The inevitability of World War II and World War II

154

In the previous part it was shown that the thoughtful actions of England pushed Europe into the Great War. England decided to eliminate competitors and continue to play a leading role on the world stage. The war proved to be too costly, and many countries became indebted to the United States. The German and Austro-Hungarian empires were destroyed. The short-sighted policy of Nicholas II dragged Russia into the war, in which she suffered huge losses and plunged into the abyss of the Civil War.

Was it possible for the USSR government to avoid the country being dragged into World War II?



It was impossible to avoid participation in this war! This was understood in the leadership of the Red Army and the Soviet Union. They tried to postpone the start of the war. The leadership managed first to get rid of the enemy of Germany, and then - from England and France. The leaders knew that a war with Germany was inevitable, but they thought that it could be postponed with the help of concessions and the fulfillment of the conditions set by Hitler ...

Could European countries have avoided the outbreak of World War II?

Not! This war was also inevitable for them. It was laid down in the premises of the Great War. The goals of the ruling circles of the two countries, striving for leadership, were to unleash a new war in Europe. In the article "Struggle for the Second World War" (Part 1, Part 2) describes the period of relations in Europe after the Great War and until 1940. The actions of countries that maneuvered to deceive competitors are considered. The most worthy position was taken by the government of the USSR.

USA in the 20s and 30s


After the end of the Great War, the United States held negotiations with major naval countries and entered into an agreement on large-tonnage warships. Subsequently, US foreign policy for a long time was directed mainly towards Latin America.

The 20s saw a period of prosperity in the United States. To a lesser extent, it extended to coal mining and agriculture. New industries developed. In the country, everything was done for the sake of business. Even the authorities have come under the control of businessmen.

At the end of 1929, the Great Depression began in the United States. In the period 1929-1933. unemployment increased from 3 to 25%, and the volume of production decreased by 1/3. In rural areas of the Great Plains, there was a drought that, combined with deficiencies in agricultural practices, led to soil erosion and caused an ecological disaster. The villagers migrated en masse to the North in search of work. The depression ended with the outbreak of the war. Negative events in the United States led to a crisis in other countries of the world.

On the eve of the outbreak of hostilities in Europe, the US Congress addressed the issue of neutrality for the fourth time. As a result of the debate, the law on neutrality was reaffirmed. With the beginning of the war, the United States outwardly retained the principle of an outside observer.

Before the war, ties were established between American industrialists and Hitler. Ford's pre-war ties were not interrupted during the war. In 1940, Ford refused to build engines for British aircraft. However, his new plant in France began producing engines for the Luftwaffe. European subsidiaries of Ford in 1940 supplied Germany with 65 thousand trucks and subsequently continued to supply vehicles.

A US presidential decree of December 13, 1941, allowed doing business with enemy companies, unless prohibited by the Treasury Department. Therefore, American corporations often received permits to operate with enemy firms and supplied them with the necessary steel, engines, aviation fuel, rubber, radio engineering components.

It turns out that the German industry was supported by the United States.

The development of German industry in the 20s and 30s


After the United States entered the Great War, they provided huge amounts of loans to the allies. The winners began to solve debt problems at the expense of Germany. In accordance with the Treaty of Versailles, the amount of reparations for Germany amounted to 269 billion gold marks (about 100 thousand tons of gold). After the war, the Anglo-Americans feared a rapprochement between Germany and Soviet Russia.

L. Ivashov (President of the Academy of Geopolitical Problems) noted:

“One of the reasons that the United States and Great Britain supported the Hitler regime were the conclusions of the Anglo-Saxon geopolitics ... about mortal danger... the creation of a German-Russian union. In this case, London and Washington would have to forget about world domination ... "

In 1922, Hitler met with the US military attaché Smith. In the report of the meeting, Smith spoke highly of Hitler. Through Smith, Hanfstaengl (a student friend of F. Roosevelt) was introduced to Hitler's circle of acquaintances, who provided him with financial support, ensured acquaintance and connections with major figures. Former German Chancellor Brüning noted that since 1923, Hitler received large sums of money from abroad. American and British financial and industrial circles staked on the future leader of Germany - Hitler.

At the direction of Norman, the head of the Bank of England, a program was developed for the penetration of Anglo-American capital into the German economy. In 1924, the amount of reparations was reduced by 2 times. Germany was provided with financial assistance from the United States and England in the form of loans to pay reparations to France. Due to the fact that the payments went to cover the amount of the allies' debts, there was "Absurd Weimar circle"... The gold that Germany paid in the form of reparations was sold and disappeared in the United States, from where it again returned to Germany in the form of "aid".

The total amount of foreign investments in German industry for 1924-1929. reached 63 billion gold marks, of which 70% came from the United States. In 1929, German industry was ranked second in the world, but to a large extent it was concentrated in the hands of American financial-industrial groups.

At a conference in Lausanne in 1932, an agreement was signed on the repurchase by Germany for 3 billion gold marks of its reparation obligations with their redemption within 15 years. After Hitler came to power, these payments were discontinued. The attitude of the Anglo-American elite towards Hitler was benevolent. After refusing to pay reparations by Germany, which called into question the payment of debts, neither England nor France made no claims... After the war, Germany again began to make payments on these payments.

In May 1933, the head of the Reichsbank met with Roosevelt and with the largest American bankers. As a result of the negotiations, Germany has allocated loans in the amount of one billion dollars. In June, a $ 2 billion British loan was provided in London. The Nazis were instantly given what the previous governments could not achieve. The United States pushed Germany towards rapid development. The figure shows the shares of countries in world industrial production.

The inevitability of World War II and World War II

The share of production in Germany has grown steadily since 1929, except for a short period. From the mid-30s, production in Germany began to exceed that in England. Since 1932, the share of England and France in world production began to steadily decline, and the situation began to resemble the situation on the eve of the Great War.

Through incredible efforts, the USSR took 2nd place in the world in terms of the share of industrial production.

England, France and the USA did not have to accept this situation. Hitler should have been pitted against the USSR, and then, as in the Great War, both countries had to be defeated or divided. In a new war in Europe, the provocateurs wanted to fight with someone else's hands and ensure the exit of Hitler's troops to the borders of our country.

Therefore, the participation of the USSR in World War II was inevitablesince it was planned by the ruling elites.

At the Nuremberg Trials, the former President of the Reichsbank and Minister of Economy Schacht proposed, for the sake of justice, to put in the dock those who nursed the Third Reich, mentioning the Governor of the Bank of England Norman, Ford Corporation and General Motors. They made a deal with him, promising freedom in exchange for silence. The tribunal acquitted Schacht despite the protests of Soviet lawyers.

President Roosevelt was an admirer of Wilson's idea of ​​US leadership in the world. All people usually consider how feasible their ideas can be. Therefore, the American president had to think about the feasibility of his idea ...

During the Great War, the United States has grown significantly stronger and has risen above the world's major powers. Another war and waiting aside from the fight (for a while) could lead America to the role of the only superpower ...

Perhaps this explains the huge investments in the development of German industry by the American elite? After all, they needed a large country that could defeat England with France and the Soviet Union. After achieving this goal, enormous benefits were expected!

What did England need?

Probably the same as in the Great War: to crush or crush Germany and the USSR, as well as to gain a foothold in the world arena as a leader ...

Ensuring the exit of Hitler's troops to the borders of the USSR


Austria joined Germany in March 1938. In September, England and France facilitated the transfer of the Sudetes to her.

On January 12, 1939, Hungary announced its readiness to join the anti-Comintern pact. On March 14, Slovakia declared independence, and on March 15, German troops entered the Czech Republic. On March 21-23, Germany, under the threat of the use of force, forced Lithuania to hand over the Memel region to it. These actions strengthened the army and the military-industrial potential of Germany.

In January 1939 years the meeting of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Poland Beck with the leadership of Germany took place. Beck said that Poland's main goal is "Weakening and defeat of Russia"... Poland intends to lay claim to Soviet Ukraine and access to the Black Sea.

When meeting with Beck, Hitler noted that there is "The unity of the interests of Germany and Poland in relation to the Soviet Union", So what "Every Polish division used against the USSR means the economy of one German division".

The meeting also discussed the issue of incorporating Danzig into Germany and the creation of a corridor through which an extraterritorial (under German control) highway and railway to East Prussia should be laid. Beck tried to avoid discussing this issue.

March 21 Ribbentrop made demands for the Danzig corridor, but the Polish government refused. There was nothing unusual in the demands of the Germans. On April 26, the British ambassador in Berlin said:

“Passing through the corridor is an absolutely fair decision. If we were in Hitler's place, we would demand him, least... »

March 31 Chamberlain said that in the event of a threat to Poland's independence, the British government would consider itself obligated to provide immediate assistance.

25 April The US Ambassador to France told journalist Weigand:

"The war in Europe is a done deal ... America will enter the war after France and Britain."

Long before the war, the initiators considered its beginning to be a settled matter and did not intend to prevent it ...

28 April Germany denounced the Non-Aggression Pact with Poland. The refusal to provide the possibility of building an extraterritorial road to Königsberg was named as the reason. Anti-German hysteria began in Poland. On May 3, during a parade of Polish troops, excited people shouted:

"Forward to Berlin!"

In June at the negotiations, the British and French decided that they would not help Poland in the event of a war, they would try to keep Italy from joining it, and would not strike at Germany.

During the Anglo-Polish negotiations, the British announced that they would not supply the latest military equipment, and the loan requested by the Poles for military needs was reduced from 50 to 8 million pounds.

July 17-19 General Ironside visited Poland, who realized that Poland would not be able to resist the German invasion for a long time. Subsequently, the British did not take any action to strengthen the defense capability and the armed forces of Poland.

3 of August the German ambassador to London wrote:

“Sir Wilson said that the Anglo-German agreement, which included the refusal to attack third powers, was completely would free the British government from its currently assumed guarantee obligations in relation to Poland, Turkey, etc.

These commitments were made only in the event of an attack and in their wording mean exactly this opportunity... With the fall of this danger would have disappeared also and these commitments... »

6 of August Polish Marshal Rydz-Smigly (from September 1 - Supreme Commander-in-Chief) stated:

"Poland is seeking war with Germany, and Germany will not be able to avoid it, even if it wants to ..."

During this period, a song became popular about how the Poles, under the command of the marshal, are marching victoriously on the Rhine.

The loss of reality by the leadership of the army and the country with sufficiently good Polish intelligence is completely incomprehensible. Below are the memoirs of a former Russian army officer who lived in Poland for a long time. It seems that the Polish leadership was strongly convinced by someone of their safety and of some military actions of the allies in a future war ...


16 of August The British Air Ministry unofficially notified Germany that it was possible that Britain would declare war, but military action would not be fought if Germany quickly defeated Poland.

17 of August in Moscow, negotiations began with the military missions of England and France, which were interrupted due to their lack of authority to resolve issues raised earlier by the USSR. The Anglo-French deliberately brought the negotiations to a standstill.

Our intelligence timely reported on this policy of the British (Burgess):


23 of August the USSR signed a non-aggression pact with Germany, which fulfilled all the requirements put forward by our country. Other countries have tried to conclude similar agreements.

For example, England ... Message from the British ambassador in Berlin (21.8.39):

“All preparations have been made for Göring to arrive under cover of secrecy on Thursday the 23rd. The idea is that he would land at some deserted airfield, be met and go to Checkers by car ... "

But Goering did not come - it was just misinformation ...

25 of August England signed a mutual assistance agreement with Poland, but the military unit was not reflected in it. Germany learned of the agreement, and the attack on Poland (August 26) was canceled.

On August 25, Hitler addressed Chamberlain:


The message expresses an unambiguous position. Solve the problem of Danzig and the corridor to East Prussia. Germany does not need a war with Britain and France, as well as with the USSR. However, England and the United States were not satisfied with the absence of a war between Germany and the Soviet Union for a long time ...

26 of August information comes from London to Berlin that England will not intervene in the military conflict between Germany and Poland.

29 of August Poland was preparing to begin an open mobilization, but Britain and France insisted to postpone it to August 31, so as not to provoke Germany.

Germany gave Britain's consent to direct negotiations with Poland on the terms of the transfer of Danzig, a plebiscite in "Polish corridor" and guarantees of new borders of Poland by Germany, Italy, England, France and the USSR. Germany notified Moscow about negotiations with England over Poland.

However, there was a catch in the message to London:

“The German government accepts the offer of the British government for mediation, according to which the Polish negotiator with the necessary powers will be sent to Berlin. Arrival of the Ambassador of Poland is expected on Wednesday 30.8.39 g... »

The envoy from Warsaw did not have time to arrive on August 30 ...

Hitler made the decision to start a war.

About events 30 of August wrote Dr. P. Schmidt (employee of the German Foreign Ministry, since 1935 Hitler's personal translator):

"Ribbentrop [read to the British Ambassador Henderson Hitler's proposals to the League of Nations for the settlement of the Polish question - approx. auth.]. Henderson asked if he could get the text of these proposals for transmission to the government ...

“No,” said [Ribbentrop - approx. ed.] with an inappropriate smile, - I can not hand you these proposals ... "

[After a second request for documents, a new refusal followed - approx. author] Ribbentrop ... threw the document on the table with the words: “It is expired because the Polish representative He has not appeared... »

Hitler's loud proposals were made only for show and were never supposed to be carried out. They refused to hand the document over to Henderson out of fear that the British government would hand it over to the Poles, who could easily accept the proposed conditions ... The chance to achieve peace was deliberately sabotaged before my eyes ... The fact that I was right in assuming why Hitler's proposals were transmitted in such a peculiar way confirmed later Hitler himself in my presence: “I needed an alibi,” he said, “especially in front of the people of Germany, to show that I had done everything to keep the peace. This explains my generous proposal to settle the issues of Danzig and the "corridor" ... "

31 of August London notified Berlin of the approval of direct German-Polish negotiations, and German proposals were transferred from England to Poland.

“When… at 11:00, accompanied by British adviser Forbes, I visited the Polish ambassador in Berlin to present Hitler’s 16 points, he made a statement… that Germany was rebelling and that numerous Polish troops would successfully reach Berlin…”

Hitler signs a directive to attack Poland on September 1 at 4:30 am.

At 18:00 on August 31, Ribbentrop, in a conversation with the Polish ambassador, stated the absence of an extraordinary plenipotentiary from Warsaw and refused further negotiations.

After 21:15, Germany presented its proposals to Poland to the ambassadors of England, France, and the United States and announced that Warsaw had refused to negotiate. Interestingly, the proposals were presented to those ambassadors whose countries were interested in unleashing a war in Europe ...

At dawn on September 1 World War II began.

on September 3 The British ambassador delivered an ultimatum to Germany, which required an end to hostilities in Poland and the withdrawal of troops. The ultimatum was transmitted at 9:00 am to Dr. Schmidt.


Later, a French ultimatum was also transmitted. When the ultimatums were rejected, the ambassadors announced that their countries were at war with Germany.

The German Air Force was ordered to strike at the British and French navies, but refrain from bombing their territory.

on September 3 Chamberlain stated:

"Everything for which I worked ... everything that I believed in during my entire political life, fell into ruins ..."

All his plans to provoke an attack by Germany on the USSR, and then to conquer both countries failed ...

During the same period, Churchill accused Hitler of "Betrayed the anti-communist, anti-Bolshevik cause".

Special message (on September 9 1939):

"The English press ... accuses Hitler of acting at the moment not the way it is written in the book "My Struggle" ...

It seems that the British are sick most of all, that the Soviet-German pact made a breakthrough of the anti-Comintern front... »

Hitler was right about the policy of Poland's “allies”:

"Although they declared war on us ... this does not mean that they will actually fight ..."

OKW Directive No. 2 of September 3 was based on the idea of ​​continuing large-scale operations in Poland and passive waiting in the West. Indeed, there were no hostilities in the West, although at that time there were 78 French divisions against 44 German ones on the border with Germany. At this time, the Polish press published reports about the war, which were very far from reality (article "When the Poles took Berlin").

At the Nuremberg Trials, General Yodel said:

“We were not defeated in 1939 only because, during the Polish campaign, about 110 French and British divisions in the West were inactivestanding in front of 23 German divisions ... "

The British did not provide any military assistance to Poland. The Polish military mission arrived in London on September 3, but it was not accepted until the 9th. On September 15, the British announced that all aid could amount to 10 machine guns and 15–20 million rounds of ammunition, which could be delivered in 5–6 months. Promises could be made, because in London they knew that there was little time left before the victory of Germany ...

on September 4 Japan declared non-interference in the conflict in Europe, and on September 5 the American administration has declared the neutrality of the United States in this conflict.

on September 15 The USSR and Japan signed an agreement on the mutual recognition of the borders of Mongolia, and German troops captured Brest.

in the evening on September 17 the President of Poland, the Prime Minister and the Supreme Commander-in-Chief crossed the Polish-Romanian border. Marshal Rydz-Smigly fled, leaving his army and country behind. The Romanian authorities demanded that they give up state sovereignty and, after refusal, were sent to an internment center. The Republic of Poland was left without leadership ...

On the same day, the Red Army's liberation campaign in Poland began, and 1 October Minister of War Churchill approved the occupation of Western Belarus and Western Ukraine by our troops.

12 October Prime Minister Chamberlain rejected the German peace proposal.

Subsequently, until the spring of 1940 on the Western Front, hostilities between the Anglo-French and German troops did not take place. The war was only at sea. It never occurred to any of the Allies to start bombing targets in Germany. The allies were confident that their huge armies, covered with powerful fortifications, would allow them to sit on the border for as long as they wanted. They probably believed that this should push Hitler to deploy his war machine to the East. In the summer of 1940, Hitler noted that he knew about the Allied stab in the back at the most unfavorable time for Germany.

Preparation of military operations against the USSR


Consider the chronology of events that relate to the preparation of military operations by Britain and France against the Soviet Union.

19 October an agreement of mutual assistance was signed between Britain, France and Turkey, which became the basis for the development of plans for striking our country from Turkish territory. The head of the French government, the US ambassador in Paris, was informed of these plans. At the end of October, the British Chiefs of Staff Committee is considering the question of "positive and negative sides of declaring war on Russia».

25 October In response to Britain's demand to observe the regime of the naval blockade of Germany, the People's Commissar for Foreign Affairs said:

"The Soviet government considers it unacceptable to deprive the civilian population of food, fuel and clothing and thereby subject children, women, the elderly and the sick to all kinds of deprivation and starvation ..."

