Military Review

"Strange War" Wasn't Strange

263
"Strange War" Wasn't Strange
"Strange war": the Germans were surrounded, now is the time to eat and read the newspapers


The "Strange War" is commonly referred to as the campaign on the Western Front from September 3, 1939 to May 10, 1940. So it was called by the French journalist Roland Dorzheles, and in the USA and Great Britain it was called Phoney War - "fake war". After the French offensive in the Rhine Valley in September 1939 and the German counteroffensive in October 1939, calm was established on the Western Front, as if there had been no war.

Without much exaggeration, mountains of literature have been written about this "strange war". And almost all of it is of a denunciatory nature, one way or another accusing France and Great Britain of passivity while Germany was crushing Poland, then Denmark and Norway. Like, it was necessary to rush forward, into the offensive, and then Germany would be defeated.

All this, of course, is good. But it smells badly of afterthought when the grades historical events are done in terms of what happened next. Of course, from the point of view of the entire subsequent course of World War II, it would be more profitable to strike in 1939 with some chances to overthrow Germany at the very beginning, before the war broke out. Only the commander-in-chief of the French troops, Army General Maurice Gustave Gamelin, did not know what would happen next. Therefore, he had nowhere to take arguments for a decisive impulse.

In addition, it is worth emphasizing that mistakes and failures are almost always natural and are rooted in certain features of assessing the situation and ways of making decisions. In other words, the French and British in September-October 1939 believed that they were making the right decision, refusing to take active actions of the ground army. Historians needed to find out why they thought so, and not engage in accusation in the pose of an all-knowing oracle.

Documentary finds show that there was a logic behind it, and indeed the British and French had reason to think they had a better plan than a large-scale offensive.

Better to choke than to beat


It is better to study the plans of the French leadership on the basis of French documents. However, in the summer of 1940, the Germans seized quite a lot of French documents, studied them for a long time, translated them into German, and such translations ended up in the funds of many German authorities. For example, information on the import of raw materials, which was in the captured French documents, fell into the Reich Ministry of Economics.

From a rather large, several dozen sheets, collection of such documents, one can see that the French, with the beginning of the war, tried to compile as complete a picture as possible of Germany's consumption of military-significant raw materials and the sources of their receipt. This information was collected and processed in the military department of the Ministry of the Blockade of France (created on September 13, 1939; the British Ministry of Economic War was formed on September 3, 1939). They compiled information in tables, one of the examples of which I will give below (RGVA, f. 1458k, op. 3, d. 474, l. 63).



And what conclusion could be drawn from this and other similar tables? Only the fact that the German economy does not actually have a domestic production of military-significant raw materials and depends on imports for their consumption.

From this it followed, firstly, that with the declaration of war by France and Great Britain, Germany would lose primarily supplies from these countries and their colonies. Secondly, due to the fact that almost all imports are delivered to Germany by sea, it is possible to cut off supplies from neutral countries by establishing a naval blockade of the North Sea and establishing control points for merchant ships.

If Germany gets an economic blockade well enough, then after only three or four months Hitler should ask for peace. A land attack on Germany, from the point of view of this approach, looked unprofitable both because it would have been a significant expenditure of military resources and reserves, and because extremely small losses would quickly persuade Germany to peace and accept Anglo-French conditions.

Thus, the strangulation of the economic blockade was the very plan that looked better than a large-scale offensive with some chances of a repeat of the massacre at Verdun. Still, one must take into account the important circumstance that at that time the "blitzkrieg" was not yet a usual option for waging war, and therefore the idea of ​​an offensive was inevitably associated with the offensives of the First World War - large, bloody and stupid. The reluctance of the French to try the German "Siegfried Line" for strength was dictated by considerations such as: once you get in, then you will not get out.

And, then, the French remembered well that Germany at the end of the First World War was the victim of economic exhaustion. And then they had an ally in the person of Austria-Hungary, vast occupied territories in the east: Poland, the Baltic states, in 1918 Ukraine and Crimea. Now, that is, at the beginning of the war in 1939, Germany had none of this, and therefore the plan to strangle Germany with a blockade only looked even more realistic.

In September 1939, Germany occupied Poland, but in France and Great Britain it was decided not to derail the blockade, again because the method promised a result under these conditions, because it happened in the First World War. Their position was absolutely logical.

Why didn't the British and French succeed?


There were several reasons.

Firstly, in Germany, within the framework of a four-year plan, production facilities were created that greatly weakened the dependence on imports of a number of military-significant raw materials, especially oil products, rubber, iron ore, textile raw materials, and non-ferrous metals. Although the four-year plan was carried out in front of the whole of Europe, there was apparently no exact information about its nature in France and Great Britain.

Secondly, during the pre-war months, a significant stock of imported raw materials was accumulated, which made it possible to survive the blockade for about a year without any special consequences. In addition, Germany was actively looking for allies with raw materials in Southeast Europe, and also counted on trade with the USSR.

Thirdly, even before the war, measures were prepared to transfer the economy to a war footing, which were introduced a few days before the start of the war with Poland. This followed from the experience of the First World War, in which military-economic mobilization was carried out already during the war and with a noticeable delay; the Nazis decided not to repeat the same mistakes. The transfer of the economy to a war footing made it possible to use the available resources as efficiently and efficiently as possible to supply the military machine, and in this sense Germany was much more resilient against the blockade than it was imagined in France and Great Britain.

Fourth, apparently, there was a serious underestimation of the scope of Hitler's plans. The policy of France and Great Britain as a whole proceeded from the public statements of Hitler himself, in which the emphasis was placed on the return of territories inhabited by the Germans: Saarland, Sudetenland, Silesia, Danzig corridor. That is why the French and British governments reacted so leniently to the partition of Czechoslovakia, believing that Hitler would be satisfied with the solution of these minor issues. Even the attack on Poland did not look like a herald of terrible events; it could be assumed that he would limit himself to the annexation of Silesia and the parts of East Prussia that had ceded to Poland, plant a pro-German government in Warsaw, and that's it.

But Hitler had plans on a much larger scale, plans for a big war with seizures and plunder. These plans were hidden, and Hitler was personally involved in the disinformation. On October 6, 1939, Hitler made a long speech in the Reichstag, in which he spoke about the end of the war, about the need to convene a conference to establish peace and tranquility in Europe, even made a proposal to re-establish the Polish state within new borders, and also that Germany did not has territorial claims against France.


Hitler's speech in the Reichstag

Hitler also stated that the Versailles Treaty no longer existed and Germany had no reason to revise it further, with the exception of the issue of colonies, primarily the issue of the return of colonies to Germany that had been torn away after the First World War.

Hitler announced his readiness for peace talks. Yes, it did not suit either France or Great Britain, but, on the other hand, it reinforced their unwillingness to go over to large-scale ground hostilities. The British and French have clearly decided to leave the blockade, to strangle Germany economically, in the hope that Hitler will either become more accommodating or take steps that suit them. At that time, could anyone have suggested a better solution? Only without an afterthought.
Author:
263 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. apro
    apro 8 March 2021 05: 16
    +11
    Reminds Lyonya Golubkova. We are sitting ... and the money goes ...
    So the Allies waited for Germany to lose itself.
    1. Sling cutter
      Sling cutter 8 March 2021 06: 02
      +16
      Quote: apro
      So the Allies waited for Germany to lose itself.

      Colleague, at that time it was difficult to call the British with the guardians allies, they tried in every possible way to incite Hitler into the war with the USSR and most likely they succeeded, but we will be able to find out about this only after declassifying the archives.
      1. apro
        apro 8 March 2021 06: 06
        -3
        Quote: Stroporez
        Colleague, at that time the British with the guardians could hardly be called allies,

        Rather, a lord with a vassal.
        1. Sling cutter
          Sling cutter 8 March 2021 06: 09
          +9
          Quote: apro
          Rather, a lord with a vassal.

          It's right. Only I had in mind allied relations with the USSR.
          1. apro
            apro 8 March 2021 06: 13
            +11
            Quote: Stroporez
            Only I had in mind allied relations with the USSR.

            ???? with great doubt. Before the WWII, the alliance with the USSR was not needed. And it took legal form only after 42 years. And that can be said conditionally. jointly belligerent parties. with their own interests.
            1. Sling cutter
              Sling cutter 8 March 2021 06: 17
              +10
              I was always interested in the question, what would have happened if Hitler had brought down all the power of the Reich not on the USSR, but on England ?!
              1. apro
                apro 8 March 2021 06: 26
                +7
                Quote: Stroporez
                if Hitler had unleashed all the might of the Reich not on the USSR, but on England ?!

                It depends in which direction. I think the Mediterranean is the most promising. The capture of the basin and the Suez Canal put the Angles in an extremely difficult position. With minimal losses, which would have been impossible to avoid when landing on the islands.
                Landing on the islands did not address access to resources.
                1. Sling cutter
                  Sling cutter 8 March 2021 06: 33
                  +9
                  Quote: apro
                  It depends on which direction.

                  From all directions, the Mediterranean, the bombing of the islands, the transfer and landing of troops, block the supply of resources, etc. etc.
                  1. apro
                    apro 8 March 2021 06: 39
                    +5
                    Quote: Stroporez
                    bombardment of islands,

                    Pointless without a ground operation.
                    Quote: Stroporez
                    delivery and landing of troops,

                    There were clearly not enough resources for this.
                    Quote: Stroporez
                    block the supply of resources and

                    At the time of 39 resources were not enough. The submarine fleet was not a priority, and the surface fleet was seriously inferior to the Angles.
                    In addition, Hitler just wanted to agree on the angles, and not to destroy, and all his actions confirm this.
                    1. lucul
                      lucul 8 March 2021 11: 11
                      -9
                      Pointless without a ground operation

                      Whinnying like a horse
                      There were clearly not enough resources for this.

                      Resources were enough for at least 5 English
                      At the time of 39 resources were not enough. The submarine fleet was not a priority, and the surface fleet was seriously inferior to the Angles.

                      That strait is only 32 km long, and it was possible to cross it on rafts without worrying about the sea.
                      32km strait - only in this way can it be shot by coastal artillery. The submarine fleet of Germany would only be glad of such an accumulation of English ships in one place.
                      German aviation, starting from the northern coast of France (and not from Germany), calmly reached Scotland.
                      The Britons had no chance.
                      1. Niko
                        Niko 8 March 2021 12: 38
                        +6
                        The quote "resources were enough for at least five English" I'm sorry, but you seem to be confusing "England" and "UK" with the countries of the commonwealth, that is, about half of the world (even if you do not take into account the "neutral-friendly" at that time, the United States ...
                      2. nedgen
                        nedgen 8 March 2021 19: 32
                        -2
                        Quote: Niko
                        The quote "resources were enough for at least five English" I'm sorry, but you seem to be confusing "England" and "UK" with the countries of the commonwealth, that is, about half of the world (even if you do not take into account the "neutral-friendly" at that time, the United States ...


                        But ALL THESE resources were very far from the British Isles and they still had to somehow be dragged there. But if the Germans had occupied Dunkirk in time, instead of standing near its walls for a couple of weeks, all the 330 British and 000 French soldiers would have remained in France. And who then would eventually stand in the way of the Germans on the islands? Sailors disembarked from ships? Or have the militia never held a rifle in their hands before? (in Britain before WWII there was no regular army) And for a SUCCESSFUL landing it was enough not to let the British army out of Dunkirk. Drop the landing force that would blow up the radar towers or at least a couple of them and the entire effectiveness of the British air defense would have dropped by an order of magnitude and then airlifted at least a couple of infantry divisions by landing method to capture a bridgehead and oversee coastal batteries that the British even technically have in the depths of their coast could not shoot and concentrate submarines and aircraft on both sides of this corridor to prevent the intervention of the British fleet. In the then SAD state of the air defense and anti-aircraft defense of British ships (almost at the level of WWI), the British fleet could effectively operate successfully ONLY at night. And that is if the divers do not yawn. So the operation was COMPLETELY possible. Moreover, the Luftwaffe could well have won local domination in the air, say over the English Channel. There was no need to bomb ALL aerodromes in their reach. Moreover, the best air defense is your tanks on other people's aerodromes or, in extreme cases, your paratroopers laughing
                      3. Niko
                        Niko 8 March 2021 19: 48
                        +3
                        Regarding air supremacy, one should not use the form: "WOULD" is a clear answer: they could not (without) and after serious preparation and not immediately after the French company, which in itself is unrealistic. Regarding the REAL capabilities of the Germans in amphibious operations, everything is also known (practically equal to zero). and during the time required for a country like Germany to train them, there would already be troops of dominions and allies in the Omsters and the surrounding area in numbers sufficient to counter them.
                      4. Vladimir Lenin
                        Vladimir Lenin 9 March 2021 11: 40
                        0
                        Former Defense Minister Grachev is not your relative by any chance ?! He also promised to take Grozny with the forces of one division!
                  2. Maki Avellevich
                    Maki Avellevich 8 March 2021 20: 17
                    +4
                    Quote: lucul
                    That strait is only 32 km long, and it was possible to cross it on rafts without worrying about the sea.

                    yes, but only after the destruction of the royal fleet. and even the manic Hitler did not count on that.
                  3. EvilLion
                    EvilLion 9 March 2021 08: 23
                    +1
                    Can. Only battleships won't allow.
                  4. Alexey RA
                    Alexey RA 9 March 2021 15: 35
                    +1
                    Quote: lucul
                    That strait is only 32 km long, and it was possible to cross it on rafts without worrying about the sea.

                    Can. If you first destroy RAF and RN. Otherwise, the first wave of assault forces will land - and in a couple of days it will surrender due to the lack of ammunition and other supplies.
                    Quote: lucul
                    32km strait - only in this way can it be shot by coastal artillery.

                    Uh-huh ... stationary (which still needs to be built). And I'm waiting for a couple. Everything else is lacking.
                    Quote: lucul
                    The submarine fleet of Germany would only be glad of such an accumulation of English ships in one place.

                    And the British surface fleet - in the person of the approach defense command forces - would be happy with such an accumulation of submarines.
                    I already wrote. that as of June 1940, more than fifty EM and EME were based in the Canal and adjacent zones.
                    Quote: lucul
                    German aviation, starting from the northern coast of France (and not from Germany), calmly reached Scotland.

                    The range of the German aircraft was equal to the combat radius of the Bf-109. Outside this radius, work could only be done at night. The 5th VF, when attempting a daytime raid from Norway, felt it the hard way - even the Bf-110 did not help.
              2. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
                Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 8 March 2021 14: 39
                +1
                Quote: Stroporez
                Quote: apro
                It depends on which direction.

                From all directions, the Mediterranean, the bombing of the islands, the transfer and landing of troops, block the supply of resources, etc. etc.

                I think you overestimate the capabilities of the Reich. Moreover, it is very significant. Allies of Germany? Duce described his military inconsistency in a famous letter to the Fuhrer on 25.09.39/XNUMX/XNUMX. Mare Nostrum was not a damn nostrum, and it was impossible for the Kriegsmarine to correct this status quo. The speed with which Vichy merged in Syria - no comment at all. So, the efforts of the Reich "in all directions" would lead to its collapse rather quickly.
            2. ammunition
              ammunition 8 March 2021 15: 30
              -3
              Quote: apro
              I think the most promising is the Mediterranean. The capture of the basin and the Suez Canal put the Angles in an extremely difficult situation

              Gibraltar and Suez, the transformation of the Mediterranean into an inland lake of Germany. Engaging Turkey in the "return" of the Middle East.
              This gave Germany guaranteed and secure access to rich resources.
              --------------
              It seems to be logical and expedient .. -) But .. as the author writes, this is an afterthought.
              Fig knows .. Who is Hitler? .. judging purely by his deeds, then Hitler is a 100% agent of American capital.
            3. Alf
              Alf 8 March 2021 17: 14
              -2
              Quote: apro
              Landing on the islands did not address access to resources.

              The landing would have solved a more important issue - with the occupation of Britain, all other parts of the empire would have entered a state of uncertainty. All economic ties were tied to the metropolis, the government went from there. For example, Gibraltar. Yes, it blocked the entrance and exit to Middle-earth, but if you cut off supplies from the metropolis, how long would it last, especially when you consider the Rock's openness from land? How long would Malta last? Exactly enough to finish off the last biscuit and burn the last liter of gasoline. About all sorts of Australia-singapore in general there is no talk. And the United States would not have gotten involved in a war without an island ally, that is, a bridgehead. They considered the Pacific theater of operations more important for the United States throughout the war.
              1. apro
                apro 8 March 2021 17: 18
                +1
                Quote: Alf
                The landing would solve a more important question - when Britain was occupied, all other parts of the empire would come to a state of uncertainty.

                The royal dynasty would have crossed over to Canada. Fortunately, there was such a plan. And the rule was further. There were enough territories and resources.
                1. lucul
                  lucul 8 March 2021 17: 28
                  0
                  The royal dynasty would have crossed over to Canada. Thankfully, that was the plan.

                  London was the main financial center of the world, and the financial center just cannot be moved - this requires the consent of the parties)))
                  and rules further. Territories and resources were enough.

                  Uh-huh, but where would they get the industry then if the island fell? )))
                  1. apro
                    apro 8 March 2021 17: 38
                    0
                    Quote: lucul
                    this requires the consent of the parties)))

                    America would gladly agree ...
                    Quote: lucul
                    Uh-huh, but where would they get the industry then if the island fell? )))

                    Sga would solve this problem too ...
                  2. lucul
                    lucul 8 March 2021 17: 54
                    -8
                    America would gladly agree ...

