outskirts and so on. Although, however, in March, in connection with the situation around the Chechen Republic, the German Foreign Ministry was not up to Stalin's speech (only Schulenburg fussed with conclusions from it), but, nevertheless, in August, when the Pact was signed, Ribbentrop quoted it, presenting it as an invitation to negotiations ... Nevertheless, the Germans (and the Italians, by the way) closely followed the intonation nuances of Stalin (for example, the report of the military attaché Köstring Tippelskirch on March 13).
    2. Olgovich
      Olgovich 22 September 2020 09: 34
      -9
      Quote: Avior
      For example, the Communist Party of the United States, which was under Soviet control, at that moment strongly opposed the entry of the United States into the war against Germany; other communist parties were disoriented.

      These are all little things, you read WHAT she was doing french The Communist Party DURING the war with Germany in 1939-40:

      French commlists 1939-40:
      "French soldiers, German workers are not your enemies. Brother, brother! "
      . "German soldiers are your brothers negotiate with them. Your enemy is big capital, the trusts of France, England, America! " -
      . "Enemy is on the wrong side of the Siegfried Line, but inside our country».


      What painfully familiar calls: the country and the time, it is true, are different, but the party and the words are the same.

      And this is generally beyond the bounds of reason, and elementary decency, and just CONSCIENCE: "Humanite" from July 4 1940 (France is already defeated and humiliated as never before :):
      “French workers and German soldiers. Gratifying see that in this difficult time many Parisians have friendly conversations with German soldiers on the street or in a bistro,

      Bravo, comrades, go on even if this is not to the liking of some stupid and malicious bourgeoisie. "


      There are no words .....
      1. Sergey Oreshin
        Sergey Oreshin 22 September 2020 09: 58
        +1
        As for me, the position of the French Communist Party was sound at that time. Take, for example, some French laborer Serge, who has worked at a factory for years in a row, receives a small salary, lives with his family in a cramped room on a dirty Parisian outskirts. Saves every franc, the family lives very modestly.
        Meanwhile, the French bourgeois swim in luxury, buy themselves villas and yachts, luxurious dresses for their wives and mistresses, send their sons to elite private schools, hang out in Nice, burn their lives in Monte Carlo ...
        And in September 39, our worker Serge was drafted into the army and sent to the western border. And they say to him: "Your enemy is the German Hans, you must kill him!" And the German Hans is the same hard worker. And what does Serge share with Hans? Serge sits in the trench autumn, winter, spring. And there are no bourgeoisies next to him. And their sons are not there either. They sit in their warm mansions and villas in the rear, sip wine and say "patriotic toasts": "Come on, Serge, sit firmly in the trench, protect us from Hans!"

        Well, what was the point of Serge and other French laborers fighting and dying for Monsieur Daladier, Reynaud and other plutocrats?
        1. Olgovich
          Olgovich 22 September 2020 10: 20
          -9
          Quote: Sergey Oreshin
          As for me, the position of the French Communist Party was sound at that time. Take, for example, some French laborer Serge, who has worked at a factory for years in a row, receives a small salary, lives with his family in a cramped room on a dirty Parisian outskirts. Saves every franc, the family lives very modestly.
          Meanwhile, the French bourgeois swim in luxury, buy themselves villas and yachts, luxurious dresses for their wives and mistresses, send their sons to elite private schools, hang out in Nice, burn their lives in Monte Carlo ...
          And in September 39, our worker Serge was drafted into the army and sent to the western border. And they say to him: "Your enemy is the German Hans, you must kill him!" And the German Hans is the same hard worker. And what does Serge share with Hans? Serge sits in the trench autumn, winter, spring. And there are no bourgeoisies next to him. And their sons are not there either. They sit in their warm mansions and villas in the rear, sip wine and say "patriotic toasts": "Come on, Serge, sit firmly in the trench, protect us from Hans!"

          Well, what was the point of Serge and other French laborers fighting and dying for Monsieur Daladier, Reynaud and other plutocrats?


          1. Yes, yes: WHAT was Ivan and Jean to share in 1812?

          Etc.

          And yes, after June 22, 1941 Serge sharply became WHAT TO SHARE with Hans. Forgot?

          2. The war was not with the Hans, but with the worst misanthropic regime in human history
        2. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
          Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 22 September 2020 13: 16
          +3
          Quote: Sergey Oreshin
          And in September 39, our worker Serge was drafted into the army and sent to the western border.

          to the east.
          Pourquoi mourir pour Dantzig? - Why die for Danzig?

        3. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
          Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 22 September 2020 13: 18
          +1
          Quote: Sergey Oreshin
          As for me, the position of the French Communist Party was sound at that time.


          this one

          Quote: Olgovich
          "Humanite" from 4 July 1940 year (France is already defeated and humiliated as never before :):

          time period?
          To call surrender a "sound attitude" is, you know ....
      2. Avior
        Avior 22 September 2020 13: 51
        0
        It looked especially cynical against the background of the defeat of the German Communist Party by the Nazis.
        Almost all the communist movement in Europe and the States at that time was controlled by the USSR in one way or another.
        1. Olgovich
          Olgovich 22 September 2020 15: 37
          -4
          Quote: Avior
          It looked especially cynical against the backdrop of the rout by the fascists Communist Party of Germany.

          and 150 German communists were shot in the USSR, and another 500 German communists who fled from Hitler were extradited from the USSR to death -in the Gestapo.

          Almost all of them were destroyed, only a few survived, one of them is Margareta Neumann, who wrote a book about how she was extradited from the Stalinist camp to the Nazi RAVENSBRYUK, where she stayed FIVE! years old....

          wild things ...
      3. naidas
        naidas 24 September 2020 23: 22
        -1
        it is weak to bring the commlist itself, you have a test like from garbage sites, there are also only speculations.
        Here's what's on the wiki:
        after the Comintern's call on the French communists to declare war on the "imperialist" party, the party changed its stance (commitment to national defense against Nazi invasion) and members of parliament from the PCF signed a letter calling for peace. In response, the Daladier government outlawed the PCF on September 26, 1939. The party leadership went underground and fled to Belgium. FKP leader Maurice Thorez evaded conscription and fled to the USSR. Arrests of many FKP activists began, first by the French government and then by the German occupiers. On July 10, 1940, after the German occupation of France, the Communist Party (operating underground) published a manifesto in the newspaper "L'Humanite", which called on the French people to create a united front for the struggle for freedom, national independence and the rebirth of France. One of the first major demonstrations by the communists against the occupying forces was a demonstration of thousands of students and workers in Paris on November 11, 1940.

        At the end of 1940, on the basis of the existing battle groups, the "Special Organization" ("L'Organisation spéciale") was created, which included communists with military training and combat experience (who participated in the war in Spain, served in the French army). In December 1940, in the north of France, in the zone of German occupation, partisans blew up a power plant and derailed a German train [7].

        On April 26, 1941, the PCF was invited to the National Front for the Independence of France by Charles de Gaulle.

