World War II and the Great Patriotic War. Controversial beginning and controversial end

62
World War II and the Great Patriotic War. Controversial beginning and controversial end


Was there World War II?


A prominent part of the general anti-Russian discourse is the denial of the Great Patriotic War. There was no Great Patriotic War, there was a part of the Second World War, so there is nothing to show off, opposing oneself to the enlightened West.



For me, the question of recognizing the Patriotic War is not worth it.

But I want to ask a counter question: was there a World War II, and if it was, then in what time frame? Is everything clean here?

Let's think together what does the word "world" mean in the name of the war? Obviously, this is a war in which the whole world fought. But what is "the whole world"? The entire territory of the planet or the entire population of the planet, or more than half of them?

Obviously, "the whole world" is not a territory. Otherwise, any war involving the British Empire, on which the sun never sets, turns into a world war, even an Anglo-Boer one. After all, fighting with a small European island called "England", the Boers simultaneously fought with Asia (India), and with America (Canada), and with Australia, and even with Africa (Cape Colony of England, Rhodesia, etc.).

Therefore, the point is not in the territory, but in the numbers involved.

It is believed that in total 62 of the 73 independent states that existed at that time participated in the Second World War, although the independence of many of them is doubtful. If we remove the colonies, there will be about 50 really independent countries, including such states as Tuva and Honduras, dear to the Russian ear. But this is really the majority of the world's population.

When did the intra-European war start?


Now let's find out when more than half of the world's population entered into a general war?

It's definitely not September 1, 1939.

Let me remind you that in that year about 2,3 billion people lived on Earth.

By the official date of the start of World War II, as many people know, Japan and China had been fighting on the Asian continent for two years. The population of China was 530-540 million people, Japan - 70 million, which in total gives 600 million or 26% of the population of the Earth.

No, this is not a world war, neither in scope nor in recognition, although of all the participants in the massacre, these countries were the first to start and the last to finish, because the day Japan surrendered is the day the Second World War officially ended. It turned out funny. Japan ended the war, although Japan did not start it. Formally, Japan broke off relations with the United States on December 7, 1941.

It is also interesting that China declared war on Japan only on December 10, 1941. That is, legally, before that, the countries had not fought with anyone. There was no war, and that's it. They kneaded each other just like that, like a neighbor. And if so, then appointing the Second World War in 1937 is somehow not logical.

Okay, let not 1937. Then let's see what happened on September 1, 1939?

A local intra-European war began between the alliance of Germany (including Austria and the protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia) plus Slovakia on the one hand and the alliance of Poland plus England and France. Together, including the colonies, these participants give 720-730 million people.

600 million plus 730 million add up to 1 million or 330% of the world's population. Everything seems to be correct now? Everything, but not everything.

Do not forget, at that moment Japan was not at war with Poland, England and France, and with Germany she had an Anti-Comintern Pact, not hostile to the rest of Europe.

In turn, China was not at war with Germany and Slovakia. And between themselves, Japan and China, as we know, at that time legally lived in good neighborly relations.

Here such, you understand, the squiggle turns out.

In 1940, when Germany was smashing France, and a lot of European trifles, the European population involved increased by only 70 million, and that was mainly due to Italy.

But that's not all.

In parallel, in 1939-1941. there were two more troubles - the Soviet-Finnish and German-Yugoslav. That is, 4 separate wars were going on in the world almost simultaneously, two of which are not officially part of the Second World War, and the Yugoslav one, in fact, too. Moreover, their participants were neither allies nor opponents of participants in other wars, they did not send ultimatums to each other, they did not send troops to help.

Following this logic, World War II began only when the European and Asian wars merged into one. Say, it happened on June 22, 1941? And here it is not.

On June 22, the size of the European battle increased from 800 million to a billion at the expense of the USSR and the German satellites, and that's it. There were still two parallel conflicts going on in the world, in which the participants did not always sympathize with their future allies.

And yet it happened.

After the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on December 8, 1941, Japan declared war on Britain. On December 9, the government of Chiang Kai-shek declared war on the Axis countries: Germany and Italy, becoming at that moment an ally of the USSR and Great Britain, and the next day it was finally able to do the same with respect to the samurai.

Here! Here it is the real date, when indeed more than half of the Earth's population officially, openly and legally divided into two clearly defined blocks. That is, in fact, the Second World War lasted from December 9, 1941 to September 2, 1945.

And what about the Great Patriotic War, which lasted from June 22, 1941 to May 9, 1945?

Surprising as it may seem, but legally the USSR fought Hitler's Europe on its own, just like Great Britain. Yes, on July 12, 1941, an agreement on joint actions was signed in Moscow, but a full-fledged agreement between the USSR and Great Britain on an alliance in the war against Nazi Germany was signed only on May 26, 1942. But only against Germany.

Although Japan joined the Axis countries in 1940, it stipulated in the Berlin Pact that in the event of a clash between Germany and the Soviet Union, it would remain neutral. In fact, the Berlin Pact legally divided the war in Europe and the war in Asia into absolutely independent events. And with Japan, the USSR had a neutrality treaty that lasted until 1945.

What does this mean?

Three wars


Firstly, the current concept of the Second World War is nothing more than a conditional name for a series of events, the start date of which can be disputed. And many do this, recalling the partition of Czechoslovakia in 1938.

Secondly, the Great Patriotic War cannot be part of the Second World War, because, as we found out, it started earlier and ended earlier.

Thirdly, in the period 22.06.1941/8.12.1941/XNUMX - XNUMX/XNUMX/XNUMX, three wars were going on in parallel in the world:

- Japanese-Chinese (unannounced);

- Anglo-German (including Italy, but without Finland, because England declared war on Finland on December 6, 1941);

- Soviet-German (The Great Patriotic War).

Fourth, the Second World War arose only because European and Asian wars united. And they might as well not unite.

This would not have happened if the British did not decide on December 8 to oppose Japan, but allowed her to deal only with America and the ownerless French Cochinchina, and Germany and Italy did not decide on December 11 to declare war on the United States.

Well, the British are more or less clear. But now, one wonders, why would Hitler need it, especially given the counteroffensive near Moscow that began the day before? I understand, allied duty and all that, but how could he help the samurai? Why deprive yourself of maneuver, even taking into account the unfolding deliveries to the USSR under Lend-Lease? This mystery is great.

25 days


As a result, we have the following.

The Great Patriotic War is an absolutely independent battle of the Soviet Union against a united Europe, from which, only by misunderstanding, Spain and Sweden, spiritually close to Germany, fell out, with Switzerland in addition.

Yes, England is an ally. But the ally is forced and before the entry into the European war the United States is of little use. Plus, the Soviet Union did not wage a war in Asia, did not have an allied treaty with China against Japan, although it helped to the best of its ability.

World War II officially lasted 6 years and one day. The Soviet Union participated in its own war for 1 days, and from May 418 to August 10, 8, it generally lived in peace. In fact, he fully entered the Second World War not only in the West, but also in the East, only joining the final of the general war against Japan, and this participation lasted 1945 days. Unexpected number, right?

And if so, then we have every right to our own Patriotic War with the European integrators, which we fought in parallel with other wars going on on different continents, despite the fact that in time and in terms of a set of random allies, but rather fellow travelers, it coincided with historical period, conventionally referred to today as the Second World War.

PS


The Yugoslavs have exactly the same full right to their own Patriotic War. After all, on March 27, 1941, after the coup, the pact with the Axis countries was not terminated. That is, at the time of the outbreak of hostilities on April 6, 1941, Yugoslavia was formally an ally of Germany with Italy and the victim of a treacherous attack.

In general, I congratulate everyone on the Victory Day. Our Great Victory!
Our news channels

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

62 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +7
    12 May 2023 05: 10
    In general, I congratulate everyone on the Victory Day. Our Great Victory!
    All these dates mean little ... The main thing is that the USSR defeated Germany, taking Berlin and defeated the Kwantung Army, liberating southern Sakhalin and the Kuriles!
    1. +1
      13 May 2023 00: 15
      —-Thanks to the author for bringing up the absolutism and mathematics of the logic of his opinions for discussion !!