In response, nothing seditious was sounded, since on December 8, the United States also opposed Britain's attempts to establish a naval blockade of Germany, stating that these measures violate freedom of trade.

30 November the Soviet-Finnish war began.

6 December England agreed to supply weapon Finland. Unlike Poland, the British did not need 5-6 months to prepare these deliveries. Were delivered (albeit in small numbers) aircraft, guns, anti-tank guns, automatic weapons, mines and ammunition.

19 December The allied command, at the suggestion of the head of the British General Staff, considered the possibility of sending international forces to Finland. During 1940, it was proposed to form an expeditionary corps numbering 57 people, consisting of:

a) first stage: 2,5 brigades of French Alpine riflemen (8500 people), 2 battalions of the French Foreign Legion (2000 people), a Polish battalion (1000 people), a British Guards brigade (3500 people) and a British ski battalion ( 500 people);

b) second stage: 3 British infantry divisions (42 people).

31 December General Butler arrived in Turkey to discuss Anglo-Turkish military cooperation, including against the USSR. The question of the use by the British of Turkish airfields and ports in Eastern Turkey was discussed.

11 January the British embassy in Moscow reported that the action in the Caucasus "Can bring Russia to its knees in the shortest possible time", and the destruction of the Caucasian oil fields can inflict the USSR Knockout blow.

We see that England and France are quietly going fight with our country by the methods that they are at this time did not allow themselves to apply to the aggressor - to Germany. This once again shows that the war in Europe was started only for the sake of the war with the USSR.

24 January The chief of the General Staff of England presented to the War Cabinet a memorandum in which he indicated:

"We will be able to provide effective assistance to Finland only if we attack Russia from as many directions as possible and, most importantly, strike a blow at Baku, an oil production region, in order to cause a serious state crisis in Russia."

31 January at a meeting of the chiefs of staff of England and France, it was said:

"The French command understands that the political consequence of direct assistance to Finland's allies would be the unleashing of them ... military operations against Russia, even if there is no formal declaration of war on either side ..."

Finland's best help from England would be to send long-range aircraft, which "Could bombard targets deep inside Russia".

February 5 the allied command decided to send an expeditionary corps to Finland for military operations against the USSR. Disembarkation dates are scheduled for mid-February. Only Finland's request for military assistance was required, but it did not follow.

February 18 French General Chardigny reported that the importance of a destructive operation against Baku justifies any risk.

February 23 a breakthrough by the Red Army troops of the main strip of the Mannerheim line was carried out.

23 February - 21 March the visit of the US Deputy Secretary of State to Paris, Rome, Berlin and London with a proposal for peaceful mediation on the terms of the restoration of Poland, as well as Czechoslovakia within the borders for January 1939. His proposals included the conclusion of a four-year truce between the belligerent countries and the simultaneous conclusion of an economic pact.

Perhaps in America they realized that the war did not go according to the scenario that was originally conceived. There is a danger of an alliance between Germany and the USSR (the USSR joining the "axis" countries), which will be too tough for England, France and the United States. The Americans began to probe the possibility of a rollback scenario to the pre-war borders, but the countries participating in the war did not want this.

Why?

The British and French were absolutely confident in their invulnerability and wanted to push Hitler to war with the USSR. To do this, they were not afraid to open a new front in Finland against the USSR, and also considered plans for the invasion of their troops with allies into the territory of the USSR from Romania or Turkey. For the British, everything was obvious: the intended goals would be fulfilled, Germany and the USSR would be brought to their knees or fragmented.

The Germans are already knew how they would defeat the allied troops and throw the British back to the island. This victory, in their opinion, was unambiguously followed by the conclusion of peace treaties with Britain and France. Therefore, they also did not want to go back.

February 28 The headquarters of the French Air Force prepared a document that determined the forces and means necessary for the destruction of the oil refineries in Baku, Batumi and Poti.

March 5 the deadline set by the allied command for Finland's official request for military assistance has expired. The new date was set for March 12.

March 7 a meeting was held with the commanders of the British and French air forces in the Middle East. General Mitchell informed that he had received instructions from London on the preparation of a possible bombing.

March 8 the British Chiefs of Staff submitted a report to the government titled "The military consequences of hostilities against Russia in 1940".

March 12 the report of March 8 is being discussed at a meeting of the British War Cabinet. Air Chief Marshal Newall emphasized:

"Attacking the Caucasus oil fields is the most effective way we can strike at Russia."

He expressed the hope that within 1,5-3 months the oil fields will be completely disabled, and also informed the military cabinet that modern long-range bombers were sent to Egypt, which could be used to strike at the Caucasus. Our reconnaissance, air force and air defense were also preparing for a possible counteraction with the Anglo-French in the south.

On the same day was a peace treaty was concluded between Finland and the USSR.

March 21 British Deputy Foreign Secretary Butler told the Japanese ambassador in London that the government was pursuing a goal «force the Soviet Union by blockade or in other ways wage war against Germany».

Thus, it was said about the goal of England in the unleashed war: by any means to force the USSR to fight with Germany, and by itself to sit out in the West in fortified positions. After all, for this, the Allies surrendered Czechoslovakia to Hitler and substituted Poland ...

March 25 the prime minister of France sent a letter to the British government with a call to action to "Paralyze the economy of the USSR".

March 29 V.M. Molotov stated:

“Since the USSR did not want to become an accomplice of England and France in pursuing ... the imperialist policy against Germany, the hostility of their positions towards the Soviet Union intensified even more, clearly demonstrating how deep the class roots of the hostile policy of the imperialists are. against the socialist state... »

9 April the Germans landed troops in Denmark and Norway. As Chamberlain later said, the Allies missed the bus to Scandinavia.

During the Soviet-Finnish War, Germany demonstrated to our country fidelity clauses in the annex to the treaty, according to which Finland was relegated to the USSR's "sphere of influence. Already on December 2, 1939, German diplomats were ordered to avoid any anti-Soviet statements and to justify the actions of the USSR in relation to Finland with references to "Inevitability" revision of boundaries and "Natural need" Soviet Union in actions to ensure the security of Leningrad and establish control over the water area of ​​the Gulf of Finland.

During the war, Germany refused Finland to mediate in negotiations with the USSR and advised the Finnish government to accept our country's proposals. In addition, the German government put pressure on the Swedes when they began to lean towards providing full-scale aid to Finland. The Germans also banned the use of their airspace for ferrying Italian fighters to Finland.

10 May the German offensive began on the Western Front. The allies unexpectedly turned out to be completely helpless and were forced to switch to solving their large-scale problems. Before the defeat of the allies, they were enemies of our country. Only the unexpected collapse of their plans later changed the attitude of England towards the USSR. However, even on the eve of the Great Patriotic War, the British could inflict airstrikes on our facilities.

12 June 1941, British intelligence made a conclusion about the preparation of German pressure on the USSR. The Committee of Chiefs of Staff decided to take measures that would make it possible to strike without delay at the oil industry facilities in Baku, hoping to put pressure on the USSR so that it would not yield to German demands.

Statement by politicians after the start of the Great Patriotic War


In the statements of American politicians, the essence of US policy on the eve of the world war is slipping.

24 June 1941 Senator Truman stated:

“If we see that Germany is winning, then we should help Russia, and if Russia is winning, then we should help Germany, and thus let them kill as much as possible, although I would not want to see Hitler a winner under any circumstances ... "

25 June U.S. Ambassador to England D. Kennedy said:

“Stalin’s statement about the beginning of a liberation campaign in Europe makes us think. Obviously, the Russian army is strong enough and capable of waging a war differently from what is planned in Berlin.

If the Russians overturn the German troops and push them back, this will turn the entire system of the world upside down. And if Stalin's statement is a bluff, then big changes in politics should still be expected. In any case, a quick victory for Germany or Russia is not beneficial to us. Best of all, if both of these forces get bogged down and exhaust each other in this war ... "

These statements reflect the vision of American politicians aimed at weakening both opponents in the course of war with each other. At the same time, Germany and the USSR should be weakened, but not the provocateur of the Second World War - England!

Politicians just did not mention an important point: what will the United States do when these opponents are extremely weakened? ..

Politics is a rather cynical thing. Comrade Stalin said something similar after the outbreak of World War II. These statements simply indicate one of the means of weakening the enemy in the struggle for world domination. But Stalin can be justified, since the USSR was the only socialist country, which at that time did not have and could not have a single ally.

The imperialist countries were ready to destroy us for our vast expanses and resources.

Currently, the situation is similar again: our vastness and resources haunt neither the United States nor its vassal - the European Union ...

To be continued ...
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

154 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +19
    7 2021 June
    A slide towards war is also noticeable now. Only now the Anglo-Saxons consider the alliance of Russia and China to be dangerous.
    Will they be able to knock their heads together again their competitors? Then they pitted the USSR and Germany.
    Can they really push Russia and China against each other now? .. somehow we need not to step on the same rake for the third time.
    1. -24
      7 2021 June
      that Germany was armed with Anglo / American funds, that the USSR, which was generally a backward country back in the 20s, was also equipped from the same sources. The industrial equipment of the USSR was mainly American. How the USSR paid off is not clear, because there were no funds in the country ...
      It seems that Hitler, that Stalin knew it all, that their countries were being pitted for a world massacre and went to it quite deliberately.
      And maybe even worse, that Hitler, that Stalin were henchmen of world capital for the same purpose - the outbreak of a world war.
      1. +34
        7 2021 June
        In general, the modernization / construction of production facilities in the USSR took place during the Great Depression. The Americans happily built an industry for gold.
        1. -4
          7 2021 June
          Regarding the contribution to Germany in 10 tons of gold, the Author clearly bent. Is he aware that the ENTIRE WORLD STOCK IN STORAGE FACILITIES TODAY IS 000 tons? Where would Germany get so much gold after WWI? request
          1. +22
            7 2021 June
            Quote: Proxima
            Regarding the contribution to Germany in 10 tons of gold, the Author clearly bent. .... all supplies for now - 000 tons? Where would Germany get so much gold after WWI? request

            Still not 10 but 000 tons (equivalent) imposed reparations on Germany. fellow This is the equivalent. For example - Trump wants to receive 10 trillion from China. dollars. Reparation for the coronavirus. This is equivalent to 170 tons of gold. Where can I get them? -)))
            1. +9
              7 2021 June
              Quote: ammunition
              Quote: Proxima
              Regarding the contribution to Germany in 10 tons of gold, the Author clearly bent. .... all supplies for now - 000 tons? Where would Germany get so much gold after WWI? request

              Still not 10 but 000 tons (equivalent) imposed reparations on Germany. fellow This is the equivalent. For example - Trump wants to receive 10 trillion from China. dollars. Reparation for the coronavirus. This is equivalent to 170 tons of gold. Where can I get them? -)))


              Trump can still get these 170 tons from China. But not gold, but something that does not burn in fire and does not sink in water.
          2. +9
            7 2021 June
            I agree with the subsequent answer: the amount of reparations imposed has nothing to do with the world's gold reserves.
            The rate of the gold mark corresponded to 0,358425 g of pure gold. If we multiply 269 billion by the number of marks, the weight is 96413 tons. The author did not bent, you just need to read and count ...
            1. About this
              US presidential decree of December 13, 1941 allowed doing business with enemy companies

              I understand that this is a borrowing from the much licked Hayem? Does it make it difficult for you to link to the text of this document? Thanks in advance.
            2. -3
              8 2021 June
              Quote: AsmyppoL
              the number of stamps is 269 billion, then the weight is 96413 tons

              Well, what does the Dolar stamps have to do with that rate - one hundred thousand tons of gold for losing the PMA, that's what I read. I got into Google - for now, the Russian Federation has two thousand tons in a safe and they dig up 300 tons a year. how in general it was possible for the Germans to pay off ???
              an interesting article if patriotism and pathos could be reduced like ... "On the same day, the Red Army's liberation campaign in Poland began," .... all the same, this is a section of history and not politics.
              Yes, Ford and GM rebuilt Germany, well, there our trains were not stopping carrying raw materials.
        2. -8
          7 2021 June
          Quote: Darkesstcat
          In general, the modernization / construction of production facilities in the USSR took place during the Great Depression. Americans happily built industry for gold

          Stalin's industrialization is an area of ​​"irrational". But this is how it is said, in fact, everything is clear and payment for industrial equipment, and the payment of foreign specialists was made at the expense of the West. Their capital.
          Professor Katasonov calculated that during the years of industrialization, 8.5 thousand enterprises were built, and the cost of industrial equipment is equal to 1 ton of gold equivalent, i.e. In total, 8.5 thousand tons of gold were paid. The USSR did not have such an amount of gold.

          1. +13
            8 2021 June
            Contracts were concluded with the United States on counter deliveries, so that the flow of goods also went from the Soviet Union, and not only what the United States really really needed. Purely from memory, among those supplied in huge volumes was wood, chemical pencils (!), Buttons of all types and styles (!!), fur, leather, manganese.
            The USA was interested in the USSR being ready for a war - a long and difficult war. Therefore, both Germany and the USSR received American loans, equipment and technologies were supplied, patents and licenses were sold. But if Germany received loans with deferred payment and direct investments were made, then Stalin immediately agreed on counter deliveries in as much as possible equal volumes. And the United States agreed to this, and often bought to the detriment of its own producers (as it is now in China).
            Approximately the same agreements were concluded with Germany, and food grain, ores, etc. went to Germany.
            And it was the United States and Germany that became the main suppliers of technology and equipment for Soviet industrialization. We built not only factories, but also entire turnkey industries.
            And for all these supplies, the USSR was calculated until the end of each five-year plan in FULLY (!!!), for all current loans. This is reflected in Stalin's report on the results of the 1st Five-Year Plan.
            In the same report, he also reveals WHERE the USSR got the money for the construction of all these plants. Just find that report, read it, and you will not have any questions about how THIS became possible. Stalin knew the true nature of money, and moreover, he was armed with the "Theory of Absolute Money", which the Soviet ruble became.
            Now this is impossible in the Russian Federation.
            For it is forbidden by the occupation constitution.
            Today the Russian Federation does not even have the right to issue its "own" currency.
            And the USSR could. It was with this money that he built his Economy in such a record time, without enslaving loans (the loans were exclusively current, with the calculation after the delivery of each batch).
            And about this very briefly, clearly and succinctly, Stalin said in his report.
            Read the primary sources.
            1. -7
              8 2021 June
              Quote: bayard
              This is reflected in Stalin's report on the results of the 1st Five-Year Plan.
              In the same report, he also reveals WHERE the USSR got the money for the construction of all these plants. Just find that report, read it, and you will not have any questions about how it became possible.


              more precisely, what kind of report it is and, in general, a link please.
              There was no gold in the USSR, or rather, only that gold that was able to be mined during the Soviet period, and the tsarist gold partially disappeared, partially lies in the banks of Japan and, as far as I know, in the banks of England and France for the supply of weapons for the army, which were not sold in in full.

              Quote: bayard
              Purely from memory, among those supplied in huge volumes was wood, chemical pencils (!), Buttons of all types and styles (!!), fur, leather, manganese


              what you have listed here from memory does not pull at 8.5 THOUSAND TONS OF GOLD.

              Quote: bayard
              The USA was interested in the USSR being ready for a war - a long and difficult war. Therefore, both Germany and the USSR received American loans, equipment and technologies were supplied, patents and licenses were sold. But if Germany received loans with deferred payment and direct investments were made,


              You can be stunned, what a different view on the history of that time. So the United States financed and industrialized the USSR so that it could fight against Germany? And then why did they raise and arm Germany, so that she could fight off the USSR, or that she could effectively fight against the USSR, probably the second. Then don't be silly.
              The USA and the rest of the West armed and prepared the USSR and Germany for world slaughter and there is no other conclusion. If before the war the USSR was a weak state, then after the war the political weight of the country was enormous and Stalin had to honestly admit that the country was being prepared for war and name the main culprits. wars - western banks and western system
              1. +8
                8 2021 June
                Quote: Bar1
                ? And then why did they raise and arm Germany, so that she could fight off the USSR, or so that she could effectively fight against the USSR,

                The USA needed a new war in Europe. On the previous one, they fabulously enriched themselves and were going to repeat it again. But not for the sake of money and your place under the Sun. They were preparing their future undisputed leadership in the world.
                And they got in the way ... England. Which did not let their business trade in their colonies. And since the world was almost completely divided into colonies, the United States had no other ways to get new markets. For both France and other colonial states of Europe did not allow strangers into their dioceses.
                But England was still the main target. Which got pretty bad at the previous war, got into gigantic debts to the United States, lost (for debt payments) almost all of its gold reserves ... And therefore could no longer properly maintain its army and even the Navy. England was chronically short of money. Therefore, a new war in Europe with her participation was supposed to resolve the issue of the destruction of the British Empire, and better - the colonial system in principle.
                The classic colonial system.
                There were enough reasons for war in Europe thanks to the Treaty of Versailles, England was bound by allied obligations to France, kept her ground troops there ... But Germany was ... weak. And since the war was again to be long and exhausting, the most ruinous and bloody, it was necessary to prepare fighters for it.
                What was needed was an efficient Russia-USSR. That is why work began with both of these countries to get them out of the crisis, boost their economies, and strengthen their armies.
                The rest is in the article.
                Another thing is that Stalin, being the greatest clever girl, took advantage of such an alignment with maximum benefit, made an industrial breakthrough on his own terms (in contrast to Hitler, who fully accepted the rules of the American bankers' game). Stalin did not go into debt, did not take loans (except exclusively for the supply of equipment, with the expectation immediately after delivery). To ensure the export potential (and in Russia it was traditionally grain) collectivization was carried out. But the most important thing is that he created a sovereign financial system based on the most advanced theory developed by Sharapov and tested under Alexander-3 during the construction of the Trans-Siberian Railway ... Nikolai-2 then abandoned this practice (at the instigation of Witte), but the Transsib was built in a record 8 years and Putilov factories appeared in Russia.
                No credits and no gold (or silver) consumption.
                Stalin did the same, but on a national scale, carrying out Industrialization and bringing the USSR into the ranks of the most advanced economies in a few years, and to the 2nd place in industrial production in the world.
                Quote: Bar1
                what you have listed here from memory does not pull at 8.5 THOUSAND TONS OF GOLD.