        On May 15, 1941, the PCF issued a statement that in the name of the formation of a broad anti-fascist front, the party was ready to support any organization and any government that would wage an effective struggle against the occupiers [7].

        In May 1941, the PCF participated in organizing a strike of more than 100 miners in the departments of Nord and Pas-de-Calais.
        1. Olgovich
          Olgovich 25 September 2020 09: 42
          +2
          Quote: naidas
          it is weak to bring the commlist itself, you have a test like from garbage sites, there are also only speculations.

          Garbage comments that are NOT able to refute the given FACTS
          Quote: naidas
          after the Comintern's call on the French communists to declare war on the "imperialist" party, the party changed its stance (commitment to national defense against Nazi invasion) and members of parliament from the PCF signed a letter calling for peace. In response, the Daladier government outlawed the PCF on September 26, 1939. The party leadership went underground and fled to Belgium. FKP leader Maurice Torez dodged conscription and fled

          The Party of TRAITORS, as it was rightly called for its pro-Hitler position and rightly so


          Humanite "of July 4, 1940 (France is already defeated and humiliated as never before :):
          «French workers and German soldiers. It is gratifying to see that during this difficult time many Parisians have friendly conversations with German soldiers on street or bistro,

          Bravo, comrades, go on even if this is not to the liking of some stupid and malicious bourgeoisie. "
          1. naidas
            naidas 26 September 2020 14: 23
            0
            you were given quotes from the wiki, your facts from past comments also cannot be refuted:
            -not about the invisible hat for Dzerzhinsky, to shoot the Russians-the link to the archive does not exist, only inventions. The Polish wiki called the author of this invention the author of a fantasy book about the Bolsheviks.
            -not about the executions of officers by the Bolsheviks in Sevastopol in 1917, there are also articles, no documents.
            - about the atrocities of Sayenko (Kharkov Cheka), there are articles where they refer to Irina Knoring, but she has nothing about the atrocities described by you. In terms of numbers, the whites published about the burial of 300 people and fell silent, from where your thousands with reference to documents that do not exist, kind. army, it is not clear
            - the brutal murder of 40 Moldovans, I also do not know the country that for smuggling and armed resistance forbade border guards to use weapons to kill.
            -about the texts of primary sources, where you pull out quotations distorting the meaning, you were caught replacing words in quotations.
            It looks like we have accumulated cliches and let's quote them in a circle.
            1. Olgovich
              Olgovich 27 September 2020 08: 32
              +2
              Quote: naidas
              you were given quotes from the wiki, your facts from past comments also cannot be refuted:

              It looks like we have accumulated cliches and let's quote them in a circle.

              Don't give a damn about the wiki.

              Are given eyewitness accounts, documents of contemporary events, primary sources.

              I don't care if anyone accepts them or not: they existAs MILLIONS of other accusatory documents regarding nonhuman actions
              1. naidas
                naidas 27 September 2020 08: 48
                0
                Well, here your eyewitnesses got burned at the beginning of the year on an invisible hat:
                [quote] Olgovich (Andrey)
                20 March 2020 07: 55

                Precisely, a "hare", and therefore dreamed in his youth "to have a cap of invisibility, so that with its help to exterminate as many Muscovites as possible." [/ quote]

                [/ quote] Olgovich (Andrey)
                21 March 2020 11: 47

                Quote: A vile skeptic
                How did you determine that this is true? Because you so wanted?

                Because it was so [/ quote]

                [/ quote] Olgovich (Andrey)
                21 March 2020 10: 29


                Quote: naidas
                Again, we have gathered from the garbage cans, these Orthodox sources of yours refer to the "Diary of a Prisoner. Letters."

                Maybe they themselves indicate the source of their delirium from Dzerzhinsky?

                I understand that you like to rummage through the trash heaps, but I do not approve, because it "smells", fi negative ...

                There are primary sources:
                “As a boy, I dreamed of an invisible hat and the destruction of all Muscovites. When I was in the gymnasium until the 6th grade, I was very religious, even going to enter the Roman Catholic Theological Seminary. My mother and one priest dissuaded me from this. Because of my religious practice, I even had quarrels with my older brother. When I was in 4th grade, I made them pray to God. When, already a student, the elder brother came for the holidays and asked me how I imagine my God? I answered him: "God is in the heart." And he said: “If I ever come to the conclusion that there is no God, I will shoot myself in the forehead. However, this did not happen. When I was in the 6th grade of the gymnasium, there was a turning point - in 1894. Then I spent a whole year running around with the fact that there is no God, and ardently proved it to everyone. "
                RGASPI.F.7.0P.4.D.2.L.2.

                Got it, not? [/ Quote]


                [/ quote] Vile skeptic (Timur)
                21 March 2020 11: 41


                It seems to me that you sat down in a puddle again and confirmed that you draw information from Internet dumps)))
                This is what you indicated
                RGASPI.F.7.0P.4.D.2.L.2.

                contains documents about the life and activities of the members of the Paris Commune Longuet [/ quote]

                These are your eyewitnesses with nonexistent links to archives.
                1. Olgovich
                  Olgovich 27 September 2020 08: 50
                  +2
                  [quote = naidas] Well, your eyewitnesses got burned at the beginning of the year on an invisible hat:
                  [quote] Olgovich (Andrey)
                  20 March 2020 07: 55

                  Precisely, a "hare", and therefore dreamed in his youth "to have a cap of invisibility, so that with its help to exterminate as many Muscovites as possible." [/ quote]

                  [/ quote] Olgovich (Andrey)
                  21 March 2020 11: 47

                  Quote: A vile skeptic
                  How did you determine that this is true? Because you so wanted?

                  Because it was so [/ quote]

                  [/ quote] Olgovich (Andrey)
                  21 March 2020 10: 29


                  Quote: naidas
                  Again, we have gathered from the garbage cans, these Orthodox sources of yours refer to the "Diary of a Prisoner. Letters."

                  Maybe they themselves indicate the source of their delirium from Dzerzhinsky?

                  I understand that you like to rummage through the trash heaps, but I do not approve, because it "smells", fi negative ...

                  There are primary sources:
                  “As a boy, I dreamed of an invisible hat and the destruction of all Muscovites. When I was in the gymnasium until the 6th grade, I was very religious, even going to enter the Roman Catholic Theological Seminary. My mother and one priest dissuaded me from this. Because of my religious practice, I even had quarrels with my older brother. When I was in 4th grade, I made them pray to God. When, already a student, the elder brother came for the holidays and asked me how I imagine my God? I answered him: "God is in the heart." And he said: “If I ever come to the conclusion that there is no God, I will shoot myself in the forehead. However, this did not happen. When I was in the 6th grade of the gymnasium, there was a turning point - in 1894. Then I spent a whole year running around with the fact that there is no God, and ardently proved it to everyone. "
                  RGASPI.F.7.0P.4.D.2.L.2.