      —But "world war" is a relative term. This is a comparison with the history of previous wars. This includes taking into account the military and economic, ideological, linguistic and cultural power of the participants, the prevailing forms of government, the geographical scope of the war itself, the multidimensional changes caused by the results of the war for the main participants - for example, NATO and the Warsaw Pact ... the destruction of the colonial system ...

      - As for Lend-Lease .. he himself also considered it insignificant. I forgot that before the restoration of the industrial base of the evacuated factories beyond the Urals, at 42 - at 41 they fought on English fighters and American tanks, they carried infantry in American Studebakers, ate American canned food ... they used American gunpowder ... This, 41 - 42, was a critical time, and one cannot deny - but absolutely must admit - the heroism of the British and American sailors of the merchant and navy ... Thanks to them for their help in weapons and military equipment for the USSR!

      —- All this, lend-lease and the formation of allied relations, occurred as a result and against the backdrop of the heroic struggle of the Soviet people, their Red Army, against German fascism !!

      —- This recognition of the role of allies is all the more significant now, with the history of the Northern Military District, when Russia had one ally, and when the Western world took up arms against Russia.

      —- The planning of the military operations of the Western allies took place taking into account the hostilities on the European front, the situation and actions of the USSR in the Far East and China ... especially at critical moments in the summer - autumn 41, the Ardennes ...

      - Alliances are strengthened by victories !!! And this is the historical lesson of WWII for the NWO!

      —-The fear of an unsuccessful offensive fetters the actions of the Armed Forces of Ukraine ... and he, in the absence of a commander, fetters the actions of the Russian Armed Forces. Who in Russia is a general of the “commander” level, with experience in successful offensive operations involving tens of thousands of fighters ??
    2. 0
      15 May 2023 13: 11
      Uncle Lee (Vladimir) May 12, 2023 05:10
      “... In general, I congratulate everyone on the Victory Day. Our Great Victory!..."
      All these dates mean little ... The main thing is that the USSR defeated


      You are a classic example. Togo. that “history teaches. that IT IS NOT TEACHED!” belay
      Was like that "major politician". the best German of the USSR. "classic" and "virtuoso" of the Russian word- gorby belay feel . Realizing "where the dog rummaged" and severely marked. that "and we have. has its own head behind its shoulders. This wunderking with the words - "It's good for us to start!" to the surprise of the whole “... civilized world” (they didn’t want to. so quickly and THEMSELVES ...) COVERED EVERYTHING with a copper basin bully . STARTING WITH HOLDNESS… crying
      You seem to be an "innovator" on this aggressive "track in your location" and decided to start right away from the main thing - it doesn't matter when and where .. but we can ... we can ... And then ... but we can faq ..!?
      Those. decided immediately under the copper basin HISTORY. Take candy - from grandfather Joe B .... to "comedian" Ze. hi feel
  2. +4
    12 May 2023 05: 15
    And what follows from everything written? Did the author doubt the dating? And now historians are arguing and arguing before. The point is, what is it?
    1. +2
      12 May 2023 06: 57
      Quote: parusnik
      And what follows from everything written? Did the author doubt the dating? And now historians are arguing and arguing before. The point is, what is it?

      Squeeze from the article
      "The Great Patriotic War can't be a part World War II, because, as we found out, it started earlier and ended earlier."
      "The Great Patriotic War - absolutely independent battle of the Soviet Union against a united Europe, from which, only by misunderstanding, Spain and Sweden, spiritually close to Germany, fell out, with Switzerland in addition.
    2. AUL
      +5
      12 May 2023 10: 20
      Quote: parusnik
      .The bottom line, then what?

      And in nothing! It’s just that the author juggled with numbers and definitions (by the way, not disputable) and made his conclusion about what no one doubted anyway.
    3. +1
      12 May 2023 17: 56
      Can't there be an article with just interesting facts and observations under a light touch of author's thoughts without any far-reaching conclusions?
  3. -2
    12 May 2023 05: 21
    the current concept of World War II is nothing more than a conventional name for a series of events, the start date of which can be disputed ... The Great Patriotic War is an absolutely independent battle of the Soviet Union against a united Europe
    I agree with the author, who, using dates, numbers, the situation in the world, expressed his point of view on the beginning of WW2 and the Second World War. It is generally accepted that WW2 began on 01.09.39/XNUMX/XNUMX, well, okay, because. the gap in the dates that the author considers by historical standards is not so big. The Soviet Union really waged an independent war and pulled over the main forces of Germany and its allies. Our so-called the "allies" provided assistance under Lend-Lease, but were in no hurry to open a second front, watching from the outside how events would unfold and who would have to be supported in the future. What is this if not an independent war.
    1. +4
      12 May 2023 10: 10
      Quote: rotmistr60
      Our so-called the "allies" provided assistance under Lend-Lease, but were in no hurry to open a second front, watching from the outside how events would unfold and who would have to be supported in the future.

      There was a kind of "second front". The Battle of Britain took place in 1940. Even before the entry of the USSR into the war. And throughout WWII, Britain fought with Germany at sea. Then the US got involved. Plus - the United States already in the 41st began to butt heads with the Japanese. Well, a full-fledged land second front was opened much later, yes.
      The Battle of the Atlantic (1939-1945) is a military campaign of the Second World War, the struggle of the allies in the Anti-Hitler coalition with Nazi Germany and Italy for communications and dominance in the Atlantic Ocean and adjacent seas.
      And lend-lease helped reduce losses at the front.
      Of course, the impact on the outcome of WWII from the USSR is difficult to overestimate, but it is also incorrect to say that the allies "observed from the outside."
      1. -1
        12 May 2023 15: 21
        If the Battle of Britain is a second front, where is the first? In China?
        1. 0
          12 May 2023 16: 26
          Quote from Aken
          If the Battle of Britain is a second front, where is the first? In China?

          Firstly: I wrote - a kind of "second front", and secondly: if we are talking about WWII, then the first one, it turns out, was in Poland.
          1. 0
            12 May 2023 20: 38
            When your kind of second front took place, the war with Poland ended long ago. Even the war with France is over.
            So it was not the second and not the first, but the only front in Europe.
            1. 0
              13 May 2023 10: 29
              Quote from Aken
              When your kind of second front took place, the war with Poland ended long ago.

              Polish campaign of the Wehrmacht: September 1 - October 6, 1939.
              Battle of the Atlantic (first stage): September 1939 - May 1940.
              Quote from Aken
              Even the war with France is over.

              French campaign: May 10 - June 22, 1940.

              You are twisting history. "Absolutely independent battle"... Would you tell this to the front-line soldiers who used Lend-Lease ... You endured the whole burden - yes. The most significant and decisive contribution to the Victory - also yes. But your absolutism is absolutely inappropriate (sorry for the tautology).
  4. +2
    12 May 2023 05: 57
    There is an opinion that there was no WWII, but simply in the 20-30s there was a small respite from the war that began in 1914. After resting and gaining strength, the opposing states continued this war with even greater zeal. Personally, I prefer this theory...
    1. +1
      12 May 2023 08: 30
      I think it would be more correct to say that WWI did not solve all the problems that had accumulated by that time.
      But the difference between WWII is in the factor of the USSR with its communist ideology. This is me about the anti-Comintern pact, in which Italy and Japan took the side of their former enemy.
      So it's not a sequel.
  5. +1
    12 May 2023 07: 03
    “Let's think together what the word “world” means in the name of the war? Obviously, this is a war in which the whole world fought. But what is “the whole world”? The entire territory of the planet or the entire population of the planet, or more than half of them?
    Obviously, "the whole world" is not a territory. Otherwise, any war involving the British Empire, on which the sun never sets, turns into a world war, even an Anglo-Boer one.

    purely about the logic of the author .. if about the population of countries, then the war between China or India - on the machine - is it called a world war? and even with each and every one of them separately..
    1. 0
      12 May 2023 08: 32
      Correct line of thought.
      Only China + India = 3 billion, and the population of the Earth is 8 billion.
      1. +1
        12 May 2023 09: 21
        Quote from Aken
        Only China + India = 3 billion, and the population of the Earth is 8 billion.