                The USSR practically did not pay with gold for these deliveries - there were counter deliveries and currency from the proceeds for grain in Europe.
                It was not for nothing that I indicated buttons and chemical pencils in Soviet exports. lol Already, this kind of good in the United States was enough of its own. But they took everything that the USSR offered - and fabrics, and leather, and furs, timber, manganese, etc., etc., etc. The Rockefeller Group needed a strong Russia-USSR for the war in Europe. And so the United States agreed to Stalin's terms on parity bilateral trade. About the balance of trade.
                Now, this is how the United States is trading with China ... But already in favor of China.
                Because at one time they needed China to counterbalance the USSR, and to split the communist movement.
                The US is very good at making long-term plans.
                By the way, it was their specialists who drew up the plan for the first five-year plan. They planned the creation of whole new industries, a series of enterprises tied in cooperative chains, several hundred thousand engineers and qualified specialists from the United States worked in the USSR for years. And the son of one of these engineers later became the president of the United States - Nixon. He lived with his parents for several years in the USSR ... he drove football with our boys ...
                And Germany has also contributed its share to our industrialization. Up to 90% of all new machine tools produced in Germany were exported to the USSR. German industry suffered from this, but the German economy needed money, food grains, raw materials, iron ore ... it had to pay for reparations and get out of the Great Depression.
                And the USA left the Depression on supplies to the USSR. At that time, the USSR bought up almost 90% of all machine tools produced in the world. For industrialized countries, such contracts were simply life-saving.
                Look for Stalin's speech, it's worth it. In my opinion, at the congress dedicated to the results of the 1st five-year plan.
                "Life has become better, life has become more fun" - also from this speech.
                1. -1
                  8 2021 June
                  Quote: bayard
                  The USA needed a new war in Europe


                  Not the United States. Remember when the United States entered the war, Americans and politicians and businessmen, in short, residents / citizens of the country struggled to resist their country's entry into the European war. Only the financial "elite" type wanted war.


                  Quote: bayard
                  And they got in the way ... England. Who did not let their business trade in their colonies


                  In general, the United States undividedly owned the whole continent of South America, and why would they need the English colonies at the same time to quarrel?

                  Quote: bayard
                  ... To ensure export potential (and in Russia it was traditionally grain)


                  you are one of those who do not seek information themselves and do not try to work their heads. The fact that the RI / USSR traditionally exported grain does not mean that this grain was profitable, because the USA, Canada, France themselves have always been powerful exporters of grain and all this went of course to evropu. And by 33g that is. by the time of the crisis, the volume of commercial grain in general grew to incredible proportions.

                  According to The Annalists, wheat harvest in the USA in 1933 is 30% lower than the domestic consumption of this crop in the country.

                  Unable to sell huge stocks of wheat on the world market, the US government, which has repeatedly resorted to exporting wheat at definitely dumping prices, embarked on a path of systematic reduction of acreage.

                  In the 1933/34 grain campaign, France turned from an importer of wheat into an exporter, dumping its grain at dumping prices on the English market.

                  https://istmat.info/node/24501

                  therefore, the Western countries were NOT INTERESTED in grain imports from Russia. This was the picture for 33g. and repeat, someone's stupidity is not necessary.
                  1. +5
                    8 2021 June
                    Quote: Bar1
                    In the 1933/34 grain campaign, France turned from an importer of wheat into an exporter, dumping its grain at dumping prices on the English market.

                    Quote: Bar1
                    therefore, the Western countries were NOT INTERESTED in grain imports from Russia. This was the picture for 33g. and repeat, someone's stupidity is not necessary.

                    And in what year did industrialization begin?
                    And we exported grain mainly to Germany. Moreover, the last train left on the morning of June 22, 1941.
                    They did not trade in grain alone. But the USSR demanded a strict balance in trade from the supplier countries. That is, the opening of markets. And they went for it. Including the United States. And they bought from us everything that we could supply. Read serious material.
                    And grain was one of the export items, and at the beginning of industrialization - one of the main ones. later, the products of the newly built factories were exported - the same consumer goods, resources (ores, raw materials, fuel, timber). And as a result, external debts on the USSR did not hang, as on Germany. Which she paid all the post-war time, along with reparations.
                    Quote: Bar1
                    , in short, the inhabitants / citizens of the country struggled to resist the entry of their country into the European war. Only the financial "elite" type wanted war.

                    But when in democracies they asked the opinion of the people on the war?
                    This opinion has always been skillfully manipulated. And first of all - in the USA.
                    And when it was necessary to get involved in the war, they organized Pearl Harbor (through the imposition of sanctions on Japan and the refusal of oil supplies) and began the Pacific War.
                    Both Japan and Germany (even earlier) were simply put in conditions where they could not help but start a war. In Germany, since 1940, the maturity of loans from US banks began to come and there was a threat of an end to the growth and recession in the economy ... The choice was either to start repaying loans or to start a war (in this case, the conditions of force majeure came into force). And the US bankers suggested the "correct" course of action to the Hitler government. They also supported him with strategic supplies until 1944 (aviation gasoline, rubber, alloy metals, foodstuffs, etc. went through Spain and other intermediaries).
                    War is always a much more complex process than just fighting on the fronts.
                    1. -3
                      8 2021 June
                      Quote: bayard
                      And in what year did industrialization begin?


                      Stalin himself said in his report that already in the year 29 in the USA a decrease in the sown area of ​​agricultural production began.

                      Quote: bayard
                      And we exported grain mainly to Germany


                      and with the United States what they paid with German marks, Weimar or Reichmarks, what?
                      The German currency was as much a financial fiction as the Soviet one.
                      Quote: bayard
                      They did not trade in grain alone. But the USSR demanded a strict balance in trade from the supplier countries. That is, the opening of markets. And they went for it. Including the United States. And they bought from us everything that we could supply. Read serious material.


                      like that here Katasonov -professor of economics believes more than your "serious" materials without links.
                      1. +5
                        9 2021 June
                        Quote: Bar1
                        like that here Katasonov -professor of economics believes more than your "serious" materials without links.

                        I am afraid that you did not understand, or did not fully understand the professor.
                        I recommend reading the works (books) of OA Platonov (from the cycle "Crown of Thorns of Russia"), Kozhin (academician), Mukhin. Try to grasp the essence of the issue, and not jump to the top.
                        And I also recommend looking (now, perhaps only on the Internet) a collection of works by Sharapov (edited by O. Platonov) "After the victory of the Slavophiles" and very carefully EVERYTHING that concerns his theory of "absolute money". Just read it carefully. Maybe then you will understand Stalin's words at the congress that "we printed rubles and built factories, dams, railways, etc., etc., etc. on them." , because after all these material values ​​were built with this money, the printed money received its security. And having joined the young Soviet economy in a wide stream, they transformed life in the country in a matter of years.
                        Quote: Bar1
                        Stalin himself said in his report that already in the year 29 in the USA a decrease in the sown area of ​​agricultural production began.

                        Did they have such a jump in yield that such an excess was formed?
                        Are people in the US eating less?
                        Or have food giants in the US need less food grains from the local market?
                        And who went to the local market (and this was carefully hidden)?
                        By analogy, you can look at how the American Detroit and the automotive industry in general died.
                        And what was happening at the other end of the world at that time?
                        The rapid growth of the Chinese economy and, lo and behold (!), The Chinese automotive industry. Moreover, both American (and European) giants of the automotive industry opened their factories in China.
                        Read the works of Mukhin, Kozhin and Platonov, they give a lot of reference and statistical data from that period, with a list of mutual supplies.
                        And if Katasonov contradicts them, so much the worse for Katasonov.
                        I base my knowledge of that period on personal communication with people who lived and worked at that time. My interlocutor was a man who, after graduating from the institute, found himself immediately at work in the State Planning Committee, working under the leadership of the "Stalin's Bison" of this wonderful department.
                      2. +1
                        9 2021 June
                        Quote: bayard
                        Did they have such a jump in yield that such an excess was formed?
                        Are people in the US eating less?
                        Or have food giants in the US need less food grains from the local market?


                        You don’t ask me questions, but Stalin, he said it.
                        And you recommended reading Stalin's report, and Stalin did not name the sources of industrialization. And this is SUSPICIOUS, it means that Stalin had something to hide, although these sources are not a secret for me.
                        The war ripped the best people in the world - these are the so-called Europeans, the best died, the worst remained both in the human race and in the spirit of creation. The creators died, and their beautiful women went to the black aliens. The world became not white from the white.
                        And I don’t need to bother with incantations. I knew Yuri Ignatievich personally from the AVN at one time, I read his books, he is an ardent Stalinist, but, somehow, he does not consider either Stalin's national policy, or criminal Stalinist collectivization, or this strange industrialization. mostly Stalinist victories.
                        What makes Mukhin respect is that he always thinks independently and teaches others to do this.
                      3. +4
                        9 2021 June
                        Quote: Bar1
                        And you recommended reading Stalin's report, but Stalin did not name the sources of industrialization.

                        Reconsider carefully just above the place where Stalin says that "they call our ruble unsecured, but we have built factories, dams, etc. with our rubles."
                        And above he said that we were offered to take loans for industrialization, but for the development of exclusively light industry. That the ruble is not backed by anything and nothing will be built on it. "But we printed our rubles, built on them ... (all this) ... and who will now say that our ruble is not provided with anything. It is provided by these very factories, dams, collective farms, etc."
                        In order to understand WHAT Stalin said with these words, you need to know the "Theory of absolute money". Stalin made a bet on complete political and financial sovereignty, adopted the most advanced financial theory, and this is what ensured the success of "Self-reliance" in industrialization and state building in general.
                        This theory is set forth in Sharapov's book "After the Victory of the Slavophiles" edited by OA Platonov. Read it, I assure you it will be interesting. And the questions "where did Stalin get the funds for industrialization" will not remain.
                        Currency and counter deliveries were needed (during industrialization) only for the purchase of machinery, equipment and payment of foreign specialists. All capital construction, logistics and infrastructure projects were carried out for rubles. Rubles were issued exactly in the amount needed to pay for these works. after the commissioning of enterprises, they began to issue products to the internal (and external, too) market, carrying out the product filling of the issued money. There was no long-term construction at that time in principle - all enterprises were handed over on a turnkey basis in record time.
                        A similar method of self-financing of the largest state projects was tested back in Ingushetia during the construction of the Trans-Siberian Railway. The project is on a scale equal to (and surpassed in complexity, relief and climate) the construction of the Pan-American railway, which was built by Chinese workers for 100 years.
                        The Transsib was built (from the beginning to the golden crutch) in 8 years !!!
                        How was the railway built in Russia before?
                        They took credit from the French Rothschilds, ordered rails, switches, carriages and other accessories in Germany, steam locomotives in England. And they built, attracting peasants for seasonal work, distracting them from their main occupation.
                        How did Sharapov suggest to do (and did) Alexander-3?
                        Do not take loans!
                        Rubles to print!
                        Do not buy rails, switches, steam locomotives and carriages abroad!
                        The money should be given with a loan to the young engineer Putilov, who recently completed his studies and training in Germany and England. Putilov will use this money to build his factories to produce EVERYTHING necessary for the construction of the Trans-Siberian Railway.
                        And deliveries of ALL THIS are calculated on the state loan.
                        - But where can we get workers for construction in deserted Siberia? (Asked Alexander-3).
                        - In the same place where the Americans took it - in China. There is a lot of free labor and they will gladly work for our money. Moreover, the workers can be AS LIKE as it pleases, and we will pay with our printed rubles.
                        For reference - at that time, paper money was not in use, all payments were made for metal money. Gold and silver.
                        Sharapov suggested that the money be printed on paper (stamped, protected, but paper), so that the trade would not withdraw gold from Russia.
                        - But the Chinese will not be able to buy our paper rubles in China ... And they will not be accepted anywhere except Russia ... You say, Your Majesty ... And you will be absolutely right. They will buy money in Russia and take home those goods that they need and are in demand in China. This will stimulate our domestic production and will not exert inflationary pressure on prices, since all purchased goods will be exported abroad and will not affect the overload of the domestic market. And all the money we printed will remain inside Russia, in the form of proceeds for the goods sold ...
                        To make it clear, RI built a railway in 8 years instead of 100 years, did not get into debt at the same time ... at the same time, it rapidly developed metallurgy, mechanical engineering in its country, the famous Putilov plants appeared, the deficit of credit funds stopped in the country, everything flourished branches of the economy (because huge amounts of working capital were poured into it). The economic growth rates of Ingushetia sharply jumped up ... But the Emperor Alexander-3 was gone, and his narrow-minded son ... he loved everything about .... At the suggestion of Witte (a relative of the Rothschilds by their grandmother), he curtailed Sharapov's experiment on self-financing the economy (then it was decided to test this method only to finance the construction of the Transsib), introduced the "golden ruble" (coins of 5 and 10 rubles, and ... the RI economy became swiftly go under foreign control ...
                        In general, Stalin revived Sharapov's program, but on a national scale.
                        And yes, the US dollar by the US Federal Reserve appeared in 1912 immediately after Woodrow Wilson's election victory ... and a few months after the successful assassination attempt on Sharapov's life. The US dollar is Sharapov's twisted idea, exactly in the form and in the hands that he was so eager to avoid.
                        Stalin did what Sharapov did not manage to do. And it was this source of financing (self-financing) and understanding of the true nature of money that allowed Stalin to avoid all the traps of world bankers and create a truly Sovereign State with a fully sovereign financial system.
                2. -2
                  8 2021 June
                  Quote: bayard
                  England was chronically short of money.

                  it cannot be so, England plundered the WHOLE WORLD for 200 years, therefore, ALL the riches of the world have accumulated in England, India alone was the richest country in the world and was completely robbed by England. It's all nonsense.

                  Quote: bayard
                  Another thing is that Stalin, being the greatest clever girl, took advantage of such an alignment with maximum benefit, made an industrial breakthrough on his own terms (in contrast to Hitler, who fully accepted the rules of the American bankers' game). Stalin did not go into debt, did not take loans (except


                  on what conditions Stalin paid with the West is NOT KNOWN, apparently 26 million lives were the payment for the industrialization of the country, which was destroyed by the war in the bargain. On the other hand, 13-15 million lives, such was the price of industrialization, so it seems that there were no debts to the USSR.

                  Quote: bayard
                  The USSR practically did not pay with gold for these deliveries - there were counter deliveries and currency from the proceeds for grain in Europe.


                  I give you a film, but you don't even watch it. Katasonov was not talking about gold, but about the GOLDEN EQUIVALENT of goods.

                  Quote: bayard
                  To ensure the export potential (and in Russia it was traditionally grain) collectivization was carried out.


                  as we can see, there was no need for grain in the world, there was enough of its own, and collectivization was carried out in order to finally destroy the Russian world, the Russian community, the Russian culture. After the war, the disgusting Western culture began to fall in the USSR, and the Soviet one could not oppose anything, and apparently did not want to, there were already other people, these were just the results of the war.
                  1. +6
                    8 2021 June
                    Stop spanking liberal bullshit, it hurts. Work with primary sources - archives, reference data. Do not jump to the top and do not argue with such weak and dubious cards in your hands. You do not even understand what you have and know.
                    Quote: Bar1
                    I give you a film, but you don't even watch it. Katasonov was not talking about gold, but about the GOLDEN EQUIVALENT of goods.

                    I met with Kasatonov. And he even took part in voting for the creation of the Economic Society (named after Sharapov), which he now heads.
                    And yes, I have not watched the film you submitted. Due to lack of time and due to the fact that I know this topic very well.
                    Try reading BOOKS.
                    OA Platonov wrote about that period very well in his cycle "The Crown of Thorns of Russia". There are good works by Kozhinov and Mukhin. They are very conscientious researchers and very interesting materials were used in their works.
                    Develop, improve and do not rush to argue.
              2. +9
                8 2021 June
                You write: "Professor Katasonov calculated that during the years of industrialization, 8.5 thousand enterprises were built, and the cost of industrial equipment is equal to 1 ton of gold. In EQUIVALENT, 8.5 thousand tons of gold were paid in total. The USSR did not have such an amount of GOLD." Thus, quite obvious manipulations (with the translation "on autopilot" of the Casaton EQUIVALENT into REAL GOLD) begin already within one phrase. The USSR, with pragmatic American capitalists, did not pay for industrialization with ALL KINDS OF ITS LIQUID ASSETS. That is, assets that at ANY MOMENT can be converted into "real money", incl. and "that same" gold. Moreover, in the PERIOD of the so-called. The "Great Depression", the course of which the States simply could not otherwise mitigate without preventing the destruction of their industry due to falling market demand. Now, if "Professor Kasatonov" PROVED that the USSR, as a state, "in principle," did not allocate, not "gold", but ALL TYPES OF LIQUID ASSETS, to pay capitalists for supplies and services for their industrialization, your SKEPTICAL questions to "vis-a-vis "would be clear and reasonable. By the way, if my memory serves me, the States during this period also the so-called. "Most favored nation treatment" in trade was granted ...
              3. +8
                8 2021 June
                Further, let's look ... In 1929 (the year of the "great turning point"), agricultural products were exported for 162 million rubles, and industrial products were imported in the same year for 621 million rubles. In 1930, agricultural products were exported for 1 billion 059 million rubles, and industrial products were imported for 886 million rubles. In the period up to 1993, the EXPORT of liquid "grain" assets from the USSR DECREASED, and the IMPORT of imported industrial products on CREDIT grew. By 1931 - 1932, the USSR with imported industrial products, UNDER EXISTING PLANS of creating a heavy industry and mechanical engineering, was practically "stocked" completely. Further, there were the remaining payments "on loans". Those. situation, which consists of citing some "professorial works" that do not mention the CREDIT nature of supplies to the USSR, and conduct an "assessment", as it were, in the mode of payment for goods and services to the USSR, "online", for which he allegedly "did not have the means" , incl. and "gold" is not correct ... If not maliciously SUBJECTIVE ...
                1. +6
                  8 2021 June
                  "until 1993 ... *, Preventing possible hysterical" bewilderments "of well-wishers, I correct my typo. It is necessary to read until 1933 ...
              4. +7
                8 2021 June
                Let's go further ... Since January 1, 1933, the time of the peak of the USSR's foreign debt FOR ALL PREVIOUS SUPPLIES, i.e. export deliveries are not so much a purchase as a debt repayment. Moreover, for the grain harvest of 1932, the export WAS REDUCED from 3 to 1.1 million tons. We look at the analytical note "Estimated balances of the USSR with the capitalist countries" (RGAE 413.12.2329). The USSR EXPORTED MORE TO England in the second half of the 20s and the first 30s than IMPORTED. Those. we the British were CONSTANTLY OWNED money, and THEY PAYED TO US. We read the analytical note mentioned in the link ... There are ALL the answers to the questions posed by you and the skeptical professor Kasatonov. And in terms of the dynamics and nature of the Soviet GDP, and in terms of the dynamics and nature of the foreign trade balance. Between 1929 and 1936 ...
            2. 0
              8 2021 June
              Quote: bayard
              This is reflected in Stalin's report on the results of the 1st Five-Year Plan.
              In the same report, he also reveals WHERE the USSR got the money for the construction of all these plants. Just find that report, read it, and you will not have any questions about how it became possible.