                  Got it, not? [/ Quote]


                  [/ quote] Vile skeptic (Timur)
                  21 March 2020 11: 41


                  It seems to me that you sat down in a puddle again and confirmed that you draw information from Internet dumps)))
                  This is what you indicated
                  RGASPI.F.7.0P.4.D.2.L.2.

                  contains documents about the life and activities of the members of the Paris Commune Longuet [/ quote]

                  These are your eyewitnesses with non-existent links to archives. [/ Quote]
                  What kind of nonsense do you have?
    3. Kwas
      Kwas 22 September 2020 19: 02
      +2
      Quote: Avior
      It is known from Putin's article that the USSR did not have any plans to attack Germany, which, in my opinion, may indicate that the war with Germany in the USSR was not expected, no matter what is now said in his memoirs, otherwise there is no even just plans there is no explanation for the attacks.

      Is Putin a historian? He is a politician who says what he thinks is beneficial. And the plan for the start of the war, providing for offensive actions, was unequivocally, in my opinion, everyone recognizes. But this is not yet a sign of aggressiveness, but a consequence of military strategy.
      1. Avior
        Avior 22 September 2020 19: 09
        -2
        This is in your opinion, but in reality, no one has ever seen such a plan.
        Putin only confirmed what was known before him.
        1. Kwas
          Kwas 22 September 2020 19: 31
          +2
          Well, for example, Zhukov, in his "Memories and Reflections", talks about him in connection with the pre-war maneuvers. And he does not at all hide the fact that they are offensive in nature, and do not be ashamed, because it is normal for a great power to advance. Before WWI, for example, EVERYONE had offensive plans, even the Romanians.
  • cost
    cost 22 September 2020 06: 32
    -1
    I will not engage in citing this fake here, I will only limit myself to a statement of the fact: the fact that this is a fake has been established a long time ago and absolutely precisely. To begin with, no meetings of the Politburo of the Central Committee were held and could not be held that day, as evidenced by at least such serious documents as journals that recorded the movements of Soviet leaders in the Kremlin and their meetings

    For a long time it was believed that the meeting of the Politburo was not held on August 19, 1939. However, in the early 1990s, D. Volkogonov found a document showing that there was a certain Politburo decision of August 19, 1939. The document found by Volkogonov contained a decision only on a temporary refusal to mobilize railway workers in a number of regions of the Far East
    This, however, does not mean that there was a meeting on that day - many decisions of the Politburo were prepared by the Secretariat and were adopted by questioning its members, without holding a meeting.
    1. cost
      cost 22 September 2020 06: 32
      0
      no meetings of the Politburo of the Central Committee were held that day and could not be held, as evidenced by at least such serious documents as magazines recording the movements of Soviet leaders in the Kremlin and their meetings


      When asked whether or not there was a Politburo meeting, researchers also use the journal of visits to Stalin's office. According to this magazine, on August 19, 1939, Stalin was visited by:
      Molotov - call time is 13:40, exit time is 13:55.
      Mikoyan - call time is 13:40, exit time is 13:55.
      Gorkin - call time 17:15, exit time - 17:20.
      Molotov - call time is 17:35, exit time is 20:25.
      Shkvartsev - call time 18:30, exit time - 19:40.
      1. cost
        cost 22 September 2020 06: 48
        0
        I will only confine myself to stating the fact: the fact that this is a fake was established a long time ago and is absolutely certain

        But if I were the Author, I wouldn't write something like that. By whom and when was this "absolutely certain" established? Share the information Mr. Kharaluzhny, since you issue such bold statements.
        To date, only one thing can be absolutely certain - reliable sources clearly indicating the existence of Stalin's speech, the transcript of which was circulated by the "Havas" agency, have not yet been found... However, such sources cannot be purely theoretically - the most important issues of state policy at the Politburo meetings were not strictly stenographed - such an order was introduced by Stalin himself. The only written evidence of such meetings is the short notes of Stalin's secretary Poskrebyshev or the personal notes of the participants, sometimes from memory
        1. cost
          cost 22 September 2020 06: 59
          +4
          An interesting story is the "speech of Stalin", found by TS Bushueva in the Center for the Preservation of Historical and Documentary Collections, the former Special Archive of the USSR, f. 7, op. 1, d. 1223. In 1994-2004
          But obvious absurdities came into my eyes: for some reason the speech was in French (T. Bushueva put forward a version that it was a recording of an unknown French Comintern member)
          S. Sluch writes that "Stalin's speech" was kept in the Special Archives of the USSR, but in a trophy fund. She was found in the fund of the 2nd Bureau of the General Staff of France, the "speech" lay in a file containing materials from 1918 to 1940 about various aspects of the FKP's activities, its connections with the Communist Party of Germany, as well as police measures to combat with the communist movement.
          Some of the researchers question the discovery of T. Bushueva, some the other way around
          This "speech of Stalin", "open" by T. Bushueva and supported by V. Doroshenko and I. Pavlova, finally confused all both domestic and foreign historians, but Kharluzhny in this matter is "absolutely certain"
          1. Andrey VOV
            Andrey VOV 22 September 2020 11: 21
            +2
            Yes, Volkogonov is still that source ...
        2. kalibr
          kalibr 22 September 2020 07: 05
          -2
          In my opinion, the article would not hurt, at least to the same memoirs, not to mention serious research. But what is not, that is not ... However, the majority and this is enough, and if so, there is nothing to regret!
          1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
            Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 22 September 2020 08: 52
            -2
            Why do you get disadvantages? You are absolutely right - no documentary links to the works of Comrade. They look like the empty chatter of a graduate of agitator courses at the Uryupinsk Soviet Communist Party School. It is especially impressive how he, in righteous exaltation, denounces Western "fakes", but he unconditionally believes in some notes on the general's cuffs about the meeting, the transcript of which was not kept. Anyway, I doubt that something sensible and readable can come out of his pen. He confidently occupied a niche in the genre of subjectivist verbiage smoking incense on VO) hi
            1. kalibr
              kalibr 22 September 2020 09: 08
              -10 qualifying.
              Quote: Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
              Why do you get disadvantages?

              For being me. Instead of sweet lies, I speak the bitter truth!
          2. Andrey VOV
            Andrey VOV 22 September 2020 11: 23
            +4
            Vyacheslav, well, don't you really understand that it is a waste of time to demand from Kharluzhny articles, materials with in-depth analysis, citing sources, archival documents, links, and so on ... unfortunately, such material is becoming more and more, and sadly, but apparently after a while the site will completely collapse
            1. kalibr
              kalibr 22 September 2020 11: 38
              -3
              Andrei! Understand, I understand, but ... as always, I would like some steps, so to speak, to perfection. We are all in development. Several, not gigantic. They are not difficult in principle. But they ... give weight to the material.
              1. Andrey VOV
                Andrey VOV 22 September 2020 11: 45
                +1
                yes, then it is clear, the question is what the author wanted with this material .. to cut a penny without really straining or to convey to the readers new interesting facts, referring, as already mentioned above, to sources, etc. ... that is, to earn money, BUT after working. ..)) there is a difference ... so it seems to me that the author is going along the first, easy way .. to cut down the easy way ..
                1. kalibr
                  kalibr 22 September 2020 13: 13
                  -2
                  By the way, look at the listening postures. Oh, and they got tired of them ... Supported the riotous heads and think, well, how much can you listen to!
                  1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
                    Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 22 September 2020 13: 38
                    +1
                    The fourth from the right is Mezhlauk (between Rukhimovich and Voroshilov). He became famous for his caricatures of Partaigenossen, made at various meetings and plenary sessions. And now, apparently, out of boredom he is drawing something.
                    Four years after this photo (17th congress of the "executed"), this cartoonist was spanked at the Butovo training ground.
                  2. Andrey VOV
                    Andrey VOV 22 September 2020 15: 45
                    +4
                    Well, the current ones also sleep in the Duma heartily, after bright nights)))
                2. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
                  Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 22 September 2020 13: 25
                  +2
                  Quote: Andrey VOV
                  to cut down a penny is not too hard