                    You do not understand the essence)))
                    It's like in a gang someone challenged the leader - until the showdown is over, no one twitches and does not elect a new leader. And England was challenged.
                    If the leader has fallen, then everything, he is no longer a leader)))
                    Sga would solve this problem too ...

                    They showed how the Americans were ready for war with Germany in the Ardennes.
                  3. apro
                    apro 8 March 2021 17: 58
                    0
                    Quote: lucul
                    You do not understand the point))

                    And you sarcasm. Americans and sought this from the English. Unofficially.
                    Quote: lucul
                    They showed how the Americans were ready for war with Germany in the Ardennes.

                    What to do. But the Americans are able to create a multiple advantage in all respects ...
                  4. lucul
                    lucul 8 March 2021 18: 02
                    -8
                    What to do. But the Americans are able to create a multiple advantage in all respects ...

                    If Germany had not attacked the USSR, America would not have had a chance to defeat Germany, it already possessed the entire industry of Europe.
                  5. apro
                    apro 8 March 2021 18: 07
                    +1
                    Quote: lucul
                    America would have no chance of defeating Germany

                    And in Germany to defeat the sga.
                  6. lucul
                    lucul 8 March 2021 18: 21
                    +1
                    And in Germany to defeat the sga.

                    This is of course an interesting question - Germany's technologies were advanced and, possessing all the resources of Europe, Germany could have that way in 20 years (with the neutrality of the USSR) create a powerful fleet. It would be an interesting confrontation.
                  7. apro
                    apro 8 March 2021 18: 34
                    +1
                    Quote: lucul
                    It would be an interesting confrontation.

                    From the genre of alternative history ...
                  8. lucul
                    lucul 8 March 2021 18: 40
                    -2
                    From the genre of alternative history ...

                    Well, all options, except for historical ones, are always alternative))))
            4. The comment was deleted.
        2. Cherry Nine
          Cherry Nine 8 March 2021 23: 34
          +1
          Quote: lucul
          And England was challenged.
          If the leader has fallen, then everything, he is no longer a leader)))

          You see, the leader in 40 was already clear to everyone. This is not Britain or the Reich.
          Quote: lucul
          They showed how the Americans were ready for war with Germany in the Ardennes.

          Ready beyond expectations, as it turned out. The American command greatly underestimated its capabilities.
          Quote: lucul
          If Germany had not attacked the USSR, America would not have had a chance to defeat Germany

          Seriously? By mid-42, U.S. military production exceeded that of all Axis countries combined. And in 42, things were going pretty well for the Reich.

          By the way, why the hell is the United States defeating Germany? Did they have any disagreements?
        3. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 9 March 2021 15: 37
          0
          Quote: lucul
          They showed how the Americans were ready for war with Germany in the Ardennes.

          Not badly prepared - in nine days they transferred the situation from "jerry broke through - escape to that may" at "my Fuhrer, you must immediately stop the operation and retreat".
    2. Frank Muller
      Frank Muller April 14 2021 23: 17
      0
      : It is strange that you forgot about the large-scale operation carried out by the British to export basic valuables and banking assets to Canada by sea. The operation took place, as they say, without a hitch. Perhaps because it was strictly classified and carefully organized: the conducted convoys were never attacked by the German Navy, delivering the precious bulk cargo safe and sound. Against this background, the organization of the export of the most important persons of the state overseas would not present difficulties.
  2. Alf
    Alf 8 March 2021 17: 33
    -1
    Quote: apro
    Quote: Alf
    The landing would solve a more important question - when Britain was occupied, all other parts of the empire would come to a state of uncertainty.

    The royal dynasty would have crossed over to Canada. Fortunately, there was such a plan. And the rule was further. There were enough territories and resources.

    Well, I would have moved, so what? The entire British economy would be lost for Britain and a huge gift for Germany. Britain is invaded, France is invaded, Spain is an ally of the Reich. The Mediterranean Sea would automatically become German, because no one would give the Rock to supply. By and large, there is no military industry in Canada. Well, yes, the queen is sitting in Ottawa, so what? And Ireland has very strong German roots, how long would the local government last? Having received the Islands, Germany would have begun to control the Atlantic Ocean - the United States did not yet have a fleet ... So it turns out that with the capture of Britain, the entire Empire would collapse like a house of cards.
    By resources. Even with Britain holding on, how many weapons did Canada release during the entire war? Shish yes a little. But no one interfered. And again, German sentiment in Canada was also very strong.
    1. apro
      apro 8 March 2021 17: 42
      +1
      Quote: Alf
      Well, I would have moved, so what?

      The rules and fought under the patronage of the sga. To evict the windsurgeons from the islands. They must first be captured. But Germany clearly did not have enough resources, especially surface forces.
    2. Alf
      Alf 8 March 2021 17: 50
      +2
      Quote: apro
      they must first be captured.

      Guernsey and Jernsey .. What did the local authorities do after the occupation of the islands? Photos with German and British police officers, patrolling together, is it worth bringing? It was the BRITISH authorities on these islands that hid the BRITISH citizens for STATEMENTS against the Reich. And instead of the queen, Hitler had another British monarch, an adherent of Reich-Edward-8, in his portfolio. Here's a new king for you.
    3. apro
      apro 8 March 2021 17: 53
      +1
      Quote: Alf
      Here's a new king for you

      First you need to take London ...
    4. Alf
      Alf 8 March 2021 17: 56
      0
      Oleg, I respect you as an intelligent member of the forum without a hurray and everything is lost. But can you argue with me on the facts I have cited? Take London? And there was something to defend? And check out my comment from Black Moccone.
    5. apro
      apro 8 March 2021 18: 05
      +1
      Quote: Alf
      And there was something to defend?

      The Anglican fleet. Was many times superior to the Germans. And the Germans had problems in amphibious means. The more the air offensive of the Germans ended in nothing.
    6. Alf
      Alf 8 March 2021 18: 10
      +1
      Quote: apro
      The Anglican fleet was many times superior to the Germans.

      Yes, yes .. Here only the fleet was FORCED to be present in the landing zone, but it is not great, and the width of the Channel is 30 km. I wish the Kriegsmarine would be happy. Remember what losses Crete had for the British fleet. And over the Canal, the British fleet would be under the Luftwaffe all the time. A meat grinder would be creepy, but even if the fleets of the Reich and the empire had destroyed themselves (and I personally think this option is the most realistic), then the victory on points would have been for Germany - the Britfleet would have been destroyed and it would not have been a problem to supply and support the paratroopers.
    7. apro
      apro 8 March 2021 18: 32
      0
      Alf. It is not necessary to consider both the Germans and the Britons stupid and narrow-minded. Here is a victory. You just have to take. And only 30 km. Can be surpassed. And how to support the paratroopers ??? there will be enough cruisers and battleships? The Angles strike at the Italians as opponents. And the French as not opponents with one goal. to weaken the fleet. and it is the battleships that fall under attack. all the more, the Italians cannot leave the Mediterranean Sea. and it’s not possible to transfer the fleet to the Calais. It’s not easy to pass the gibraltar with the French fleet. the allies yesterday but today together with the Germans on them in battle ??? not an option. and an umbrella over the fleet of the Angles could well put up. resources were enough. the whole operation for the Germans is very risky. long. and with unclear prospects. all the more, Hitler still received some agreements. with the help of Hess ...
    8. Alf
      Alf 8 March 2021 18: 45
      0
      Quote: apro
      The Angles strike at the Italians as adversaries, and the French as non-adversaries with one goal, to weaken the fleet, and it is the battleships that fall under the attack.

      Have you read me carefully about Crete?
      Quote: apro
      gibraltar need to pass

      Have you forgotten Spain? She, in fact, was considered an ally of the Reich. And there was no need for the Spanish army to attack, it was enough to block the Rock from land. And the Britons themselves admitted that the Rock was not fortified from land.
      Quote: apro
      the whole operation for the Germans is very risky, lengthy, and with unclear prospects

      And in a strange war, the allies and tanks had maybe more, but after May 10 they did not have time to skedaddle. The Germans took a chance and won.
      Quote: apro
      and the Angles could have put up an umbrella over the fleet.

      Operation Sea Lion was supposed to begin after the conquest of air supremacy by the Luftwaffe, and by the time the Germans shifted their efforts from strikes on airfields to bombing cities, the Raf was already experiencing a severe shortage of aircraft. Price later noted in his memoirs that the industry could no longer cope not only with the supply of new Spits and Hurricanes, but also with the overhaul of the damaged ones.
    9. apro
      apro 8 March 2021 19: 01
      +1
      Quote: Alf
      Have you read me about Crete carefully?

      The Angles could not organize an air umbrella and got what they got, and the Germans bleed their airborne troops.
      Quote: Alf
      She, in fact, was considered an ally of the Reich.

      An extremely dubious assertion. If the Germans provided military assistance to them, then the political English. In the destruction of the republic. And even breathed in good health after the civil war.
      Quote: Alf
      The Germans took a chance and won.

      Or they might not have won if the Ardennes maneuver was discovered in time.
      Quote: Alf
      Operation Sea Lion was to begin after the Luftwaffe's air supremacy was conquered.

      But it did not grow together ... the air battle was stopped by the Germans themselves.
    10. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 8 March 2021 23: 44
      +3
      Quote: Alf
      Have you read me carefully about Crete?

      What about Crete?
      Quote: Alf
      She, in fact, was considered an ally of the Reich.

      She is an ally of Britain, who covered Gibraltar from the Germans throughout the war. Not free, by the way, covered. It is strange that someone does not know.
      Quote: Alf
      The Germans took a chance and won.

      Or they could have taken the risk and lost.
      Quote: Alf
      Price later noted in his memoirs that the industry could no longer cope not only with the supply of new Spits and Hurricanes, but also with the overhaul of the damaged ones.

      What a misfortune.

      Let me remind you that BzB was lost by backlashes.
    11. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 9 March 2021 17: 13
      +1
      Quote: Alf
      Have you forgotten Spain? She, in fact, was considered an ally of the Reich

      Spain was not an ally of the Reich. But she tried in every possible way to seem like it - so as not to quarrel with the Reich.
      By 1940, the caudillo was loyal to whoever could provide food supplies to the country ravaged by the Civil War. The Reich could not even theoretically - Germany itself did not have enough food. But America could. That is why Franco put forward absolutely unrealistic requirements as conditions for Spain's entry into the Axis - knowing in advance that the Reich would not agree to this.
      And even by sending the "blue division" Franco for the most part solved precisely the internal Spanish problems: the wise caudillo got rid of most of the ultra-right phalangists in one fell swoop - those for whom even he was "red" and who, with their radicalism, prevented at least somehow smoothing out the degree of tension in the country and establish a normal life (like the Trotsky of the right flank). Plus, the division could rid Spain and some of the Reds who wanted to get into the USSR.
    12. gsev
      gsev 7 May 2021 22: 45
      0
      Quote: Alf
      Have you read me carefully about Crete?

      In the Cretan operation, the British were forced to carry ammunition there in convoys from Great Britain or India. In the Battle of England, the British had a military structure that had been sharpened for centuries to defend the Island. The success of the Cretan operation was ensured by the fact that the Germans neutralized British aircraft on the island on the first day. In the battle for Britain, the Germans had no signs of a clear victory - their resistance was becoming more and more successful. This was facilitated by the fact that before the Cretan operation, the British aircraft carrier operating near Crete suffered heavy losses in aircraft. In addition, the Germans, during the air preparation of the Cretan operation, were able to inflict significant damage on the British aviation in Crete. The British, even a few days before the start of the operation, were forced to withdraw their aircraft from Crete (I cannot estimate which part). The Germans did not expect anything like this when they landed in Britain. The weather could disrupt the actions of German aircraft at any moment. The British fleet was based near the landing site and could certainly appear at possible bridgeheads in 24-48 hours with heavy naval artillery. The Germans' capabilities were limited by the ability of the transport aircraft to land and supply 30 people, subject to the capture of airfields. At best, the German paratroopers found themselves in a situation in which the French were at Dien Bien Phu. Despite complete air supremacy, the airfields for supplying the paratroopers were lost or destroyed by artillery, the evacuation of the wounded is impossible, the delivery of heavy weapons and ammunition is difficult, the parachute landing area is covered with shrapnel fire. In Great Britain, the Germans were unable to provide air cover for assault forces around the clock. The British with concentrated raids would drive away the cover and bombed the paratroopers with impunity with concentrated strikes from the depths of the Island. In addition, the Germans, after taking the airfields, needed to break through to the coast to join the amphibious assault. It was impossible to take Britain in 000 days like Crete by landing, and in 10 days less than a third of the fighters would have remained from the landing.
  3. Cherry Nine
    Cherry Nine 8 March 2021 23: 40
    +2
    What other queen, hello? George VI, 1936-52
    Quote: Alf
    British monarch, adherent of the Reich-Edward-8

    Edward VIII was a zigonaut only in the articles of the left-wing English press.
    Quote: Alf
    Disembarkation would solve a more important question - when Britain was occupied

    Landing in Britain was impossible. Some crazy conversation.
  4. gsev
    gsev 9 March 2021 03: 27
    +3
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    Landing in Britain was impossible. Some crazy conversation.

    All the successes of the Germans in the war on the Western Front fell on the periods when the British cryptorists lost the ability to quickly decrypt German radio communications encrypted with enigma. Perhaps if the German ransomware had more carefully tuned their cars without using the names or parts of the girls' names as keys, the Germans would have been able to neutralize the British fighter aircraft and land in Britain. In some parts of the southern coast, the density of British troops, according to Cooper Belton in his book "Death Traps", was very low.
  • Maki Avellevich
    Maki Avellevich 8 March 2021 20: 21
    +1
    Quote: apro
    The royal dynasty would have crossed over to Canada.

    for Germany, the main thing was to get rid of the British fleet that was strangling the young Third Reich and there was no escape from it.
    and the royal family could even migrate to Zanzibar.
  • Mordvin 3
    Mordvin 3 8 March 2021 06: 27
    +6
    Quote: Stroporez
    I was always interested in the question, what would have happened if Hitler had brought down all the power of the Reich not on the USSR, but on England ?!

    Couldn't. Their navy was too weak for an invasion of England.
    1. Sling cutter
      Sling cutter 8 March 2021 06: 36
      +6
      Quote: Mordvin 3
      Couldn't. Their navy was too weak for an invasion of England.

      I will disagree. Look, what an island and a huge USSR there is. I am more than sure that three or four months and a britam kaput.
      1. Mordvin 3
        Mordvin 3 8 March 2021 06: 38
        +3
        Quote: Stroporez
        I will disagree. Look, what an island and a huge USSR there is.

        Are we talking about Germany, or about the USSR?
        1. Sling cutter
          Sling cutter 8 March 2021 06: 49
          +6
          Quote: Mordvin 3
          Are we talking about Germany, or about the USSR?

          And we are about everything little by little laughing
          I'm talking about what would have happened if Hitler had fought the Angles in earnest and had not invaded the USSR.
          1. Mordvin 3
            Mordvin 3 8 March 2021 06: 56
            +3
            Quote: Stroporez
            I'm talking about what would have happened if Hitler had fought the Angles seriously

            I think that he did not have the opportunity to seriously fight the Angles. Although ... Fuck knows, it's not for nothing that Rudy Hess flew to them. Stalin also asked whom we would drop by parachute into England.
          2. Sling cutter
            Sling cutter 8 March 2021 06: 58
            +8
            Quote: Mordvin 3
            Although ... Fuck knows, it's not for nothing that Rudy Hess

            Here I am about this .., agreement? I repeat once again, only archives will be able to reveal the truth.
          3. Mordvin 3
            Mordvin 3 8 March 2021 07: 01
            +6
            Quote: Stroporez
            I repeat once again, only archives will be able to reveal the truth.

            Archives will not be opened. No wonder Hess was killed by the British when Gorby asked him to be released. New thinking, yeah! laughing
          4. Frank Muller
            Frank Muller April 14 2021 22: 54
            0
            Here you are somewhat wrong. When Mishka - "Marked" had to express his opinion about the possible release of Hess ("because of his advanced age"), he resolutely objected: "In the country most affected by the Second World War, I simply will not be understood if I agree with the pardon of one of the main war criminals who unleashed this war. "
  • apro
    apro 8 March 2021 06: 50
    +4
    Quote: Stroporez
    I am more than sure that three or four months and a britam kaput.

    First, it is necessary to land. Then, to ensure the forces of the invasion. And the English fleet will observe the required amount of materiel by air.
    1. Sling cutter
      Sling cutter 8 March 2021 07: 04
      +8
      Quote: apro
      First you need to land

      Blockade first! In fact, the confrontation would look like this, the whole Europe captured by Hitler, incl. Italy, Spain, Portugal, Scandinavia against the island! And then, as you said, the capture of Africa, the canals and the Mediterranean. It would NOT be enough for the Britons to resist such a colossus.
      1. apro
        apro 8 March 2021 07: 06
        +2
        Quote: Stroporez
        Brits would NOT have enough urine to resist such a colossus.