        I think it’s still more correct to count - not the population and not the territories, but the number of countries participating precisely .. the vast majority of the countries of the planet participated in WW2 - one way or another ... therefore, I agree, the date is a moot point ... but you can always argue about the date .. for example, the First World War then did not start on 28.06.1914/XNUMX/XNUMX with a murder, but later .. perhaps, purely mathematically, then you can set the date - the date when a certain percentage of countries / populations were involved in the process .. or you can, as they think , from the moment the root cause of the war arose - and if you "look at the root" this approach seems right to me ..
        1. +1
          12 May 2023 10: 41
          WWI is considered from the date of the first declaration of war. Then the ads rained down like peas. There are no major differences here. Critical mass was reached quickly.
          But at first no one called WWI like that. It was the Great War. The first began to be called when the second happened.
        2. 0
          16 May 2023 14: 25
          Quote: Level 2 Advisor
          date is debatable...

          What is war? War is when the army began to destroy the enemy. Therefore, the beginning of the war must be considered from the moment of the first shot.
  6. +1
    12 May 2023 07: 28
    And I fully support the author. I used to calculate dates as well. It is very important. Enemies of Russia constantly want to say that the Great Patriotic War is a local war of the Soviet Union. Plus, they distort events by naming the beginning of World War 2 on September 1, thereby hinting that the USSR attacked small but proud Poland and is to blame for the start of the war. Real patriots should defend the interests of Russia, and not kneel before the Poles.
  7. +1
    12 May 2023 08: 17
    The author is somewhat unaware of the details.
    This would not have happened if the British did not decide on December 8 to oppose Japan, but allowed her to deal only with America and the ownerless French Cochinchina, and Germany and Italy did not decide on December 11 to declare war on the United States.

    Well, the British are more or less clear. But now, one wonders, why would Hitler need it, especially given the counteroffensive near Moscow that began the day before? I understand, allied duty and all that, but how could he help the samurai? Why deprive yourself of maneuver, even taking into account the unfolding deliveries to the USSR under Lend-Lease? This mystery is great.


    In fact, the Japanese decided there, attacking the British and American forces at the same time. They decided obviously wrong - their goal was the Dutch colonies, and the war with Britain and the USA went into the load, so to speak. On the other hand, the Japanese, not without reason, believed that the British and Americans would not let them gobble up the islands in any case.

    As for Hitler's actions, he had no allied obligations. But there was a desire to act more actively against transatlantic routes. He greatly underestimated the military potential of the United States, but the economic one was obvious - and from Hitler's point of view, more aggressive actions on the Atlantic communications helped to turn this potential off the war.

    So Hitler used what he thought was a good excuse to sink more American ships, and Roosevelt used what he thought was a good reason to get involved in a European war without much debate in Congress.

    And the very idea of ​​\uXNUMXb\uXNUMXbWWII / WWII is rich. Write out the Soviet-German conflict from WWII - here many will be in favor.
    1. 0
      12 May 2023 08: 38
      The British could not keep silent and lost Singapore.
      In 41, there was no lend-lease towards the USSR yet, German troops were torn at Moscow. Why attract more? But they did.
      I only see this option:
      The British thought that the United States would quickly defeat Japan and they did not risk anything.
      The Germans thought that Japan would quickly defeat the United States and they did not risk anything.
      What motives were in fact, it can hardly be found in the documents.
      1. -2
        12 May 2023 12: 53
        Quote from Aken
        In 41, there was no lend-lease towards the USSR yet, German troops were torn at Moscow

        What's the difference? As you noted, not without reason, the relationship between the Reich and the USSR should be considered separately from the war between Germany and Great Britain.
        Quote from Aken
        The British thought that the United States would quickly defeat Japan and they did not risk anything.

        The British did not think, but knew very well that in the event the United States entered the conflict, the Pacific theater of operations would be secondary. There have already been agreements on this matter.
        Quote from Aken
        The Germans thought that Japan would quickly defeat the United States and they did not risk anything.

        Hitler was not one of the most reasonable rulers, but you should not let him go to your level. Japan did not have a single chance to "defeat" the United States, as you put it, and such a task was never set before its armed forces. We read about the "Great Asian Sphere of Mutual Prosperity".

        But Hitler's hands itched to teach the hypocritical Anglo-Saxons a lesson - Britain by itself already by the middle of the 40th year had fought and then held on, not without the help of the currency and weapons oxygen cushion of the damned NATO crossed out overseas cousins. As you can imagine, this was very unpleasant for Hitler.
        1. -2
          12 May 2023 15: 27
          that in the event the United States enters the conflict, the Pacific theater of operations will be secondary.

          Where is the priority then?
          Hitler already taught the Anglo-Saxons. But with mixed success. Attracting the United States also now looks silly. But it is even more stupid to think that Hitler is a fool. We just don't know his reasons.
          If the Japanese thought they had no chance, they would capitulate immediately.
          1. -2
            12 May 2023 17: 57
            Quote from Aken
            Where is the priority then?

            Europe Fest, of course. You can denounce Eurocentrism as much as you like, but grandfathers were Eurocentrists.
            Quote from Aken
            We just don't know his reasons.

            Hitler actually talked quite a lot.
            Quote from Aken
            If the Japanese thought they had no chance

            No chance to "defeat" does not mean no chance to achieve military goals. When the Americans kicked the Spaniards out of Cuba and the Philippines, they didn't take Madrid and they didn't stick flags in any building.
            Japan's mission was
            a) interrupt the supply of Anglo-Americans to China and, accordingly, achieve a minimum acceptable peace there.
            b) to enclose a "zone of influence" in their part of the Pacific Ocean.

            As for the chances, we know perfectly well that the lack of chances does not mean the lack of desire to make a mess.
            1. 0
              12 May 2023 20: 45
              Europe Fest, of course.

              I'm afraid the Americans will not agree with you. They got their hands on Europe, or rather Africa, two years later and not earlier than they stopped the threat in the Pacific Ocean.
              Hitler actually talked quite a lot.

              If only he talked. And he, bastard, still did.
              No chance to "defeat" does not mean no chance to achieve military goals.

              The Americans defeated Spain. Madrid was not needed to end the war.
              But it is ridiculous to think that having lost the Hawaiian archipelago, the United States will capitulate.
              1. -1
                13 May 2023 09: 43
                Quote from Aken
                They got their hands on Europe, or rather Africa, two years later and not earlier than they stopped the threat in the Pacific Ocean.

                I see that a categorical refusal to be interested in history is the principled position of the authors of the section of the same name.

                Operation Torch began in November 42, less than a year later. The strategic offensive in the Pacific is basically the 44th year. Moreover, the actions of the army in Europe and the fleet in Asia were very little interconnected.
                Quote from Aken
                The Americans defeated Spain

                The Americans pushed back the Spaniards from some locations.
                Quote from Aken
                But it is ridiculous to think that having lost the Hawaiian archipelago, the United States will capitulate.

                Consequently, the defeat of the United States by the Japanese is impossible - they did not set themselves the task of burning Washington.
                1. 0
                  13 May 2023 11: 12
                  Quote: Negro
                  I see that a categorical refusal to be interested in history is the principled position of the authors of the section of the same name.

                  Oh yes, those are opinions.

                  Then everything is OK, it's your fault.
  8. +1
    12 May 2023 08: 27
    As for me, so casuistry. The main thing was that the Nazis were defeated and we know where and when.
  9. +2
    12 May 2023 08: 41
    Let's think together what does the word "world" mean in the name of the war? Obviously, this is a war in which the whole world fought. But what is "the whole world"? The entire territory of the planet or the entire population of the planet, or more than half of them?