                  and what, for IT also pay ???? belay
      2. cost
        cost 22 September 2020 08: 05
        +5
        What's wrong, gentlemen minusers? smile
        The archives are open, everything is freely available - a log of visits to Stalin's office from 1935-1945 to
    2. mat-vey
      mat-vey 22 September 2020 07: 36
      +8
      Quote: Rich
      However, in the early 1990s, D. Volkogonov found a document indicating that there was a certain Politburo decision of August 19, 1939.

      Philosopher-General D. Volkogonov did not "find" anything like that .. he could "find" a lot.
      1. Sugar Honeyovich
        Sugar Honeyovich 22 September 2020 15: 43
        +2
        And destroyed a lot
        am
        1. mat-vey
          mat-vey 22 September 2020 15: 48
          +1
          Quote: Sugar Honeyovich
          And destroyed a lot
          am

          Well, this is how the market situation develops ..
    3. Aviator_
      Aviator_ 22 September 2020 07: 58
      +3
      However, in the early 1990s, D. Volkogonov

      The "revelations" of this figure should be treated very carefully.
      1. cost
        cost 22 September 2020 08: 21
        -2
        The "revelations" of this figure should be treated very carefully.

        Yes, he actually does not give any revelations. He only found a document of the Politburo decision of August 19, 1939. "On the temporary refusal to mobilize railway workers in a number of regions of the Far East." It is a fact. Please refute. By itself, he does not say anything.
        I just brought it up to counterbalance the presumptuous statement of the "expert" Kharluzhny:
        no meetings of the Politburo of the Central Committee were held that day and could not be held

        If you, Sergei, carefully read my comment, then at the end of it you would also pay attention to my personal opinion about this find
        This, however, does not mean that there was a meeting on that day - many decisions of the Politburo were prepared by the Secretariat and were adopted by questioning its members, without holding a meeting.
        1. mat-vey
          mat-vey 22 September 2020 08: 48
          +4
          Quote: Rich
          He only found a document of the Politburo decision of August 19, 1939. "On the temporary refusal to mobilize railway workers in a number of regions of the Far East."

          If you have something real on this "document" can you share it? And then the Internet keeps a secret ...
          1. cost
            cost 22 September 2020 08: 56
            -2
            Something real is what? Storage location, archive number?
            1. mat-vey
              mat-vey 22 September 2020 08: 57
              +2
              Quote: Rich
              Something real is what? Storage location, archive number?

              Well, at least a number ... and if there is a photocopy ...
              1. cost
                cost 22 September 2020 09: 14
                -7
                Well, how can I get this. Make a request to [email protected]
                1. mat-vey
                  mat-vey 22 September 2020 09: 18
                  +5
                  Quote: Rich
                  Well, how can I get this. Make a request to [email protected]

                  Well, it turns out that everyone has this very "Well, how can I get this." , except for Volkogonov ... and everything would be nothing, but that often he had this "exclusive" information .. I found only 3724 documents about Lenin ...
        2. Undecim
          Undecim 22 September 2020 11: 52
          +8
          He only found a document of the Politburo decision of August 19, 1939. "On the temporary refusal to mobilize railway workers in a number of regions of the Far East." It is a fact. Please refute. By itself, he does not say anything.
          And how can you refute what no one has seen. He allegedly found the document, but did not show it to anyone.
          Do not find it strange?
      2. mat-vey
        mat-vey 22 September 2020 09: 22
        +1
        Quote: Aviator_
        However, in the early 1990s, D. Volkogonov

        The "revelations" of this figure should be treated very carefully.

        It looks like his spirit is present here - minus for a simple question about his "finds" ...)))
  • Undecim
    Undecim 22 September 2020 08: 38
    +7
    The propagandist Kharaluzhny made another draft. There is a minimum of information, no links at all, but the desired tonality is observed.
    Meanwhile, if we perceive history as history, and not as a field of ideological confrontations, then the question with this speech of Stalin is interesting and is still the subject of discussions, in which nothing has yet been unequivocally proven.
    As for the author's mention of "serious documents", the propagandists of his level have never looked at any documents, but they are very fond of mentioning them.
    In this regard, one point is remarkable. In 2008, on Bolshaya Lubyanka, in the FSB Cultural Center, a round table was held, at which the problems of publishing sources about the Great Patriotic War and attempts to falsify history were discussed. The FSB, represented by the head of the Center, Colonel Sergei Ignatchenko, informed the participants that the FSB was ready to open access to the archives of the Great Patriotic War for both historians and journalists.
    True, some time later, Oleg Aleksandrovich Rzheshevsky lowered historians and journalists to the sinful earth, sealed it, so to speak. Soviet and Russian historian, scientific director of the Center for the History of War and Geopolitics of the Institute of General History of the Russian Academy of Sciences, President of the Association of Historians of the Second World War, Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor, Honored Scientist of the RSFSR and a full member of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, as well as a member of the Scientific Council of the Russian Military Historical Society said : " Some documents will remain inaccessible for centuries if it concerns state or personal secrets. "
    1. ccsr
      ccsr 22 September 2020 12: 59
      -4
      Quote: Undecim
      True, some time later, Oleg Aleksandrovich Rzheshevsky lowered historians and journalists to the sinful earth, sealed it, so to speak. Soviet and Russian historian, scientific director of the Center for the History of Wars and Geopolitics of the Institute of General History of the Russian Academy of Sciences, President of the Association of Historians of the Second World War, Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor, Honored Scientist of the RSFSR and full member of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, as well as a member of the Scientific Council of the Russian Military Historical Society said : "Some documents will remain inaccessible for centuries, if it concerns state or personal secrets."