        There was no machine ...
      2. Blackmokona
        Blackmokona 8 March 2021 10: 17
        -2
        The United States goes to war on the side of Britain, and the GDPs of Britain and the United States are much larger than the GDP of Hitler's united Europe. There is total domination in the fleet. Japan would be killed along the way. Then everything drags on until the mass production of US nuclear weapons and Germany ceases to exist, turning into a nuclear wasteland. This is where the war ends
      3. Alf
        Alf 8 March 2021 17: 50
        0
        Quote: BlackMokona
        USA goes to war on the side of Britain,

        Three times Ha..Did not want the population of the states to fight, what is the policy of non-intervention to remind? How until December 41, Roosevelt fought the Senate and Congress over aid to Britain? This is not our business, they said in the Senate.
        The United States goes to war ... And let me ask you, how can American troops get to Britain? Nobody will interfere? And what to fight with? How many tanks were there in the United States at the start of the Strange War, something like 400? And what kind of tanks were they? And the size of the US Army at the beginning of 40? And the situation would turn out - there is no one to fight, nothing, the devil knows where and it is not known for what.
      4. Blackmokona
        Blackmokona 8 March 2021 18: 21
        +2
        Read about the preparation of the United States for war and when the Lend-Lease began for Britain
      5. Alf
        Alf 8 March 2021 18: 33
        +1
        Quote: BlackMokona
        Read about the preparation of the United States for war and when the Lend-Lease began for Britain

        When the British procurement commission arrived in the United States, it found out with unpleasant interest that there was nothing to buy.
        For example, the famous Grant came out only for trials on February 1, 41, he got into the series only in June 41.
        The famous P-40 entered the assembly line only in March 40th.
        How to fight something? P-36 versus 109E or M2 versus T-3? Real help from the United States to Britain then consisted only in the supply of food (very important), the use of US shipyards by British ships and supplies of fuel and lubricants, which is also very important, but if there is nothing to refuel with this gasoline ... If my memory serves me, by the time the efforts of the Luftwaffe were transferred from airfields to cities, the entire reserve of British fighter aircraft was 36 aircraft. And who owns the air, owns the land, this was very well explained to us throughout the 41st and 42nd years.
      6. Blackmokona
        Blackmokona 8 March 2021 18: 43
        -1
        Why would Britain need tanks and other land vehicles then? She needed ships and planes with this was no problem.
      7. Alf
        Alf 8 March 2021 18: 51
        0
        Quote: BlackMokona
        Why would Britain need tanks and other land vehicles then?

        They would explain it to the Wehrmacht.
        Quote: BlackMokona
        and the planes had no problems with this.

        Just with this, at the beginning of the 40th there were big problems. Do you propose to fight the ME-36E on the P-109? Good luck.
      8. Blackmokona
        Blackmokona 8 March 2021 18: 53
        0
        1) So let him first sail to the island.
        2) In 1940, the British ordered King Cobras in the United States. Have you heard of such an aircraft?
      9. Alf
        Alf 8 March 2021 19: 00
        0
        Quote: BlackMokona
        ) In 1940, the British ordered King Cobras in the United States. Have you heard of such an aircraft?


        Do you have a time machine?
        Quote: BlackMokona
        1) So let him first sail to the island.

        An introductory was set - in May 40, the Sea Lion began. All American machinery, by the way, is not much superior to the Germans, hit the conveyor later. Well, how to fight back, especially if you remember that all the heavy junk was thrown in Dunkirk?
      10. Blackmokona
        Blackmokona 8 March 2021 19: 05
        +2
        1) I confused it with Airacobra, I apologize
        On April 13, 1940, a contract was signed for the supply of a total of 675 vehicles to Great Britain, including 200 not sold to France. At the request of the customer, the aircraft were modified and received the factory code "model 14A" with the V-1710-E4 engine. The aircraft had protected fuel tanks of a smaller capacity, a modified oxygen system, a 20-mm Hispano Mk.1 cannon.

        2)
        The start date of the operation was continually postponed. On January 9, 1941, after the defeat in the Battle of Britain, Hitler ordered the cancellation of the landing in Britain. On February 13, 1942, the commander of the Kriegsmarine, Admiral Raeder, spoke to Hitler for the last time about Operation Sea Lion and persuaded him to agree to an end to any preparations in this direction.

        You never know what dates were set, Lutfafe lost the sky, and the Reich fleet did not even stand next to Royal Navi
      11. Alf
        Alf 8 March 2021 19: 09
        +3
        Here are just the first 20 (!) Cobras got off the assembly line only in January 41st, but we have a conversation for the 40th year.
        The British had nothing to fight off the landing in May 40, nothing. All hope was for diplomacy with the Germans.
      12. bubalik
        bubalik 8 March 2021 19: 38
        +1
        ,,, the British admit it themselves:
        If the enemy managed to maintain the initial force of the blows even a little longer, says the English official history of the Second World War, it would have catastrophic consequences for us. "

        J. Butler, J. Guayer. Great strategy. June 1941 - August 1942
      13. Blackmokona
        Blackmokona 8 March 2021 20: 14
        +1
        Only here the Germans have nothing to land on. Air lost, water too
    2. bubalik
      bubalik 8 March 2021 19: 34
      0
      the Reich fleet did not even stand next to the Royal Navi
      ,,, and what was the Royal Navy able to do in Operation Weserubung?
    3. Blackmokona
      Blackmokona 8 March 2021 20: 17
      0
      Could have drowned everyone if Norway had accepted British help before the Germans struck.
      As a result, and so ate a bunch.
      The German fleet suffered especially heavy losses - the heavy cruiser "Blucher", the light cruisers "Karlsruhe" and "Königsberg", 10 destroyers, the artillery training ship "Brummer", 8 submarines, a destroyer, 11 transports and more than 10 small ships were sunk. The battleships Scharnhorst and Gneisenau, the pocket battleship Lutzov, the heavy cruiser Admiral Hipper, the light cruiser Emden, and the artillery training ship Bremse were damaged
    4. bubalik
      bubalik 8 March 2021 20: 36
      +1
      ,,, and this despite the fact that the Germans were aimed at landing, and not at fighting at sea
      The Royal Navy lost 1 aircraft carrier, 2 light cruisers, 7 destroyers, 4 submarines, 1 sloop, 14 armed trawlers and 5 auxiliary vessels. Losses of the French fleet - 2 leaders, the Polish one - a destroyer and a submarine.
    5. Blackmokona
      Blackmokona 8 March 2021 20: 50
      +2
      Well, with a full exchange, the British still have a lot that would remain, but the Germans do not. And at home they would have acted more efficiently than those urgently abandoned to stop the invasion of the Germans.
    6. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 8 March 2021 23: 49
      +3
      Quote: bubalik
      Royal Navy lost 1 aircraft carrier, 2 light cruisers, 7 destroyers, 4 submarines, 1 sloop, 14 armed trawlers and 5 auxiliary vessels

      Well, they lost Viktories on the retreat in rather comical circumstances, and the rest is a trifle. The Germans, as indicated above, lost almost half of their large ships, completely or for repairs.
    7. Blackmokona
      Blackmokona 9 March 2021 12: 52
      +1
      Here I discovered that the British conducted a headquarters exercise in 1974 about the Sea Lion, where they used all the historical data available at that time on the situation, weather, forces, plans of the parties and so on. September 1940 was chosen for the invasion as the most likely time and the maximum optimism of the German command about the plan at that moment.
      Result, google translation.
      Although the first echelon landing was more successful than expected, the relative weakness of the German fleet, coupled with the Luftwaffe's lack of air supremacy, meant that they were unable to prevent the Royal Navy from intercepting second and third echelon crossings across the English Channel. The destruction of the naval forces of the next echelon hindered the resupply and reinforcement of the landing troops. This made the position of the initially successful invasion force unacceptable; he suffered additional casualties during the evacuation attempt. Of the 90 German soldiers disembarking, only 000 returned to France. 15 were taken prisoner, 400 were killed in action and 33 were drowned in the English Channel. All six judges considered the invasion a complete failure.
    8. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 9 March 2021 17: 24
      +1
      Quote: bubalik
      The Royal Navy lost 1 aircraft carrier, 2 light cruisers, 7 destroyers, 4 submarines, 1 sloop, 14 armed trawlers and 5 auxiliary vessels. Losses of the French fleet - 2 leaders, the Polish one - a destroyer and a submarine.

      At the same time, the German fleet after the victory in Norway for the next six months was reduced to two or three combat-ready cruisers and a dozen EM (or about one third of the forces of the RN Channel). The Germans had nothing to cover for the Sea Lion in 1940.
  • Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 9 March 2021 17: 22
    +1
    Quote: Alf
    How until December 41, Roosevelt fought the Senate and Congress over aid to Britain? This is not our business, they said in the Senate.

    Uh-huh ... so the Senate fought, so fought - that in January 1941 of the year Army men demanded to reduce aid to Britain at least to 50% of production. For the US army, which was in the process of explosive growth (17-fold growth of divisions in two years, the picture is similar in the Air Force), lacked the weapons remaining after the Lend-Lease, even for training.
    It was parallel to the Senate to help Britain. Although, as in parallel, the isolationists were against only the direct participation of the US army and navy in the war, but they were only for the state orders for armament (and it doesn't matter where these weapons go - the money was paid). Therefore, the FDR in 1941 robbed arsenals and even fresh orders of the US Army with impunity.
  • Cherry Nine
    Cherry Nine 8 March 2021 10: 45
    +5
    Quote: Stroporez
    Blockade first! In fact, the confrontation would look like this, the whole Europe captured by Hitler, incl. Italy, Spain, Portugal, Scandinavia against the island!

    What other blockade? And so, in the 40th year, the overseas cousins ​​woke up. And at sea, all the countries listed together are weaker than one England.
    By the way, with what fright did Spain and Portugal sign this fornication, not to mention Sweden? They are English friends, not German ones. And so there is nothing to eat, and then there is a quarrel with the British.
    Quote: Stroporez
    capture of Africa, canals and the Mediterranean

    With the capture of Africa, there were some logistical problems. In fact, even the French colonies did not find people to control.
  • Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 9 March 2021 17: 15
    0
    Quote: Stroporez
    Brits would NOT have enough urine to resist such a colossus.

    You forget about your cousins. Runway number 1 they would not give to pass in any case.
  • Niko
    Niko 8 March 2021 12: 43
    0
    Hitler also kept thinking that the Anglisans would sell themselves to anyone for jam for tea, we have many like-minded people on this issue even now, apparently knowledge of history was not their strong point since school
  • lucul
    lucul 8 March 2021 18: 00
    -3
    It is necessary to land first, then provide the forces of the invasion, and the English fleet will observe

    Did America sink the Japanese fleet with aircraft? What prevented Germany from doing the same, there is no need for aircraft carriers - the airfields are close at hand.
    1. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 8 March 2021 23: 50
      +1
      Quote: lucul
      Did America sink the Japanese fleet with aircraft? What prevented Germany from doing the same

      Well, Germany doesn't seem to have done that in real life. Perhaps because Britain is not Japan and Germany is not America.
    2. gsev
      gsev 9 March 2021 03: 40
      +1
      Quote: lucul
      Did America sink the Japanese fleet with aircraft? What prevented Germany from doing the same

      Initially, US submarines organized the blockade of Japan and the defeat of the Japanese merchant fleet. As a result, the Japanese were faced with a choice: to continue active operations without oil and gasoline, or to cancel the seizure of Fiji and Australia to export oil from Indonesia. The British were more effective than the Japanese in defending their merchant fleet from enemy submariners. The main stupidity of Hitler and the Japanese militarists is their failure to understand that economic and scientific competition is a more reliable way to achieve world domination, or at least local hegemony, than an adventurous war with all its neighbors.
    3. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 9 March 2021 17: 33
      +2
      Quote: gsev
      The British were more effective than the Japanese in defending their merchant fleet from enemy submariners.

      It's just that the British were initially preparing for a long and difficult war, in which they (with the support of their cousins ​​and the mobilization of the civilian fleet) had a chance of winning. As well as the cousins, who, in general, during the first year of the war, planned to play on MOT from defense, accumulating forces "until they achieved superiority over the enemy."
      The Japanese, on the other hand, understood perfectly well that the Empire could not withstand a long war, and therefore relied on a short victorious war, in which, after a series of crushing defeats, the enemy would surrender. Well, the pampered, cowardly and not possessing the fighting spirit of the true sons of Yamato, the American people can not not surrender. smile And in such a war, the protection of convoys is not needed - the enemy, constantly losing bases, simply will not have time to deploy enough forces on Japanese communications. If it comes to the necessity of escorting convoys, then everything, the war is lost.
    4. gsev
      gsev 10 March 2021 09: 00
      0
      Quote: Alexey RA
      The Japanese, on the other hand, understood perfectly well that the Empire could not withstand a long war - and therefore relied on a short victorious war,

      The Japanese believed that US generals did not know how to manage large military formations, and the US military machine was not capable of preparing and training an army capable of equal in size and training to the Japanese. That is, they expected in the face of the US Army to see a semblance of the Kuomintang or Red Army soldiers of the early 1930s. In addition, the Japanese considered the Americans pampered and weak in spirit and did not expect that the first 1 or 2 years of the war, shock units of the United States like the US Marine Corps would consist exclusively of volunteers. And the free possession of any weapon by US citizens revealed that in the battles on Guadalcanal, the US Marines' rifle training was far superior to the Japanese.
  • Avior
    Avior 8 March 2021 07: 27
    +6
    Exactly what an island. Hitler would have needed a fleet that he did not have.
    1. gsev
      gsev 10 March 2021 08: 51
      0
      Quote: Avior
      Exactly what an island. Hitler would have needed a fleet that he did not have.

      Instead of creating an expensive fleet, it would be more efficient to bomb an aircraft engine plant. However, the Abwehr said that his scout had blown up key engine machines. The plant has been shut down for a long time. And when the British installed new machines, the saboteur guaranteed a successful repetition of the sabotage. The Germans did not know that their agent had been exposed and was transmitting radio messages under control. And the reconnaissance plane flying over the allegedly blown up plant photographed an imitation of a fire and masterfully executed scenery of the consequences of an imaginary sabotage.
  • Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
    Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 8 March 2021 10: 39
    +7
    Quote: Stroporez
    Count up, some kind of island and a huge USSR.

    First, OKW was only interested in the "huge USSR" up to the Arkhangelsk-Gorky-Rostov line. Secondly, not "some kind of island", but The British Empire... The swastika over Parliament and the renaming of Buckingham Palace into Hitler Palace would not mean the surrender of BI, Hitler understood this perfectly.
    1. lucul
      lucul 8 March 2021 17: 33
      -5
      Secondly, not "some kind of island", but the British Empire.

      This island was the backbone of a high-tech industry. If it fell, they would not have opened any factories in Canada or Australia.
      There is a direct analogy with Byzantium, as the capital, Constantinople, fell, so Byzantium ended.
      1. gsev
        gsev 9 March 2021 03: 53
        0
        Quote: lucul
        as the capital, Constantinople, fell, so Byzantium ended.

        The Turks were the last to conquer Constantinople during the conquest of the Byzantine Empire. The defeat of Byzantium began when the common population of this country realized that the native oligarchs and the authorities left them less than the alien conquerors. Behind the splendor of the capital and the wealth of its aristocracy was the inability of the people to withstand difficult military tests.
      2. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 9 March 2021 17: 47
        +1
        Quote: lucul
        This island was the backbone of a high-tech industry.

        Half. The other half was overseas. In the spring of 1941, it came to the construction of an AVE for Britain at the US shipyards.
  • Alf
    Alf 8 March 2021 17: 24
    0
    Quote: mordvin xnumx
    Quote: Stroporez
    I was always interested in the question, what would have happened if Hitler had brought down all the power of the Reich not on the USSR, but on England ?!

    Couldn't. Their navy was too weak for an invasion of England.

    Why couldn't you? If we recall the state of confusion of the British army after Dunkirk, when even rifles were not enough for the ground forces ... Churchill said in his speech, `` We will fight for every street, for every house. '' And this meant that the top of Britain were oh, how not sure, that the landing could be repelled.
    Now for the fleet. It is worth remembering what losses the Royal Navy suffered at Crete. As mentioned above, the width of the Channel is 32 km. When the Germans landed, the British Volens-Nevolens fleet was to be present precisely in the landing area. What would the Kriegsmarine command do at this moment? I would be glad. I would have been glad that the entire British fleet would have gathered in one place. A meat grinder would be creepy, but it would be a situation where one day or one battle would decide everything.
    1. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 8 March 2021 23: 54
      +2
      Quote: Alf
      When the Germans landed, the British Volens-Nevolens fleet was to be present precisely in the landing area.

      Right here?
  • Koval Sergey
    Koval Sergey 8 March 2021 07: 33
    +19
    Quote: Stroporez
    I was always interested in the question, what would have happened if Hitler had brought down all the power of the Reich not on the USSR, but on England?

    It would be great, but unrealistic. Angles are well-known intriguers - in any case, they would have framed someone, they would have fought with someone else's hands. As actually happened.
    1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
      Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 8 March 2021 14: 46
      +1
      Quote: Sergey Koval
      Angles are well-known intriguers - in any case, they would have framed someone, they would have fought with someone else's hands. As actually happened.

      And with whose hands they fought in the BV, in the Battle of Britain, in Somalia and the Libyan desert?
  • Cherry Nine
    Cherry Nine 8 March 2021 10: 37
    +4
    would it be if Hitler brought down all the might of the Reich not on the USSR, but on England ?!

    Some strange question. Battle of Britain, spring-summer 40. How much power was - so much and brought down.
    1. lucul
      lucul 8 March 2021 17: 42
      0
      Some strange question. Battle of Britain, spring-summer 40. How much power was - so much and brought down.