              Well, let’s analyze this report.

              Stalin I.V.
              Results of the first five-year plan:
              Report at the joint plenum of the Central Committee and Central Control Commission of the CPSU (b) 37
              January 7, 1933
              Source:
              Stalin I.V. Compositions. - T. 13. - M .: State
              publishing house of political literature, 1951. S. 161–215.
              Notes 37–61: Ibid. S. 389–393.

              Establish the strictest economy and accumulate the funds necessary to finance the industrialization of our country — this is the path that had to be taken in order to achieve the creation of heavy industry and the implementation of the five-year plan.

              to accumulate what? Money? But Soviet signs are not needed in the West.
              Gold? But the growth of gold production in the 20-30s was not higher than in the Republic of Ingushetia, so gold in the USSR was not enough, not a thousand tons.

              Lenin said that

              “Small farms cannot get out of want” (see Vol. XXIV, p. 54055).

              Lenin lied, there were few small farms in Russia, and the basis was as follows: In RI there are landlord farms and a peasant community / world, and under Lenin / Stalin, the middle peasants are the main commodity production.

              According to the US Department of Agriculture, the value of gross agricultural output in the US has dropped from $ 11 billion [c.191] in 1929 to $ 5 billion in 1932. For grain in the same place, the value of gross production decreased from $ 1.288 million in 1929 to $ 391 million in 1932. For cotton, there was a decrease from $ 1.389 million in 1929 to $ 397 million in 1932.

              Do not all these facts indicate the advantages of the Soviet agricultural system over the capitalist system? Do these facts not indicate that collective farms are a more viable form of economy than individual and capitalist farms?



              Stalin, what kind of, as it were, a softer socialist idealist / utopian. The reduction in the volume of agricultural products in the United States, Germany and Czechoslovakia and other Western countries was due to an OVERCESS OF agricultural production. its prices and why the hell did you need Soviet grain then?

              Speaking about the unprofitability of collective and state farms, I do not at all want to say that they are all unprofitable. Nothing like this! Everyone knows that already now there are a number of highly profitable collective and state farms. We have thousands of collective farms and dozens of state farms, which are already quite profitable. These collective and state farms are the pride of our Party, the pride of the Soviet


              I don’t know which agricultural enterprises were profitable / efficient during Stalin’s time, but in the days after Stalin’s Soviet agriculture was the most ineffective in the world and in general the headache of the state of the USSR. This is the kind of state that Stalin built.
            3. 0
              8 2021 June
              Quote: bayard
              Purely from memory, among those supplied in huge volumes was wood, chemical pencils (!), Buttons of all types and styles (!!), fur, leather, manganese.


              here you are mistaken, let's see what Stalin said, what are the sources of payment for Stalin's industrialization?

              but did not say anything in this report, the sources of industrialization in the report were NOT MENTIONED !!!
              But such maxims were heard.

              How can you say that our Soviet currency is of no value? Is it not a fact that with this currency we built Magnitostroy, Dneprostroy, Kuznetskstroy, Stalingrad and Kharkov tractor plants, Gorky and Moscow automobile plants, hundreds of thousands of collective farms and thousands of state farms? Do these gentlemen think that all these factories are built of straw or clay, and not of actual materials that have a definite value?


              And what is it that could be bought with Soviet currency at that time, if there were no markets for the country, if even the famous Novgorod Fair was destroyed?
              Stalin first of all deceived his people, because Magnitka, Dneprostroy, Stalingrad and Kharkov plants were equipped with IMPORTED EQUIPMENT and of course not for Soviet money.

              The results of the five-year plan have shown that the capitalist economic system is unsound and fragile, that it is already out of date and must give way to another, higher, Soviet, socialist economic system, that the only economic system that is not afraid of crises and is able to overcome difficulties that are insoluble for capitalism , Is the Soviet economic system.


              this is of course the apotheosis of the Leninist-Stalinist system, when the USSR collapsed, and capitalism came again for the type of "socialism".

              Life has become better, life has become more fun "- also from this speech.


              here you are again mistaken, because there are no such words in this report.
      2. +1
        July 21 2021
        Listen less to anti-Soviets, but rather check what kind of loan the USSR received from the USA. These were hundreds of millions, moreover, for the supply of raw materials. Loans from European countries, including Germany, were larger. At the same time, American loans to Germany and Japan without much hope of repayment were measured in billions.
    2. -13
      7 2021 June
      It was impossible to avoid participation in this war! This was understood in the leadership of the Red Army and the Soviet Union. They tried to postpone the start of the war. The leadership managed get rid of France and England

      Those. the defeat of the only natural allies before the war and loneliness before Hitler's Europe are already considered ... good luck? belay

      ... Since 1932, the share of England and France in world production has been steadily declining, and the situation began to resemble the situation on the eve of the Great War.

      Yeah, but at the same time from the author:
      the participation of the USSR in World War II was inevitable
      and Russia's participation in the SAME situation on the eve of WWI is already:
      Shortsighted policy of Nicholas II dragged Russia into war


      Where did the author lose his logic?
      Perhaps this explains the huge investment in the development of German industry by the American elite?

      Investing in a devastated, impoverished Germany after WWI, when it became a very cheap but skilled worker
      her strength, it was an extremely profitable enterprise and brought in huge income. We thought about this when investing money there.
      After all, they needed a large country that could defeat England with France and the Soviet Union.
      And what the author does not write, but WHAT did the United States plan to do with the WINNER ALL Germany, which is becoming the strongest power on the planet? Not enough fantasy or does it not fit into his concept? And Nazi Europe, united by Germany, in alliance with Japan, which seized PolAsia, became a deadly rival to the United States and a world leader.

      Therefore, they absolutely did not need defeated England and France.

      What did England need?

      Probably the same as in the Great War: defeat or crush Germany and the USSR, as well as gain a foothold on the world stage as a leader

      Yeah, so she practically did NOT have a serious army on the eve of WWII.

      The author does not speak about what the USSR wanted, but about Stalin told G. Dimitrov: to stand above the battle of the capital powers and help one or the other side, solving their problems.

      Surprisingly, the author managed not to say a single word about the desires / goals of GERMANY itself, which, within the meaning of the article, is like stupid dumb chick, urged on by all and sundry and fulfilling all the wishes of the West.

      But he, at first, deceived absolutely everyone and achieved exactly his goals: the defeat and occupation of Europe with the complete inaction of the potentially dangerous opponents of the United States and the USSR.

      Before the defeat of the allies, they were enemies of our country
      And when did they become ALLIES of our country? That's right, after Germany attacked us on June 22, 41, when we became enemies.

      And before that, accordingly, it was the other way around.
      1. +10
        7 2021 June

        Those. the defeat of the only natural allies before the war and loneliness before Hitler's Europe are already considered ... luck? belay
        No one expected the French to lose so quickly, Stalin numbered at the pace of WWI.
        1. -12
          7 2021 June
          Quote: Krasnodar
          Nobody expected the French to lose so quickly, Stalin numbered at the pace of WWI

          only those who did not learn the lessons of WWI could count on this: the French then did not lose so quickly, solely thanks to the EASTERN Front.

          And to hope in WWII for the same development of events, but without the Eastern Front, it was just, um, naive
          1. +13
            7 2021 June
            Well, there are two ways))
            Then they did not lose only thanks to the Russians, now they could not lose thanks to the Maginot Line, French superiority in tanks, shared with the Britons in the air, etc.
            1. +7
              8 2021 June
              Quote: Krasnodar
              Well, there are two ways))
              Then they did not lose only thanks to the Russians, now they could not lose thanks to the Maginot Line, French superiority in tanks, shared with the Britons in the air, etc.

              And what happened? And where is the maginot, etc. and so on!
              1. +6
                8 2021 June
                What no one expected fellow
      2. The comment was deleted.
        1. The comment was deleted.
          1. +1
            7 2021 June
            Quote: smaug78
            Will you please with documents with numbers for years?

            No longer. wink
            1. -2
              7 2021 June
              Well, not scary drinks
      3. +19
        7 2021 June
        Quote: Olgovich
        Those. defeat the only natural allies before the war and loneliness in front of Hitler's Europe is already considered ... good luck?

        Quote: Olgovich
        And when did they become ALLIES of our country? That's right - after attacking us Germany
        How can two contradictory statements be combined in one comment ?! It is clear that the Anglo-Saxolyub Olgovich would only be glad if the USSR got into the war as an aggressor, but Stalin is not Olgovich, and not even Niki2.
        1. -15
          7 2021 June
          Quote: Vladimir_2U
          How can two contradictory statements be combined in one comment ?!

          Are they "hung up"? lol

          Fighting and killing the Nazis even before the Second World War, these countries were natural situational allies USSR (which is written).

          Moreover, they were also naturally против saturation of Germany with oil, bread, etc. from the USSR

          Having supported the USSR on June 22, England became an official ally.

          Quote: Vladimir_2U
          if the USSR got into the war as an aggressor, but Stalin

          The USSR COULD NOT get into the war as an "aggressor": Poland, occupied by Hitler, ANYONE "Germany" was NOT recognized, but Germany was recognized in the world aggressor and absolute evil and the war against her was welcomed in every possible way.
          1. +19
            7 2021 June
            Quote: Olgovich
            Fighting and killing the Nazis even before the Second World War, these countries were natural situational allies of the USSR (as it is written).
            The USSR fought the war and killed the Nazis back in Spain. Planning a raid on Baku and waging a strange war, neither France, let alone England, showed themselves to be allies. Poland was also at war with Germany, but she was not an ally of the USSR, none at all. And most importantly, neither France nor England had any obligations to the USSR, and if the USSR had entered the war, they would have gotten out of it at best, Vichy France is an example.

            Quote: Olgovich
            Having supported the USSR on June 22, England became an official ally.
            It was Hitler's attack that made England an ally of the USSR, contrary to her plans. Then and only then was England FORCED to become a situational ally. So there is a contradiction in Olgovich's commentary.
            1. -16
              7 2021 June
              Quote: Vladimir_2U
              Planning a raid on Baku and waging a strange war, neither France, much less England, showed themselves to be allies.

              Naturally, saturation Hitler's Germany oil and so on and the attack on Finland was not supported by ANYONE. The Nazis, of course, were happy about oil.

              In this case, HUNDREDS of thousands and wounded Naziskilled natural allies in the West before the Second World War Did not come in the USSR in the Second World War, which worked on THE USSR.

              In your opinion, this is ... an act hostile to the USSR fool .
              Quote: Vladimir_2U
              And most importantly, neither France nor England had any obligations to the USSR,

              And the USSR did not bear any obligations to France or England. AND?
              and if the USSR had entered the war, at best it would have come out of it, Vichy France is an example.

              So the USSR entered the war on June 22 - and no England nowhere did not come out, but, on the contrary, in spite of you, very much even supported the USSR.

              Concerning the "government" of Vichy already destroyed France - would you still refer to Vlasov's "government" lol
              Quote: Vladimir_2U
              It was Hitler's attack that made England an ally of the USSR, contrary to her plans.

              ] It was Hitler's attack that MAKED already the USSR's ally - England in her already biennial consistent continuous war with Hitler.

              Before that, let me remind you, the USSR supplied Hitler strategic materials, not England
              1. +5
                7 2021 June
                What nonsense are you writing ?? What are the hundreds of thousands of people killed in the west before the beginning of the Second World War ??
                What's hard to watch even Vicki ??
                1. -16
                  7 2021 June
                  Quote: swetlana1
                  What nonsense are you writing ?? What are the hundreds of thousands of people killed in the west before the beginning of the Second World War ??
                  What's hard to watch even Vicki ??

                  written: hundreds of thousands killed and wounded

                  Learn HISTORY to get started: Germany only

                  -in France lost 45 killed and missing
                  and 111 wounded

                  - in Poland - 16 843 killed
                  36 wounded

                  and also wars: in Greece, Norway, Yugoslavia, North Africa, and in Africa, the allied fascist Italy lost more than a hundred thousand killed, wounded and captured .

                  All this before the Second World War.
                  1. +15
                    7 2021 June
                    written: hundreds of thousands killed and wounded

                    Written by
                    HUNDREDS of thousands and wounded naziskilled by natural allies in the West before the Second World War

                    You spoke about the losses of a very specific side (Germany) from very specific "allies" (England and France).
                    Well, maybe it's better to watch only the numbers of the killed? Before June 22, the wounded will still be put into operation, and the same people will be recorded several times - this is only possible to die once.
                    So the numbers of 49 thousand killed in France and appear instead of 27 thousand.
                  2. +1
                    7 2021 June
                    Quote: Olgovich
                    Quote: swetlana1
                    What nonsense are you writing ?? What are the hundreds of thousands of people killed in the west before the beginning of the Second World War ??
                    What's hard to watch even Vicki ??

                    written: hundreds of thousands killed and wounded

                    Learn HISTORY to get started: Germany only

                    -in France lost 45 killed and missing
                    and 111 wounded

                    - in Poland - 16 843 killed
                    36 wounded

                    and also wars: in Greece, Norway, Yugoslavia, North Africa, and in Africa, the allied fascist Italy lost more than a hundred thousand killed, wounded and captured .
                    All this before the Second World War.


                    Actually, all the numbers need to be multiplied by three - under the item "Killed" from 1.9.1939 September 31.12.1944 to XNUMX December XNUMX Mueller-Hillebrand underestimated the losses under the item "Killed" exactly three times.
                    In this regard, Appendix A, from which you took the data, needs to be adjusted to reflect these circumstances.

                    The article "Killed" contains six subsections:
                    - "Those killed on the battlefield and those who died at the stage of sanitary evacuation";
                    - "Those who died from injuries in the rear hospitals" (losses of the Reserve Army);
                    - "Missing in action" (servicemen, whose death on the battlefield has never been recorded by anyone);
                    - "Died from Disease";
                    - "Fatalities from careless handling of military equipment and ammunition";
                    - "Shot by a military tribunal."

                    Thus, Müller-Hillebrand scrupulously counted the losses in all six sub-items, summed them up and then ... unceremoniously divided them into three, exposing the article "Killed" by month.

                    There was a topic "The loss of the Wehrmacht. The system of falsifications of Müller-Hillebrand"! It seems that this is the problem of historical forums not to chronically perceive information!
                    The level is depressing!
              2. +21
                7 2021 June
                And the USSR did not bear any obligations to France or England. AND?

                And this just means that these countries cannot be considered allies before the attack on the USSR. Union always implies obligations of the parties.
                In your opinion, this is ... an act hostile to the USSR fool

                First, your opponent doesn't say that.
                Secondly, for some reason you present the death of the soldiers of England and France before June 22 as an allied step towards the USSR. One of the basic tenets of logic is that correlation is NOT a cause-and-effect relationship. This is just such a case.
                So the USSR entered the war on June 22 - and no England went anywhere, but, on the contrary, in spite of you, very much even supported the USSR.

                I think "entered" is not a very good word, or rather - "became a participant." I think you will agree with this. And how could England come out after 22.06 - would you say, as in childhood, "chick-chick, I'm in the house"? At 39 this is possible, at 41 it is unlikely. It is better to put the question differently - would England become an ally of the USSR if she herself had not previously been in a state of war with Germany? The answer seems to be obvious. The loss of a third of the fleet's cargo tonnage in a year makes the island state very "allied", doesn't it?
                Before that, let me remind you, the USSR supplied Hitler with strategic materials, not England.

                Remind me, right away, why the USSR, with all its desire, could not supply raw materials to England?
                Well, again, what kind of alliance, in this case, then we can talk between countries up to 41 years ..?
                but Germany was recognized in the world as an aggressor and an absolute evil, and the war against her was welcomed in every possible way.

                Are you seriously? The world does not consist of a dozen countries (which began to see the aggressor in the Reich exactly from the second their occupation began, and until that moment it was quite easy to build joint plans).
                What started your controversy with your opponent, namely, your mixing in one message of two mutually exclusive statements actually took place. This is most clearly seen here:
                And when did they become ALLIES of our country? That's right, after Germany attacked us on June 22, 41, when we became enemies with her.

                And before that, respectively, it was the opposite.

                That is, until 22.06.1941/XNUMX/XNUMX England was a "reverse ally" for us. This contradicts the previous phrase:
                Those. defeat of the only natural allies before the war ...

                PS By the way, did England surrender? ))
                1. -15
                  7 2021 June
                  Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                  in from wasps.

                  After all, I CLEARLY explained: I do not communicate with individuals who consider Crimea CAPTURED by Russia, I disdain.

                  Deliver me from your pretense, Никто.
                  1. +19
                    7 2021 June
                    Yes, on health, it does not prevent me from writing to you and showing your mistakes.
                    And the fact that you behave in a rude way does not hurt me much, I already wrote to you - rudeness is a frequent companion of stupidity. And in the case of Internet communication - also cowardice. You shame yourself with this rudeness, not me.
                    PS Particularly amusing is the attempt to play the Crimea card by a non-citizen of the Russian Federation wassat
                    1. -5
                      8 2021 June
                      Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                      Yes on health, it does not prevent me from writing to you and showing your Errors.

                      1. You BIT with your communication: you were repeatedly sent, and you wipe [/ b] and ... continue belay request

                      According to Ushakov's dictionary:
                      OBSESSIVE is Unpleasantly annoying, arrogant or annoyingo proposing; such that it imposes on everyone with something or wants to impose
                      -How do you communicate

                      2. "Mistakes" written by me, consider you.

                      What kind of ... "authority", "criterion of truth" lol to determine whose opinion, assessment erroneous, and whose (yours exactly view, not figures, facts) no? belay

                      has someone endowed you with such, recognized, defined, authorized?

                      what? Not? Then what?

                      Hack in your nose: you-none, respectively and price your judgments about "fallibility" Yes

                      Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                      And the fact that you behave rudely does not bother me much, I already wrote to you -

                      See P.2 - once again I remind you that you are NOBODY to determine who, what and what is.
                      rudeness is a frequent companion of stupidity

                      Obsession and importunity MANDATORY companion of stupidity Yes
                      Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                      And in the case of Internet communication - also cowardice. ...