    Neither one nor the other. A world war should be considered one in which the majority of significant, in terms of economic and military potential, states participate. What part of the world's population or total territory they make up is not so important. And secondly, both in the initial and in the final period, the participation in the world war of all its participants is not mandatory, since both escalation and de-escalation of the conflict can take place.
    A world war may well constitute a chain of local conflicts, if the cause-and-effect relationships between these conflicts are clearly visible.

    And the fact that armed conflicts in Europe are considered the beginning of world wars is a burp of Eurocentrism, which was quite natural at that time. The European subcontinent was indeed then considered the center of the world, and with good reason. And the "Honduras" are walking through the forest ...
    1. 0
      12 May 2023 08: 59
      Anatoly, in the terminology of your second paragraph, your first paragraph is "a burp of Eurocentrism, which was quite natural at that time."
      This is exactly what I want to get away from.
  10. +1
    12 May 2023 08: 46
    But now, one wonders, why would Hitler need it, especially given the counteroffensive near Moscow that began the day before? I understand, allied duty and all that, but how could he help the samurai?


    First of all - technologically. Supply of technologies and samples of German technology (in particular, aircraft engines).
    Since Stalin managed to make a split with the help of the PMR between the Reich and Japan, Hitler climbed out of his skin to overcome this split and persuade Japan to open a second front against the USSR in the Far East. But all attempts were in vain.
    1. +1
      12 May 2023 08: 55
      At that time, Germany was going to defeat the Soviet Union alone. The counteroffensive near Moscow lasted only 3 days with unclear prospects. The second front at the time of the decision was not needed by the Germans.
      And it did not become easier to supply aircraft engines to Japan after the declaration of war.
  11. -1
    12 May 2023 09: 00
    Verbiage and no more. World-shmirovaya ... We won and this is the main thing!
  12. 0
    12 May 2023 09: 01
    To the author, I recommend reading the book:
    When did WWII start and when did it end?

    It is well known that the Second World War began on September 1, 1939 and ended on September 2, 1945. Is it really? The well-known writer and publicist Andrei Parshev and historian Viktor Stepakov put forward a sensational hypothesis: the largest military conflict in the history of mankind began long before Europe turned into a huge battlefield, and ended many years after the ink dried on the acts of surrender and peaceful contracts.
    hi
    1. 0
      12 May 2023 10: 43
      Read. This is a slightly different approach, which has the right to exist but for understanding cause-and-effect relationships.
      The key thing for me is that I am attached not to the logic of events, but to the dates of legal actions - the declaration of war.
      And this is international law.
      1. 0
        12 May 2023 11: 00
        The key thing for me is that I am attached not to the logic of events, but to the dates of legal actions - the declaration of war.
        Thank you for the clarification. I would like to hear your assessment of what the CBO is from the point of view of international law? hi
        1. +1
          12 May 2023 21: 01
          Essentially the same as the American occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. They can and we can. The Turks can, the French can, the Saudis can. Everyone can.
          But this is not a war. Therefore, no international rules and restrictions come into force. Whoever declares war puts himself at a great disadvantage. After 45 years, declaring war has become out of fashion and out of date.
          I believe there will never be legally formalized wars on the planet.
          And for the exact wording, please contact the experts in international law.
          And I would love to hear them too.
          1. 0
            15 May 2023 08: 26
            But this is not a war.
            You are right, this is not a war in the truest sense of the word. Modern warfare is called Proxy Warfare.
            The goal of a proxy war is to exhaust the geopolitical enemy, create a lot of internal problems for him, and undermine the enemy’s reputation at the international level as much as possible. A proxy war is a superpower war of attrition.

            If we consider NWO through the prism of the Proxy War, then everything falls into place and it becomes clear why it is proceeding exactly as it is now. I think it's time to launch a series of articles covering the topic of the Proxy War on the pages of VO.
            hi
  13. +3
    12 May 2023 10: 38
    In fact, IMHO, just rewriting history for the sake of modern political fashion.
    Something went wrong, and the "elites" introduced the term "collective west" for the common people, and began to justify themselves by this. (which does not prevent them from boasting about record sales of resources there)
    1. +1
      12 May 2023 10: 44
      Sales of resources to the West are coming to naught. The Collective East is on the agenda.
      1. 0
        12 May 2023 16: 48
        "Get off", i.e. didn't get off. They write that the East is already simply reselling part of it to the West.
        They are margin.
        Russia - candy wrappers, beads, and new real estate of the oligarchs over the hill.

        sold for
  14. +3
    12 May 2023 11: 38
    A good article, I read it with interest .. even written somewhere with humor) bravo
  15. 0
    12 May 2023 12: 05
    What a pointless article with far-fetched explanations.
    Although after the author's own words
    My key is that I'm not attached to logic events, and to the dates of legal action - the declaration of war.

    much becomes clear.
  16. +3
    12 May 2023 13: 07
    In general, the author raised an interesting topic, although this is more a question of historical methodology.

    Here in Syria, directly or indirectly, up to 70 (!) States were involved. But no one in their right mind would call this a world war. The Syrian campaign eventually led to a geopolitical transformation, comparable in many respects to the "movement" that Arab socialism, coupled with pan-Arbism, staged there in the last century. The Baath is still alive, although formally banned in the same Iraq. And this feature doesn't work.

    Apparently we must agree that the main criterion for a "world war" is the scale of casualties and destruction, from which, as a result, this world itself will be horrified. Therefore, the Napoleonic wars are wars, and the First World War, namely, that the First World War.
  17. +1
    12 May 2023 13: 37
    Quote from Aken
    At that time, Germany was going to defeat the Soviet Union alone. The counteroffensive near Moscow lasted only 3 days with unclear prospects. The second front at the time of the decision was not needed by the Germans.


    Germany (more precisely, the Third Reich) did not fight the USSR alone. She led an entire coalition.
    And what about the "Axis Powers"? Who was part of this "Axis" (having concluded the Anti-Comintern Pact) and why was it called "Axis"? Who was at the other end of the "Axis"? Italy or Japan yet?
    If Japan had launched a database against the USSR, the situation of the latter would have deteriorated sharply. Wasn't the success of our counter-offensive partly due to the transfer of fresh divisions from Siberia and the Far East? Would this be possible if the Kwantung Army had crossed our border?

    The Reich needed a second front. Including because the Barbarossa plan was already bursting at the seams. According to the plan, Leningrad was already to be taken and part of the divisions of the GA "Sever" were to turn south, to take part in the capture of Moscow. But Leningrad was not taken, and the heroism of the Leningraders made it possible to forge considerable forces of the Germans (and Finns), which facilitated the defense of the capital.
    In such a situation, the help of the Japanese would be very helpful for Hitler. But he didn't get help.

    Quote from Aken
    And it did not become easier to supply aircraft engines to Japan after the declaration of war.


    But the scale of deliveries grew and the most successful Japanese fighter (by no means a "zero") flew with the same engine as the Me-109.
    1. 0
      12 May 2023 15: 37
      1. I repeat, in December 41, the Germans did not yet need a second front. December 42 is another matter.
      2. If there had been no war with the USA, the scale of deliveries of German engines could have been even greater.
      3. With the outbreak of the war in Indochina, Japan was suddenly not up to the Far East. Their resources are very scarce.
  18. +2
    12 May 2023 13: 46
    Quote from Aken
    Your first paragraph in the terminology of your second paragraph is "a burp of Eurocentrism, quite natural at that time."


    Do you think it will work? Alas, Eurocentrism is still strong. Because, at least for now, the Euro-Atlantic type of civilization dominates.