      Answer a simple question - why did the Germans take off from German airfields, and not from northern France? The same Me.109 has a flight range of 600 km, that is, the combat radius is only 300 km, but what is the distance from Germany to England? ... The Me.109 could not normally accompany the bombers, he did not have enough fuel, when he met with Spitfire he had a maximum of 5 minutes to fight, and further back, or you run out of fuel in the middle of the sea.
      In the case of a launch from airfields in northern France, all of England was within reach of the Luftwaffe. And on the example of the bombing of Dresden, it is perfectly clear what the Luftwaffe could do with England.
      But this did not happen - that is why they called it the Strange War.
      1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
        Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 8 March 2021 19: 04
        +1
        Quote: lucul
        And on the example of the bombing of Dresden, it is perfectly clear what the Luftwaffe could do with England.

        laughing Yes, yes, 'that's exactly the same, only crosses on the wings'
      2. Cherry Nine
        Cherry Nine 8 March 2021 23: 57
        +2
        Quote: lucul
        why did the Germans take off from German airfields, and not from northern France

        Because the planes based in France could not cover the German cities. Germany is not America, make 5 sets of planes.

        And you Gitlor was an English spy, using backlashes purely out of Anglophilism?
        Quote: lucul
        And on the example of the bombing of Dresden

        Yeah.
      3. gsev
        gsev 9 March 2021 04: 00
        0
        Quote: lucul
        Answer a simple question - why did the Germans take off from German airfields, and not from northern France?

        The Germans had a chance to defeat the British air force by concentrating air strikes in different places. They did not know that the British were decrypting their orders and were able to beat the Germans themselves, concentrating their forces on some German air formations and evading the attacks of others. As a result, the Germans themselves were substituted for defeat, trying to neutralize enemy aircraft.
      4. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 9 March 2021 18: 33
        +1
        Quote: lucul
        Answer a simple question - why did the Germans take off from German airfields, and not from northern France?

        I do not understand ... And where were the forces of the 2nd and 3rd VFs based?

        The air offensive was carried out mainly by the forces of the 2nd and 3rd air fleets under the command of field marshals Kesselring and Sperl. The 2nd Fleet was based in northeastern France and the Netherlands, while the 3rd Fleet was based in the north and northwest of France.
        © Liddel-Garth
        Quote: lucul
        The same Me.109 has a flight range of 600 km, that is, the combat radius is only 300 km.

        200 km. Combat radius includes 30% fuel for air combat. 300 km is to arrive and fly at cruising speed. smile
        But in general:
        A decisive role for the German single-engine fighters in these battles was played by their limited range. Official data that the range of these aircraft at cruising speed is 412 miles, in practice, turned out to be incorrect. The actual range of this aircraft was just over 100 miles, so that such an aircraft could fly from Pas-de-Calais or from the Cotentin Peninsula to London, but he had very little time for battle. In other words, he could be in the air for only 95 minutes, which gave him only 75-80 minutes. combat flight time.
        © Liddel-Garth
  • Your stranger
    Your stranger 9 March 2021 22: 27
    -2
    And if at 41 he went not to the Pskov-Leningrad swamps, but to the Caspian and the Caucasus?
  • Andrey Zhdanov-Nedilko
    Andrey Zhdanov-Nedilko 8 March 2021 15: 22
    0
    And another question - and since the 1930s-40s, no one has done anything with the archives there? This is also a question. Maybe not, or maybe something was destroyed or forged. Everything is possible.
  • antivirus
    antivirus 8 March 2021 06: 31
    0
    white and fluffy did not see another white and fluffy against the background of white snow. where was the snow found in Europe?
  • svp67
    svp67 8 March 2021 06: 59
    +5
    hi
    Quote: apro
    So the Allies waited for Germany to lose itself.

    I'm wondering how they assessed the agreements concluded between Germany and the USSR. Did they not understand that a new factor had appeared, which they had to take into account and revise their entire concept of "strangulation". As a result of their "wise" foreign policy and "game" of sanctions, they managed to bring together Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, the situational alliance between which became virtually fatal for them ...
    So think about whether something similar is happening now
    1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
      Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 8 March 2021 08: 41
      +3
      Quote: svp67
      the situational alliance between which became virtually fatal for them ...

      For whom did the non-aggression pact between the Reich and the USSR become "virtually fatal"?
      1. svp67
        svp67 8 March 2021 09: 33
        +6
        Quote: Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
        For whom did the non-aggression pact between the Reich and the USSR become "virtually fatal"?

        In this Story, for Poland, Belgium, Norway, Denmark, Yugoslavia, Greece, France ... put Britain on the brink of death
        1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
          Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 8 March 2021 10: 02
          -2
          Quote: svp67
          for Poland, Belgium, Norway

          And what does the pact of Mr-R have to do with it?
          1. svp67
            svp67 8 March 2021 10: 40
            +11
            Quote: Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
            And what does the pact of Mr-R have to do with it?

            And you read the article. It turns out that the "allies" wanted to manipulate Hitler's "desires" by the methods of "opening and closing" supplies of vital resources for Germany. The Germans went to Poland - GOOD MEN, we will not interfere too much, the main thing is to get in touch with the USSR. If you go further to the USSR, we do not strongly object, the main thing is to remember that not only can we cover these supplies at any moment, but also strike with our troops in the rear of the advancing groupings.
            It becomes even more understandable why in 1939 England and France did nothing to enter into a military alliance with the USSR and force Poland into it. They didn't need it.
            And then the Germans decided to make a "knight's move," unexpectedly offering us the conclusion of an agreement, on such excellent conditions that one simply marvels, and most importantly, quickly.
            The USSR receives a bunch of technologies and equipment that it really needed. Germany got resources and peace on this side of the border
            1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
              Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 8 March 2021 11: 16
              +3
              Quote: svp67
              It turns out that the "allies" wanted to manipulate Hitler's "desires" by the methods of "opening and closing" supplies of vital resources for Germany.

              Yes, but the MR pact, I think, no longer meant anything for Poland - it was doomed, and Ribbentrop made this clear to Astakhov at a meeting on August 2.
              1. svp67
                svp67 8 March 2021 11: 19
                +2
                Quote: Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
                Yes, but the MR pact, I think, no longer meant anything for Poland - it was doomed, and Ribbentrop made this clear to Astakhov at a meeting on August 2.

                But if Poland's “allies” had made an agreement with the USSR, then it would definitely have stayed. With all the might of Germany, in 1939 she could not have long resisted the combined forces of Poland and the USSR.
                1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
                  Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 8 March 2021 12: 11
                  +2
                  Quote: svp67
                  But make the "allies" Poland come to an agreement with the USSR

                  How could they "force" the Poles to "come to an agreement" with the Soviets, if they themselves chewed snot in Moscow for a week just before Ribbentrop's arrival in it? What, Ironside, during his visit to Warsaw, should have put the question squarely in front of Beck and Stakhevych? I have very little idea, but you? Poland, although it puffed its noble cheeks, was entirely dependent on the outcome of the Moscow negotiations, all the more so, Beck mumbled that, in general, yes, such an alliance is needed, but Poland desires to have freedom of action, blah-blah-blah. A naive idiot with a complex of usefulness. Naturally, no one was going to save this "Versailles misunderstanding".
                  1. svp67
                    svp67 8 March 2021 12: 15
                    +2
                    Quote: Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
                    How could they "force" the Poles to "come to an agreement" with the Soviets, if they themselves chewed snot in Moscow for a week just before Ribbentrop's arrival in it?

                    To do this, it was necessary to send precisely those who decided something and could, and not these ...
                    1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
                      Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 8 March 2021 13: 54
                      +1
                      Quote: svp67
                      To do this, it was necessary to send precisely those who decided something and could, and not these ...

                      I suppose this kind of tolerance is from the field of alternative history) There was no such vector. The British / French were just as disoriented by the Germans as the Soviets regarding the continuation of the Weiss plan. Hitler, through the lips of Ribbentrop and Schulenburg, assured the Soviet leadership of an exclusively defensive strategy of the Reich in the West.
  • Far B
    Far B 8 March 2021 05: 20
    +15
    But it smells pretty good of afterthought
    What, nafig, afterthought ?! Didn't intelligence work for French and English? They did not know, at least approximately, what forces Germany possessed in September 1939? Weren't you aware that Hitler sent the lion's share of the troops to Poland in September 39? Yes, complete nonsense. There was no order for an offensive, not because some Anglo-French generals thoughtfully calculated something, but because it was not profitable for politicians at that time to bring down the Hitler regime. A Strange War is precisely a Strange War, it was perhaps impossible to come up with a more accurate definition (the Angles, however, did it even better). As old man Okkam used to say - do not create entities beyond what is necessary, citizen Verkhoturov! And then Suvorovism-Rezunovism gives off very clearly.
    1. apro
      apro 8 March 2021 05: 44
      +1
      Quote: Dalny V
      but because it was not profitable for politicians at that time to bring down the Hitler regime.

      Yes ... yes ... the Versailles system collapsed. And its guarantors turn a blind eye to it ... destroyed or passed under the German influence of the country the allies of the Entente. And this does not cause any reaction. Germany occupies a dominant position in Europe. This is the way it should be .that now the question is who benefits .. ??? .. obviously not the French with angles. who is the third pulling the strings. the USSR at that moment, too, should not pin high hopes. in the eyes of the West, a tertiary value.
      1. Far B
        Far B 8 March 2021 05: 57
        +1
        now the question is who benefits .. ??? .. obviously not the French with angla. who is the third pulling the strings.
        Expand your thought, pliz
    2. Avior
      Avior 8 March 2021 06: 40
      +4
      ... What, nafig, afterthought ?! Didn't intelligence work for French and English?

      You exaggerate the capabilities, role and value of intelligence. In the USSR, for example, it was also very strong.
      That did not prevent Hitler from carrying out a surprise attack at the same time with huge masses of troops.
      1. Far B
        Far B 8 March 2021 06: 59
        +2
        I am not exaggerating anything. It is clear that classical intelligence did not have all the information available. However, she had general information. At the same time, in that very September-39, the French actually carried out reconnaissance in force, having an almost two-fold numerical superiority. Faced with some resistance, having suffered the first losses, they decided that it was good for him - and on September 12, "by order of Maurice Gamelin, the French were forbidden to approach the German positions less than 1 km." That is, they stupidly not going to actively fight.
        As for the USSR, this is from a completely different opera. There were some misunderstandings about the date of the attack, but huge masses enemy troops were not a surprise.
        1. Avior
          Avior 8 March 2021 07: 15
          +6
          They were going to blockade Hitler's resources while at the same time forcing him to maintain an army so that they would be depleted faster. This was a very characteristic way of fighting for them - to minimize their own losses. If they immediately began to actively fight, there would be great losses and their own population began to resent why millions of their people are dying, although Hitler was not going to fight against them, he did not attack them, that this was not their war, that they had enough bloody World War I and so on. Moreover, the tactics of the blitzkrieg were then a curiosity - the war was then presented as positional, prolonged, and depleting of resources.
          But when the victims of an active attack by Hitler went, it changed the situation. Hitler was simply forced to do this - although they were not actively at war with him, they were still forced to maintain a huge army and spend resources, so he tried to make peace with England and France as quickly as possible. It succeeded with France, but big problems arose with England.
          1. Far B
            Far B 8 March 2021 07: 31
            +4
            Hitler was simply forced to do this.
            Clear. Poor Hitlar. They forced him to turn around - and ke-ek! on the wort to the frogs! I always thought that the Angles with french jackets simply directed him towards the USSR unobtrusively. And so they called "fire on themselves". Vaughn cho, Mikhalych!
            Py.Sy. And this is how they were going to achieve:
            They were going to blockade Hitler's resources, while forcing him to maintain an army so that they would be depleted faster.
            Well, considering the pact of Germany with the USSR, constant supply of ores from Sweden and tede and tepe?
            1. Avior
              Avior 8 March 2021 07: 58
              +6
              Did the USSR take over the supply of resources to Germany? In the USSR, in general, there was no excess of them, and there was no supply from the border either, and then this was the main path. Ore from Sweden - in fact, they also tried to block its supplies, if you know.
              And about directing towards the USSR, it is much more logical not to declare war on Hitler before the attack on the USSR, having untied his hands.
              Moreover, it was known from Mein Kapf that Hitler was categorically opposed to a war on two fronts, in the East and West.
              A strange way to send Hitler to the East, declaring war on him in the West, is not it?
              1. Far B
                Far B 8 March 2021 08: 15
                +5
                And about directing in the direction of the USSR, it is much more logical not to declare war on Hitler before the attack on the USSR, having untied his hands
                Obligations to Poland, like, obligated. So the war was declared, but no hostilities were carried out. All norms and formalities were followed. You don't have to worry about the further escalation of hostilities, plan raids on the oil fields of Baku and do other pleasant things. The activation of Hitler in the spring of 1940 was an extremely unpleasant surprise for the Anglo-Franks, for which they were completely unprepared. It’s strange for people who actively forced Hitler to answer - don’t you think?
                Did the USSR take over the supply of resources to Germany?
                Yeah. The USSR supplied Germany with a certain list of raw materials and semi-finished products, Germany in return supplied the USSR with machine tools and other high-tech products. Didn't you know?
                1. Avior
                  Avior 8 March 2021 08: 54
                  +5
                  ... Obligations to Poland, like, obligated.

                  If they wanted to send Hitler to the East, then declaring war on him in the West is the height of stupidity. And as for the fact that the war is fictitious, Hitler, as you know, did not think so at all, he actively got involved in a war in the West that was absolutely unnecessary for him.
                  And they did not force them to respond, they blocked supplies. The fact that the blockade turned out to be such a sensitive threat to Hitler that he began large-scale hostilities speaks of the seriousness of the situation for him.
                  And do not forget, no one thought about blitzkriegs at that time, and this method of warfare by the Germans turned out to be an unexpected nuisance for the West.
                  As for the supplies from the USSR, these were just individual positions that helped Germany, and not a full-fledged supply of resources. Do not forget that the war began a few days after the conclusion of the pact and trade agreement with the USSR, there was no Friendship Treaty with Germany yet, no one knew the volume, nomenclature and stability of supplies.
                  And, by the way, as you mentioned, they also had plans to fight against supplies of resources that are sensitive for Germany from the USSR in their plans - the same planned strikes on the oil fields.
          2. Woodman
            Woodman 8 March 2021 08: 13
            +2
            Quote: Avior
            They were going to blockade Hitler's resources while at the same time forcing him to maintain an army so that they would be depleted faster.

            It was precisely this factor that should have forced the Fuhrer, as a sane ruler, not to limit himself to the seizure of Poland, but to continue to seize any available territories on which there are the necessary resources.
            1. Avior
              Avior 8 March 2021 08: 58
              +4
              Capturing any available is to disperse forces.
              The war with England, and later with the United States, demanded an expensive fleet in consumption, and these resources were taken away from the capabilities of the ground forces and the Luftwaffe.
              Hitler did not pull a full-fledged fleet, which made him look for an ersatz in the form of submarines - but this ersatz is an ersatz, the effect is only temporary
              1. Woodman
                Woodman 8 March 2021 09: 17
                +2
                Quote: Avior
                Hitler did not pull a full-fledged fleet,

                This is never a reason to obediently sit and wait until the country begins to experience a total shortage of food and resources. This is a reason to look for a replacement for the sea nearby. Considering the experience of the First World War, when France and England fought in earnest and the fact that their armies at that time occupied equipped positions (which, again, from experience, threatened trench warfare), Germany had only a path to the East. So this article is just an attempt to justify the Western coalition in their desire to push Germany and the USSR against each other.
                1. Avior
                  Avior 8 March 2021 09: 42
                  +6
                  And how did the war in the West stimulate Hitler to the East, if Hitler said in plain text that the war in the East and West at the same time is destructive for Germany and must be avoided?
                  And he was right, by the way, two world wars have clearly demonstrated this.
                  then Germany had only a way to the East.

                  Forced path, since it did not work in the West
                  After all, his goal is not to seize more of Europe, Europe is a resource eater, not a producer, and the economy was then resource-intensive, this is not the current science-intensive high technologies.
                  He needed access to resources, colonies.
                  And, it is clear that England had nothing against Hitler starting a war against his actual ally, the USSR, why not?
                  They have a war with Hitler, the fewer allies he has, the better for the British.
                  1. Woodman
                    Woodman 8 March 2021 10: 00
                    +2
                    Quote: Avior
                    if Hitler said in plain text that a war in both the East and the West is destructive for Germany and must be avoided?

                    Hitler virtually escaped the war on two fronts, having managed to defeat France and kicked the British out of the continent. In fact, he outplayed his opponents.

                    Quote: Avior
                    England had nothing against Hitler starting a war against his de facto ally, the USSR, why not?

                    And that is why she did not take active actions at the front. And not at all in the hope of an economic collapse of Germany. In general, such a blockade only helped to weaken the enemy, but not force him to sign a surrender. Remember Napoleon. He also went to the East rather than asking England to surrender.
                    Therefore, the calculation on the effectiveness of the blockade as an excuse for the "strange war" sounds like child's play.
                    1. Avior
                      Avior 8 March 2021 19: 37
                      +1
                      Hitler virtually escaped the war on two fronts, having managed to defeat France and kicked the British out of the continent. In fact, he outplayed his opponents.

                      by 2 escaped. had to fight for 4
                      And that is why she did not take active actions at the front.

                      yes, but the war was declared just like that.
                      Hitler himself, as you know, did not agree with you.
                2. Cherry Nine
                  Cherry Nine 8 March 2021 10: 53
                  +1
                  Quote: Lesovik
                  in their desire to push Germany and the USSR against each other.