      I think that no "sinking to the ground" happened, because any literate person who has worked at least once in the commission for checking secret office work at the level of the head of the Ministry of Defense will confirm that a huge number of cases are constantly being destroyed, which reflect the details and subtleties of the execution of the same Resolutions of the Government and the Central Committee of the CPSU. So it turns out that there is a Resolution, there is an extract from it, and everything that happened according to it, in five to ten years, can be destroyed in accordance with the established procedure by the decision of the chairman of the commission. Therefore, it remains to be hoped that some details of the events taking place remained only in the memoirs of some outstanding people, but the documents confirming their point of view are no longer in nature, because they have been destroyed.
      True, there is another reason that Rzheshevsky does not point out - these are the so-called transitional cases for high-level bosses, which have been conducted for decades and rare documents get there. They may never be seen, because their period of secrecy begins from the moment of closure, so it turns out that the words "for centuries" are not an empty phrase, but an ordinary reality associated with the secrecy regime.
      1. Undecim
        Undecim 22 September 2020 13: 04
        +2
        So what, in fact, changes your comment in terms of the fact that some historical documents will never become available? Or have you somehow refuted the fact that some documents are simply not considered possible to present to the "general public" due to the information they contain?
        1. ccsr
          ccsr 22 September 2020 13: 23
          -2
          Quote: Undecim
          So what, in fact, changes your comment in terms of the fact that some historical documents will never become available?

          The fact that there is no malicious intent in this, but in the memories of some participants in the events, the true motives of certain actions may slip.
          Quote: Undecim
          Or have you somehow refuted the fact that some documents are simply not considered possible to present to the "general public" due to the information they contain?

          All this is garbage, if it does not concern some specific issues, such as the cases of the 8th Directorate, the GRU General Staff, or a number of other structures of the Ministry of Defense, such as 12 GU. The point is not that they do not consider it "possible", but that the information contained there can be correctly assessed by a few, and not by everyone who will be admitted to such historical documents. That is why they do not allow, otherwise we will have a lot of "New Volkogonovs" at once, and this is hardly necessary for our compatriots. As, for example, is now happening with the assessment of the Battle of Borodino at Shpakovsky, who speculate on the summary of the number of Napoleon's troops 4-5 days before the battle itself, as if during this time other units had not pulled up to the battle site. The same will begin if the archives of the Stalinist era are opened - then there will be a field for the most irrepressible fantasies of individual "progressive" historians.
          1. Undecim
            Undecim 22 September 2020 13: 28
            +1
            Sorry, but you are pounding water in a mortar and wasting time with your empty information.
            What difference does it make which considerations determine that a document is forever buried in the archive?
            How do your outpourings refute the fact that a certain part of the archives is inaccessible for some objective or subjective reason? No way. Don't chase the air.
            1. ccsr
              ccsr 22 September 2020 13: 49
              -6
              Quote: Undecim
              What difference does it make which considerations determine that a document is forever buried in the archive?

              Who told you that he is "buried", if the majority have no idea where to look for him, and do not know whether he exists or not? You seem to be a supporter of all archives being digitized and posted on the net for people like you. I personally do not think this should be done, and I have a reason for this.
              Quote: Undecim
              How do your outpourings refute the fact that a certain part of the archives is inaccessible for some objective or subjective reason? No way. Don't chase the air.

              And it seems to me that you are in vain shedding tears over the closed nature of the archives, because even if they are opened to you, you with your worldview will still adjust all the documents to your point of view and this fact. So why do I need to know your opinion if you are not a professional at what you are trying to comment on? Maybe you're in vain shaking the air about the openness of archives?
              There is a certain Chekunov, so he offered me ten years ago for money to scan any document in the Podolsk archive for a couple of thousand rubles - are you by any chance one of those "fans" of archives?
              1. Undecim
                Undecim 22 September 2020 13: 55
                +5
                I personally do not think this should be done, and I have a reason for this.
                Who cares what you think? As a matter of fact, you have not answered anything. I repeat once again, what's the difference, for what reasons the archive is closed? Does this somehow cancel out the fact that it is closed?
                And you are talking nonsense about me and my worldview.
                You remind me of the substance from the famous saying about the sole. All the best.
  • Kolin
    Kolin 22 September 2020 08: 52
    0
    If Stalin was so perceptive, why didn't he start mobilizing and deploying troops in April 41?
    1. dzvero
      dzvero 22 September 2020 10: 17
      +3
      Because:
      1.the non-aggression pact expires
      2. Germany makes the USSR an aggressor
      Mobilization was carried out the day before under the guise of large training camps. Deployment too - armies from the inner districts were brought to the border. The problem was that the covering forces, for a number of reasons, could not repel the first strike and lost the border battle. Keep the integrity of the front even for ten days, the disaster would not have happened. But what happened was ...
      1. Avior
        Avior 22 September 2020 13: 55
        +1
        And who cares who Hitler will present as the aggressor in 1941?
        Hitler was already an aggressor and nothing could be changed
        1. dzvero
          dzvero 22 September 2020 15: 11
          0
          At that time, Hitler still had a chance to make peace with England. And it is quite possible that such an empty formality who is the aggressor would not have turned into a complete collapse for the USSR. By the way, the fact that Hitler began military operations BEFORE the declaration of war made the USSR a victim of aggression and helped to overcome the internal political obstacles in the United States and the World Bank regarding admitting a socialist country as allies. And they had them, and not frail.
          1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
            Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 22 September 2020 15: 44
            +1
            Quote: dzvero
            At that time, Hitler still had a chance to make peace with England.


            which one? Spring 1941? Well, what preconditions for "pacification" do you see?
            1. dzvero
              dzvero 22 September 2020 16: 00
              0
              The British did not shoot Hess. It is no coincidence that the documents about conversations with him are not declassified, despite the age. In England, the pro-German leadership still had positions. And in the second half of the war, the fears of the Soviet leadership about a separate peace between Germany and the West were not unfounded. Everything is dull there ...
              It is easy for us with the aftermath. And in those days, having incomplete, contradictory, distorted information and making the right decisions ... oh, how difficult it is. But somehow they managed; it is true that they counted with "little blood", the scale of the catastrophe of the summer of 1941, no one even dreamed of in a nightmare, but in the end they brought the country into the top two of the world forces ...
              1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
                Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 22 September 2020 16: 08
                0
                Quote: dzvero
                The British did not shoot Hess.

                why should they shoot him?
                Quote: dzvero
                And in the second half of the war, the fears of the Soviet leadership about a separate peace between Germany and the West were not unfounded.

                but we seem to have been talking about the spring of 41, and not about the second half of the war. These are different political landscapes. Absolutely.
                1. dzvero
                  dzvero 22 September 2020 16: 23
                  0
                  They say Hess didn't get lost smile Nobody knows why and with what they came. If the British did not publicly declare their refusal with the offer of peace, then they thought it over. Those. as long as Hess is alive and the offer is not rejected, there is a chance to go to peace. As for the second half ... the roots of that landscape are from the first half of the war. There was only one unaccounted factor on it - the Red Army of the USSR.
                  1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
                    Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 22 September 2020 16: 30
                    +2
                    Quote: dzvero
                    Nobody knows why and with what they came. If the British did not publicly declare their refusal with the offer of peace, then they thought it over. Those. while Hess is alive

                    Well, I'm not a hunter of cryptohistorical nonsense and I don't watch Ren-TV.

                    Quote: dzvero
                    As for the second half ... the roots of that landscape are from the first half of the war. There was only one unaccounted factor on it - the Red Army of the USSR.