                      That is, by your own definition, you are an ordinary coward?
                      You shame yourself with this rudeness, not me

                      lol See Clause 2
                      the obsessive has long been disgraced, wiping himself and ... sticking again and again Yes
                      Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                      Particularly amusing is the attempt to play the Crimea card by a non-citizen of the Russian Federation

                      I remind Russophobes believing that Russia captured " Crimea in 2014 that Russia is much more than thatthat Russophobes left from her in 1917-1991.

                      PS of Russophobia in my everyday life is enough for me to meet with this abomination also on the Russian website

                      PS for God's sake, "evaluate" what you want and how you want, but do not reverse it to me: click on the "quote" button (so that I don't see you) and go, practice your brain curse!
                      1. +6
                        8 2021 June
                        For a person who does not communicate with me, you have a very lengthy commentary lol
                        You IMMITATE your communication

                        1) Am I suggesting you buy Avon products? Calling with offers to take a bank loan? It seems not, nothing like that. Therefore, there is no imposition. The fact that in our communication with you the same topics are constantly touched upon is just because you constantly write the same thing, with the same sentences, despite the fact that it’s not me, other people indicate at best to their one-sided interpretation, and often simply to manipulativeness. Look at the definition from the dictionary again:
                        such that all imposed with something

                        I do not impose something on everyone, my messages are tied to a specific addressee. But you, the same texts, quotes, phrases (often without reference to the content of the message to which you are responding) write to EVERYONE in a row indiscriminately.
                        You just take and count in how many posts you wrote, for example:
                        from 1940 to 1980, in order to increase the degree of HAPPINESS of the people, your party members increased the production of alcohol by SEVEN HUNDRED% (with an increase in the number of 30%

                        The USSR is the world leader in alcoholics, tobacco smoking, suicide, divorce, and abortion.

                        eaten and dressed BETTER under the tsar than under the new regime until the 1950s

                        by 1989, HALF of the settlements of Russia had disappeared from the face of the earth. Millions of hectares of agricultural land have been abandoned.

                        turned Russian Nikolaevs into Mykolaevs

                        the Bolshevik people never chose anyone anywhere and did not entrust anything

                        borders of the 17th century and the Russian cross

                        Etc.
                        People on the forum can identify you as Tatra by the same slogans with which you climb to EVERYONE.
                        So which one of us is obsessive? tongue
                        "Errors" written by me, you think

                        2) As if only me winked
                        your opinion, not numbers, facts

                        3) Understand what is the difference between the words opinion and argument. But when you use the word "fact (s)" it gets funny. What facts did you use, for example, on April 26 in a conversation with Krasnodar, when talking about the internment of American pilots from the USSR?
                        4) Do you want to say that I do not use numbers or other documentary information in my messages, do not explain them and do not provide, if asked, their source? Well, for example, how when I "did not" insert a scan from the shooting manual, where it was said in black and white about the dispersion ellipse of aircraft cannons? Can you remind me how you reacted to this "not" provided "not" fact? lol
                        What kind of ... "authority", "criterion of truth" lol, to determine whose opinion

                        5) First, ask yourself this question. Start by re-reading your messages to see how you allow yourself to talk to people here. I already told you that I would not have noticed your stupidity if you were not so defiant.
                        has someone endowed you with such, recognized, defined, authorized?
                        what? Not? Then what?

                        6) UN, RF, USSR ... and not only me, but anyone who leaves his comments here (unless some of the commentators of the USSR and RF will disappear.)
                        That is, by your own definition, you are an ordinary coward?

                        7) Another evidence that you are susceptible to the disease "I look in the book - I see a fig." Here's my definition:
                        Rudeness - ... in the case of Internet communication - [sign of] cowardice

                        Therefore, according to "my definition" a coward is the one who is rude on the Internet. I was not rude to you, you were rude to me. Will you figure it out further?
                        ... you have been sent repeatedly, and you wipe yourself off ...
                        ... long ago disgraced himself, wiping himself ...

                        8) Re-read (or read) "The Elephant and the Pug". Do you think Krylov wrote in it about how the Elephant "wiped himself off" ..? wassat
                        I remind

                        9) I will remind you. Why should I take into account the opinion of a non-citizen of the state of the Russian Federation on the actions of the state of the Russian Federation?
                        And let me remind you about what you grabbed onto the events in Crimea in 2014 - you were again pressed by arguments in one of the conversations and you had no choice but to get personal instead of a specific discussion and on your knees concoct an accusation from a phrase taken out of context when speaking it was about the convening of NATO, where the issue of the seizure of Crimea was on the agenda. What is logical for the NATO summit - or at the NATO summit the name of the agenda could be the liberation of Crimea?!?!
                        And let me remind you about your not answering a direct question to name a legal term for specific actions. Will you call it that or not? Why don't you name it?
                      2. -7
                        8 2021 June
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        For a person who does not communicate with me, you have a very lengthy commentary

                        Do you need to send it somehow?

                        Tell me how not to come back, yes
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        Am I suggesting you buy Avon products? Calling with offers to take a bank loan? It seems not, nothing like that. Therefore, there is no imposition.

                        Better would be Avon, yes.

                        but in real life there is OBSSIOUS, Unpleasantly annoying, impudently or annoyingly offering your COMMUNICATION
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        The fact that in our communication with you are constantly affected some topics, so it's just because you constantly write the same thing, with the same sentences, despite the fact that you do not me other people point out at best, to their one-sided interpretation, and often just to manipulativeness.

                        1.I cover topics articles in, largely intertwined and repetitive.

                        2. Who are you, Nobody, that you have arrogated to yourself the right to "indicate", I ask you again?

                        And about others, you still refer to the plus signs lol
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        Look at the definition from the dictionary again:
                        such that it is imposed on everyone with something

                        so you look, ignoramus: it comes after a semicolon after another sentence (see above), and a semicolon is placed between independent proposals
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        I do not impose h

                        You impose your communication on me - unpleasant, uninteresting, unnecessary: ​​I am NOT writing to you, but you are always imposing on me, despite the promises
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        you

                        you get in to EVERYONE: you are not writing to me in a personal
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        from 1940 to 1980, in order to increase the degree of HAPPINESS of the people, your party members increased the production of alcohol by SEVEN HUNDRED% (with an increase in the number of 30%

                        That's right, take notes and - by heart, learn the TRUTH about deceitful time good
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        People on the forum can identify you as Tatru.

                        finally learn, at the 7th ten, to speak from YOURSELF.
                        has someone authorized you? Not? Well and on, yeah Yes
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        Understand the difference between the words opinion and argument

                        Understand the difference between the right to an opinion and the right to indicate and determine the truth
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        You want to say that I do not use numbers or other documentary information

                        of course: what numbers and docs. e.g. in this comment with correlation:
                        Secondly, for some reason you present the death of the soldiers of England and France before June 22 as an allied step towards the USSR.
                        Idle talk with nonsense about correlation and PSS
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        ) First, ask yourself this question. Start by re-reading your messages to see how you allow yourself to talk to people here.

                        I reread it: I talk exactly the way they talk to me.
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        I already told you.

                        I already told you that I would not have noticed your stupidity if you were not so defiant at the same time.
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        6) UN, RF, USSR ...

                        ie none.

                        So hack it on your nose, before assigning the right to consider WHAT a "mistake" and speak on behalf of others.

                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        by "my definition" a coward is the one who is rude to Internet.

                        No, the main thing here is that the action takes place on the INTERNET.

                        You cowardly declare on the Internet by force seized by Russia from Ukraine in Crimea.
                        Continue to continue?
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        Re-read (or read) The Elephant and the Pug. Do you think Krylov wrote in it about how the Elephant "wiped himself off" ..?

                        I guess there is no elephant here.
                        At the same time, the non-elephant has the right to wipe off, of course, but look at him-fi ...
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        Why should I take into account the opinion of a non-citizen of the state of the Russian Federation on the actions of the state of the Russian Federation?

                        God forbid, DO NOT take my opinion, no one rapes you.
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        And let me remind you about what you grabbed onto the events in Crimea in 2014 - you were again pressed by arguments in one of the conversations and you had no choice but to get personal instead of a specific discussion

                        A sad lie and an attempt to wriggle out of a Russophobe, pressed to the wall and pinned to a nail, who declared in the heat (and where, on VO!) by force seized by Russia from Ukraine in Crimea.
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        And let me remind you about your not answering a direct question to name a legal term for specific actions. Will you call it that or not? Why don't you name

                        return of Crimea, illegally transferred to Russia in 1954.
                      3. +2
                        9 2021 June
                        Oh, you again do not talk to me very verbosely wassat
                        At the beginning of the message, I will immediately duplicate the questions you ignored:
                        1) What facts did you use, for example, on April 26 in a conversation with Krasnodar, when talking about the internment of American pilots from the USSR?
                        2) is the scan from the shooting manual, where it was said in black and white about the dispersion ellipse of aircraft cannons, is it a fact? Can you remind me how you reacted to this fact?
                        Tell me how not to come back, yes

                        Why are you so inconsiderate, Andrei? I wrote to you directly several times - just stop writing nonsense and distorted information. And that's all.
                        will you refer to the plus signs

                        I think they are worried about someone who suddenly, for no reason, for no reason, spoke about them. By the way, what about the plus signs? Yes, they are subjective. So any choice that a person makes is subjective. This does not prevent your slogans about elections to the US from being announced with enviable regularity at the VO. Society said its subjective word there. Society speaks its subjective word here. You are not a Bolshevik, so as not to reckon with the opinion of society ...
                        so you look, ignoramus: this comes after a semicolon after another sentence (see above)

                        So what? From this, what after the semicolon ceases to be the definition of the word "obsessive"? laughing
                        Use a semicolon between independent clauses

                        It didn't work out. This is just one of the uses for semicolons. Here you don't even need to know special rules, this is also known from the school course - the phrase "complex sentence" by its name alone hints request
                        In our particular case, the demonstrative "such" in the second part of the sentence refers to the word "obsessive" in the first part of the sentence, thereby establishing the relationship between the parts.
                        you get in to EVERYONE: you are not writing to me in a personal

                        Not. I am the same text that I am writing to you, I am not writing to everyone. And about the PM ... So I offered you to talk in PM. You yourself refused. They wrote that there is no point in this and you will remain unconvinced. So I'm sorry, but your complaints on this score are not clear. Not to mention that it is strange when a person demands something from another without doing the same.
                        What is the difference between the right to opinion and the right to indicate and determine the truth?

                        You are a funny person. What is your belief that it is necessary to obtain permits for this, be authorized, etc.? If a first-grader at a neighbor on a desk saw 2 + 2 = 5 in a notebook, then to indicate that 2 + 2 = 4, imagine that you do not need permissions and powers. There is enough baggage of already acquired knowledge.
                        of course: what numbers and docs. e.g. in this comment with correlation:
                        Secondly, for some reason you present the death of the soldiers of England and France before June 22 as an allied step towards the USSR.

                        belay
                        And what to confirm in an incentive sentence, which contains a question, and not a statement?!?!
                        I reread it: I talk exactly the way they talk to me.

                        Yeah, re-read ... 17 thousand comments in less than an hour and a half. What, even in small things you can't help but lie? negative
                        those. no one

                        How - nobody? When it is clearly written to you - UN, RF, USSR
                        No, the main thing here is that the action takes place on the INTERNET.

                        You decide for me what I mean by my words?!?! Truly, impudence is the second happiness.
                        You cowardly on the Internet claim that Crimea was seized by Russia from Ukraine by force.

                        1) Your attempt to demonize me by distorting one of our dialogues is ridiculous. Anyone can easily find him and see for himself. Therefore, what you are counting on is not clear.
                        2) What is cowardly in your understanding? lol What is cowardice? I understand the cowardice of the Internet boor - he remains unpunished, but what is the cowardice of the one who says on the Internet that Crimea was obtained by force? If there is no punishment for this in principle. There is responsibility for public insult, but not for the use of legally correct terminology.
                        Sad lie and an attempt to wriggle out of a Russophobe pressed to the wall and pinned to a fingernail, who declared in the heat (and where, in the VO!) about the Crimea that Russia had seized from Ukraine by force.

                        1) How primitive. You throw in that this message of mine contains a lie:
                        And let me remind you about what you grabbed onto the events in Crimea in 2014 - you were again pressed by arguments in one of the conversations and you had no choice but to get personal instead of a specific discussion

                        Well, tell me, what is the lie, in fact, in what? lol tongue
                        a) The fact that in your reply messages to my messages with specific questions, did you write anything you like, but not the answers to these questions?
                        b) That each question that did not receive an answer began to be duplicated in further messages?
                        c) In the fact that with such a development of events, you had to either answer them, or interrupt the conversation, or get personal?
                        d) That you chose the "get personal" option?
                        tongue
                        2) In the heat - this is when there are reasons that make the time window for a response small - then you answer quickly, and from that you do not have time to think through the message. What kind of "hot" can it be, when the time between answers is not limited and these answers are editable? fool
                        3) If you do not understand what the words "force, power" make you, then explain a simple thing. If the method was not forceful, then it was diplomatic amicable between Russia and Ukraine? The third simply does not happen - either by force or by agreement between countries. So, in your parallel reality, Crimea became part of the Russian Federation as a result of an agreement between Russia and Ukraine? laughing Well then, refer to such an agreement.
                        return of Crimea, illegally transferred to Russia in 1954.

                        belay
                        Yeah. You are asked to name TERM. You write "the return of Crimea, illegally transferred to Russia in 1954". Tell me in which dictionary of terms (even universal, albeit industry-specific) I can see the term you named "return of Crimea, illegally transferred to Russia in 1954"?
                      4. -3
                        9 2021 June
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        Oh, you again do not talk to me very verbosely

                        Once again I ask: how can I send you away so that they get unstuck, but you don’t answer, but again and again you climb.
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        At the beginning of the message immediately duplicate the questions you ignored:

                        What for? belay
                        I once promised to answer all your nude?
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic

                        Why are you so inconsiderate, Andrei? I wrote to you directly several times - just stop writing nonsense and distorted information. And that's all.

                        Why are you so inattentive, vile? The question was different:
                        how to send so they don't come back, yeah
                        , and WHAT do you answer with nonsense? fool
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        Me it seems they excite the one who suddenly, for no reason, for no reason, spoke about them.

                        maybe you and the devils are dancing on the chandelier, well, who is interested in what you think?

                        Let the opinion of the Tatras warm you up pleasantly. lol
                        .
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        Here you don't even need to know special rules, this is also known from the school course - the phrase "complex sentence" by its name alone hints

                        hints, for sure, but only to those who know, and you puddle again have done lol the second independent complex sentence of a complex definition sentence begins only with the word "such". Which is separated from the first by a semicolon and refers (here you are right) to the word "obsessive" which is NOT in the first sentence

                        So again you "flashed" oh. lol
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        Not. I am the same text that I am writing to you, I am not writing to everyone.

                        what a nonsense: you publish them in the PUBLIC space, which means that they are read by EVERYONE in a row
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        So I offered you to talk in a personal. You yourself refused. They wrote that there is no point in this and you will remain unconvinced. So I'm sorry, but your claims on this score are not clear.

                        i to you given your email, you-no,
                        , and PM is also a site.

                        The claim is set out above, but here I just poked your lie about writing messages to me alone.

                        You offer, write to ME in a personal or email. But you will refuse lol


                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        You are a funny person. What is your belief that it is necessary to obtain permits for this, be authorized, etc.? If a first-grader at a neighbor on a desk saw 2 + 2 = 5 in a notebook, then to indicate that 2 + 2 = 4, imagine that you do not need permissions and powers. There is enough baggage of already acquired knowledge.

                        you're funny: your "knowledge" is: 2 + 2=5.

                        so go there with him, yes ...
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        Yeah, re-read ... 17 thousand comments in less than an hour and a half.

                        Envy is a bad feeling, yes.
                        You addition exercise, liar
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        How - nobody? When it is clearly written to you - UN, RF, USSR

                        those. NO ONE
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        You decide for me what I mean by my words?!?! Truly, impudence is the second happiness.

                        I decide for myself HOW I should evaluate your words, got it?
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        1) Your attempt to demonize me by distorting one of our dialogues is ridiculous. Anyone can easily find him and see for himself. Therefore, what you are counting on is not clear.

                        remind me, demon, number and article, if not difficult
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        And what is cowardly to your understanding? What is the cowardice of someone who says on the Internet that Crimea was obtained by force?

                        You declare online that Crimea, as captured by Russian aggression by force, legally NOT a territory of Russia.

                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        a lie, in fact, in what?

                        in what has been quoted, what is unclear?
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        messages with specific questions wrote to these in
                        c) In that, in such a conversation, or go to the individual?
                        d) Then you have chosen the option "go to

                        senseless stream of "consciousness", glitches, inventions, lies, stupidity and narcissism. request
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        There is simply no third

                        this in your rusrphobic "reality. 2 he is not, but he was:

                        - the INDEPENDENCE of Crimea was declared and independent Crimea entered on the basis of an agreement to Russia-tie yourself-in a knot there, yes
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        Yeah. You are asked to name TERM

                        what, didn’t get it again? fool legally was announced
                        independence of Crimea and then signatory of the Treaty of entry into Russia
                      5. +3
                        9 2021 June
                        You offer, write to ME in a personal or email. But you will refuse

                        Why would I refuse if I myself suggested you write private messages and you refused - post a screenshot of the correspondence? I have nothing against chatting in isolated chat. But here three difficulties arise ...
                        1) How will our communication be consistent with the fact that you "disdain" (etc. in a similar vein) to communicate with me? I think you wrote that? Will "disgust" disappear in private messages? And what will change?
                        2) You have said a lot of personal nasty things. Are you ready to apologize for them, which is normal for people who are going to communicate?
                        3) You wrote that you are not going to answer the questions I am asking. How then do you see communication? If you are determined to communicate in private messages, then it is obvious that with such a position it is impossible and it must be changed. If you agree with this, then as a gesture of goodwill, you can send me the first personal message with answers to all those questions that I asked you and you did not answer.
                        You decide.
                      6. -3
                        10 2021 June
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        Why would I refuse. , if I myself offered you to write private messages and?

                        meaning will disappear.
                        I gave you my mail, silence in response
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        1) Как our communication will be consistent with the fact that you "disdain" (etc. in a similar vein) to communicate with me? I think you wrote that? Will "disgust" disappear in private messages? And what will change?

                        taking into account it.