                  It is a great idea to confront Germany and the USSR, but, alas, it never occurred to the bourgeoisie. Since the idea of ​​joining in for Poland (which until the end of the 30s has excellent relations with the Reich) clearly interferes with this clash. But the real politician comrade. Stalin-Molotov - it helps, and very much.
                  1. Woodman
                    Woodman 8 March 2021 11: 16
                    +2
                    Quote: Cherry Nine
                    Since the idea of ​​joining in for Poland (which until the end of the 30s has excellent relations with the Reich) clearly interferes with this clash.

                    The idea of ​​combining the blockade of Germany with the simultaneous "untiing of hands" for actions in the East could come at a time when it became clear that Poland simply would not hold out until real help from the allies. Therefore, there are documents about the blockade in the archives. And they would be relevant if the Allies were able to help Poland to hold out under the onslaught of Germany. But the real state of affairs shows that a real blockade did not work out, and the allies themselves sought to avoid wars, spitting on the fate of an ally. And the "blockaded" Germany perfectly found the resources to wage a difficult war for several years. And Germany began to experience real problems with supply only when the USSR began to take Germany's allies "out of the game" one by one.
                    1. Cherry Nine
                      Cherry Nine 8 March 2021 13: 08
                      +1
                      Quote: Lesovik
                      The idea to combine the blockade of Germany with the simultaneous "untiing of hands" for actions in the East could have come at that moment

                      Wow, what impulsive allies.

                      In reality, they got the idea to bomb Baku a little.
                      Quote: Lesovik
                      real supply problems Germany began to experience

                      It depends on what you call "problems". And when the USSR got to someone there, the Americans were already in Holland.
                      1. Woodman
                        Woodman 8 March 2021 13: 18
                        +2
                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        what impulsive allies

                        I would say not reliable.
                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        In reality, they got the idea to bomb Baku a little.

                        In reality, this became known thanks to the capture of certain documents by the Germans. We would have managed to destroy the archive and we would not have found out about it, because such documents would hardly have been declassified.
                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        And when the USSR got to someone there, the Americans were already in Holland.

                        Those. Germany received all the resources for the war from the territory of Holland? Did you also supply Romanian oil and Swedish ore through Holland? And how, then, did the naval blockade help isolate Germany from Holland?
                        I certainly understand that there is such a phenomenon as Anglophilism, but not to the same extent ...
                      2. Cherry Nine
                        Cherry Nine 8 March 2021 15: 35
                        0
                        Quote: Lesovik
                        I would say not reliable

                        Rather strange. Some escapades, some strange fantasies.
                        In September of the 39th, the Reich and the USSR got along quite well, waiting for them to fight (although even then many said that they would surely fight) was a very controversial strategy.
                        Quote: Lesovik
                        We would have managed to destroy the archive and we would not have found out about it, because such documents would hardly have been declassified.

                        1. What's the difference?
                        2. Why be ashamed? Already at the end of the 40s, politicians who survived made excuses for cooperation with the USSR, and not vice versa.
                        Quote: Lesovik
                        Those. Germany received all the resources for the war from the territory of Holland?

                        That is, by the time the USSR appeared in Romania, the Reich had all sorts of different difficulties.
                        But Romania is not, the needs of the Reich did not provide. Information about the pre-war foreign trade of the Reich is not difficult to find.
                      3. gsev
                        gsev 9 March 2021 04: 13
                        0
                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        In September 39, the Reich and the USSR got along quite well,

                        More recently, the USSR actually fought against Germany and Italy in Spain. And after the death of Republican Spain, the USSR in the summer of 1939 was very afraid that the coalition that defeated the Red Army, according to Franco in Spain, would not continue the war in the Amur region, Transcaucasia and Ukraine, together with Japan, Poland and Turkey. In addition, in 1938 Poland, in alliance with Germany, crushed the allied USSR Czechoslovakia.
              2. strannik1985
                strannik1985 8 March 2021 13: 55
                +1
                Of course of course. That is why the English representative at the Moscow negotiations in the summer of 1939 did not have written powers, and the secret instruction instructed to prolong the negotiations as much as possible. laughing
                At the same time, the British ambassador to Berlin explained the negotiations with a desire to put pressure on Berlin. wink
                They so wanted to fit in for Polandthat virtually nothing was done to save her.
                1. Cherry Nine
                  Cherry Nine 8 March 2021 15: 29
                  +1
                  Quote: strannik1985
                  They so wanted to fit in for Poland that in fact they did nothing to save it.

                  And someone was going to save Poland? Poland is in a slightly different direction. And the AIF declared war on Germany, for a minute. Not everyone, frankly speaking, declared war on Germany in 39, not everyone.
                  1. strannik1985
                    strannik1985 8 March 2021 17: 40
                    +1
                    And someone was going to save Poland?

                    I didn't intend to, but I was obliged. France and England signed military aid treaties with Poland. The considerations here are purely practical, Poland is another front, 39 infantry divisions and 25 different brigades at a front of 1900 km. The situation is generally similar to the First World War - 110 French formations, 39 Polish against hundreds of German. The superiority in forces and the ability to tear apart the enemy's forces with coordinated attacks is ensured. What did the allies do? Leaked Poland!
                  2. Avior
                    Avior 8 March 2021 19: 42
                    0
                    war on Germany declared for the sake of an empty formality? and if not announced, Poland would have complained about them?
                    Did Hitler know that this was a formality? or was it not reported to him? with something the same war on the AIF went ...
                  3. strannik1985
                    strannik1985 8 March 2021 20: 24
                    0
                    No, to have a screen in case Hitler kicks up. Did not help.
                2. Cherry Nine
                  Cherry Nine 8 March 2021 23: 59
                  0
                  Quote: strannik1985
                  Was not going to

                  Ага.
                  Quote: strannik1985
                  The considerations are purely practical.

                  Practical considerations are outlined in the article under discussion.
          3. Unknown
            Unknown 8 March 2021 15: 54
            +1
            Quote: Cherry Nine
            Quote: Lesovik
            in their desire to push Germany and the USSR against each other.

            It is a great idea to confront Germany and the USSR, but, alas, it never occurred to the bourgeoisie. Since the idea of ​​joining in for Poland (which until the end of the 30s has excellent relations with the Reich) clearly interferes with this clash. But the real politician comrade. Stalin-Molotov - it helps, and very much.

            Nonsense. The bourgeoisie of Britain and France only dreamed of how to bump their heads against Germany and the USSR. The bloodletting of the WWII was not in vain for France, and the WWII war brought the French to a stupor, and Churchill said more than once that England would not allow such losses anymore. Everyone forgets that the impetus for Poland's insolent behavior towards Germany was the Anglo-Polish military alliance of 1939. At this time, Hitler demanded that Poland abandon Danzig, access to the Berlin-Königsberg autobahn (Berlin) and special rights (privileges) for the German minority in Poland. The General Protection Pact also contained provisions on assistance in the event of an “indirect threat” as well as threats of an economic nature (explicit reference to Danzig's status). Fearing an all-out German attack, in spite of everything, Poland rejected all German demands. Article one of the Anglo-Polish Mutual Assistance Agreement read. if one of the Parties to the Treaty is drawn into hostilities with a European state by aggression arranged by the latter against the said Party to the Treaty, the other Party to the Treaty will immediately provide the Party to the Treaty involved in hostilities with all the support and assistance it needs. ”[9] In an additional secret protocol, the phrase "European Power" was interpreted as "Germany." On September 1, 1939, Germany invaded Poland from the west (World War II began). Only two days later, Great Britain and France, after some hesitation, declared war on Germany (September 3, 1939 is considered the date of the start of the "strange war"). The "strange war" of England and France in the "defense" of Poland actually reflected the theses of Stalin's speech, expressed by him in March 1939 - "... let each country defend itself from the aggressors as it wants and how it can, our business is the side ... The war was declared by Britain and France , thus the Germans were untied. We were attacked, we are defending ourselves. As it happened more than once, Britain wanted to fight again with someone else's hands ...
  • The comment was deleted.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • bistrov.
    bistrov. 8 March 2021 06: 17
    -1
    The author, probably, does not know that it was the British and French capitalists who raised the Hitler regime, for a specific purpose, why should they destroy it? And Poland served as an obstacle to this goal, and therefore fell under the distribution ...
  • Free wind
    Free wind 8 March 2021 06: 18
    +4
    France and England, incited Hitler to start a war against England and France?
    1. strannik1985
      strannik1985 8 March 2021 06: 27
      -1
      France and England did not start a war against Germany in 1939. One attempt at an offensive, during which the French did not even reach the main strip of the Western Wall and 6 million leaflets, such a "war". Hitler began active b / d on May 10, 1940.
      1. Avior
        Avior 8 March 2021 06: 43
        +3
        If they had not declared war, then Hitler would not have started active hostilities. He was not going to fight them at all and was ready to make peace.
        1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
          Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 8 March 2021 17: 19
          +1
          Quote: Avior
          If they had not declared war, then Hitler would not have started active hostilities. He was not going to fight them at all and was ready to make peace.

          But what about the plans for continental autarchy under German hegemony?
          1. Avior
            Avior 8 March 2021 17: 42
            +1
            but what about the colonies?
          2. Cherry Nine
            Cherry Nine 8 March 2021 23: 59
            +2
            Quote: Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
            But what about the plans for continental autarchy under German hegemony?

            They weren't there. No, won't the answer go?
    2. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 8 March 2021 10: 55
      +3
      Quote: Free Wind
      set Hitler to start a war against England and France?

      In fact, it was Britain and France that attacked Germany, not the other way around. Surprisingly, this detail was quickly forgotten.
      1. strannik1985
        strannik1985 8 March 2021 11: 34
        +1
        Do not remind as did they do it? The British bombed one of the naval bases and scattered six million leaflets. The French began the Saar offensive on September 7 with 11 divisions, and already finished on the 16th. They captured 12 settlements in the support zone of the Western Wall, and calmed down on that. Not surprisingly, this has been forgotten.
        1. Cherry Nine
          Cherry Nine 8 March 2021 13: 10
          0
          Quote: strannik1985
          Can you remind me how they did it?

          The article says. The ships began to sink.
          1. strannik1985
            strannik1985 8 March 2021 13: 51
            0
            Can you tell me how this action could help the Poles? The war was going on on land.
            1. Cherry Nine
              Cherry Nine 8 March 2021 15: 26
              +1
              Quote: strannik1985
              how this action could help the Poles

              And who cares?
              Quote: strannik1985
              The war was going on on land.

              Who?
              1. strannik1985
                strannik1985 8 March 2021 17: 41
                0
                Who?

                Aren't you tired of pretending to be a fool? Poland and Germany.
                1. Avior
                  Avior 8 March 2021 17: 55
                  +1
                  England's intentions are no secret.
                  War until the complete defeat of Germany with the removal of the Nazis from power and a ban on their activities (the destruction of Hitlerism).
                  This could not help Poland in any way?
                  1. strannik1985
                    strannik1985 8 March 2021 18: 35
                    0
                    No way, having 36 divisions and 16 brigades against 56 German ones, the Poles have no chance of fighting off on their own. Interception of ships, especially not in the Baltic, does not help the Poles in any way.
                    What are the Allies doing on August 29 ?! Poles are asked not to announce an official mobilization! It was announced only on the 31st.
                    1. Avior
                      Avior 8 March 2021 19: 33
                      +1
                      the complete defeat of Germany and the removal of Hitler from power could not help Poland?
                2. Cherry Nine
                  Cherry Nine 9 March 2021 00: 00
                  0
                  Quote: strannik1985
                  Poland and Germany.

                  And what does the French care about, let alone the British? Are they native to the Poles, or what?
  • The comment was deleted.
    1. Mordvin 3
      Mordvin 3 8 March 2021 06: 45
      +2
      Quote: strannik1985
      why weren't sanctions imposed against the Russian Federation after the seizure of Crimea?

      Do not understand.
      1. strannik1985
        strannik1985 8 March 2021 07: 57
        0
        A piece is not superfluous, T9 request
    2. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 8 March 2021 10: 59
      +1
      In fact, after the trouble with Czechoslovakia, the British and the French not only imposed sanctions, but in fact began to mobilize. As for internal German affairs, it would be political suicide to get involved in a war over some Austrian fascists. No one owes anything to either the Austrians or Beneš.
      1. strannik1985
        strannik1985 8 March 2021 11: 28
        0
        Nobody owes anything to either the Austrians or the Coast.

        Yes, yes, yes, it's not the allies who recently lost millions of people in the First World War against Germany.
        No, are you serious? Do you take everyone for fools? laughing
        1. Cherry Nine
          Cherry Nine 8 March 2021 13: 11
          +1
          Quote: strannik1985
          most recently lost millions of people in the First World War against Germany.

          A normal person will conclude from this unfortunate fact that they did something last time. not this way and now we need to act otherwise.
          1. strannik1985
            strannik1985 8 March 2021 13: 50
            0
            Normal person

            A normal person familiar with history will remember that the unification of the German principalities around Prussia took place with wars - they fought with Denmark, Austria, France, and successfully. During these wars, Germany received territory and money in the form of indemnity. Those. exactly the same thing happened, only in a very short period.
            Weakly sketching. Not your topic? wink
            1. Cherry Nine
              Cherry Nine 8 March 2021 15: 25
              +2
              Quote: strannik1985
              A normal person familiar with history will remember that the unification of the German principalities around Prussia took place with wars - they fought with Denmark, Austria, France, and successfully.

              Let them fight with Denmark and Austria as they want (by the way, both did not suffer much from Germany), but in France, the government's task is to have not like last time.
              And this task, by the way, was accomplished, although not in the way it was supposed to be. France suffered much less than WWI, especially before 44.
              1. strannik1985
                strannik1985 8 March 2021 17: 43
                0
                And this task, by the way

                Here are just the will of France here 0. As a result of WWII, both countries lost the status of superpowers, which came back to haunt very soon, during the Suez crisis.
                1. Cherry Nine
                  Cherry Nine 9 March 2021 00: 03
                  +3
                  Quote: strannik1985
                  came back to haunt very soon, during the Suez Crisis.

                  Yes, Eisenhower was a rotten man.
                  Quote: strannik1985
                  As a result of WWII, both countries lost their superpower status

                  What a grief. That is what the Soviet people have benefited from this status.
  • Olgovich
    Olgovich 8 March 2021 08: 18
    +1
    The author, I think, is only partly right: the main reason for the lack of active action on the part of the allies is the absolute unwillingness to fight and suffer losses of the level of PMA. It is enough to read the debates in the French Parliament and the attempts to again draw up Munich during September 1,2 and pacify Hitler.

    As Churchill said (though not about England):
    "everyone hopes that if he feeds the crocodile enough, the crocodile will eat him last and that the storm will pass before it is their turn to be devoured



    here they are fed Hitler Emergencies, Poland, Austria- in the hope that he will finally get drunk and come to his senses. And the blockade is only will help he will understand.

    But they did not hope for a blockade as a way to achieve Victory: what a complete blockade, when in the north it has a bunch of neutrals - Norway, Holland, Sweden - and did not think to interrupt trade, even despite their ships sunk by the Nazis (which were carrying cargo to the allies) ? Churchill spoke about them.

    What is an effective blockade in the presence of the USSR with its enormous raw material resources from the East, in addition, even rubber, gasoline, etc., went to Germany from the USA through the USSR?

    But their calculations to saturate Hitler did not come true - he needed EVERYTHING.

    PS let's not forget that Germany also imposed its own blockade on the trade of neutrals with allies, for example, from the Baltic Sea, and also achieved good results.
    1. Avior
      Avior 8 March 2021 09: 00
      +3
      Generally, only Sweden was neutral.
      And she had limited opportunities to sell resources to Germany.
      1. Olgovich
        Olgovich 8 March 2021 09: 07
        +3
        Quote: Avior
        Generally, only Sweden was neutral.

        Apparently you have not read the article: we are talking only about the period of the "strange war."

        И before the invasion Germany- and Norway and Denmark and Holland were neutral countries
        .
        1. Avior
          Avior 8 March 2021 09: 18
          +4
          With limited supply of resources, they Rather consumed them.
          As for Norway and the supply channel from Sweden, as you know, it was planned to occupy it, but the Germans managed to do it earlier.
          1. Olgovich
            Olgovich 8 March 2021 10: 32
            +1
            Quote: Avior
            With limited supply of resources, they Rather consumed them.
            As for Norway and the supply channel from Sweden, as you know, it was planned to occupy it, but the Germans managed to do it earlier.

            I answered your statement about the neutrality of only Sweden: you are wrong: Denmark, Norway, Holland were neutral until the German invasion.

            During the strange war of 1939-1940, they continued to trade with Germany and supply her with goods, so Churchill was indignant:
            What would happen if these neutrals, with one spontaneous impulse, fulfilled their duty in accordance with the League of Nations Accord and stood together with the British and French empires against aggression and evil?
            1. Cherry Nine
              Cherry Nine 8 March 2021 15: 21
              0
              Quote: Olgovich
              that's why Churchill was indignant:
              What would happen if these neutrals, with one spontaneous impulse, fulfilled their duty in accordance with the League of Nations Accord and stood together with the British and French empires against aggression and evil?