    The West is a "cultivated garden", and around - a "wild thicket". Who cares what happens more often? It is important - that "in the garden", he is in the spotlight.
    Natural Eurocentrism at that time was because in Europe there were metropolises of huge empires that covered most of the "ball". What happened in the metropolises was echoed in the colonies and dominions. Or did they simply not notice the defeat of France in 1940 in Algeria and Indochina? Hardly...
    Therefore, the war, which covered most of Europe ipso facto, acquired the status of a World War.
    1. 0
      12 May 2023 15: 32
      Because, at least for now, the Euro-Atlantic type of civilization dominates.

      It's right. But the Europeans destroy it with their own hands.
      So we are on the way to breaking the dominant paradigm and replacing the terminology.
  19. 0
    13 May 2023 08: 51
    Quote from Aken
    1. I repeat, in December 41, the Germans did not yet need a second front. December 42 is another matter.
    2. If there had been no war with the USA, the scale of deliveries of German engines could have been even greater.
    3. With the outbreak of the war in Indochina, Japan was suddenly not up to the Far East. Their resources are very scarce.


    1. Hitler himself thought otherwise. He was betting on a blitzkrieg, and the blitzkrieg had already failed. So - definitely needed, a protracted war for Germany was undesirable.
    In general, there are rare cases in history when the belligerent side refused the military assistance of the allies. Extra strength - does not happen.
    2. What was the real war between the Reich and the USA in 1941-1942? How could such databases affect the supply of aircraft engines or the transfer of licenses? I suspect not.
    3. The war in the Pacific did not require large ground forces at all: the Navy and the Air Force fought, basically. Or did many infantry divisions have to be withdrawn from the Kwantung Army? If we had to transfer forces - not so big. Moreover, the Japanese also had allies - the Manchukuo-Gou army and the former White Guards (Ataman Semenov had a whole corps). Our forces in the Far East were not very large, and they were armed with obsolete weapons.
    As for resources - a finger to the sky. The Japanese managed to capture a lot of territory and resources by the end of 1941. The limitation for them was insufficient production capacity, not resources.
    1. 0
      13 May 2023 17: 10
      1. At the time of the declaration of war by the United States, the failure of the attack on Moscow was not yet obvious.
      2. War at sea. And goods to Japan could only be delivered by sea.
      3. Proa of the army of Manchukuo and the army of Semyonov - sighed. The country's resources are not only infantry. It's money, raw materials. And, by the way, about resources - a finger to the sky. After the conquests in the South, the north is no longer interesting.
  20. 0
    13 May 2023 11: 18
    Quote: Uncle Lee
    In general, I congratulate everyone on the Victory Day. Our Great Victory!
    All these dates mean little ... The main thing is that the USSR defeated Germany, taking Berlin and defeated the Kwantung Army, liberating southern Sakhalin and the Kuriles!

    The main thing is that exactly in no way, no one draws any conclusions. The whole life of people is one continuous “dream”, in which humanity, turning over on its side, immediately forgets about the flashed moment of the past dream.
    Creepy Conclusion
  21. +1
    13 May 2023 12: 48
    When Adolf Aloizovich and Co. attacked the USSR, they attacked not a certain bloc like the Entente, but SPECIFICALLY THE USSR. In his then, non-bloc status. That is, they declared "de facto" war on the non-bloc USSR, which created an actual SEPARATE event, the so-called "Great Patriotic War". The fact that the USSR later converges with other opponents of the "Axis" does not change this fact - here the author is right, the Second World War is really a separate conflict within a certain world.
    If the GG had not attacked the USSR in 1941 - it’s not at all a fact that the USSR would have formed an alliance with the World Bank and the USA - nothing indicated this, and, moreover, in the Soviet-Finnish we were, frankly, on opposite sides of the barricades. And it is not at all necessary that he would become an enemy of the GG - after the so-called "Molotov-Ribbentrop".
    Actually, almost two years of our sitting "on the priest exactly" since September 1, 1939 and our general weak readiness to conduct effective large-scale operations at the beginning of the Second World War - indicates that we would have been sitting with a high degree of probability on the priest further if "Barbarossa" had not happened .
    Attempts to draw us into the "Axis" were sluggish and, given the general antico-propaganda of the GG, looked more like an empty rolling of balls. There were no attempts to draw us into the war against the GG (until 1.09.39), as you know, the West resisted our initiatives to let troops through the territory. Poland. After the attempt to draw us in from the West, the degree of "efficiency" differed little from the attempts to draw us in from the "Axis". The Bolsheviks were not particularly loved, and to put it mildly.

    The desire of the USSR to get into the conflict in Asia (within the framework until 1943 +++) was also minimal - despite Khasan, Khalkhin Gol and the halved Sakhalin. We were probably quite happy with the fact that the Yaps had their hands tied in an endless Sino-Japanese war. This is what is called "real politics". Although we kept on the Far East sign. forces, the ability to transfer these forces and operate at sea and supply these forces was absolutely not a cake for anything serious and not defensive.

    So if the GG attack didn’t happen - we would have every chance to stay in our “bear corner” in the form of a “thin neutral” - events could pass us by, just as they passed by Sweden, Spain, Turkey, LA . The probability of this, of course, would be small, but it also indicates that the Second World War had the prerequisites to become a separate conflict, within the general conflict.
    We could well not get into a war with Japan, because, unlike the GG, she, although she showed a lot of small hostile actions, did not directly attack us. And in this case, the entire Asian front of the conflict would not have touched us at all - that is, as a participant in BB2, we would have been a purely European participant.

    Further, despite the "Lend-Lease" (which provided great assistance), directly. the participation of the forces of the West (excluding individual volunteers, Normandie-Neman and other homeopathic forces on the scale of the Second World War) in the liberation of territories. The USSR was not. That is, legally, we "chased the German" on our own.
    This also indicates that the Second World War, as a separate conflict, undoubtedly took place.
  22. +1
    13 May 2023 14: 34
    Quote: Knell Wardenheart
    If the GG had not attacked the USSR in 1941 - it’s not at all a fact that the USSR would have formed an alliance with the World Bank and the USA - nothing indicated this, and, moreover, in the Soviet-Finnish we were, frankly, on opposite sides of the barricades. And it is not at all necessary that he would become an enemy of the GG - after the so-called "Molotov-Ribbentrop".


    Through the fault of the democracies themselves, by the way. Which clearly showed what they stand as allies in the episodes with Czechoslovakia (1938) and Poland (1939).
    In the "Winter War", let me remind you, England, in fact, was on the same side of the barricades with the Reich. The British helped the Finns and the Germans too. Such is the squiggle.
    PMR - was a way to delay the war and temporarily redirect the aggression of the Reich to the West. The USSR at that time did not "sit sluggishly on its buttocks", but carried out a large-scale program for the deployment of its armed forces and their re-equipment with new models of military equipment. When did the T-34 and KV, Yak-1, LaGG really go into the series?

    Quote: Knell Wardenheart
    There were no attempts to draw us into the war against the GG (until 1.09.39), as you know, the West resisted our initiatives to let troops through the territory. Poland.


    First of all, Poland itself resisted, which in this episode was an ally of Germany. And the West resisted our initiatives precisely because it hoped to use Hitler as its "Moor" and was afraid that the USSR would be able to crush Hitlerism before the "Moor" played its role. Germany before the capture of the Czech Republic was still too weak.

    Quote: Knell Wardenheart
    So if the GG attack didn’t happen - we would have every chance to stay in our “bear corner” in the form of a “thin neutral” - events could pass us by, just as they passed by Sweden, Spain, Turkey, LA .


    Absolutely out of the question. The war between the Reich and the USSR is a key element of the combination.
    And where else could one get so much "lebensraum"?

    Quote: Knell Wardenheart
    We could well not get into a war with Japan, because, unlike the GG, she, although she showed a lot of small hostile actions, did not directly attack us.