                        By the way, I asked you to give the day and title of the article with your statements about Crimea
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        You have said a lot of personal nasty things. Are you ready to apologize for them, which is normal for people who are going to communicate?

                        For example? belay Write in a personal.

                        I remember all sorts of sexual offensive innuendos were on your part
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        You wrote that you are not going to answer the questions I am asking. How then do you see communication? If you are determined to communicate in private messages, then obviouslythat with such a position it is impossible and it must be changed.

                        It is not at all obvious: there are no and cannot be any obligations, for this is free communication with a free choice of topics, questions and answers.

                        Don't agree, don't
                2. -5
                  8 2021 June
                  Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                  Secondly, for some reason you present the death of the soldiers of England and France before June 22 as an allied step towards the USSR. One of the main postulates of logic - correlation Is not causation... This is just such a case.


                  stumbled upon again ...

                  as you have already started empty chatter with a veil of pretensions to madness ...

                  firstly, do not write nonsense and hack to death: a causal relationship IS a special case of correlation- with the established true reason from among the hidden reasons.

                  secondly, I did not speak at all about the deaths of soldiers of england and france, a liar

                  third ,
                  correlation is statistical relationship two or more random variables, while changes values ​​of one or more of these quantities are accompanied by systematic change values ​​of other or other quantities.


                  Where is this even statistical relationshipchanges one parameter and the accompanying systematic changes another parameter) between the death of soldiers and ..the allied step. fool

                  Fourth, learn finally. definition of the word "ally".
                  : Ally- That which helps, helps someone, something.

                  The modern explanatory dictionary of the Russian language Efremova


                  about This alliance is written, but to understand, you need to know more

                  For example:
                  «General Frost ", traditional ally Russian troops, completed the job
                  or
                  the national liberation movement was natural ally [/ b] socialist countries.
                  etc.

                  Fifth, between what the Axis countries suffered huge losses even before the Second World War (hundreds of thousands of people) and were forced to leave great amount troops in Africa and Europe against England and the number of troops that came to us on June 22, 41 - there is a direct causal link - tie yourself a knot ... lol
                  1. +4
                    8 2021 June
                    What.?! Again.?! In a peculiar way, you don't communicate with me ... lol Or do you start not communicating only when you have to answer direct questions ..? tongue
                    firstly, do not write nonsense and hack it on your forehead: cause-and-effect relationship IS a special case of correlation, with the established true cause from among the hidden reasons.

                    Of course, I'm glad that my attempts to introduce you to the logic of constructing reasoning by reminding you of the type of logical errors do not go unnoticed. The results, unfortunately, are so far depressing. Perhaps if you focused not on trying to offend the interlocutor, but on learning logic, it would be better. Or do you think that once you looked at the first site that came across on a request in a search engine, you began to understand ..?
                    Let's assign the word "correlation" the number (1), and the phrase "cause-effect relationship" the number (2).
                    Here's what I wrote:
                    correlation (1) NOT a causal relationship (2)

                    Here's what you wrote:
                    causal relationship (2) IS a special case of correlation (1)

                    You are not embarrassed that the sequence in our messages is not observed: I have 1-2, you have 2-1. It is only in arithmetic that the change in the places of the terms does not affect the sum. In logic it influences - a mammal cannot be called a human, but a human can be called a mammal. And here we get a direct transition to your "third":
                    third ,
                    Correlation is a statistical relationship of two or more random variables, while changes in the values ​​of one or more of these quantities are accompanied by a systematic change in the values ​​of another or other quantities.

                    Where is this even a statistical relationship (with changes in one parameter and a concomitant systematic change in another parameter) between the death of soldiers and ... an allied step. fool

                    You see, what is the matter, one term is often used in different fields of knowledge, where it has different meanings. Having opened in a hurry the first site you come across, you got to the correlation in statistics, and not in logic. Although the branch of knowledge was originally listed
                    One of the main postulates the logic - Correlation is NOT a causal relationship.
                    .
                    Otherwise, you would know not only the name assigned to certain types of logical error, but also its content. "Correlation is not a causal relationship" - the name of the postulate, the content of which - "Correlation between parameters is not evidence that one of the parameters somehow affects the other." And your ignorance is playing cruel jokes with you - you do not understand the content of the term, and build an answer by perceiving the words directly. This is immediately apparent. But even if you do not look at this, then using the statistical definition of correlation still allows you to answer (with one clarification) to
                    Where is this even a statistical relationship (with changes in one parameter and a concomitant systematic change in another parameter) between the death of soldiers and ... an allied step.

                    The mentioned clarification is that you will have to close your eyes to what you consider the "allied step" to be a quantitatively measurable concept. But come on, here the main existence of the statistical relationship. So - she is. Select military alliance cases on the timeline and compose a series of them. And on the other axis, mark the number of deaths in the ally country. Everything fellow Changing one parameter (joining or not joining hostilities on the side of an ally) causes a change in another parameter (the number of deaths of citizens of an ally state increases due to the deaths of soldiers).
                    Fourth, learn finally. definition of the word "ally".
                    : Ally- That which assists, helps someone, something.
                    The modern explanatory dictionary of the Russian language Efremova

                    Really? Or maybe Efremova's like this?
                    ally
                    1) a) One who acts in alliance (1 * 1) with smb., Smth., Is associated with smb.
                    community of interests, views, etc.
                    b) transfer... That which helps, helps smb., Smth.
                    2) One who is in alliance (1 * 2) with smb.

                    And what about Ozhegov? At Shvedova's? And in the "Dictionary of MILITARY terms" (we are on the site on MILITARY topics) Huh? And Ozhegov or Shvedova has nothing like this "What helps, helps someone, something" ... (not to mention the dictionary of military terms)
                    Everyone has only one interpretation - "the one who acts (is) in the union." But you're cowardly:
                    1) cut the definition
                    2) used a figurative meaning of the word, not the direct one
                    3) ignored other sources
                    Your inability to admit your oversights already leads to complete absurdity. Have you even thought for a second what situations arise if at a military forum we consider allies those who "assist, help someone, something"?
                    Fifth, between the fact that the Axis countries suffered huge losses even before the Second World War (hundreds of thousands of people) and were forced to leave a huge number of troops in Africa and Europe against England and the number of troops that came to us on June 22, 41 - there is a direct cause - investigative relationship - tie yourself a knot ...

                    belay Does it bother you that the correlation between the parameters "fulfillment of the allied duty (allied steps)" and "the number of soldiers killed" was considered? You yourself are making a claim on this matter yourself? What is this for then?
                    1. -4
                      9 2021 June
                      Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                      What.?! Again.?! In a peculiar way, you don't communicate with me ... Or do you start not to communicate only when you have to answer direct questions ..?

                      you do not understand Russian, alas: the reason for the lack of communication is the disgust that you cause, this has been said more than once.

                      Despite pleas to spare me your sticky impudent obsession, you all climb and climb, here and again ..
                      Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                      You are not embarrassed that the sequence in our messages is not observed: I have 1-2, you have 2-1.

                      does not bother. I am confused by your ignorance of the Russian language and definitions: once again for those who do not understand Russian:
                      - correlation - IS PSS in the special case of establishing the true cause of the hidden reasons.

                      For a tanker: an increase in sales of fur coats, boots and a decrease in the number of fights are not related to each other, but the coming cold is a hidden factor causing an increase in sales of winter accessories and a decrease in walking and, accordingly, fights.
                      Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                      The mentioned clarification is that you will have to close your eyes to what you consider the "allied step" to be a quantitatively measurable concept.

                      it is YOU that thinks him like that: Vile skeptic
                      dooma soldier of England and France as allied step in relation to the USSR. - correlation

                      what, in y, "correlation" between themfool ?
                      your ignorance
                      Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                      plays evil tricks with you - you do not understand the content of the term, and write the answer, perceiving the words directly

                      Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                      here the main existence of the statistical relationship. So - she is. Select military alliance cases on the timeline and compose a series of them. And on the other axis, mark the number of deaths in an ally country

                      and so it is NOT: you have on one axis "death of soldiers" (ONE certain value for June 22) and some ONE "allied step" - what .. "changes", what, in y, "correlation" between themfool ?

                      I blurted a term neither to the village nor to the city and now it is spinning like a louse on a comb lol
                      Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                      used figurative meaning of the word, not direct

                      What should prevent me from using ANY of the definitions suggested by the dictionary? Isn't it your opinion, Nobody?

                      Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                      Your inability to admit your oversights already leads to complete absurdity.?

                      So there are no missteps, they "exist" lol only in your twisted distorted abnormal hypertrophied perception of the use of such definitions.

                      Only it is capable of an ORDINARY and familiar expression: "General Frost", traditional ally Russian troops "
                      digest into your hysterical antics:
                      Have you even thought for a second what situations arise if, at a military forum, those who "assist, help smb., Smth" are considered allies?
                      Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                      Does it bother you that the correlation between the parameters "fulfillment of the allied duty (allied steps)" and "the number of soldiers killed" was considered?

                      and you READ AGAIN WHAT I have written:
                      between the fact that the Axis countries suffered huge losses even before the Second World War (hundreds of thousands of people) and were forced to leave a huge number of troops in Africa and Europe against England and the number of troops that came to us on June 22, 41 - there is a direct causal relationship
                      and then such stupid questions simply will not arise.
                      1. +4
                        9 2021 June
                        once again for those who do not understand Russian, the correlation IS PSS in the particular case of establishing the true cause from among the hidden causes.

                        1) Yeah, I'm not understanding, but you changed the structure of the sentence by rearranging what I designated as (1) and (2) lol
                        2) It was clearly written to you:
                        You see, what is the matter, one term is often used in different fields of knowledge, where it has different meanings. Having opened in a hurry the first site you come across, you got into the correlation in statistics, and not in logic ... Otherwise, you would have learned not only the name assigned to certain types of logical error, but also its content. "Correlation is not causation" - the name of the postulate, the content of which - "Correlation between parameters DOES NOT PROVE that one of the parameters somehow affects the other."

                        Although the name is, of course, an interpretation of the Latin phrase "cum hoc ergo propter hoc" accepted in the Russian-speaking environment.
                        3) Aren't you confused by the word "hidden" in the definition? The phrase you have written is equivalent to the phrase "a perpetual motion machine is possible if the first and / or second principles of thermodynamics are erroneous." The phrase is true, but only the phrase is true, the perpetual motion machine itself still remains impossible. It is also impossible to know whether all the hidden reasons are revealed or not all. And this is precisely why correlation cannot serve as evidence of the establishment of a causal relationship. And that is precisely why in science, some theories are replaced by others, and research refutes each other.
                        For a tanker: an increase in sales of fur coats, boots and a decrease in the number of fights are not related to each other, but the coming cold is a hidden factor causing an increase in sales of winter accessories and a decrease in walking and, accordingly, fights.

                        I am glad that our conversation leads to the fact that you began to search and read on the Internet. That's just the level of articles on the Internet - the level is to give the student a general understanding of the subject, and not teach them to understand it. To do this, go to Jude Pearl's "Causality". Well, if you want to learn how to figure it out. True, for this you need to know mathematics.
                        1) How are they not related if they correlate?!?! After all, you just got acquainted with the definition of correlation and inserted it as a quote belay
                        correlation is statistical interrelation

                        Such incorrect construction of sentences and use of terms shows that you do not understand what you find and read.
                        2) What did you bring him to? To brag about what you found on the Internet? laughing Because he in no way refutes the fact that correlation is not a sufficient condition for establishing a causal relationship. By the way, let's take an example deeper)))
                        You wrote that the number of fights has decreased due to the decrease in walking. Is there a correlation or a causal relationship between the parameters "number of fights" and "number of walks" (then what is the cause and what is the effect?)? fellow
                        it is YOU that thinks him so

                        That is, I asked it above ?!
                        Where this even statistical relationship (that is, the correlation - approx. mine) between the death of soldiers and ..allied step?

                        Read the definition of correlation until you see the words in it
                        changing values

                        A value in mathematics is a quantifiable quantity.
                        An allied step is not a quantifiable value.
                        You combine them in one sentence. Who is your doctor and what questions for me? If you don't understand, it's better to just ask for clarification.
                        death of soldiers of England and France as an allied step towards the USSR. - correlation

                        Regular. In my previous message, it is written in sufficient detail for the student to master, if the student sets the task to master. What exactly was incomprehensible to you about it? Speak, I will explain to you.
                        and so it is NOT: you have "death of soldiers" on one axis (ONE a certain value on June 22) and some ONE "allied step" - what .. "changes", what, in y, "correlation" between them

                        Another pearl who says that you have not been able to understand what it is since yesterday's acquaintance with the concept of correlation. What can be ONE, ONE (?!), When:
                        1) It is clearly written to you by me
                        Pick on the timeline cases military alliances and make a number of them

                        A SERIES of ONE size ?!
                        The plural of the word "case" also does not hint to you that we are talking about something represented by more than one ?!
                        2) You are clearly told in the definition you have given
                        correlation is statistical the relationship of two or more random variables, while changing values one or more of these quantities accompany a systematic changing values other or other quantities.

                        Statistics examines RANGE of parameter values! "Changing values" in the definition directly indicates that the value is NOT ONE! PARAMETER can be one, but it has MANY values! Otherwise, there is no research subject for statistics!
                        Only it is capable of ORDINARY and familiar expression: "General Moroz", a traditional ally of the Russian troops "
                        digest into your hysterical antics:

                        Are you serious with this kindergarten example about "General Moroz" ..? This expression "for a catchphrase" is bookish and has nothing to do with real help ("That which helps, helps smb., Smth."). Since the frost is not selective and acts on both sides of the conflict. I did not think that I would see such nonsense at a military forum.
                        Do not you see what your "interpretation" will lead to? lol
                        Then the question is:
                        - Doesn't helping an ally help the enemy?
                        and you READ AGAIN WHAT I have written: between the fact that the Axis countries suffered huge losses even before the Second World War (hundreds of thousands of people) and were forced to leave a huge number of troops in Africa and Europe against England and the number of troops that came to us June 22, 41 - there is a direct causal relationship and then such stupid questions simply will not arise.

                        Of course have. But what does the connection between these two parameters have to do with (the number of troops on the Western and Eastern Fronts), if we are talking about the connection between other parameters ("alliance" and the number of troops on the Eastern Front)? That's what I asked you in the previous message.
                        were forced to leave a huge number of troops in Africa and Europe against England

                        belay
                        1) Against which troops of England in EUROPE?!? An evacuated Expeditionary Force ?! Cheer me up, tell me about the number of British troops in continental Europe between June 1940 and June 1941, or about Britain's amphibious preparations during the same period.
                        2) The British were in Africa because they helped the USSR or because they defended their colonies?
                      2. -4
                        10 2021 June
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        1) Yeah, I'm not understanding, but you changed the structure of the sentence by rearranging what I designated as (1) and (2) It was clearly written to you

                        item 1, it was clearly written to you that the correlation:
                        - IS PSS in the special case of establishing the true cause from among the hidden causes.
                        Don't get it, read it ten times, a hundred times. until it comes.

                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        ... The phrase you wrote equivalent the phrase "perpetual motion machine is possible if the first and / or second principles of thermodynamics are erroneous"

                        the highest nonsense is to refute a specific appropriate given exception, example, another example

                        So: your statement correlation is NOT causation Not always that is.

                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        How is it not related

                        obviously not related Pss- have we talked about her or forgotten?
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        What did you bring him to?

                        see item 1.
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        Read the definition of correlation until you see the words in it
                        changing values
                        A value in mathematics is a quantifiable quantity.
                        An allied step is not a quantifiable value.
                        You combine them in one sentence. Who is your doctor and what questions for me?

                        Exactly!

                        But we read YOUR nude ONCE AGAIN:
                        Vile skeptic: death of a soldiert .. like allied step in relation to the USSR. One of the main postulates of logic - correlation is not a pss. This is just such a case.

                        So read the definition of correlation until you see the words changing values Value in mathematics is quantitative measurable size.

                        Mentioned by YOU in the stupidest example of "correlation" mBetween the death of soldiers and the allied step, the only "ALLIANCE" step is NOT a quantifiable quantity.

                        And it was YOU who combined them in one example. And here the correlation dependence and does not stink What other doctor do you need and what to me questions?

                        Stuck and spin like a louse on a comb
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        Are you serious with this kindergarten example about "General Moroz" ..? This expression "for a catchphrase" is bookish and has nothing to do with real help ("That which helps, helps smb., Smth."). T

                        Are you serious with this man's remark? You can choose other examples - famine, accidents, drought, terrorist attacks, other wars at the enemy and rpr.
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        Since the frost is not selective and acts on both sides of the conflict.

                        I didn’t think that I would see such stupidity at a military forum: he’s allied to his ally tree, and the vile daffodils will disappear at once.
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        But what does the connection between these two parameters have to do with it (the number of troops on the Western and Eastern Fronts), if we are talking about the connection between other parameters ("alliance" and the number of troops on the Eastern Front)?

                        we talk about the fact that between the fact that the Axis countries suffered huge losses even before the Second World War (hundreds of thousands of people) and were forced to leave a huge number of troops in Africa and Europe against England and the number of troops that came to us on June 22, 41 - there are direct causal relationship and this that which helps, helps smb., smth. "
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        Against which troops of England in EUROPE?!?

                        familiarize yourself, oar, with the notion of "Atlantic Wall" a system of permanent and field fortifications over 5000 km long, created by the German army in 1940-1944 after the defeat of France along the European coast of the Atlantic from Norway and Denmark to the border with Spain in order to prevent the Allied invasion of the continent.
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        The British were in Africa because they helped the USSR or because they defended their colonies?

                        that which helps, helps smb., smth. "
      4. +18
        7 2021 June
        Quote: Olgovich
        Those. defeat of the only natural allies


        Who raised Hitler (with his theory of expanding living space to the east). All the privileges were given to him, and not to the democrats of the Weimar Republic (with which the USSR had relatively friendly relations). They allowed him to swallow two European countries (and this is without war), when they could calmly stop the expansion, with a dozen of their divisions (even without hostilities, by simply moving to the border with Germany).
        "Soyuznichki" who did not want to take on serious promises at the appropriate moment. And it was they who failed the negotiations. And how they fulfilled their common vague promises was evident in Czechoslovakia.
        And if you still remember the "Unthinkable" (which is still in the future), but fully characterizes the "allies".
        Well, very "natural" allies are Poles.
        And Stalin had to believe them?
        Again the wine hit my head, and again in the bottle.