              )))
              Winnie loved to flutter his tongue, not always on the case. There were different opinions about evil in 40, but England and France were the aggressors.
              1. Olgovich
                Olgovich 9 March 2021 11: 34
                -1
                Quote: Cherry Nine
                but the aggressors were England and France

                and against whom did they ... aggression? belay lol

                Is it not against the world-recognized aggressor against Poland, with which they were bound by a treaty to resist aggression?

                Interestingly, you get Hitler, it turns out just ... a victim of aggression. fool
                1. Kwas
                  Kwas 10 March 2021 14: 59
                  0
                  If you look at the facts, then Germany unleashed only the German-Polish War. And she could not be called unprovoked. But England and France made it a pan-European one, smoothly turning into a world one. Conversations about the fact that "Hitler wanted to conquer the whole world" are not based on facts, and in 1939 he had not committed any war crimes yet. Yes, I probably wanted to. Yes, he didn't care about anyone except the Germans. But the same can be said ... even about Churchill! A worldwide fight was inevitable - by the nature of imperialism, and hanging all the dogs on Hitler is as stupid as it is on Wilhelm. And about what he was doing on our territory - a separate conversation.
    2. strannik1985
      strannik1985 8 March 2021 09: 47
      0
      It is enough to read the debates in the French Parliament

      At the time of the refusal to pay reparations, the transition to an army with recruitment by conscription, the remilitarization of the Rhineland, Anschluss, the occupation of Czechoslovakia, Germany did not have the strength for a protracted conflict in the style of the First World War. On the side of the allies (including Poland, Czechoslovakia), a multiple advantage in forces. This argument does not stand up to elementary logic - the further they are "fed", the more likely a protracted, difficult conflict is.
      1. Olgovich
        Olgovich 8 March 2021 10: 39
        +2
        Quote: strannik1985
        This argument does not stand up to elementary logic - the further they are "fed", the more likely a protracted, difficult conflict is.

        Read what is "the policy of appeasement of the aggressor 1933-39" (this is an officially practiced term) and the logic of the actions of the allies will become clear to you.

        The logic, yes, is flawed, ostrich, cowardly, short-sighted, criminal even in relation to oneself, but in its light all the movements of the allies are understandable and explainable.
        1. strannik1985
          strannik1985 8 March 2021 11: 23
          -1
          Read what is

          Dear opponent, at the time of the occupation of Czechoslovakia, the Germans had 59 units, of which 40 were in the invading army. Only France can deploy up to a hundred divisions, Poland - 39, the Czechs - 40 calculated. Those. apart from the British, Dutch, etc., the so-called. allies a multiple superiority in forces. They have no one to fear.
          1. Olgovich
            Olgovich 9 March 2021 11: 37
            +3
            Quote: strannik1985
            They have no one to fear.

            They are afraid of LOSS and VICTIMS of the PMV level, so they gave him everything, just to get drunk and calm down.
      2. Cherry Nine
        Cherry Nine 8 March 2021 11: 03
        +1
        Quote: strannik1985
        At the time of the refusal to pay reparations, the transition to an army with recruitment by conscription, the remilitarization of the Rhineland, Anschluss, the occupation of Czechoslovakia, Germany did not have the strength for a protracted conflict in the style of the First World War.

        The Versailles Treaty was criminal, and it was impossible to defend its principles anywhere except in France. Both Wilson and Lloyd George thought they had gone too far and had gone too far. And France last time fought in such a way that I would like to lie down.
  • Vlad world
    Vlad world 8 March 2021 09: 07
    -3
    The article is absolutely in the liberal Western style of justifying the perpetrators of the outbreak of World War II in Europe. Hitler's Excuses.
    Like they wanted, but they didn't succeed.
  • vladcub
    vladcub 8 March 2021 09: 53
    +2
    Comrades, let's congratulate our women on March 8!
    Dear ladies, happy holiday to you!
    The best wishes to those of you who are us men now: protects, treats and feeds!
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Moore
    Moore 8 March 2021 10: 04
    -1
    ... From a rather large, several dozen sheets, collection of such documents, one can see that the French, since the beginning of the war, tried to compile the most complete picture of Germany's consumption of military-significant raw materials and the sources of their receipt ...
    Those. it is assumed that the French ordered something like an economic study, instead of operating with intelligence data on the available domestic economic opportunities in Germany? If so, then this once again proves the reluctance of the French to fight and find a compelling excuse.
    This is not a strange war. Cowardly.
  • fa2998
    fa2998 8 March 2021 10: 39
    +1
    Quote: apro
    So the Allies waited for Germany to lose itself.

    One thing was not taken into account. In 1 MV, they had an ally, Russia. Germany received imports by sea, the blockade had an effect. In the late 30s, Russia was an ally of Germany, which means that instead of the blockade, it was the first supplier of raw materials and a transport corridor to the Far East. supply, the Nazis closed with the help of the USSR. Deliveries continued until June 22, 41g. hi
  • smaug78
    smaug78 8 March 2021 10: 58
    -1
    Strange article about "strange war". The Allies planned to start limited hostilities in 41, and a full-scale strategic offensive in 42 ...
  • Operator
    Operator 8 March 2021 11: 16
    +3
    The article is a falsification of history: on August 23, 1939, it became known about the conclusion of a non-aggression treaty between Germany and the USSR, and on September 28, 1939, about the conclusion of a treaty of friendship between these states. Therefore, Germany could in no way be blocked from the supply of strategic resources.

    But the author's delirium is not only in the aforementioned disregard of reality: in his opinion, violating his allied obligations and abandoning Poland in September 1939 to the mercy of fate of his military ally is the height of pragmatism on the part of Britain and France. And what were the guarantees after that that one of the two remaining allies would not throw the other in the event of an appropriate proposal from Germany: for example, to Britain to guarantee the inviolability of its colonial system or, for example, to France to participate in the division of British colonies?

    In reality, the non-resistance to evil by violence from Britain and France automatically led to an increase in Germany's resources due to the total militarization of not only Germany, but also occupied Austria, the Czech Republic and Poland, as well as the German military allies of Italy, Slovakia and Hungary as of 1939. Plus a complete reorientation of Sweden to Germany with its reserves of iron-nickel ore with sea communications protected from the British-French fleet.

    Therefore, the Fake (and not "strange") war of 1939 on the part of Britain and France was nothing more than a direct continuation of the policy of pumping up Germany with European resources, which began in 1933 with the refusal to collect reparations from Germany and continued with the rejection of the allied occupation of Germany ( according to the Treaty of Versailles) after Hitler's capture of the demilitarized Rhineland in 1936, Austria in 1938 and the Czech Republic in 1939.

    The unchanging policy of the 1930s of Britain and France was different - to provide maximum assistance to Germany in preparing an attack on the USSR by surrendering other European countries to Hitler. Another thing is that Hitler had his own modified policy - to capture all of Europe before the attack on the USSR, which he practically did, outplaying the pedal suckers in the face of Britain and France.

    It should also be remembered that not only France and Germany as world powers were defeated in WWII, but also the British Empire, from which India, Canada, Australia, Ireland and all the colonies in Africa separated as a result of the war. In fact, only the USA and the USSR (which received Eastern Europe and China as military allies) became the winners in WWII - incl. and thanks to the pre-war policies of Britain and France.
    1. wehr
      8 March 2021 12: 15
      +3
      This is your falsification of history and its replacement with jingoistic myths in the style of Comrade. Episheva.
      Meanwhile, the USSR had very limited opportunities in the supply of resources to Germany.
      In a previous article
      https://topwar.ru/174787-sovetskaja-neft-200-metrov-do-pobedy-germanii.html
      I was considering a German report of 1939 (December) on the possibilities of oil supplies from the USSR. So the calculations of the Germans showed that all Soviet oil exports would not be enough to meet the current needs.
      That is, deliveries from the USSR are also twisted into large-scale seizures.

      And yes, now stick with me cons. After all, you are not capable of anything else laughing
      1. Operator
        Operator 8 March 2021 14: 42
        0
        And how could Britain and France know in September 1939 about the limitation of Soviet supplies to Germany under the trade agreements of 1940-41 (the astral cannot be offered as a source of information).

        I forgot to mention Romania (which fully covered the needs of the Third Reich for oil before the war and until 1944), Finland (nickel), Turkey (chromium) and Japan, which supplied Germany via the Trans-Siberian with natural Indonesian rubber up to until July 22, 1941.

        Plus all sorts of Hungarian, Romanian, Bulgarian and other Eastern European firms, which in 1939-41 bought almost any goods on the international market, imported them into their territory and re-exported them to Germany.

        Plus American firms, which until December 1941 were driving loans, technologies, equipment, raw materials and semi-finished products to their subsidiaries in Germany. IBM has equipped government agencies in Germany with the latest computer technology, and other American companies with electronic equipment, including radars and sonars. American oil workers continued to supply the Kriegsmarine with fuels and lubricants even after the United States entered the war in December 1941 - in the form of large-scale exports to Spain and Portugal.

        So what the heck of an economic blockade of Germany can we talk about - if not as a cover operation for the Fake War of 1939?
        1. wehr
          8 March 2021 15: 03
          +1
          From where the Germans knew it - from statistical reference books and surveys on foreign trade. Large banks, for example, published trade reviews.
          Retrospective analysis of trade statistics also provides valuable insights. If the USSR had never supplied Germany with millions of tons of iron ore before, then there is nothing to expect such supplies. If not, it means either the ore is not suitable, or there is not sufficient infrastructure for transportation. Ports and ore carriers do not appear at the snap of your fingers.

          Romania in 1939 was controlled by France and Great Britain, Anglo-French capital dominated the production, refining and transportation of oil in Romania. They even bought oil and oil products for export so that the Germans would not get it.
          Romania came under German control only in July 1940, after the defeat of France.

          Nickel in Finland before the war was controlled by a Canadian firm.

          Well, everything else that you have listed is either a product of misunderstanding, misunderstanding or ignorance. Or deliberate deception. I am not commenting on this yet, as I expect to find specific documentary materials. An oil tanker is not a needle; if Germany received oil through Spain or Portugal, this must be written somewhere in the papers.
        2. Operator
          Operator 8 March 2021 15: 05
          +1
          Why don't the Germans get the supplies of iron ore from the USSR, when Sweden, with its pants up from zeal, covered all the needs of the Third Reich for this resource?

          Plus the possibility of the formation of goods exchange between Germany and the USSR in the form of counter deliveries, respectively, of mining-drilling equipment and ore-oil raw materials due to the development of the corresponding Soviet fields - no Western bank could deny such a possibility after the conclusion of an interstate treaty of friendship in September 1939 (without looking into the astral, essno).

          And yet - what such an economic blockade of Germany could have been in 1939 by Britain and France, when their complete inaction at the front created ideal conditions for Germany to occupy Denmark, Holland, Belgium, Yugoslavia and Greece and, accordingly, militarize their economies, including siphoning agricultural resources to prevent famine among Germans like 1917-18?
          1. wehr
            8 March 2021 15: 41
            +3
            No, not all. And on this score I had an article, also based on German documents. laughing
            You rip your throat, not realizing that I have an extensive archive of German documents against your inventions and myths.

            I could deny it and I had to. The problem was not drilling, but transportation; The USSR could not deliver oil to Germany in a decent amount. See article on German assessments of the USSR as an oil supplier. Didn't read the link? Understand. It is much easier to tear your throat with jingoistic patriotism if you do not read it.

            Holland and Belgium were occupied in one campaign with France, Yugoslavia and Greece later, in 1941.
            Do not know how, do not take it, in short.
            1. Operator
              Operator 8 March 2021 17: 27
              -1
              During WWII, railway roadways in flat areas with a length of hundreds of kilometers (including bridges on wooden supports across the Dnieper and the Western Dvina in the upper reaches) were laid in 1 month, so it was like two fingers on the asphalt to expand the carrying capacity of Soviet and former Polish railways. At the same time, the expansion of Soviet ore / oil mining and railway construction could not have been in a hurry, given the excess of Romanian oil, Swedish iron ore, Finnish nickel and Turkish chromium.

              And how the dates of the occupation of Holland, Belgium, Yugoslavia and Greece relate to the Western blockade of Germany - these dates only indicate that Germany did not need their resources until that time. As soon as the need arose, these Western Europeans immediately went under the knife - against the background of the complete passivity of Britain and France.

              If you do not understand the meaning of the word "blockade" (from the west, east, north and south), you do not need to write pseudo-analytical opuses.
              1. wehr
                8 March 2021 19: 36
                +1
                The Germans dismissed oil transportation by rail as prohibitively expensive. A lot of coal is spent on delivery; It is more profitable to process this coal into synthetic fuel in Germany than to spend on the delivery of oil from Baku.
                Therefore, your bravery is not really worth anything.

                Romanian oil was not in abundance, since it was used to supply not only Germany, but also Italy, other allies, as well as the occupied countries.
                There is a German document with calculations. And documents on the distribution of Romanian petroleum products. Stop inventing.

                If you don't like documentary history so much, then go to another section: "Visiting a fairy tale".
                1. Operator
                  Operator 8 March 2021 23: 37
                  +1
                  It is not necessary to tell me exactly about the high cost of transporting oil by rail. By the way, oil has always been transported here and is still being transported by rail - this is in the presence of a developed network of oil pipelines.

                  Again, turn on your brains if you are applying for analytics: how was Romanian oil transported to Germany in the 1930s-40s, really by air? laughing
                  1. wehr
                    9 March 2021 00: 11
                    +1
                    However, in the German document I studied, rail transportation of oil was rejected as uneconomical.

                    Up the Danube to Regensburg, by barges. On the Danube there was a fleet of different states, including the German one.

                    You can shout as much as you like, but this will not make your fantasies a historical truth. laughing
                    1. Operator
                      Operator 9 March 2021 02: 44
                      -2
                      Barges on ice in winter - well, you and the storyteller laughing

                      Stop driving a blizzard - in the USSR, oil in the 1930-40s was transported in the overwhelming amount by rail. Water transport was connected only in the summer in limited volumes, since it greatly slowed down the supply of raw materials to the refinery.

                      Romania coped well with providing Germany with oil up to the seizure of oil fields by the Red Army in September 1944. The Third Reich faced a shortage of petroleum products precisely at the end of 1944, and before that the German Armed Forces had limited not fuel, but the volume of production of motorized military equipment.
                      1. wehr
                        9 March 2021 11: 30
                        +1
                        Don't you remember what you asked yourself?
                        This is where we will end due to your inability for meaningful dialogue.
        3. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
          Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 8 March 2021 16: 25
          +1
          Quote: Operator
          American oil workers continued to supply the Kriegsmarine with fuels and lubricants even after the United States entered the war in December 1941 - in the form of large-scale exports to Spain and Portugal.

          You will not be from the Sect of the Priest Hayem?
          1. Operator
            Operator 8 March 2021 17: 41
            -2
            You better think about the fact that the United States, until December 1941, flatly refused to accept Jewish refugees from Europe, while being in no way bound by obligations, for example, with the same Arabs that Britain was forced to take into account, refusing to accept Jewish refugees in mandated Palestine ...

            It turns out that the Jewish diaspora in the United States, headed by the super-rich Jewish bankers - the financial sponsors of President Franklin Roosevelt, simply gave up their fellow tribesmen in Europe to be torn apart, actively participating in the pre-war financing of the Nazis in the Third Reich.

            Those. the main culprits of the Holocaust are not at all the Germans, who before the war in good faith tried to deport European Jews, but their American fellow tribesmen.

            But you don't give a damn about that.
            1. Cherry Nine
              Cherry Nine 9 March 2021 00: 08
              +2
              Quote: Operator
              Jewish diaspora in the United States led by weedy Jewish bankers

              The super-rich Jewish bankers are not omnipotent. There were also enough anti-Semites in the United States both before the war and after. One of them was Secretary of State Hull, who later became a Nobel laureate.
              Quote: Operator
              Those. the main culprits of the Holocaust are not at all the Germans, who before the war in good faith tried to deport European Jews, but their American fellow tribesmen.

              Well, the Germans killed the Jews. But the British kept them in Germany, of course. Until the 38th year, Britain was the main enemy of the Jewish people, then the Germans took the lead.
              Quote: Operator
              with the same Arabs that Britain had to take into account

              What a tenderness.
              1. Operator
                Operator 9 March 2021 02: 29
                +2
                Why did Britain need any immigrants, and even more so Jewish, and even in conflict Palestine?

                Another thing is the United States, whose entire ideology and history until recently was based on the reception of immigrants with open arms - one Statue of Liberty, installed with its back to North America, is worth something.

                Plus a powerful two-century Jewish diaspora led by tough Jewish bankers who spat on Hoover himself: for example, at the suggestion of the diaspora, the notorious communist Oppenheimer became the scientific leader of the Manhatton project, which was strongly opposed by Hoover, who collected a dossier on Oppie, but broke off with a report by Roose on a financial leash with Jewish bankers.

                However, authoritative American Jews did not lift a finger to accept only 700 German Jews into the United States before September 1, 1939. Therefore, the former were completely to blame for the death of the latter - it was a no-brainer that the Germans would solve the issue of the disloyal population in a purely German way in a total war on two fronts.