                    Who is not accounted for? How can you not take into account the ten-million army, which is fighting in the geographical center of Europe ??
                    1. dzvero
                      dzvero 22 September 2020 16: 35
                      0
                      I agree about cryptohistory. I have no specific information about Hess, what to do ... smile
                      Regarding accounting - in the summer of 41, few believed that the Red Army would have such a future, if at all. We didn’t suppose, but we had to reckon
                      1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
                        Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 22 September 2020 16: 47
                        +1
                        Quote: dzvero
                        in the summer of 41, few people believed that the Red Army would have such a future, if at all

                        nothing like this. The British relied on the Red Army and believed in Stalin's assurances of determination in the fight against the Reich already in July 41. None of the allies performed the funeral service for the Red Army.
                    2. Kwas
                      Kwas 22 September 2020 19: 11
                      0
                      Quote: Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
                      Nobody knows why and with what they came. If the British did not publicly declare their refusal with the offer of peace, then they thought it over. Those. while Hess is alive

                      Well, I'm not a hunter of cryptohistorical nonsense and I don't watch Ren-TV.


                      I don’t watch Ren-TV either, but Hess’s death is too big a coincidence to be an accident.
                      1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
                        Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 22 September 2020 19: 19
                        +1
                        Quote: Kwas
                        however, Hess's death is too much of a coincidence to be an accident.

                        Big coincidence with what? The suicide of a 93-year-old grandfather cannot be called an accident, I completely agree here))))))))
                      2. Kwas
                        Kwas 22 September 2020 19: 32
                        0
                        Quote: Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
                        Big coincidence with what?

                        With the intention of giving an interview.
        2. Avior
          Avior 22 September 2020 17: 15
          +2
          Hitler had a desire to make peace with England. But there was no possibility - England did not want to make peace.
    2. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
      Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 22 September 2020 14: 58
      +2
      Quote: dzvero
      2. Germany makes the USSR an aggressor


      what?
      Formally, it was France and Britain that unleashed world war, no matter how politically incorrect it may sound - but it is a fact. Does anyone remember this now?
      1. dzvero
        dzvero 22 September 2020 15: 12
        0
        There are not many who. Winners write history ...
    3. Kolin
      Kolin 22 September 2020 15: 26
      0
      1.the non-aggression pact expires

      Well, figs with him.

      2. Germany makes the USSR an aggressor

      The Anglo-Saxons do not care who the aggressor is, if only they fought with Hitler. Moreover, the USSR could well appear as the defender of Yugoslavia, even if it suddenly attacked first.

      Mobilization was carried out the day before under the guise of large training camps. Deployment too - armies from the inner districts were brought to the border. The problem was that the covering forces, for a number of reasons, could not repel the first strike and lost the border battle. Keep the integrity of the front even for ten days, the disaster would not have happened. But what happened was ...

      As many as 800 thousand in six months, including the Siberian Military District, the Ural Military District, the North Caucasus Military District and the Moscow Military District ... In fact, several million had to be mobilized there.
      A small number of understaffed divisions and could not hold out for 10 days.
  • Lewww
    Lewww 22 September 2020 09: 17
    +3
    Iosif Vissarionovich raised a toast to “the future war with fascist Germany,
    this is nonsense - not a single sane person, and even more so a politician, will raise a toast to WAR.
    Complete absurdity
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 22 September 2020 10: 00
    +4
    It would seem that all these speeches testify to one thing: the country's leader was in captivity of the deepest delusions and firmly believed in "Hitler's peacefulness", hoping that a military clash between the USSR and the Third Reich could be avoided. In fact, there was nothing of the kind.

    It has long been known that official propaganda in the USSR had nothing to do with real state and military planning. This was most clearly manifested in the pre-war years:
    It should be noted that the propaganda speeches of political and military leaders contained somewhat different tasks than the military plans developed under their leadership. Thus, in 1936 KE Voroshilov proclaimed the slogan that the Red Army would wage war "with little blood and on foreign territory." But this statement did not prevent the approval of the next plan of evacuation from areas that may be occupied by the enemy, and of the next norms of losses for the year of the war, which had very little in common with the aforementioned slogan next year.Therefore, when analyzing measures to prepare for war, it is very important to separate political propaganda and the real direction of military planning.
    © Melia A.A. Mobilization training of the national economy of the USSR.
    1. mat-vey
      mat-vey 22 September 2020 11: 16
      -2
      Quote: Alexey RA
      Thus, in 1936, KE Voroshilov proclaimed the slogan that the Red Army would wage war "with little blood and on foreign territory."

      It also looks like mischief - we, these slightly narrow-minded citizens are imperialists ... you can sell us all sorts of technologies and equipment, even though the most advanced ones will still go at random ...
  • Sergey Oreshin
    Sergey Oreshin 22 September 2020 11: 04
    +1
    Quote: Olgovich
    1. Yes, yes: WHAT was Ivan and Jean to share in 1812?

    Nothing. And if Napoleon, remembering his revolutionary youth, proclaimed the abolition of serfdom and the transfer to the Russian peasants without redemption of all landlord lands with living and dead implements, then within a month the Romanov monarchy would have been swept away. But the French emperor Napoleon the First Bonaparte remarked: "I can always come to an agreement with Emperor Alexander, but I have nothing to talk about with Pugachev." And in fact he gave his troops carte blanche to rob Russian peasants. It was then that Ivan, according to Leo Tolstoy, took the "club of the people's wrath" and began to nail Zhanov with it until he swept them all out of Russia.

    Quote: Olgovich
    And yes, after June 22, 1941, Serge sharply became WHAT to share with Hans. Forgot?

    Well, the Hans themselves turned out to be "evil Buratins": instead of turning their bayonets and throwing off Adolf and his camarilla, all the German bourgeoisie and the "Partyigenosse", they began to rob and exploit Sergei, Ivanov, Slobodanov, Yanov, Stefanosov - and predictably got the "club of popular anger" in the occupied territories.

    Quote: Olgovich
    The war was not waged with the Hans, but with the most terrible misanthropic regime in the history of mankind

    You see, then, in the 39th, no one possessed an afterthought. In 39, Hitler seemed to many to be just one of the numerous succession of right-wing European dictators, of whom there were many from Estonia to Portugal. Well, maybe a little more eccentric than Kaiser Wilhelm. And WWII began as a typical imperialist showdown between capitalist predators: some wanted to seize new lands and colonies, while others wanted to keep them. Everything is roughly the same as in WWI.
    So the position of the Communist Parties at that time was generally sound: why the fig for the hard workers to drag chestnuts out of the fire for the bourgeoisie?
    1. Astra wild
      Astra wild 22 September 2020 14: 49
      +2
      "instead of turning the bayonets and throwing off Adolf" it reminds of Trotsky's dreams of the World Revolution
      In my opinion, the topic has been raised more than once that Napoleon could abolish serfdom, but "forgot", but there is no real evidence of this
    2. Avior
      Avior 22 September 2020 17: 24
      +3
      Why would Hans turn his bayonets at that moment and throw off Adolf?
      The successes in the development of the country were quite evident then.
      The Germans were pleased.
      1. mat-vey
        mat-vey 22 September 2020 17: 59
        0
        Quote: Avior
        The Germans were pleased.