        Quote: Olgovich
        The author does not speak about what the USSR wanted, but about Stalin told G. Dimitrov: to stand above the battle of the capital powers and help one or the other side, solving their problems

        Live with wolves. howl like a wolf. And that's wise.
        And the fact that Poland, Britain, and France quickly managed to do it (while Germany did not have allies, everyone watched and waited for what would end, whom to join), it was extremely difficult to foresee.
        1. +1
          7 2021 June
          Quote: chenia
          Stalin told G Dimitrov: to stand above the battle of capital powers and help one or the other side, solving their problems

          Live with wolves. howl like a wolf. And that's wise

          I agree.
          Just a small question. Does this logic extend to Truman?
          If we see that Germany is winning we ought to help Russia and if Russia is winning we ought to help Germany and that way let them kill as many as possible, although I don't want to see Hitler victorious under any circumstances. Neither of them thinks anything of their pledged word.
          1. +9
            7 2021 June
            Quote: Cherry Nine

            I agree.
            Just a small question. Does this logic extend to Truman?


            Yes! There are no altruists in politics. And hypocrisy is the main trick.
            But the point is, Hitler was nurtured by the lords of the west. Definitely.
            And the reasons can and should be discussed.
            1. Quote: chenia
              Yes! There are no altruists in politics. And hypocrisy is the main trick.

              And how hypocritical was Comrade Stalin? Well, let's say 1 to 5.
              1. +14
                7 2021 June
                Quote: Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
                And how hypocritical was Comrade Stalin?


                And he didn't have to be hypocritical. The Weimar Republic was on good terms with the USSR. The Germans did not have an army (100 tanks and aircraft). With the arrival of the Nazis, all contacts were severed immediately, and until August 23, 1939, he was the main enemy of Germany.
                Or you have other information.
                WWII began a week later.
                Why? Hammered Germany has already risen. Who helped? What for? Moreover, the USSR was not admitted to the international problems created by Germany. So what?
                Here cite Churchill's words to justify this step by Stalin (pact of 1939).
                And to watch as three unfriendly countries butt with one hostile is generally a sacred cause.
                We got what we ordered. Pay !!!
                Well, among the liberals, the USSR is definitely guilty of unleashing the war.

                Quote: Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
                Well, of course - double standards are our everything. Comrade Stalin is a wise leader, and Senator Truman is a two-faced bastard.

                A common trick is our scouts and their spies.
                Sorry for the indiscreet question.- Are you ours, or theirs?
                1. Quote: chenia
                  And he didn't have to be hypocritical.

                  Oh, I see. Totally virtuous person. Holiness of the Pope. Why are there Pope - # analogue.
                  Quote: chenia
                  Are you ours, or theirs?

                  If by "our" you mean your own kind - then no, not yours.
                  1. +13
                    7 2021 June
                    Quote: Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
                    Holiness of the Pope.


                    Well, if it's Pius 12, then yes!
                    Quote: Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
                    - then no, not yours.


                    Alien, I see.
                    By the way, how many are now 30 pieces of silver at the exchange rate to the ruble? (Well, aliens are always aware of such matters).
                    1. Quote: chenia
                      By the way, how many are now 30 pieces of silver at the exchange rate to the ruble?

                      I have no idea. Ask your Prigogine. Unless, of course, for the lentil stew, fuck the comments
                      Quote: chenia
                      Alien, I see.

                      For you, any representative of homo sapiens who has a point of view different from yours is a vessel of alien intelligence? Ok, then I'm an alien to you.
                      1. +12
                        7 2021 June
                        Quote: Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
                        for lentil stew comments shit


                        In. this is the difference between ours and aliens. If for a lentil stew, then for an idea. And you aliens need more essential.
                        It is clear that there will be no questions on this topic.
                        And on the topic of the branch, besides sarcasm, do something.?
                        Why did fascist Germany acquire such strength? Such that the war muddied.
                        And you must admit that the USSR has nothing to do with it.
                      2. Quote: chenia
                        And on the topic of the branch, besides sarcasm, do something.?
                        Why did fascist Germany acquire such strength?

                        You see, the political, economic, military and humanitarian relief of the interbellum period is very complex and, of course, interesting precisely because of its complexity. You are operating with dull dogmas. And to discuss this topic with people with tunnel thinking, for whom the light at the end of the tunnel is exclusively the face of Comrade Stalin, seems to me a hopeless occupation. I don't like doctrinaires, sorry. And you, most likely, are just such.
                        Quote: chenia
                        Such that the war muddied.
                        And you must admit that the USSR has nothing to do with it.

                        And I'm not going to agree with you. By definition, the USSR cannot have "nothing to do with it." Both world wars (and I personally tend to consider them one, with a reboot period) are the result of the collective activity of all the defendants, without exception. And personalities ... Well, the war has confirmed that statesmen can be pitiful and great at the same time. But on degree influence on tectonic processes of the 30-40s of the 20th century, of course
                        Hitler is the great Austrian ... German
                        Churchill is the great Briton
                        Stalin is great ... Soviet
                        In this case, the "great" has nothing to do with approval or criticism of their activities.
                        Just a scale.
                      3. +7
                        8 2021 June
                        Quote: Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
                        You see, the political, economic, military and humanitarian relief of the interbellum period is quite complex.


                        BLAH BLAH BLAH

                        Quote: Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
                        And to discuss this topic with people with tunnel thinking,


                        Well, how can we, in bast shoes and on the parquet.
                        You aliens have absolute knowledge, well, that's understandable. But do not rush to share. With contempt and negligence, you evaluate the author, and the information itself is zero.
                        Why is it so?
                        And on a branch you are not discussing with me (I have tonal thinking), others are also interested in seeing the TRUTH ..
                        Bring light to the masses!
                        The people are waiting !!!
                  2. +6
                    8 2021 June
                    Quote: Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
                    Oh, I see. Totally virtuous


                    Oh, I see. - there are no other arguments other than personal wit ...
                    1. Quote: ort
                      wit

                      laughing
                      Quote: ort
                      other arguments

                      What arguments can there be if you fall into religious ecstasy at the mention of Stalin?
                2. -5
                  7 2021 June
                  ... The Weimar Republic was on good terms with the USSR.
                  And Hitler after August 39 ...
                  1. +13
                    7 2021 June
                    Quote: smaug78
                    And Hitler after August 39 ...

                    They were playing for time as best they could. Sworn friends. But we didn’t make the porridge.
          2. Quote: Cherry Nine
            Just a small question. Does this logic extend to Truman?

            Well, of course - double standards are our everything. Comrade Stalin is a wise leader, and Senator Truman is a two-faced bastard. Although the maxim was expressed the same. laughing
          3. -7
            7 2021 June
            Just a small question. Does this logic extend to Truman?
            And what about Comrade IV Stalin and the chestnuts? hi
      5. +6
        8 2021 June
        "That is, the defeat of the only natural allies before the war and loneliness in front of Hitler's Europe are already considered ... good luck?"
        *******************************************************************************
        This is your pearl, you can only answer by referring to the question of "matchmaker" Balzaminov: "Are you still, blue, healthy? .."

        Who of the IMPERIALISTS (Anglo-Saxon, French, German, Japanese, etc.) and when did the USSR acquire the "allies" you mentioned? .. As a whole, "in principle", and BEFORE the beginning World War II in Europe, in particular? .. Where are the joint UNION treaties (that is, UNION PURPOSES)? .. Where are the FOLLOWING, joint UNION plans? .. Where are the joint UNION structures? .. Budgets? .. Etc.? ..

        Further, quite conceptually illiterate, your comparison of the "participation" of the Russian Empire by the IMPERIALIST Nicholas II in the MUTUAL IMPERIALIST SQUARE - the First World War, and the INTENTIONAL INVOLVEMENT BY THE IMPERIALISTS, the ANTI-IMPERIALIST AGGREGATION - the beginning of the Second World Hitler, the Second World Hitler, the Second World War and the Soviet Empire in the USSR, after Great Patriotic War, also need to comment? ..

        That the USSR "wanted" was EVERYTHING CLEAR and WITHOUT your speculative references to the dialogues between J. V. Stalin and G. Dimitrov. For, CONSISTENTLY trying to create a COLLECTIVE SECURITY SYSTEM in Europe, back in the MID-30s, and OPENLY speaking with APPROPRIATE INITIATIVES in the League of Nations, the USSR did not conceal its GOALS and INTENTIONS. And he openly showed that he DOES NOT WANT ANY WAR ...
  2. +20
    7 2021 June
    Yes, "independent" Poland is "strong" by anything but the intellect of its leadership.
    And the war with Germany was inevitable for the USSR, in contrast to that for the Russian Empire.
    1. +22
      7 2021 June
      What is destined will inevitably be, but no more than what is destined.
      Omar Khayyam
    2. Quote: Vladimir_2U
      unlike that for the Russian Empire.

      doubtful. RI was doomed to war, kmk. With the domino effect, it is impossible to leave the knuckle intact.
      1. +13
        7 2021 June
        Quote: Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
        doubtful. RI was doomed to war, kmk.
        I don’t know, in my opinion, and I didn’t come up with it myself, the point is not even that Germany entered the war with the Anglo-Franks a few days later than Russia, the fact is that Russia, under the leadership of Nika2, has climbed behind a very toxic one " ally "to intercede. Another conversation, who arranged it, but if Russia didn’t get involved, everything could be different.
        1. Quote: Vladimir_2U
          but not climb Russia everything could be different.

          Well, yes, probably so. It cannot be called diplomatic art to assure Serbia of support, the introduction of a provision on a preparatory period for war and the simultaneous proposal to bring the settlement of the conflict to a conference in The Hague. I think the red line was crossed on July 25th. Then the process became irreversible. However, the debate about whether it was possible to resolve this crisis diplomatically is going nowhere. Purely so, to train the mind)
          1. -14
            7 2021 June
            Quote: Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
            I think the red line was crossed on July 25th. Then the process became irreversible. However, the debate about whether it was possible to resolve this crisis diplomatically is going nowhere.

            I think that it is obvious that the WORLD Wars do not start because of the terrorist attack and the details of its investigation.

            Germany was preparing for this war decades and would have carried it out in any case, and none of the most archeological efforts of diplomats could stop it.

            This was especially vividly manifested during the attack on France and Belgium, where the "pretext" has already been, in fact, banal:
            "Why are you without glasses ?!"
            1. +18
              7 2021 June
              I think that it is obvious that the WORLD Wars do not start because of the terrorist attack and the details of its investigation.

              There is sense in dividing the causes of wars into motives and reasons. The reason for the events in Sarajevo for unleashing a war may be of primary importance - your modest characterization of "terrorist attack" is not just a terrorist attack, but the murder of the heir to the throne in a monarchical state. And played out further, this occasion was not a member of the Triple Alliance.
  3. +17
    7 2021 June
    The tribunal acquitted Schacht despite the protests of Soviet lawyers.

    This sentence is the essence of all Western politics ...
    1. -13
      7 2021 June
      Quote: Doccor18
      Tribunal acquitted Schacht despite protests from Soviet lawyers

      Naturally.
      To drag Schacht from Dachau to Nuremberg was an enchanting passion for the Allies. They allowed the executioner Rudenko to arrange a trial over the henchmen of world capital. Was smart enough to release the brakes.
  4. -11
    7 2021 June
    Everything that I worked for ... everything that I believed in throughout my entire political life has fallen into ruins ...

    The author's efforts are hard to pull the bird onto a model of the globe.
    Since the Munich Agreement and Chamberlain's famous statement "Lord, I have brought peace for our generation!" Disappeared somewhere in the alternative world of his work.

    then the author did not limit himself to the real interpretation of Chamberlain's speech in parliament about the collapse of his attempts to prevent the war and gave free rein to an alternative reality and hanging noodles on the ears of the reader.
    For the sake of the same, the author had to create an alternative map of the world, since before the capture of Poland, Germany did not really have a common border with the USSR and a large-scale war against the USSR It was difficult for Hitler to start before the appearance of a common border - the author's alternative Chamberlain, unlike the real one, about this I was not aware of the fact, it seems.
    1. The author's efforts are hard to pull the bird onto a model of the globe.

      I have always wondered - where does VO recruit such lecturers from "It Was in Penkovo"?
      The historical barbershop on VO continues to delight by combing history into even parting according to the wishes of customers.
      Was it possible for the USSR government to avoid the country being dragged into World War II?

      It was impossible to avoid participation in this war!

      This is genius! laughing

      Therefore, impromptu:

      There is a murmur on the topvar again -
      Flat posts are pouring.
      Here again the overflow
      Empty out of the void.
      1. -18
        7 2021 June
        Clouds go gloomy on topvar
        Communists beat their enemies
        Authors harsh from Cupid
        Expose Fords - Chubais Yes
        1. -10
          7 2021 June
          In 1940, Ford refused to build engines for British aircraft.

          the author also lied about Ford, you just can't find another word.
          Rolls-Royce Merlin aircraft engines at the Ford plant in Manchester baked like hot cakes - 34000 aircraft engines during the war.
          Another Ford plant, at Dagenham, produced hundreds of thousands of cars for the British army.
          1. Quote: Avior
            In 1940, Ford refused to build engines for British aircraft.


            I also slightly did not understand what the author meant by "rejection". Construction of two sites at the Manchester plant has begun in May 1940 and ended a year later, after which the first "merlin" was assembled a week later. Are purely technological overlays with a re-release of several thousand drawings called "refusal to assemble engines"? An original, to put it mildly, interpretation.
            1. -9
              7 2021 June
              You just don't tell the author that on June 22, 1941, Germany, and not the States, attacked us. And don't let Gd tell him that the Americans were our allies negative
            2. +15
              7 2021 June
              Quote: Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
              also slightly did not understand what the author meant by "rejection".

              Ford refuses to manufacture these engines in the United States. The British were forced to negotiate with Packard.
              Quote: Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
              Purely technological overlays with a re-release of several thousand drawings

              In general, everything is complicated there, the English engine was hand-made, that is, semi-handicraft, like a racing car. Adapting it for mass production in an automobile plant is a daunting task.
              1. Quote: Cherry Nine
                Ford refuses to manufacture these engines in the United States. The British were forced to negotiate with Packard.

                Well, Packard started negotiations with RR back in the fall of 1938. And then, and a year later, the cousins ​​did not fuse. The British wanted Packard to churn out parts, and the engines were supposed to be assembled on the Island. Packard wanted a full cycle. It is true that the "American Made" Merlin was twice as expensive.

                Quote: Cherry Nine
                and Ford, with his useless junk, was forced to cut off 4 cylinders and put the remaining V8 on the tank.

                Gee ... Tank version of merlin - meteor also truncated to V8 meteorite))
          2. +13
            7 2021 June
            Quote: Avior
            the author also lied about Ford, you just can't find another word.

            Not quite, oddly enough.

            The Ford plant in Poissy really worked for the occupation authorities. Another thing is that it is rather strange to present this to the Ford management after December 41, they have lost control over the enterprise.

            As for Ford's failures, such a story also took place. The British connected Ford to the production of Merlin in England and wanted him to connect to the production of Merlin in the United States. Ford refused the second offer. It is believed that the reason was Ford's hatred of the British and love for Hitler personally (unexpectedly), but in fact, Ford hated the Americans. More precisely, he wanted to push on American blood - he hoped to shove the Army Air Force through his engine, which had been scratched from the same Merlin. The engine was worse, but it circumvented English patents. As a result, the Merlin began to produce Packard, and Ford, with his useless junk, was forced to cut off 4 cylinders and put the remaining V8 on the tank.
            1. -7
              7 2021 June
              From your post it is clear that in this case there was no refusal to manufacture engines, it was about the production of a specific model.
              So it's not clear what you found
              Not quite, oddly enough.

              I completely lied about everything.
              1. +12
                7 2021 June
                Quote: Avior
                So it's not clear what you found
                Not quite, oddly enough.

                I completely lied about everything.

                Not quite.

                Two facts.
                1. Ford plant in France worked with the occupation authorities.
                2. Personally, Ford Sr. vetoed the production of Merlin in the United States.

                Have taken place.

                But, as often happens, the propagandist is trying to fit two truthful facts into a false picture - allegedly Ford played along with Hitler. While his temper came out sideways mainly to himself.

                On the other hand, claims about the story with the Merlins should be made mainly to Marshall and his subordinates. Precisely because they had absolutely nothing to do with it.
                1. -4
                  7 2021 June
                  1. Captured by the Germans in the occupied territory, the Ford plant continued to work.
                  Ford had nothing to do with this. To argue the opposite is like declaring that the USSR supplied Nazi Germany with electricity at the height of the war on the basis that the Dnieper Hydroelectric Power Station supplied electricity in 1942.
                  2. Not "personally, Ford Sr. vetoed the production of Merlins in the USA," but Ford Sr. proposed to produce engines of his own design for the British at Ford's American factories, and not Merlins, as their Ford plant in England produced.
                  That is the phrase
                  In 1940, Ford refused to build engines for British aircraft.
                  - a common lie, since Ford did not refuse from this, and the Merlin was ready to produce, and his own similar ones.
                  1. +7
                    7 2021 June
                    Quote: Avior
                    The Ford plant, seized by the Germans in the occupied territory, continued to work.

                    To be honest, I didn't go into details. In the Reich the factories were nationalized, but in France I don’t know. And it doesn't matter, Ford is not Zoya Kosmodemyanskaya, to burn barns behind enemy lines. And thank God.
                    Quote: Avior
                    Ford Sr. proposed to produce engines of their own design for the British at the American factories of Ford, and not the Merlins, as their Ford plant in England produced.

                    Ford Sr. refused to produce licensed engines. And his own engine did not fly anywhere, there were no planes for it. And a completely new engine compared to the old proven Merlin is still a gift. This is a rather sad story for America.
                    1. -4
                      7 2021 June
                      the author wrote unambiguously.
                      In 1940, Ford refused to build engines for British aircraft.

                      and this is a downright lie, since the Ford plant assembled engines for British aircraft.
                      he did not write that
                      "at some of his factories, Ford offered to produce their own engines for the British" or something like that.
                      As for burning barns behind enemy lines, I don’t remember that someone burned theirs here, except in special cases. They burned someone else's or state. But for a city or village to get together and burn itself to the ground, somehow I don’t remember
                      hi
                2. Quote: Cherry Nine
                  2. Personally, Ford Sr. vetoed the production of Merlin in the United States.