                This peculiarity of the Jews is also confirmed by the policy of the State of Israel, which is wild for many other nations, to do business on the blood of its fellow tribesmen - to receive a financial allowance from the Federal Republic of Germany for each troupe of a Jew killed in the Third Reich and in the territories occupied by it.
                1. Cherry Nine
                  Cherry Nine 9 March 2021 02: 44
                  +3
                  Quote: Operator
                  The fig of Britain needed any immigrants, and even more so Jewish

                  All the more so with the ideas of a Jewish state in these very places. Indeed, to nothing.
                  Quote: Operator
                  Another thing is the United States, whose entire ideology and history until recently was based on the reception of immigrants with open arms.

                  Not any. Jews, for example, were disliked, they have only one communism.
                  Quote: Operator
                  for example, at the suggestion of the diaspora, the notorious communist Oppenheimer became the scientific director of the Manhatton Project,

                  You see, the nuance is that Roosevelt was, to put it mildly, reddish himself, in those years it was a fashionable disease. So the Jewish bankers would be happy to settle with a leash, but not a question for them. And Roosevelt's reddishness did not imply internationalism, in this he went as far as the Soviet methods of solving the national question.

                  Separately, there is a point that Jewish bankers, it turns out, had an interest and influence in the Manhattan project. Wow, they were in time everywhere.
                  Quote: Operator
                  It was a no brainer that the Germans would deal with the disloyal population in a purely German way in a total war on two fronts.

                  Well, you know better about the hedgehog, and the final decision is January 42nd. It was too late for the notorious bankers to drink Borjomi.
                  Quote: Operator
                  the policy of the state of Israel, which is wild for many other nations, to do business on the blood of its fellow tribesmen - to receive a financial allowance from the FRG for each troupe of a Jew killed in the Third Reich and in the territories occupied by it.

                  Some strange presentation. Give - take it. Just giving up money would be surprising, especially for the Jewish State.
  • ccsr
    ccsr 8 March 2021 11: 54
    -6
    The British and French have clearly decided to leave the blockade, to strangle Germany economically, in the hope that Hitler will either become more accommodating or take steps that suit them.

    Most likely they were simply trying not to interfere with Hitler's preparations for an attack on the Soviet Union, since this was the original plan when Hitler came to power and Western banks began to give him loans.
    At the same time, it is difficult to believe that these leaders seriously hoped that the German economy would collapse after 1939, when Hitler had allies not only in Europe, but also in other parts of the world. Thanks to trade with the allies, as well as using the captured potential and resources of Poland, the Czech Republic and subsequently some other European countries, Hitler not only strengthened his economic capabilities in two years, but also equipped the German armed forces with the most advanced weapons and equipment. So the "strange war" also came to France sideways - exactly the respite that Hitler received after the capture of Poland and allowed him to defeat the French army in such a short and shameful time, which was one of the most powerful armies in Europe.
    1. smaug78
      smaug78 8 March 2021 12: 59
      0
      Hitler came to power and Western banks began to give him loans.
      Will you please with examples with links?
      1. ccsr
        ccsr 8 March 2021 13: 14
        +1
        Quote: smaug78
        Will you please with examples with links?

        I will delight you:
        On January 4, 1932, a meeting of the largest English financier M. Norman with A. Hitler and von Papen took place, at which a secret agreement was concluded on the financing of the NSDAP. The Dulles brothers, American politicians, were also present at this meeting, which their biographers do not like to mention. And on January 14, 1933, Hitler met with Schroeder, Papen and Kepler, where Hitler's program was fully approved. It was here that the issue of transferring power to the Nazis was finally resolved, and on January 30, Hitler became Reich Chancellor. Now the implementation of the fourth phase of the strategy begins.

        The attitude of the Anglo-American ruling circles towards the new government has become extremely benevolent. When Hitler refused to pay reparations, which naturally called into question the payment of military debts, neither England nor France presented him with claims about payments. Moreover, after a trip reinstated at the head of the Reichsbank by J. Schacht to the United States in May 1933 and his meeting with the president and the largest bankers on Wall Street, America granted Germany new loans totaling $ 1 billion. And in June during trips to London and meetings with M. Norman Schacht seeks the provision of an English loan of $ 2 billion and a reduction, and then termination of payments on old loans. Thus, the Nazis got what the previous governments could not achieve.

        In the summer of 1934, Britain entered into an Anglo-German transfer agreement, which became one of the foundations of British policy towards the Third Reich, and by the end of the 30s, Germany was turning into the main trading partner of England. Schroeder’s Bank becomes Germany’s main agent in the UK, and in 1936 its New York office merged with the Rockefeller House to create the Schroeder, Rockefeller & Co. Investment Bank, which The Times called the “Berlin-Rome axis economic advocate” ". As Hitler himself admitted, he planned his four-year plan on the financial basis of a foreign loan, so he never inspired him with the slightest alarm.

        In August 1934, the American Standard Oil acquired 730 thousand acres of land in Germany and built large oil refineries that supplied the Nazis with oil. At the same time, the most modern equipment for aircraft factories was delivered secretly from the USA to Germany, where the production of German aircraft would begin. Germany received a large number of military patents from American firms Pratt & Whitney, Douglas, Bendix Aviation, and Junkers 87 was built using American technology. By 1941, when World War II was raging, American investments in the German economy amounted to $ 475 million. Standard Oil invested 120 million in it, General Motors invested 35 million, ITT 30 million, and Ford - 17,5 million

        https://nstarikov-ru.turbopages.org/nstarikov.ru/s/kredit-na-mirovuju-vojnu-ili-dengi-dlja-gitlera-108885
        1. smaug78
          smaug78 8 March 2021 13: 21
          -1
          Are you having trouble understanding the text? I repeat:
          Hitler came to power and Western banks began to give him loans.
          Everything is clear with your sources laughing laughing laughing
          In August 1934 the American "Standard Oil" purchased 730 thous.
          Standart Oil ceased to exist 23 years before that date. Hooray conspirators are so funny in their ignorance laughing laughing laughing
          1. ccsr
            ccsr 8 March 2021 13: 37
            0
            Quote: smaug78
            Are you having trouble understanding the text? I repeat:

            Do not hysteria - in essence, what is not clear to you?
            Quote: smaug78
            Standart Oil ceased to exist 23 years before that date. Hooray conspirators are so funny in their ignorance

            Educate yourself, layman:
            In 1911, the United States government took over the Standard Oil monopoly and demanded that it be split. After that, it splits into several small companies, in the name of which the initials "SO" continue to appear: SOHIO in Ohio, SOCONY in New York and, of course, Esso, which would later become Exxon. However, the split actually doubled the value of Standard Oil's stock.
            Rockefeller founded the Standard Oil Corporation in several states in order to adapt to the legal rules of stock ownership. This arrangement allowed Rockefeller to build and consolidate the management of a national company. This trust concept has become synonymous with monopoly.
            As a result of the disbandment, a unique list of outstanding corporations emerged:
            Standard Oil, New Jersey, became ESSO, now Exxon.
            Standard Oil, Ohio, became Sohio.
            Standard Oil, Indiana, became Amoco.
            Standard Oil, NY, became Mobil Gas.
            Standard Oil, California, became Chevron.
            Standard Oil, became ConocoPhillips.
            The Ohio Oil Company - often referred to simply as "Ohio", sells gasoline under the Marathon brand. The company is now known as the Marathon Oil Corporation, and was often a competitor with the state-based division of Standard Oil, Sohio.
            Standard Oil initially split into thirty-eight different companies, including those listed above, and companies such as ARCO, BP America, and Cheeseborough-Ponds as Standard Oil's successors. As a result of the collapse of Standard Oil, Rockefeller retained an impressive share of shares in all companies, and in all of them he had a controlling stake.
            1. smaug78
              smaug78 8 March 2021 13: 41
              +1
              I love to watch your jumps since http://militera.borda.ru laughing laughing laughing
              Are you having trouble understanding the text? I repeat:
              Hitler came to power and Western banks began to give him loans.
              The answer will be, which banks, etc.?
              In 1911, the United States government took over the Standard Oil monopoly and demanded that it be split. After that, it splits into several small companies, in the name of which the initials "SO" continue to appear: SOHIO in Ohio, SOCONY in New York and, of course, Esso, which would later become Exxon. However, the split actually doubled the value of Standard Oil's stock.
              Rockefeller founded the Standard Oil Corporation in several states in order to adapt to the legal rules of stock ownership. This arrangement allowed Rockefeller to build and consolidate the management of a national company. This trust concept has become synonymous with monopoly.
              As a result of the disbandment, a unique list of outstanding corporations emerged:
              Standard Oil, New Jersey, became ESSO, now Exxon.
              Standard Oil, Ohio, became Sohio.
              Standard Oil, Indiana, became Amoco.
              Standard Oil, NY, became Mobil Gas.
              Standard Oil, California, became Chevron.
              Standard Oil, became ConocoPhillips.
              The Ohio Oil Company - often referred to simply as "Ohio", sells gasoline under the Marathon brand. The company is now known as the Marathon Oil Corporation, and was often a competitor with the state-based division of Standard Oil, Sohio.
              Standard Oil initially split into thirty-eight different companies, including those listed above, and companies such as ARCO, BP America, and Cheeseborough-Ponds as Standard Oil's successors. As a result of the collapse of Standard Oil, Rockefeller retained an impressive share of shares in all companies, and in all of them he had a controlling stake.

              So which one bought
              Standard Oil, New Jersey, became ESSO, now Exxon.
              Standard Oil, Ohio, became Sohio.
              Standard Oil, Indiana, became Amoco.
              Standard Oil, NY, became Mobil Gas.
              Standard Oil, California, became Chevron.
              Standard Oil, became ConocoPhillips.
              In August 1934, the American Standard Oil purchased 730 acres of land in Germany and built large refineries that supplied the Nazis with oil.
              Keep on making the conspiratorial laugh laughing
              1. ccsr
                ccsr 8 March 2021 13: 53
                -3
                Quote: smaug78
                I love to watch your jumps from the time

                Yes, I remember, there were different clowns scrubbing, but I don’t remember you, apparently you were too primitive about something.
                Quote: smaug78
                The answer will be, which banks, etc.?

                Here's this one for example:
                In the summer of 1934, Britain entered into an Anglo-German transfer agreement, which became one of the foundations of British policy towards the Third Reich, and by the end of the 30s Germany was becoming Britain's main trading partner. Schroeder Bank becomes Germany's main agent in Great Britain, and in 1936 its New York branch merges with the Rockefeller House to create the investment bank Schroeder, Rockefeller & Co., which the Times magazine called the "economic propagandist of the Berlin-Rome axis. ". As Hitler himself admitted, he conceived his four-year plan on the financial basis of a foreign loan, therefore he never gave him the slightest alarm.

                Quote: smaug78
                So which one bought

                You threw a tantrum because of the name - you were given the data where the name "Standard Oil" came from in a general article on the activities of Western banks in financing Hitler. Are you interested in the very fact of financing or the name in the contractual documents? If something does not suit you, look for Starikov yourself in the sources of information, he gives their name in his article.
              2. Vlad world
                Vlad world 9 March 2021 10: 35
                -1
                If you will. At the beginning of the 20s, when Hitler's party did not have money even for postage stamps, and he had normal trousers, two people from the local intelligence came to him from the USA. And they brought money -20000 dollars. With this money, a printing house was purchased and other needs were covered. Have an idea of ​​what kind of wealth in the local conditions, devastation and inflation. And then the sponsors did not offend.
                Starikov is allowed a lot in disclosing information.
        2. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
          Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 8 March 2021 14: 23
          +1
          Quote: ccsr
          and Junkers-87 was built according to American technologies

          Enough for this Starykov's nonsense to procrastinate. What the fuck is 'technology'? Two purchased Helldivers? And what, a lot of them for the 'thing' Polman scraped together technology?
          1. Cherry Nine
            Cherry Nine 8 March 2021 15: 06
            +4
            Quote: Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
            Two purchased Helldivers?

            Probably, it is worth clarifying that we are talking about the F8C-4, a biplane of the end of 20 goals, and not about the more famous Curtiss SB2C Helldiver.

            By the way, I was always confused by this jump in logic. The enemy of the entire capitalist world: France, the United States, and above all Britain was the USSR, which never, not a single day, even tried to deny it. On the contrary, it rang about it at every corner. Nevertheless, the USSR produced British and American tanks, French and American engines in American-built factories.

            And suddenly, the same scoundrels who helped their existential ones to stand on their feet, God forgive me, the enemy, claims for economic cooperation ... with Germany. Despite the fact that just Germany until September 39 had no complaints against any of the big uncles, and even that later appeared to the overseas cousins. Well, how is that?
            1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
              Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 8 March 2021 15: 56
              +2
              Quote: Cherry Nine
              Well, how is that?

              Double standards.
              This is the norm ©
              ))
              We were 'just buying' to develop creatively. And they "pumped up the Reich with money and technology." Everything is within the framework of the Starikov matrix.
            2. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
              Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 8 March 2021 16: 06
              +1
              PS I'm still waiting for Hayem to be squeezed into the branch. When the crackle of broken copies begins about 'who has fed the hitler ???', his duck invariably arises.
          2. ccsr
            ccsr 8 March 2021 16: 41
            -1
            Quote: Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
            Enough for this Starykov's nonsense to procrastinate. What the fuck is 'technology'? Two purchased Helldivers?

            Well, how do you know that, in addition to the paid goods, the Germans received - for example, documentation not only in the form of operating instructions, but also the entire design and technological.
            Quote: Cherry Nine
            Nevertheless, the USSR produced British and American tanks, French and American engines in American-built factories.

            He did not buy them for loans, unlike Hitler, and most importantly, we did not plan to attack Germany after the Nazis came to power, even having built our own tanks.
            Quote: Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
            We were 'just buying' to develop creatively. And they "pumped up the Reich with money and technology." Everything is within the framework of the Starikov matrix.

            Wasn't that so?
            Worse, even during the war, they did not destroy the industrial potential of the Reich with their bombing:
            1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
              Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 8 March 2021 16: 54
              0
              Quote: ccsr
              Well, how do you know that, in addition to the paid goods, the Germans received - for example, documentation not only in the form of operating instructions, but also the entire design and technological.

              Come on, it was Udet who fussed about lobbying for dive bombers, and the purchased Curtis did not represent anything of value to the designers. In addition, biplanes had already become an anachronism by this time - arado fell out of the competition for this very reason.
            2. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
              Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 8 March 2021 16: 58
              +2
              Quote: ccsr
              Wasn't that so?

              Sorry, I'm not a fan of Starikov.
            3. Cherry Nine
              Cherry Nine 9 March 2021 00: 10
              0
              Quote: ccsr
              He did not buy them for loans.

              What to do, the Soviet government had such a reputation that they did not give it loans. Until the 41st year exactly.
              Quote: ccsr
              we didn't plan to attack Germany

              Naturally, they did not plan, between Germany and the USSR there were five countries that were attacked. By the way, who was attacked by Germany, did I miss? In the United States, or what?
  • Charlie
    Charlie 8 March 2021 11: 56
    0
    Quote: Stroporez
    I was always interested in the question, what would have happened if Hitler had brought down all the power of the Reich not on the USSR, but on England ?!

    And what would happen if Japan attacked not the United States, but Uruguay
  • The comment was deleted.
  • smaug78
    smaug78 8 March 2021 14: 09
    0
    laughing
    Quote: ccsr
    In the summer of 1934, Britain entered into an Anglo-German transfer agreement, which became one of the foundations of British policy towards the Third Reich, and by the end of the 30s, Germany was turning into the main trading partner of England. Schroeder’s Bank becomes Germany’s main agent in the UK, and in 1936 its New York office merged with the Rockefeller House to create the Schroeder, Rockefeller & Co. Investment Bank, which The Times called the “Berlin-Rome axis economic advocate” ". As Hitler himself admitted, he planned his four-year plan on the financial basis of a foreign loan, so he never inspired him with the slightest alarm.
    German bank and no British loans in sight. Great jump laughing
    You threw a tantrum because of the name - you were given the data where the name "Standard Oil" came from in a general article on the activities of Western banks in financing Hitler. Are you interested in the very fact of financing or the name in the contractual documents? If something does not suit you, look for Starikov yourself in the sources of information, he gives their name in his article.
    And at the same moment, the creature in love, turning on the afterburner, rushed off to a date ...
    Old people, hysterics are an excellent indicator of a conspiratorial. Oh, how they drove you on the board laughing laughing laughing
  • Molot1979
    Molot1979 8 March 2021 16: 46
    0
    Even apart from the aftermath, it is clear that the plan for economic strangulation was idiotic and based on insufficient data. And if it was difficult to obtain data on Germany (although the very fact of the impossibility of obtaining this data should have already alerted), then the receipt of resources by the Reich in the occupied territories and especially trade with the USSR is open data. Hitler was broadcasting about peace and about the absence of claims to France? I apologize, but what about the paragraph above about Adolf's desire to unite all the German lands? Because Alsace and Lorraine. If the frog-eaters seriously believed that the Germans had abandoned these areas, they were finished. That is, the plan to sit out the Germans was initially and obviously stupid. Without any afterthought.
    1. Avior
      Avior 8 March 2021 19: 44
      +3
      in the context of this discussion, what matters is that the plan was, not that it was unrealistic.
      then there were more than enough unrealistic plans on all sides.
      but they were
  • RoTTor
    RoTTor 8 March 2021 17: 12
    -3
    strange = false "Ukrainian-Russian war" - this is today in Donbass:
    7 years of "war" without fighting.
    -
    1. iouris
      iouris 8 March 2021 19: 57
      0
      And this is the Russian-Russian civil war in the USSR.
  • iouris
    iouris 8 March 2021 19: 09
    0
    Wars are divided into just and unjust, conquest and liberation. The author does not even suspect about this ??
    1. Avior
      Avior 8 March 2021 20: 10
      +4
      This is an interesting point.
      The convention on the definition of aggression was adopted at the suggestion of the USSR in 1933
      The signs of an aggressor state are clearly listed there.
      On the name of the USSR, the Convention was signed by the People's Commissar Maxim Litvinov.
      But already in 1939, in a specific situation, the People's Commissar of Comrade. Molotov in the Foreign Policy Report of the Government
      (at the Extraordinary Fifth Session of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR) October 31, 1939 turns everything upside down, six years ago the Convention adopted at the insistence of the USSR does not suit him, the USSR now has a new view of the world - Germany has become a friend of the USSR and now everything needs to be discussed exactly the opposite.
      the old formulas that we used until recently — and to which many are so accustomed — are clearly outdated and now inapplicable. We must be aware of this in order to avoid gross mistakes in assessing the current new political situation in Europe.