        And fed ..
  • Sergey Oreshin
    Sergey Oreshin 22 September 2020 12: 06
    +2
    Quote: Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
    I would give her a solid last place

    Why not Italian? It seems that during WWI there was a saying: "Why did God create the Italian army? So that there was someone to defeat the Austro-Hungarian army"
    1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
      Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 22 September 2020 14: 14
      +1
      i talked about major armies that began hostilities in July-August 1914.
      Italy declared war on the AVI only in May 15th.
      Well, so ... well, let's talk about the army of Siam) Very funny story)


      Although, however, she did not succeed in fighting in France, but she took part in the occupation of the Palatinate and in the victory parades in Paris, Brussels and London)

      But the most important thing, of course, is an international breakthrough. Siam was noticed!))
  • Unknown
    Unknown 22 September 2020 13: 52
    +2
    before the war comrade. STALIN was not verbose, and what to talk about? here is an excerpt from his speech ... We lagged behind the advanced countries by 50 - 100 liters ... We have to cover this distance in ten years. Either we do it, or they will crush us, "said Joseph Stalin at the First All-Union Conference of Socialist Industry Workers on February 4, 1931 ......... A lot has been done in the country over the years, but everything cannot be covered. factors, and one cannot escape from them, comrade STALIN has always been a realist. The events in Khalkhingol, as well as the Soviet-Finnish war, showed that their generals must still be raised. Another quote from his speech ........ this psychology that our army is invincible, with boasting, which are terribly developed in our country - these are the most ignorant people, that is, the greatest boasters - we must put an end to this boasting must be done away with once and for all. We must drum into our people the rules about that there is no invincible army. We need to drum into Lenin's words that defeated armies or armies that have suffered defeats fight very well afterwards. We need to drum into our people, starting with the command staff and ending with the rank and file, that war is a game with some unknown , in the war,there may be defeats. And therefore, one must learn not only to attack, but also to retreat. ...... after all, unlike the current ruler, STALIN received information about the state of the army from various sources, and he had no illusions about the generals. It is one thing to write denunciations, and another to fight. So, what generals there are, you do with them. in the defense industry, not everything is in order, the article already had articles about the pre-war situation in the industry and it was not brilliant. WWII is in full swing and a normal head of state is trying to avoid war, that's understandable. but the question is, will they avoid? Why Hess flew to England? what do they agree on? from all the problems the head is spinning, involuntarily, not to the performances. How would another head of state behave in a pre-war situation?
  • Astra wild
    Astra wild 22 September 2020 14: 41
    0
    Quote: Uncle Lee
    Stalin knew everything, understood everything, foresaw everything.
    And the performers are not very ...

    Even Stalin himself would tell you that he did not know everything and could not foresee.
  • Sergey Oreshin
    Sergey Oreshin 22 September 2020 15: 50
    +2
    Quote: Astra wild
    Napoleon could have abolished serfdom, but "forgot", but there is no real evidence of this

    He did not "forget", but deliberately did not cancel it, because he did not give up hope of reaching an amicable agreement with Alexander and was afraid that the peasant war he had caused would spread from Russia and onto his empire.
    And so, on his order, he was presented with information about the uprisings of Pugachev, Bulavin, Razin, about the uprising of Mazepa, about the uprisings of the Tatars and Bashkirs. Bonaparte worked through all this information, analyzed it and decided not to stir up the "Russian revolt".
    Quote: Astra wild
    it reminds of Trotsky's dreams of the World Revolution

    If the Germans in the 39th or 40th turned their bayonets and whipped up Adolf along with his "partigenosse", then, first of all, they would have saved the lives of millions of their compatriots who, because of their elite, died absolutely in vain. But they preferred to fight under the banner of the Reich with the same hard workers as themselves. To the glory of the German imperialist bourgeoisie, which made money in the war. I repeat - "their own evil Pinocchio"
    1. Kwas
      Kwas 22 September 2020 19: 18
      +1
      Quote: Sergey Oreshin
      He did not "forget", but deliberately did not cancel it, because he did not give up hope of reaching an amicable agreement with Alexander and was afraid that the peasant war he had caused would spread from Russia and onto his empire.
      And so, on his order, he was presented with information about the uprisings of Pugachev, Bulavin, Razin, about the uprising of Mazepa, about the uprisings of the Tatars and Bashkirs. Bonaparte worked through all this information, analyzed it and decided not to stir up the "Russian revolt".

      And, I will add, I thought about how his allies - Austria, Prussia, and especially Poland, where serfdom was cleaner than ours - would react to such actions.
  • Astra wild
    Astra wild 22 September 2020 15: 56
    +1
    Colleagues, perhaps it seems to me, but now, as a rule of good patriotism, it has become OWN FANTASY to confirm with references to Stalin. Yesterday, the authors argued that Stalin decided not to evacuate the industry, probably Stalin called them.
    Today the author has exposed one fake in order to fantasize about Stalin's toasts. Below, Apro's colleague rightly said: "they think out for him, they put him in a position in which he was not" as confirmation of Stalin's genius, they carry such nonsense that they would rather dishonor Stalin

    Р
    S
    I got disenchanted with the author: some kind of simple propaganda. Even Samsonov's is more interesting
    R.
    D
    If Valery wrote a couple of works about the pre-revolutionary and pre-war periods. Surely he would not claim to know Stalin's thoughts.
    Dreams. Dreams
  • Sergey Oreshin
    Sergey Oreshin 22 September 2020 15: 57
    +1
    Quote: Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
    To call surrender a "sound attitude" is, you know ....

    Again, let's imagine ourselves in the place of the French worker Serge, who, for a minute, does NOT have an afterthought, but lives here and now.

    So, he miraculously survived during the May battles of 40, contrived not to be taken prisoner and drifted home to Paris, to his little poor apartment on the outskirts of Paris. And then he learns that everything - the war is over, a truce has been signed.
    So what? Does he need to pull out the hair on his head because Daladier, Reynaud and other "capitalist ministers" have lost power? Or he should demand the continuation of the war "until victory", ie. to continue to lie in the trenches under bullets and shells and have a very great opportunity to die in battles somewhere in the Orleans area, while the French bourgeoisie will still be chic in Nice? And then who will feed his family? Mister Daladier?
    No really, pipes! Bayonet into the ground, long live peace!
    And the Germans WHILE they did nothing bad to the French proletarians, let's see, of course, how things go ...
    1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
      Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 22 September 2020 17: 57
      0
      Quote: Sergey Oreshin
      Again, let's imagine ourselves in the place of the French worker Serge ...


      wonderful. Long live collaboration - Kajinek and Ladislav happily chanted and went back to the Skoda workshops to continue collecting "hitzers". After all

      Quote: Sergey Oreshin
      the Germans have done nothing wrong with the proletarians


      Well, Serge with his riveting hammer merrily knocked the tarantella into the hull of a German boat in the dry dock in La Rochelle. So what...
  • Sergey Oreshin
    Sergey Oreshin 22 September 2020 15: 58
    +1
    Quote: Olgovich
    wild things ...