    Firstly, these minor actions (including the sinking of Soviet ships by Japanese ships) were quite enough to declare war. Secondly, why miss such an opportunity to take revenge for the defeat in the Russo-Japanese war and return their lost territories? Thirdly, why not help the future strategically important ally - Mao Tse-Tung and the CCP? You can also think of North Korea and Vietnam.
    Fourthly, the allies insisted on the participation of the USSR in the war against Japan, providing financial incentives (discounts for Len-Lease payments).

    Quote: Knell Wardenheart
    This also indicates that the Second World War, as a separate conflict, undoubtedly took place.


    Given the scale of this "separate conflict", the degree of involvement of the Reich in it, the scale of the losses of the Armed Forces of the Reich, which undoubtedly affected the course of hostilities in the rest of the theater - it cannot be singled out, the Second World War is a key element of World War II as a whole.
    1. 0
      13 May 2023 15: 28
      The USSR at that time did not "sit sluggishly on the priest", but carried out a large-scale program for the deployment of its armed forces and their re-equipment with new models of military equipment

      The numbers show that we prepared, to put it mildly, sucks. Considering that the life motive of the preparation was the potential ability to withstand the "joint blow of the imperialist powers" - we withstood the blow of Germany + Austria + Hungary + Romania (and to a heap by that time already thoroughly dented Italy) with an unrealistic creak. I don’t want to start a useless dispute overgrown with moss for a long time at this place, but our preparation (although it was carried out) within the framework of Stalin’s concept with his “socialism in a single country”, provided for most of the action near our borders, maximum impact on neighboring states . The GGs should have understood that the USSR had no resources for a major Euro-action in terms of an offensive, and the ability after the Finnish War raised questions. However, these defensive forces also inevitably had to be valued higher than they were estimated by the Germans. Hitler had no reason to fear a rapprochement between the USSR and the World Bank or the United States in 1941 - a year before that, the World Bank seriously considered the removal of Baku oil production from the air, and the American bourgeoisie sharply lost interest in chewing gum friendship with the end of the Great Depression and shifting focus to the Asian threat. Stalin and Co. did not know how to find a common language with the bourgeoisie, the hysteria of 1937 weaned them from showing this initiative in the USSR itself almost completely.
      Actually, the USSR itself also could not threaten the GG in 1941 - as we already know by that time all the "acute" questions on the continent. Europe had already been decided by the Wehrmacht, the guys were in the juice itself, and after the Soviet-Finnish, I think that our generals even thought that the Germans were magicians and wizards in terms of chopping anything with a can opener.

      So if "Barbarossa" hadn't happened, we would have sat for a sweet soul, all the more so since we were seriously expecting Japanese aggression to the heap.

      As for entering the war with Japan - I perfectly understand the shaft of prerequisites for this - I only point out that before our entry this front was a "safe haven" for us against the backdrop of what was happening in Asia in those years.


      Absolutely out of the question. The war between the Reich and the USSR is a key element of the combination.
      And where else could one get so much "lebensraum"?

      Take away, Adolf had every opportunity to turn the Mediterranean into "Nostrum Mare" and acquire a springboard for pumping out everything that he would need from BV and North Africa. Moreover, he put effort into it - but it was a half-hearted and unsystematic effort, completely not worth the potential benefits. The real alternative to the war against the USSR with its dead climate, some kind of industrialization, an evil and rebellious population was the North African Front. Moreover, the interception of Suez would allow the Germans (purely hypothetically) much more convenient to communicate with their eastern allies, without which they were almost nominal. And also much more effective to incite the Turks to participate in the "Axis".
      Instead, they prefer the USSR due to the so-called "continental thinking". There was such a mistake for them.
  23. 0
    14 May 2023 02: 36
    In fact, he fully entered the Second World War not only in the West, but also in the East, only joining the final of the general war against Japan, and this participation lasted 25 days
    Author - you really offended .....
    The USSR joined the final ..... it was directly breathed in by the Tang spirit.
  24. 0
    14 May 2023 07: 59
    Quote: Knell Wardenheart
    The figures show that we prepared, to put it mildly, sucks. Considering that the life motive of the preparation was the potential ability to withstand the "joint blow of the imperialist powers" - we withstood the blow of Germany + Austria + Hungary + Romania (and to a heap by that time already thoroughly dented Italy) with an unrealistic creak. I don’t want to start a useless dispute overgrown with moss for a long time at this place, but our preparation (although it was carried out) within the framework of Stalin’s concept with his “socialism in a single country”, provided for most of the action near our borders, maximum impact on neighboring states


    Shitty? And what, it was possible to prepare better, taking into account real opportunities?
    The Red Army at that time was carrying out rearmament, it should have been completed by 1942. Well, who could have expected that France (probably prepared "badly") would be able to hold out for only a couple of months, despite the powerful defensive fortifications of the "Maginot Line"?
    That "badly" prepared Poland will merge so easily that its government and generals will simply leave the country to its fate and flee the country?
    Politicians and statesmen proceed in their planning from precedents, and in the recent past, both Poland and France showed much greater resilience and combat readiness.

    Actually, in 1941, we held the "joint strike of the imperialist powers," the strike of the coalition, which both in terms of total population and industrial potential was noticeably superior to the USSR.

    This is only at the level of slogans like "little bloodshed, mighty blow." In reality, Stalin and his comrades were preparing for the worst scenarios. That is why "doubles" of the most important defense enterprises in the Urals and Siberia were created, at a great distance from the western borders of the USSR. In particular, an aircraft plant in my city of Irkutsk, although building such a large enterprise here, in terms of logistics and infrastructure, was both difficult and expensive. And only a very naive person can believe that the plan for the evacuation of thousands of enterprises, implemented in the initial period of the war, could have been developed on the knee after June 22.


    Quote: Knell Wardenheart
    Hitler had no reason to fear a rapprochement between the USSR and the World Bank or the United States in 1941 - a year before that, the World Bank seriously considered the removal of Baku oil production from the air, and the American bourgeoisie sharply lost interest in chewing gum friendship with the end of the Great Depression and shifting focus to the Asian threat. Stalin and Co. did not know how to find a common language with the bourgeoisie, the hysteria of 1937 weaned them from showing this initiative in the USSR itself almost completely.


    Not quite right. Yes, England and France really hatched aggressive plans against the USSR. But the situation changed radically when the "strange war" abruptly ceased to be "strange" and Hitler showed very clearly that he no longer intends to dance to someone else's tune. And after Dunkirk, after the first large-scale air raids, it dawned on the Britons that the games were over and they were beginning to be really threatened. Under these conditions, the rapprochement between England and the USSR became very real. Hitler understood this very well, he declared openly that the USSR was the last hope of the British. That is why he decided not to spend much energy on the British, but to direct aggression against the USSR. If the blitzkrieg had succeeded and the Reich would have gained access to the industrial potential and resources of the USSR, the song of England would have been sung and they would have been forced to make peace with the Reich, on favorable terms for the Germans.

    Economic problems in the United States (primarily in the financial sector) were before the entry into WWII. So finally it was possible to end the crisis precisely thanks to the war.
    1937, the notorious repressions, have nothing to do with the diplomacy of the USSR. Diplomacy was quite flexible and skillful. And the desire to find a common language with the bourgeoisie disappeared after the Munich Agreement, to which the "democracies" clearly showed their political short-sightedness, implicated in Russophobia. It became clear that the democrats should be dealt with only when the fat polar fox came close to their own aphedron.

    Quote: Knell Wardenheart
    As for entering the war with Japan - I perfectly understand the shaft of prerequisites for this - I only point out that before our entry this front was a "safe haven" for us against the backdrop of what was happening in Asia in those years.


    What was the result of the skillful diplomacy of Stalin, who managed to drive a wedge between Germany and Japan by the conclusion of the PMR and the "non-shitty" actions of the Soviet troops under the leadership of Zhukov at Khalkhin Gol.
    1. -1
      15 May 2023 02: 41
      Actually, in 1941, we held the "joint strike of the imperialist powers," the strike of the coalition, which both in terms of total population and industrial potential was noticeably superior to the USSR.