                  Yes, but the RR's call at Ford was in 1939 by the French - they agreed with the British to collect merlin in France at the Ford branch. Ford had the documentation for the merlin before Knudsen got into the hustle and bustle of looking for engine manufacturers in the United States.
                  In general, of course, the author's attempt to find a Nazi cat in Ford's room looks, your truth, rather clumsy propaganda.
                  Interpretations, interpretations ...
                  1. +4
                    7 2021 June
                    Quote: Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
                    Knudsen started a hustle and bustle with the search for motor manufacturers in the United States.

                    Knudsen? It's about the English purchasing commission. They were the first to come to Ford, which is quite natural. And it was already on the ointment, but the old man intervened.
                    1. Quote: Cherry Nine
                      Knudsen? It's about the English purchasing commission. They were the first to come to Ford, which is quite natural. And it was already on the ointment, but the old man intervened.

                      What does the procurement commission have to do with it? Knudsen and Edsel discussed a contract for 9000 engines, and yes - somewhere in the middle of June they practically shook hands, Ford Sr. cut off. Although the British Ford process was going on.
                      1. +7
                        7 2021 June
                        )))
                        Let's finish the evening of citing and say that about the history of the American Merlins, and a lot more about the engines, you can read here.

                        https://p-d-m.livejournal.com/378371.html
                      2. Quote: Cherry Nine
                        Let's finish already

                        let's.
  5. The comment was deleted.
  6. -6
    7 2021 June
    Currently, the situation is similar again: our vastness and resources haunt neither the United States nor its vassal - the European Union ...
    It is enough to have a convenient government on the territory of Russia, and here's the vastness and resources, although TNKs have already taken root in Russia.
  7. +5
    7 2021 June
    So in the USSR, the industry also had American roots - Hammer and others. Heavy industry machine tools cost a cap of rusks. The First World War is over and a bunch of products have ceased to be in demand
  8. +24
    7 2021 June
    "At dawn on September 1, World War II began." (C)
    On September 1, a war broke out between Germany and Poland, a regional military conflict, but when England declared war on Germany on September 3, it was then that WW2 began. It turns out that England unleashed WW2.
    1. Quote: ee2100
      It turns out that England unleashed WW2.

      Are there any doubts? Only not only England, but also France with a trailer. For this reason, on a blue eye, the date of the beginning of WWII is collectively considered to be September 1, i.e. the beginning of the German-Polish war.
      1. -12
        7 2021 June
        Quote: Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
        Are there any doubts? Not only England, but also France with a trailer

        Here is Comrade. Molotov stated THIS openly and furiously in October 1939, however, then he had completely different speeches at other times, but, I see, for many times after October 1939 did not come:
        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, speaking of the great powers of Europe, Germany is in the position of a state seeking an early end to the war and peace (!), and England and France, who yesterday still fought against aggression, stand for the continuation of the war and against the conclusion of peace... The roles, as you can see, are changing.

        the British government announced that, as if for him, the goal of the war against Germany was, no more and no less, as. "destruction of Hitlerism"

        ... So not only is it pointless, but it is also criminal to wage a war like the war for the "destruction of Hitlerism"


        PS Poland had treaties with Britain and France on military assistance in the event of aggression and Hitler knew about them.

        The attack on Poland automatically set them in motion, so September 1 is the date for the start of WWII.

        Although the true date is the date of the Munich Agreement.
        1. +9
          7 2021 June
          Only Hitler, before the attack on Poland, was convinced by the entire encirclement, including Goering and Ribbentrop, that the Britons would not declare war on him with the French.
      2. +3
        7 2021 June
        There are several dates.
        1. The beginning of the (next) Japanese-Chinese conflict.
        2. German attack on Poland.
        3. The attack of Britain and France on Germany.
        4. German attack on the United States, Japan on Britain, the unification of Asian and European theaters.
  9. -8
    7 2021 June
    In the previous part, it was shown that the thoughtful actions of England pushed Europe into the Great War.
    only in the imagination of a stupid propagandist author ... The article itself is a lie and the author's fantasies, as well as a reprint of delirium from hurray fences ...
    The total amount of foreign investments in German industry for 1924-1929. reached 63 billion gold marks, of which 70% came from the United States. In 1929, German industry was ranked second in the world, but to a large extent it was concentrated in the hands of American financial-industrial groups.
    and where was Hitler these years? laughing
    However, his new plant in France began producing engines for the Luftwaffe. European subsidiaries of Ford in 1940 supplied Germany with 65 thousand trucks and subsequently continued to supply vehicles.
    And that France was not captured? And what are these branches? I can't write anymore, I'm so afraid of bursting with laughter, reading such denseness laughing
  10. +3
    7 2021 June
    Quote: Bar1
    It is not clear how the USSR paid, because there were no funds in the country.

    Have you heard about the sale of grain?
  11. BAI
    +17
    7 2021 June
    1.
    Was it possible for the USSR government to avoid the country being dragged into World War II?

    You can't. Germany was created and pushed to war with the USSR.
    2.
    Could European countries have avoided the outbreak of World War II?

    Can. To do this, it was enough to suppress the actions of Germany when she sent troops into the Ruhr area. But since the priority was point 1, the process got out of control.
    1. -5
      7 2021 June
      You can't. Germany was created and pushed to war with the USSR.

      “This is not the world. This is a truce for twenty years "
      F. Foch was the first to create and push.
      1. Quote: smaug78
        F. Foch was the first to create and push.

        Yes, he did not push anything. This is an elementary statement. The same, for example, as Durnovo's note to Nikolai on the eve of the war.
        1. +3
          7 2021 June
          Respected Paragraph... it was a joke of humor wink drinks
          1. Hmm ... Would you like to make fun of the saint? There are several sacred mantras that should not be joked about. Including:
            item 1. - Hitler was nurtured by the collective (not to be confused with the "collective farm"!) West.
            item 1 * - fostered for the sole purpose of inciting against the USSR (or, as is fashionable nowadays among the Samsonoids, Russia / USSR)
            p.2 - The States traded with the Reich throughout the war. This is written in the Gospel of Hayem, and therefore cannot be disputed!

            etc.
            1. 0
              7 2021 June
              I beg your pardon, the deceased father brought up this way, and at the university it was no luck with the teachers lol
              PS Especially logic.
            2. +6
              7 2021 June
              Quote: Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
              item 1. - Hitler was nurtured by the collective (not to be confused with the "collective farm"!) West.
              item 1 * - fostered for the sole purpose of inciting against the USSR (or, as is fashionable nowadays among the Samsonoids, Russia / USSR)

              Uh-huh ... to get into opponents a continental power with the resources of the USSR, Germany's industry and the rear inaccessible to bombing. A cunning plan, you won’t say anything.
              And most importantly, why did the West wait until the end of the 30s, and did not solve the problem of the USSR even earlier? For example, in 1935 - having set on the USSR with its miracle army in 25 rifle divisions the troops of the countries of the "cordon sanitaire" (Poland, Romania. Finland, Hungary). By the way, if you promise something to Japan, the USSR army will be halved at once to 12-13 divisions.
              1. -16
                7 2021 June
                Will you please with figures of financing by the damned West before 33 years old and after?
                Attention! You do not have permission to view hidden text.
                As well as the political situation and the possibility of an attack on the USSR by the countries you indicated, some of which did not have common borders with the USSR?
              2. Quote: Alexey RA
                Uh-huh ... to get into opponents a continental power with the resources of the USSR, Germany's industry and the rear inaccessible to bombing. A cunning plan, you won’t say anything.

                Well, yes, to get the honorary place of beefeater, beefeater or butler in continental autarchy, which was the goal of the Fuehrer. laughing
            3. +11
              7 2021 June
              Quote: Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
              Hmm ... You will make fun of the saint? There are several sacred mantras that should not be joked about. Including


              The level of liberation since the 90s has not risen, and as they carried garbage (but then it passed) and continue.
              No arguments, let's turn to sarcasm.

              Quote: Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
              item 1. - Hitler was nurtured by the collective (not to be confused with the "collective farm"!) West

              And then no? First of all, the British, of course. They have the English Channel and you can take a chance. And their eternal policy is to push the strong powers of Europe against each other. And stand above the fight. Why Hitler Was Allowed So Much. Why not give indulgences to the Weimar Republic, no, Hitler got it. Germany before Hitler very much collaborated with the USSR (and could result in a more substantial alliance). and Thälmann loomed on the horizon. Hitler could have been crushed in his cradle economically. So no, he gets all the trump card.
              And he himself is a cool manipulator, up to a certain point he plays according to the British script, and the French who joined them. And then he began to play his game.
              Yes to the USSR, but Hitler never concealed his plans to march to the east. They wished for the complete victory of Germany (and according to the scenario together with Poland) over the USSR. Of course not. But an endless war, of course. And according to the situation, go to one side or the other.
              As always.
              And what's new, everything is familiar.
              But liberals are surprised (or pretend).
              1. -15
                7 2021 June
                And what else is written to your hurray-fence? laughing
                1. +14
                  7 2021 June
                  Quote: smaug78
                  And what else is written to your hurray-fence?


                  The opposite of your training manual! What else are we talking about. wassat
                  1. -19
                    7 2021 June
                    Reader of three-letter inscriptions, continue ... I always like to laugh at cheers. laughing
                    1. +12
                      7 2021 June
                      It cannot give more than two sentences. And you will poke your wife, ch.di.l.o.
                      Keep humming, it will be smarter.
    2. -3
      7 2021 June
      Quote: BAI
      Germany was created and pushed to war with the USSR

      Massons in the middle of the XNUMXth century.
      Quote: BAI
      suppress the actions of Germany when she sent troops into the Ruhr area

      In the 36th year, 3 governments were replaced in France. Who should have done it? Socialist Sarro?
      1. +5
        7 2021 June
        Quote: Cherry Nine
        In the 36th year, 3 governments were replaced in France. Who should have done it? Socialist Sarro?

        You wanted to ask: "Who Should Have Committed Political Suicide?" wink
        1. +2
          7 2021 June
          Quote: Alexey RA
          "Who should have committed political suicide?

          The cavalry guard is short-lived.
  12. +13
    7 2021 June
    Thank you. Very detailed and well-reasoned. Useful article!
    1. +10
      7 2021 June
      The purpose of the two world wars was the collapse of the British Empire, i.e. global redistribution of the world. Everything else is a means to an end. The result has been achieved, now again the question of redistributing the world. I wonder what to do, because we will not stay aside.
  13. +6
    7 2021 June
    [quote = Olgovich] At the same time, HUNDREDS of thousands and wounded Naziskilled natural allies in the West before the Second World War Did not come in the USSR in the Second World War, which worked on THE USSR.

    1. It is possible that the Poles are natural allies for you. But for the Soviet Union, these are enemies who claimed Soviet territory and were ready to invade our country together with Hitler. Kill and hang our citizens of all ages, gender and children. For the sake of Poland from sea to sea ...
    No need to drag your friends to the friends or allies of the USSR. No wonder Hitler said that one Polish division replaces one German division. Our country is lucky that these bastards did not agree.

    2. the Anglo-French, who were ready to bomb our targets. For example, Baku. The density of oil wells and oil industry facilities in the region and in the city of Baku itself (in the "black city", in the area of ​​Bailov, Surakhany, Sabunchy, etc.) of Baku is such that the fires would have killed our Soviet people no less than in Dresden during the bombing of the allies. But, of course, you kept silent about this question. Well, tens of thousands of Soviet people would have died. These are not the enlightened Anglo-Saxons, who are your natural allies.
    The data on the losses of the Germans in France range from 27 to 45 thousand. For some reason you used the maximum number? It's easier to cheat, why?
    Why do you assert that 133-150 thousand wounded in France did not end up at the front in Russia? Not all of the wounded find themselves without arms or legs and do not return to duty. Is this the first time you hear about it, or don't you want to hear about it? So up to 60-75% of people return to duty. It happens more. If you have other data, cite that all the wounded did not fight against the USSR.

    3. What if Hitler could not defeat the Allied troops? Your "natural" allies would go to war with the citizens of my country! They were already ready to send more than 50 thousand soldiers for the war. And the arrogant ones also said that they could attract 1 million people (judging by Sweden, they were talking about volunteers). And how many of my citizens would your natural allies kill and injure in this case?

    About 300 thousand of your natural French allies and up to 450 thousand of your beloved Poles served Hitler. Compare these numbers with the number of German soldiers killed. What's more? I would also like to ask: are the soldiers of Galitchen's division also your natural allies?

    And when you began to attract the killed Germans on the northern coast of Africa, Greece, etc. - this once again showed that you are not ready to answer for your words and then start frantically looking for something on the Internet to justify your omissions ...

    By the way, where is the guarantee that they would come to the USSR, and not to Iraq, Egypt, etc.?
    1. -14
      7 2021 June
      Irina Frolova, Samsonov or Ivanov, re-login laughing laughing laughing
      1. +1
        7 2021 June
        It's just delirium tremens.
        Better to enter the site without taking a drop
        1. -13
          7 2021 June
          I respect your self-criticism laughing
    2. Quote: swetlana1
      No wonder Hitler said that one Polish division replaces one German division.

      Hitler equated German and Polish infantry? Seriously?
      And you can read more?
      1. +1
        7 2021 June
        each Polish division used against the USSR means saving one German division
        1. Quote: swetlana1
          each Polish division used against the USSR means saving one German division

          You wrote above:
          Quote: swetlana1
          No wonder Hitler said that one Polish division replaces one German division.

          So take the trouble to bring the Fuhrer's direct speech. And then some kind of ambiguity in your interpretation.
          1. -15
            7 2021 June
            No wonder Hitler said that one Polish division replaces one German division.
            On this site, hooray ladies take their word for it hi
            1. Quote: smaug78
              On this site, hooray ladies take their word for it

              Oh yes-ah, I remember the reaction to the first opus of Madame Frolova - the old-timers of the site flowed in a tear puddle laughing "Bravo, Irina !!" and other "wow!" Even Shpakovsky was touched and gave some kind of dissertation advice. Few have considered a dummy in this nymphomaniac. But after the "palaces of the Fuehrer in the Ukraine" the number of her admirers dropped sharply. I think, after reading the enthusiastic reports for her debut, she had a face like Detochkin in a police bobbin after the premiere.
              1. -12
                7 2021 June
                Respected Paragraph, Don't you think that on the yellow TopWar they got a staff of backing tracks? laughing drinks
                1. Quote: smaug78
                  Respected Paragraph, Don't you think that on the yellow TopWar they got a staff of backing tracks? laughing drinks

                  Yes, the dog is with them. They are, you know, like Nikanor Ivanovich Bulgakov - they catch all the liberists in the corners and demand to sprinkle the premises.
                  1. -13
                    7 2021 June
                    You are right again right good I sit in the evening after work, tea with buns and a smile, which is Soviet historiography and personally I.V. Stalin against these powerful victims of the Unified State Exam ...
        2. -9
          7 2021 June
          each Polish division used against the USSR means saving one German division
          And how many Polish divisions were used?
    3. +1
      8 2021 June
      "About 300 thousand of your natural French allies and up to 450 thousand of your beloved Poles served Hitler." Hitler's army had over 1,000,000 Soviets (the largest number were Russians) - more than the French and Poles combined.
  14. -8
    7 2021 June
    I see that in the friendly creative family of the Samsonovs some kind of bore has appeared with long texts about old lies.
  15. Eug
    +11
    7 2021 June
    A number of other points. After the 1st World War, France proposed to split Germany into a number of principalities-microstates, which would remove the question of revenge - the country that was defeated would simply not exist. England opposed - she needed a counterbalance between France and the USSR on the continent. These considerations can also explain England's connivance in Germany's violation of the Versailles arms restrictions. And the German economy in moments of practically bankruptcy was fueled by the gold of the "annexed" states - Austria and Czechoslovakia, kindly transferred to them ... by the Bank of England!
  16. -1
    7 2021 June
    On April 26, the British ambassador in Berlin said:

    “Passing through the corridor is an absolutely fair decision. If we were in Hitler's place, we would have demanded him at least


    That is, Russia has the right to demand a corridor to Kaliningrad?
    That would be hilarious
  17. The comment was deleted.
  18. +2
    8 2021 June
    Why do you only call the 1st World War the Great? Did you study in Europe?
  19. +1
    8 2021 June
    The leaders knew that war with Germany was inevitable

    A war with Germany could well have been avoided if its leaders could see the Red Banner over the Reichstag in 1945.
    Anti-communism by itself is insufficient for an attack on the USSR. Mussolini and Franco hated the communists and the USSR no less than Hitler, but it never occurred to them to attack him.
    But anti-communism blinded the leaders of Germany to such an extent that they made a fatal mistake in assessing the potential of the USSR, and the dizziness from successes in the West finally suppressed the remnants of common sense in them.
  20. +7
    8 2021 June
    Quote: Alexey Kartashov
    Why do you only call the 1st World War the Great? Did you study in Europe?

    How easy it is to hang a label ... I studied in Europe, which means an enemy ...
    I did not study in Europe, I create a Shield and a Sword ...

    Everything is simpler. In the second part, the chronology of the beginning of the world war and, very briefly, the period of its end were given. In the third part, the Great War is mentioned as the point of the record of the period until the spring of 2. Therefore, I use the terms that the Russian people used at the beginning of the war. Since closer to the end of the war it was called by the Russians and "The Great War" I left (for me it is a synonym) the term "Great War".

    Since the beginning of the war in Russia, France and Germany, it was called the Great, and in Germany - the world war.
    The term "Great War" was also used in the Russian press in 1916. Since 1915, it has been called by other terms in Russia. For example, "The Second Patriotic War", "The Great War", "The Second War for the Motherland", "The Great Patriotic War". Common people called the "German" or "Yerman" war. VI Lenin called it the "Imperialist War".

    Before the start of the Great Patriotic War, that war was called the "World Imperialist War of 1914-18".
    After the outbreak of the Great Patriotic War, the name "First World Imperialist War" was used. Currently in Russia it is called the First World War.
  21. +1
    August 24 2021
    Stalin's industrialization is an area of ​​"irrational". But this is how it is said, in fact, everything is clear and payment for industrial equipment, and the payment of foreign specialists was made at the expense of the West. Their capital.

    An absolutely rational area. The USSR paid for the equipment with oil, timber, coal, ore and the like. During the summer, the crisis hit the West in 1929-33 and the price of equipment and specialists fell.
    In this sense, Stalin's industrialization saved capitalism from an economic crisis. In other words, it hit both sides.
    Hitler was swayed by German capital because they only beat Hitler between Hitler and Thalmann, between the Nazis or the Communists, and they naturally chose the Nazis.

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"