    I completely agree here
  • Sergey Oreshin
    Sergey Oreshin 22 September 2020 17: 44
    +1
    Quote: Avior
    The Germans were pleased.

    So after all, in the conditional 1913, the Germans could be satisfied with the Kaiser, the German Empire developed successfully. But still they remembered what the adventures of Wilhelm and Co. had led to.
    It was obvious that Hitler's gamble would also soon end in collapse, the victims of which, first of all, would be ordinary Germans.
    But, of course, the "department of Dr. Goebbels" notoriously bullied the Germans' heads, they really believed that they could "get up from their knees", on the blood and tears of other peoples, "revive the greatness of the empire" and that they would get nothing for it
    But the payback came very quickly.
    1. Avior
      Avior 22 September 2020 18: 03
      +4
      The fact that everything is obvious to you is the effect of afterthought.
      Nothing was obvious then.
      1. Sergey Oreshin
        Sergey Oreshin 22 September 2020 19: 33
        0
        I agree, there was no afterbirth, but there was an experience of 14-18, which read: the Kaiser's adventure ended in failure, the death of a bunch of Germans and a terrible economic crisis. Maybe it's better to unscrew Adolf and Co.'s head before they drag us into a new slaughter?
        But, again, the "department of Dr. Goebbels" did a great job ...
        1. Avior
          Avior 22 September 2020 19: 42
          +3
          This is an afterthought effect.
          Evaluated at the time of the assessment, at that time the Germans were satisfied with Hitler.
          Nobody knew what would happen in 1945.
          Like no one in 1981, no one knew what would happen in August 1991.
          1. Sergey Oreshin
            Sergey Oreshin 22 September 2020 20: 00
            +1
            I agree with you, however, in 1913 the Kaiser also arranged for the Germans ...
  • Sergey Oreshin
    Sergey Oreshin 22 September 2020 19: 32
    +2
    Quote: Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
    So what...

    Indeed, but what to do?
    If the Germans do not kill a particular Ladislav or a particular Sergei, do not rob, do not rape, do not evict him from his shack on the workers' outskirts, do not mobilize him into their army and do not send him to rot in the trenches, but they also pay a salary that can be used to feed a family, then why surprise that both Ladislav and Serge will go to their factory and do the work that they did before the war.
    There is no alternative ... You can, of course, get a submachine gun and open fire on a German patrol. In a couple of minutes you will be shot, your family will most likely be repressed.
    You can get to England to de Gaulle and join his troops, where our conditional Serge will have a great opportunity to catch a bullet in the next battle (while most of the French bourgeois still live well and are in no hurry to send their offspring to " Fighting France "). And who will feed his family?
  • Sergey Oreshin
    Sergey Oreshin 22 September 2020 19: 36
    0
    Quote: mat-vey
    And fed ..

    Yes, they were fed ... they believed Adolf and Co., went into wars of conquest completely unnecessary for them, where they were "fed" with lead. Well, serve the fools! Died for the interests of the German bourgeoisie
  • Sergey Oreshin
    Sergey Oreshin 22 September 2020 19: 38
    +1
    Quote: Kwas
    his allies - Austria, Prussia, and especially Poland, where serfdom was cleaner than ours.

    Shortly before his death on St. Helena, Napoleon admitted that he had made a fatal mistake when he repressed the Jacobins and, instead of fomenting social revolutions in European countries and sweeping away the monarchs there, he tried to find a common language with them and "integrate" into the European monarchical system.
    Needless to say, all European monarchs surrendered it already in 1813!
  • nnz226
    nnz226 22 September 2020 22: 49
    -2
    On May 5, Stalin recommended that the commanders increase the readiness of the troops, and on the ground, the commissars "took the brains out" to the same commanders: "do not succumb to provocations!", And also frightened them with party responsibility (the story of Major Gavrilov in the Brest Fortress is an example). And what could the gurgled commanders do? And 4 months after June 22, hello, guys, the Wehrmacht near Moscow!
    ,
  • DrEng527
    DrEng527 23 September 2020 18: 29
    0
    "The Soviet Union is a reliable partner of Germany, does not build any hostile plans against it and is determined to adhere to all the agreements reached with Berlin."
    so it was not for nothing that the IVS concluded in October 39 the Treaty of Friendship and Border with Hitler ... hi
  • Vladimir Volk
    Vladimir Volk 11 November 2020 23: 16
    0
    Everything. Absolutely not so. On the contrary !!
  • froger
    froger 28 November 2020 17: 45
    0
    "On March 10, 1939, Joseph Vissarionovich reveals the essence of the" policy of non-intervention "of Britain and France and their unwillingness to rebuff the aggressive inclinations of Hitler, which consists in the desire of these states to incite the Third Reich against the USSR." But already at the beginning of September 1939, England and Germany declared war on Germany, and Stalin immediately declared them the aggressors. And in 1940, Stalin sent Hitler a congratulatory telegram on the surrender of France. So who was Hitler's de facto ally before June 22, 1941? And what about the TASS statement of June 14, 1941? Read it carefully. If Stalin knew about the imminent war with Germany, then he is a traitor and an accomplice of Hitler, having published this Statement and completely disorienting the country and morally disarming the army regarding Hitler's plans. General Pavlov was shot by Stalin precisely because he very carefully and scrupulously fulfilled Stalin's demands not to provoke Hitler to the war, not to respond to provocations by German troops on the border, not to shoot down German reconnaissance aircraft over our territory in the border areas, and not to take any action at all. which could be regarded by Germany as preparing the USSR for an imminent war.
    As for what “in fact” Stalin knew about the war with Germany, about which he spoke “at closed meetings,” such a cowardly and double-dealing policy speaks of Stalin's throwing and confusion, and not at all about his brilliant sagacity. This is reminiscent of the case in pre-revolutionary Russia, when one of the village priests one hundred percent determined the sex of the unborn child when he was asked for a prediction. When he guessed, everything was fine, and when he was wrong and people came to him with complaints, he would open the book of his notes and show the complainer that he had misunderstood him. Here in the book of records it is indicated that it is a boy who will be born, as it actually happened. He just made a note that, say, a boy would be born, and verbally informed the future parents that they would have a girl. ... So is Comrade Stalin. In his conversations, articles and books you can find everything you want, and one thing completely refutes the other.
    In general, raising a toast to war is beyond the comprehension of a normal rational person. Everyone knows that war is a misfortune for the civilian population and a great threat to the country. It is necessary to do everything possible and everything reasonable to avoid war. And Comrade Stalin raises a toast to the war with Germany! If he raised a toast to the victory of the USSR in a future (if any) war, it could still be understood. But then what about the term "warmonger" invented by Stalin? This fact directly confirms the assertion of the writer V. Suvorov that Stalin - along with Hitler - are the culprits of the Second World War.