      The European "Axis" with which we fought was inferior to the USSR in terms of population and already involved significant forces in the occupation of other states. It is incorrect to take into account the resources of Japan in this, in view of the insignificant economic and industrial relations after 1941.
      The industrial power of the GG itself was certainly significant, but I remind you that the USSR has been slandering tanks since the 1920s, and the sausage makers have been doing this (as well as the fleet, aviation, submarines, and so on) since 1933, and to be more precise, even later. And the first samples, frankly, were not impressive. Unlike the USSR, German resources (including human resources, and I remind you that directly GG, without a coalition, was inferior to the USSR in the number of population by 2.5 times (69 (1939) by 185 (1940)) were dispersed on a large-scale construction of the submarine fleet , actions in geographically remote regions (Atlantic, North Africa, Norway), the German supply was forced to supply all this, in parallel with the slander (which, I recall, began much later than in the USSR).
      When they applaud in our country that German industry was super-powerful, and the industry of the USSR was just being created, it is worth noting that German industry also traded its products outside, unlike the industry of the union, which even launched galoshes for its citizens far from right away - everything already went exclusively to its military. The Germans, in the pre-war period, covered the needs within the country and supplied outside (including the USSR). So when taking into account their capacities, this should also be taken into account. And by the way, reparations, with which the German economy until 1933 was put in the pose of a river dweller, the little man didn’t live there super either. Of course, yogurt and fermented baked milk were not harvested as much as in the Union of them, but it’s not from a good life that Hitlers come to power, right?)

      Of the other industrial capacities of the European "Axis", a couple of good things can be said, except perhaps about the Italian and Czech. Let's say Italian "was" and "could". But, purely potentially. Of course, I am not an expert, but all my research on this issue led me to the conclusion that it is incorrect even to compare the interaction between Germans and Italians with what we called "Lend-Lease". The Italians "worked for themselves." And their impact within the "Axis" on the USSR was minimal.
      The Czechs were not voluntary members - yes, they worked, but they supplied, but a lot. But, what is called, "without a soul." The main slander of the "iron" was on the Germans.
      Actually, it was the German planes that "carried out" our (by the way, superior in numbers) aviation in the first days of the war at airfields, and the German tanks (for the most part) smashed ours at the beginning of the war. That is, it is incorrect to invent about some abstract entities of "half-world against the USSR".

      The preparation was really not ice, whether you like this thesis or not. On the eve of the war, we pecked at territories that were extremely unfriendly to us, knowing full well that the war would be soon (it was already underway, by the way), we moved the defensive lines from the places of established supply and habitable basing to the devil on Easter cakes, and this, of course, did not help.
      A bunch of T-35-type monster slander products turned out to be useless rubbish, it "suddenly" turned out that we had the wildest lack of aluminum to upset the retiring aircraft, that our fleet was driven away with these very rags from the Baltic and literally walled up with all (almost) resources invested in it through barriers and minelaying. It turned out that we do not have adequate vehicles for the transfer of infantry according to the conditions of our roads (sic!) - we, damn it, were preparing in words to wage a highly maneuverable and offensive war, but at the same time we had a fierce seam with this very mobility of the transfer of forces. Everything about the tank zoo was also very sad - we riveted the wagons of light tanks already in the era when it was a no brainer that the infantry would be saturated with means of combating them, and they would not shit with bricks at the sight of some T-70 crawling on them (which, by the way, they still continued to rivet almost until the debut of "Panther").

      Resources were scattered not very cleverly, although not always mediocre. Successes could easily coexist with huge gaping holes.

      Not quite right. Yes, England and France really hatched aggressive plans against the USSR.

      There is a real politician, but there is that shiz generated by Soviet propaganda from the beginning of the XNUMXth century, in which there is a certain super-mega insidious plan to nurture Hitler and send him to the east by those states with which the Germans directly shared access to resources, bordered and competed . In no way do I want to spend even a quantum of effort trying to overcome these fairy tales for collective farmers, because in principle this is ineradicable in the minds of the rednecks.
      I will only note that the relationship between the WB and the USSR simply could not be good - we boosted the Comintern, called for a world revolution, spat on the business and military obligations of the Republic of Ingushetia and so on and so forth. Actually, against the Western elites allied to us (even the same Churchill, who practically laid down his career because of the Dardanelles) according to BB1, for years we began to carry fierce trash, which naturally buried all normal relationships. And when people began to get there in a shaft, who intelligibly explained to the local bourgeoisie that "the Reds are not joking", they, of course, made every effort to ensure that we stayed behind the Curzon line.
      When "somewhere out there" they call to take away your acquired property and to put you on fertilizer - this is not very conducive to dialogue, sir.
      The British directed the efforts of their diplomacy not so much to draw the USSR into an alliance (until 1941), but to prevent the USSR from being in the "Axis". They there perfectly understood that the former Freikorps and Nazis were unlikely to sing with the leftists, but they also understood that they themselves had practically nothing in common with the leftists. Before BB2, England and France believed that, given their colonies, they were "big boys" in "their" area of ​​responsibility (such as Europe-Africa-BV) and kept the United States at a distance from all this. BB2 showed that no, it's not, and VB had to rush into the arms of Uncle Sam. The USSR is NOT in this scheme, stupidly NO. We were a classic situational ally, with whom it was precisely the direct enemy that coincided. Due to their stupidity, the top of the GG did not understand the full depth of the mutual contempt of the leftists and Western white gloves, the full depth of distrust between them. Hitler literally did everything to bring the USSR and the West closer in that war. Without the factor of direct simultaneous war, no alliance between the World Bank + USA and the USSR would be possible in principle. In the West, alliances before BB2 were built with understandable and predictable states, and not with those who "did not bring" the last union and are building something muddy at home, bubbling about world dispossession.

      What was the result of Stalin's skillful diplomacy

      Ridiculous. A wedge between Japan and Germany was driven by geography and the fact that both the Japanese and the Germans were stubborn Nazis. The Japanese slammed the German colonies in Asia in WW1 and saw the Germans as dumb as the other Europeans whose colonies they were going to occupy in WW2. The Germans (and specifically Hitler) despised the Japanese and did not trust them, they generally poured a lot of resources into China before the war, and they would have poured in further if purely political considerations had not happened.
      A simultaneous attack by Japan and Germany on the USSR would have been practically ruled out because of this - the parties did not respect each other (de facto), although they could sing diferambs in words. Also, such an attack would be extremely difficult to coordinate with the technologies of those years.
      Based on the conflicts of the late 1930s, Yapi concluded that the war against the USSR would be the same toffee with varying success as the Japanese-Chinese one. They needed resources "here and now" and not that's all. Hitler could not give them oil, in fact, this made their union more political than really military.
  25. 0
    14 May 2023 13: 27
    Quote from Aken
    1. At the time of the declaration of war by the United States, the failure of the attack on Moscow was not yet obvious.
    2. War at sea. And goods to Japan could only be delivered by sea.
    3. Proa of the army of Manchukuo and the army of Semyonov - sighed. The country's resources are not only infantry. It's money, raw materials. And, by the way, about resources - a finger to the sky. After the conquests in the South, the north is no longer interesting.