      It is known, for example, that over the past few months such concepts as "aggression", "aggressor" have received a new concrete content, have acquired a new meaning. It is not difficult to guess that now we cannot use these concepts in the same sense as, say, 3-4 months ago. Now, if we talk about the great powers of Europe, Germany is in the position of a state striving for an early end to the war and for peace, while Britain and France, who yesterday stood up against aggression, stand for the continuation of the war and against the conclusion of peace. The roles, as you can see, are changing .... Has the content of such concepts as "aggression", "aggressor" changed or has not changed over the last period? It is not difficult to see that the use of these words in the old sense - that is, as it was before the last decisive turn in political relations between the Soviet Union and Germany and before the start of the great imperialist war in Europe - can only generate confusion in the minds and will inevitably be push to erroneous conclusions. To prevent this from happening, we must not allow an uncritical attitude to those old concepts that are inapplicable in the new international situation.

      These are the upheavals in the world system of assessing a just war or not, according to the USSR, is made by the friendship of the USSR and Germany.
      1. iouris
        iouris 8 March 2021 21: 58
        +1
        Leave these unscientific innuendo to the authors.
        There was no friendship. Hitler used Stalin, and Stalin hoped to delay the inevitable war with a very powerful enemy. Britain and France were preparing to bomb the USSR back in 1940. There was a possibility of accusing the USSR of aggression against Germany. Then Hitler would receive help from the "democracies". Stalin knew the situation deeply, acted, in the main, correctly. The outcome of the war is known: Hitler miscalculated.
        1. mat-vey
          mat-vey 9 March 2021 10: 41
          0
          Quote: iouris
          Leave these unscientific innuendo to the authors.

          So the meaning of the report, if it is cited in full, and not the excerpt changes ...
      2. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
        Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 8 March 2021 22: 03
        +3
        Actually, in order to devour Finland, the USSR did not particularly need any indulgences.
  • certero
    certero 8 March 2021 23: 15
    0
    The author's argumentation looks weak. How could they expect the economic strangulation of Germany if Germany at that moment had trade with the Soviet Union? Where Germany could get absolutely everything.
    and second, how could they be unfamiliar with the blitzkrieg if Germany first worked it out in Poland?
    if we disassemble the purely military side, then the allies simply did not have enough strength to conduct an offensive
    1. EvilLion
      EvilLion 9 March 2021 09: 16
      0
      In early September, the Germans in the West. there were no boundaries of forces either. And so the French army was considered the strongest in Europe.
    2. deddem
      deddem 9 March 2021 16: 41
      0
      Here you go:
      SHAT Archive, Vol. CEC / FT, GQG File 27 Document No. 12, aka Commander-in-Chief Gamelin's report to Defense Minister Daladier on February 26, 1940, with a summary of general strategic considerations:

      "a) Expect the achievement of superiority in ground and air weapons for the transition to a decisive offensive on the eastern front. This superiority will be achieved in the spring of 1941.
      b) Maintain territorial integrity, in the event of a German invasion, attract funds from the Belgian and Swiss armies and go on the offensive as soon as the situation allows. At the same time, the Allies have the means necessary to carry out a counter-offensive in the "free" territory of Belgium and Holland if the Germans attack these countries. If Italy is hostile to us, maintain territorial integrity and carry out actions against Italy in Libya and Abyssinia.
      c) Eastern Europe: end the ring of blockade of Germany and continue efforts to disorganize the USSR by:
      - implementation of shares in Finland and Scandinavia (iron ores)
      - carrying out actions in the Caucasus and the Black Sea with the aim of stopping any transportation of oil across the Black Sea and destroying the infrastructure of Batumi and Baku by means of bomber aircraft. This should rely on the cooperation of Turkey and, if possible, Iran.
      d) Balkans: be prepared to deny German access to the Aegean Sea and Straits; to strengthen the Yugoslav and Romanian armies in every possible way, since at present the Allies are not ready to conduct offensive operations both in Scandinavia and in the Balkans. "
  • Operator
    Operator 9 March 2021 02: 47
    +1
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    Give - take

    About that and speech.
  • EvilLion
    EvilLion 9 March 2021 09: 15
    0
    the French remembered well that Germany at the end of the First World War was the victim of economic exhaustion


    Before that, she had fought for only 4 years. In the same way, she fought for almost 4 years, after the attack on the USSR, although formally the mighty British fleet was supposed to strangle the German economy, but for some reason it was German submarines that hurricaneed on communications.

    It remains only to admit that all the French plans were made by stupid people. Or, on the contrary, that the military were not stupid, and there were very specific expectations from Hitler, which he overturned, and then could no longer resolve the war with England until the very Soviet tanks in Berlin.
  • mojohed2012
    mojohed2012 9 March 2021 09: 34
    +1
    In my opinion: There is not much to understand here.
    The Strange War is an attempt, after the end of the capture of Poland, to send the Wehrmacht eastward.
    Very "allys" expected that when meeting with the Red Army, the Wehrmacht would grapple with him and move on.
    "Friends" tried in every possible way to delay the hot phase of the fighting, even declaring in the tabloid press that they had nothing to fight for.
    And it turned out the way it turned out - their tactics and strategy are multiplied by zero and without the USSR the world would be Nazi.
    But the United States itself essentially became Nazi, equating everyone outside the borders either as vassals or as subhumans.
  • Vlad world
    Vlad world 9 March 2021 11: 00
    0
    I read the comments on this article.
    Actually, the whole policy of this Strange War and the actions of England is expressed --- Lovely scolds only mothers-in-law.
    And the Anglophile Hitler only after the unsuccessful flight of Hess realized that he was sacrificed by sponsors.
    Yes, and WW2 in Europe has become inevitable since the design and foundation of the United States -Aircraft carriers. They very successfully entered WW1 for themselves. So some people thought to repeat this experience. In what we have succeeded.
  • voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 9 March 2021 11: 09
    +3
    The war at sea began immediately, on September 1, 1939.
    The British began to move troops to France.
    There was no fighting on land.
  • certero
    certero 9 March 2021 11: 50
    +1
    Quote: EvilLion
    And so the French army was considered the strongest in Europe.

    Let's see the numbers.
    And suddenly it turns out that on September 1, 39, the German army surpassed the French one almost like a bull to a sheep
  • deddem
    deddem 9 March 2021 19: 26
    0
    Quote: certero
    Quote: EvilLion
    And so the French army was considered the strongest in Europe.

    Let's see the numbers.
    And suddenly it turns out that on September 1, 39, the German army surpassed the French one almost like a bull to a sheep

    Duc, the German army is fully mobilized, and the French is still in peacetime.
    Yes, and numbers, they are such numbers, for example, AMR, an analogue of "ones" and "twos", the French did not consider tanks at all, and carried them under the category of "armored vehicles and armored vehicles".
    If we look at the industrial potential, we will see that all winter 39/40, the production of "fours" by the Germans did not exceed the production of the French B1bis, despite all the problems that the French heroically created for themselves.
    The only place where the Franks really looked completely dull was aviation, both in terms of volume and quality, it is no wonder that the most effective aircraft of the 1940 campaign was the imported P-36, for all its inadequacy.
  • roll
    roll 9 March 2021 23: 07
    0
    The best solution was to end the war, but with the preservation of economic sanctions against the aggressors.
  • Syktym
    Syktym 10 March 2021 09: 39
    0
    I beg your pardon for my scrupulousness, but Hitler's performance took place in the Reichstag, or in the building of the Kroll Opera, where the Reichstag moved after the fire of 33?
  • Kwas
    Kwas 10 March 2021 15: 27
    0
    If you think about Germany in June 1940, the best solution would be consistent preparation for the landing on England. For a start - to bomb ports and sink tankers, aviation must work over the sea and the coast, then the downed British pilots will sink, and not return to service. Target submarines also primarily against tankers. At the same time, prepare landing craft, perfect torpedoes, train torpedo bombers and submariners. When the fuel in England comes to an end, make a limited landing, gain a foothold, slowly supply. The Angles either go to the world, or bring the fleet into the strait. In the latter case, it is drowned by massive attacks from torpedo bombers and dive bombers, after which the landing force can be qualitatively reinforced for the offensive, or it can be landed elsewhere.
    But there was still the factor of the USSR. And this is a completely separate conversation.
    1. vovikz
      vovikz April 4 2021 23: 00
      0
      An ingenious decision "for Germany". And you do not know that this is exactly what the Germans did. But it turned out that the British Isles are too tough for them, because the English Channel is not the Vistula or even the Volga.
    2. Lem111
      Lem111 9 May 2021 21: 51
      0
      For a start, an adequate air war.
  • Yaroslav Tekkel
    Yaroslav Tekkel 10 March 2021 22: 34
    0
    You should not evaluate the actions of politicians of those years, based on the current data of Wikipedia. They say, "On April 19, 100500, the Germans had 2000 tanks, and we / our allies had 3000, we had to attack, and since they didn’t attack, it means a cunning plan." In fact, there was no detailed idea of ​​the number of Germans (Japanese, Italians), not only during the war, but until the 1960s. Intelligence (both ours and the Anglo-French) brutally exaggerated this number all the way.
  • geologist
    geologist 11 March 2021 11: 14
    0
    Arithmetic and economics are good for STE housewives, but they completely forget ideology and politics, and there are subtle points here. The British did not trust the French and feared betrayal, which then happened, and it is not clear who betrayed whom first. In the French press, a wave of hatred towards the USSR and the Russians was raised, and the Communist deputies in 1939 were expelled in disgrace from the French parliament, and many were subjected to physical violence, killed, beaten, imprisoned - only a few survived. The French press did not publish at all articles about the war and the threat from Germany, although the country declared war and was mobilized, but, nevertheless, the society was in a state of calm and indifference. As a result, the pro-fascist part of the government won out and sold France, and in fact an ally England could have given a million-strong army after Dunkirk, as it was in the previous war, but betrayed the French and hastily evacuated the grouping to several. hundreds of thousands from the coast of the Bay of Biscay because did not trust the corrupt French elite bribed by Hitler.
  • geologist
    geologist 11 March 2021 11: 26
    0
    You do not need iron or other resources if you have gold, which means you can bribe the press and deceive the people. "A donkey laden with gold can take the city without the help of spearmen" King Philip of Macedonia.
  • Moris
    Moris 14 March 2021 11: 42
    0
    "Reminds Lyonya Golubkova. We are sitting ... and the money is coming ..." From advertising - from the character of "journalist" Lysenko, before: and "My own director"; today he successfully works in the morning program of the "Zvezda" channel. A stupid proverb - very possibly invented by himself; pronounced in a commercial of some kind of financial pyramid. "Hoper-invest" or "Rinako" - maybe.
    The article itself contains quite sensible arguments and justified by at least some calculations. Without references to sources, it looks, of course, very popular science. Overall: short and reasonable.
  • snku
    snku 17 March 2021 14: 32
    0
    If Great Britain and France in September 1939 really hoped to strangle Germany economically, then this was initially an incorrect calculation, since Hitler could freely receive (and received) all the necessary raw materials from the USSR. Germany had long-term trade agreements with the USSR, which the USSR carried out in good faith until June 22, 1941 (the last train with Soviet grain was sent to Germany a few hours before the start of the war). Under these conditions, there was simply no question of any effective blockade of Germany.
    1. vovikz
      vovikz April 4 2021 22: 53
      0
      Against this background, the reluctance of England and France to conclude an anti-Hitler coalition with the USSR only confirms that it was the pushing of Germany to the east that was the key motive, and not the belief in Hitler's supposed peacefulness.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Andrew Matseevsky
    Andrew Matseevsky 22 March 2021 07: 33
    0
    The reasons were, but as we see it, more than miserable. Not a word about the fact that after the First World War the French generals turned up their noses and decided that they were the most general generals in the world. That progress in the art of war in France was marking time, that Gammelin was already in his eighties and that the French General Staff did not even have a radio station! Many reasons. What, no one guessed that the wait-and-see tactics did not lead to good? That the Maginot Line can be bypassed? And finally, since we started with the term "strange war". Maybe the 41-year campaign should also be called strange? The huge aviation was melting like snow in the sun, tank troops, which on paper were supposed to sweep the German army off the face of the earth, disappeared at the same rate. How else to call the monstrous discrepancy between the forces that the USSR had accumulated by the summer of 41 and the results achieved?
    1. Andrey sh
      Andrey sh 22 March 2021 15: 50
      0
      There are many things that can be explained. For example, the rear is not ready. The army of the USSR in the 41st was supposed to demonstrate power, and not fight. She was reformed with might and main.
  • Uncle Vasya
    Uncle Vasya 22 March 2021 22: 05
    0
    This stupid sign is not worth a dime. it has neither the main supplier of iron ore (Sweden), nor the main supplier of the bulk of other raw materials (USSR).
    The British and French were quiet for two reasons:
    1) Their ruling circles pushed Hitler to the East for a long time, and while he was going in the right direction - why should he interfere?
    2) and the peoples had a strong memory of the First World War, there was a strong reluctance to get involved in a new massacre.
  • vovikz
    vovikz April 4 2021 22: 49
    0
    A strange look. Rather, he is not strange, but semi-exculpatory on the part of the Western powers.
    What does "Hitler showed peacefulness" mean? What do you mean "England and France hoped that Germany would be satisfied with little"? As an excuse, this may satisfy someone, but we are trying to figure it out, not "take our word for it." Yes, the Western countries did not want war. They were afraid of war. But belief in Hitler's peacefulness is too much of an assumption. It was somehow possible to recognize this in the middle of 1938. But after Germany did not keep her word about Czechoslovakia, having completely subordinated it to itself instead of just the Sudetenland, talk of reconciliation and limited ambitions can only be perceived as a fool. However, it doesn't look so stupid in the article. Why? But because the author "forgot" about the USSR, he forgot to mention Hitler's plans to advance eastward, outlined back in the 1920s. Hitler never concealed anti-communism either. If we remember about these "insignificant facts", then Western complacency will sparkle with new colors. They hoped not for the peacefulness of Hitler, but for the peacefulness of their loved ones. The Nazis for England and France were much more their own than the Reds in the east. And they remained so no matter what until the end of the war, if you recall the plan "unthinkable"
  • Vladimir Alekseevich Smolyar
    Vladimir Alekseevich Smolyar April 20 2021 14: 03
    0
    "... the French and British in September-October 1939 believed that they were making the right decision, refusing to take active action by the ground army." The goal of the Anglo-Saxons (the French does not count) in WWII is the completion of the colonization of the world, and not the victory over Hitler - who needs it !?
    But to turn China into a dozen Vietnam, with Latin letters instead of hieroglyphs and without memory, and to push the East out of history - that's the goal! Rudyard Kipling is their prophet! Germany was assigned the auxiliary role of a vassal - to force Russia to roll back across the Volga, obey and crumble to pieces. They underestimated the East with its Confucianism, underestimated the USSR with its Orthodoxy of the Russian population. The mentality of traders and usurers, probably, interfered.
  • Chack wessel
    Chack wessel 9 May 2021 12: 30
    0
    Quote: Stroporez
    Quote: apro
    It depends on which direction.

    From all directions, the Mediterranean, the bombing of the islands, the transfer and landing of troops, block the supply of resources, etc. etc.

    The most important paratrooper is George the Eighth. :) And given some presence of Hitler's admirers in England itself besides George, I think that the Germans had a good chance to make England a German-controlled country.
  • Floyd47
    Floyd47 11 May 2021 16: 53
    0
    The conclusions of the author, Dmitry Verkhoturov, do not stand up to scrutiny. Why did he fixate on the analysis of behavior in WWII, only England and France? Is it not obvious that, already, at that time they were not subjects, but objects of world politics? The US Federal Reserve System is whose position it is worth analyzing if we want to understand the essence of what was happening in Europe then.
    The strategists who planned WWII pursued the main goal - to liquidate London as a financial center competing with Wall Street. And for this, the boulo must be arranged in such a way that Britain will fight. Moreover, she fought well.
    And for this, it was necessary to roll the German Wehrmacht like a snowball throughout Europe, so that the entire military potential of the defeated European countries - including the potential of France - would stick on it.
    That is, it was in the interests of the United States to enable Germany to build up its military potential to such a level that it posed a real threat to Britain.
    And it will not be surprising at all if, later, information emerges that the advantage of the strategy of strangling Germany by means of a blockade was instilled in France and Britain by overseas strategists.
  • Glikodin
    Glikodin 19 May 2021 20: 39
    0
    On the right hand of Füler Bronevoy, what is he sitting?!?!?