    1. As well as the success of the operation to capture Moscow. The previous plan (according to "Barbarossa") had to be changed, since the GA "Sever" was bound by the blockade of Leningrad. Under these conditions, the help of the Japanese would be welcome.
    2. In the first year of the war, the Japanese had an advantage at sea. In any case, the Yankees could not prevent the exchange of Germans and Japanese. Part of the cargo was delivered by submarines, and their search and interception at that time in the ocean was not an easy task.
    3. Northern China was rich in resources, by the way. The Kwantung Army (like its allies) not only provided for itself, but also supplied the metropolis with ore and coal.
    Well, resources are different. And in the Far East and Eastern Siberia, the Japanese sharpened their teeth even before WWII, which is why they took part in the intervention during the years of our Civil War. Imperialism is such a thing, it knows no limits. The Japanese were interested in all of Asia. The Manchu army was not so weak, the Manchus themselves were good warriors, adapted to local (very difficult) conditions. Corps Semenov - selected cavalry, Cossacks. Given that in those days, east of the Urals, we had fewer people than in present-day Moscow, we should not underestimate them.
    1. 0
      15 May 2023 00: 33
      The army of Manchukuo was dominated not by the Manchus, but by the Han. And the population of this puppet state itself was predominantly Han. The Manchus were in a clear minority, a significant, if not most, part of them was Sinicized.
  26. +1
    16 May 2023 09: 33
    Quote: Knell Wardenheart
    The European "Axis" with which we fought was inferior to the USSR in terms of population and already involved significant forces in the occupation of other states.


    Oh really? Maybe you can back it up with a specific number? And do not forget that volunteers from countries occupied by the Reich fought on the side of the Reich.

    So after all, the USSR could not use the entire army. Even at the peak - no more than 75% of the total. Nobody canceled the garrison service, considerable forces were kept in the Far East (against the same Japan) and in Central Asia and the Caucasus (Iran, Turkey).

    Quote: Knell Wardenheart
    The industrial power of the GG itself was certainly significant, but I remind you that the USSR has been slandering tanks since the 1920s, and the sausage makers have been doing this (as well as the fleet, aviation, submarines, and so on) since 1933, and to be more precise, even later.


    But before the Treaty of Versailles, the Germans had no experience in the production of the main types of weapons (including tanks)?
    Yes, restrictions on military production were imposed on Germany after the defeat in WWI. But neither factories, nor scientific and engineering personnel, nor technologies have gone anywhere and have been carefully preserved. And the USSR had to create a lot from scratch. In one design bureau of Messershimdt, more specialists worked than in all Soviet specialized design bureaus. And the Germans honed the technology on civilian counterparts. The Me-109 had a predecessor - the civilian Me-108.
    And let's not forget that the industrial power of Germany has grown significantly due to the industrial potential of Austria and the Czech Republic (pre-war Czechoslovakia surpassed Italy in this indicator). And then - the industrial capacities of other European countries were added, partly friendly, partly occupied. The Germans loaded French factories with the production of civilian products for themselves, which made it possible to transfer some of the German enterprises that previously produced civilian goods to a war footing. And the stolen capital could be used to purchase everything you need from neutrals (even from the same USA).

    Quote: Knell Wardenheart
    And by the way, reparations, with which the German economy until 1933 was put in the pose of a river dweller, the little man didn’t live there super either.


    Until 1929, Germany experienced an economic boom, growth rates were record-breaking, even reparations did not interfere much. After the crisis began - yes, but then it was sour for all capitalist countries, for the Yankees and the French too.

    Quote: Knell Wardenheart
    The Italians "worked for themselves." And their impact within the "Axis" on the USSR was minimal.


    And how many specifically Italians passed through the Eastern Front? Not so minimal, however.

    Quote: Knell Wardenheart
    The Czechs were not voluntary members - yes, they worked, but they supplied, but a lot. But, what is called, "without a soul." The main slander of the "iron" was on the Germans.


    Emotions do not play a role, with or without a soul. They produced a lot for the needs of the Reich.

    Quote: Knell Wardenheart
    The preparation was really not ice, whether you like this thesis or not. On the eve of the war, we pecked at territories that were extremely unfriendly to us, knowing full well that the war would be soon (it was already underway, by the way), we moved the defensive lines from the places of established supply and habitable basing to the devil on Easter cakes, and this, of course, did not help.


    Was it necessary to give these territories to Hitler? Do you think that would improve our situation?


    Quote: Knell Wardenheart
    A bunch of T-35-type monster slander products turned out to be useless rubbish, it "suddenly" turned out that we had the wildest lack of aluminum to upset the retiring aircraft, that our fleet was driven away with these very rags from the Baltic and literally walled up with all (almost) resources invested in it through barriers and minelaying. It turned out that we do not have adequate vehicles for the transfer of infantry according to the conditions of our roads (sic!) - we, damn it, were preparing in words to wage a highly maneuverable and offensive war, but at the same time we had a fierce seam with this very mobility of the transfer of forces. Everything about the tank zoo was also very sad - we riveted the wagons of light tanks already in the era when it was a no brainer that the infantry would be saturated with means of combating them, and they would not shit with bricks at the sight of some T-70 crawling on them (which, by the way, they still continued to rivet almost until the debut of "Panther").


    T-35 was produced as many as 59 pieces. Not so much. And was it only in our country that multi-turreted tanks were produced? Fashion for them from "Europe" came to us.
    Problems with aluminum were known long before the start of the war, which is why pine veneer was used to build aircraft.
    And what should the BF do if the coast is under the Germans? Of course, retreat. But to say that the navy ate bread in vain is wrong. Thanks to the fleet, Leningrad was also defended.

    Well, excuse me, we didn’t have time to produce a / t in the right quantity, there was no magic wand. Even the German industry did not fully cope with such a task, even captured cars did not always save the situation. So advanced Hans sometimes had to be "mare drivers".

    We started producing light tanks (T-26 and BT) when everyone was still not very good at anti-tank guns. And the tanks were light, because they were not purely tracked, but wheeled and tracked. What was needed was mobility and a large power reserve. It was impossible to put heavy tanks on wheels, and they learned to produce wear-resistant tracks only shortly before WWII, after which the production of medium and heavy tanks became an acceptable option.
    T-70s were produced at automobile factories and they had automobile engines. Yes, they were not suitable for tank battles, but light tanks even now find combat use.

    Quote: Knell Wardenheart
    Resources were scattered not very cleverly, although not always mediocre. Successes could easily coexist with huge gaping holes.


    And therefore, having a smaller industrial potential and a lack of some significant resources, they were able to surpass the enemy in the production of basic types of weapons. What pre-revolutionary Russia could only dream of.

    Quote: Knell Wardenheart
    We were a classic situational ally, with whom it was precisely the direct enemy that coincided.


    England has never had other allies and never has!
    Just like the US, by the way. The United States has only servants and slaves, what other unions are just words.
    And the United States, in "real politics" was the enemy of England. Since the whole combination (started by the American elite) was to weaken England (at the hands of Hitler), and then help the British Empire, fall apart and establish their own control over its former colonies and dominions.
    Similarly - with other European powers, the owners of the colonies. They were plucked by the Japanese (also fed by the Yankees), and then the Japanese were gouged by the Yankees themselves (with the help of the USSR), after which the former colonies also ended up in the American sphere of influence. With Korea, it turned out half, and with Vietnam - not very well, but on the whole - successfully.

    Quote: Knell Wardenheart
    A wedge between Japan and Germany was driven by geography and the fact that both the Japanese and the Germans were stubborn Nazis.


    Geography did not prevent them from concluding the Anti-Comintern Pact, which was directly directed against the USSR. By the way, why was "Axis" called Axis? The Axis has two ends, and what countries were at the ends?
    Geography does not interfere with coordinated military operations and being allies if the allies are geographically close to a common enemy.

    It was the PMR that drove the wedge. The conclusion of the Pact with the USSR by Germany (which did not even inform the Japanese of this) while Japan was conducting its databases against the USSR at Khalkhin Gol, the Japanese perceived as a direct betrayal of their interests.
    And how seriously the Japanese took it is proved by the fact that the Japanese government (which concluded its Anti-Comintern Pact with Germany and started a database against the USSR) immediately after it became known about the PMR (Stalin personally informed the Japanese ambassador in Moscow about his conclusion, and he telegraphed to Tokyo), resigned in full force. The new Japanese government agreed to peace talks with the USSR.

"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), Kirill Budanov (included to the Rosfinmonitoring list of terrorists and extremists)

“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 Lev; Ponomarev Ilya; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; Mikhail Kasyanov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"