The UK and US will wait "until Germany is mortally wounded by the Russian offensive"

67
The UK and US will wait "until Germany is mortally wounded by the Russian offensive"


prehistory


The leaders of the great powers gathered in Tehran to resolve a number of difficult issues related to the continuation of the war against Nazi Germany, the post-war structure of Europe and the entry of the USSR into the war with Japan.



First we had to decide where to hold the conference. In Western Europe there was nowhere or it was dangerous to hold a meeting of the Big Three. The Americans and British did not want to hold the conference on Soviet territory. In August 1943, Moscow was informed that neither Arkhangelsk nor Astrakhan were suitable for such a conference. Roosevelt and Churchill proposed a meeting in Fairbanks, Alaska.

Stalin refused to leave Moscow for such a long distance at such a tense time. The Soviet leader proposed holding a meeting in a state where there were representations of all three powers, for example, in Iran. In addition to Tehran, Cairo (proposed by Churchill), Istanbul and Baghdad were considered as “conference capitals”. We settled on Tehran, since at that moment it was controlled by Soviet and British troops, and there was also an American contingent there.

The Iranian operation (Operation "Concord") was carried out by Anglo-Soviet troops at the end of August - the first half of September 1941 (How the USSR and England occupied Iran in 1941). Allied forces occupied Iran due to a number of military-strategic and economic considerations. The USSR and England preventively eliminated a potential bridgehead of the Third Reich and brought Iranian oil fields under control. Also, the Russians and the British created a southern transport corridor through which the allies could support Russia as part of the Lend-Lease program.

Units of the Red Army occupied Northern Iran. British troops controlled the southwestern provinces of Iran. American troops, under the pretext of protecting cargo delivered to the Soviet Union, entered Iran at the end of 1942. Without any formalities, the Americans occupied the ports of Bandar Shahpur and Khorramshahr. An important communication line now passed through Iranian territory, through which American strategic cargo was transferred to the USSR.

In general, the situation in Iran, although difficult, was controlled. The Soviet 182nd Mountain Rifle Regiment was stationed in the Persian capital, guarding the most important facilities (before the start of the conference it was replaced by a more trained unit). Most ordinary Persians treated Soviet people with respect. This facilitated the actions of Soviet intelligence, which easily found willing assistants among the Iranians.


Marshal of the Soviet Union, Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR and Chairman of the State Defense Committee of the USSR Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin, US President Franklin Roosevelt and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill at the Tehran Conference. Standing from left to right: US Presidential Advisor Harry Hopkins, USSR People's Commissar for Foreign Affairs Vyacheslav Mikhailovich Molotov. Second from right is British Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden. November 29, 1943

Arrival of the Big Three in Iran


Stalin refused to fly by plane and went to the conference on November 22, 1943 on letter train No. 501, which traveled through Stalingrad and Baku. Beria was personally responsible for traffic safety; he was traveling in a separate carriage. The delegation also included Molotov, Voroshilov, Shtemenko, relevant employees of the People's Commissariat of Foreign Affairs and the General Staff.

We took off from Baku on two planes. The first was flown by ace pilot, commander of the 2nd Special Purpose Air Division Viktor Grachev; Stalin, Molotov and Voroshilov were flying on the plane. Commanding aviation long-range Alexander Golovanov personally flew the second aircraft.

Churchill went from London to Cairo, where he was waiting for the American president to once again coordinate the positions of the United States and England on the main issues of negotiations with the Soviet leader. Roosevelt crossed the Atlantic Ocean on the battleship Iowa, accompanied by a significant escort. After a nine-day sea passage, the American squadron arrived in the Algerian port of Oran. Roosevelt then arrived in Cairo. On November 28, delegations of the three great powers were already in the Iranian capital.

Due to the threat from German agents, extensive measures were taken to ensure the security of the Big Three. The USSR delegation stopped on the territory of the Soviet embassy. The British settled on the territory of the British embassy. The British and Soviet diplomatic missions were located on opposite sides of the same street in the Iranian capital, no more than 50 m wide. The American president, due to the threat of sabotage, accepted an invitation to live in the building of the Soviet embassy. The American embassy was located on the outskirts of the city, which seriously impaired security capabilities.

The meetings took place at the Soviet embassy, ​​where Churchill walked along a specially built covered corridor that connected the Soviet and British missions. Around the Soviet-British diplomatic complex united by this “security corridor,” the Soviet and British intelligence services created three rings of reinforced security, supported by armored vehicles. The entire press in Tehran had to stop its activities, telephones, telegraph and radio communications were turned off.

Berlin, relying on numerous agents, tried to organize an assassination attempt on the leaders of hostile powers (Operation Long Jump). However, Soviet intelligence knew about this operation. In addition, Soviet intelligence officers, together with their British colleagues from MI6, took direction and deciphered all messages from German radio operators who were preparing a bridgehead for the landing of a sabotage group. The German radio operators were intercepted, and then the entire German intelligence network (more than 400 people) was captured. Some of them were converted. The assassination attempt on the leaders of the USSR, USA and England was prevented.


Stalin kisses the "Sword of Stalingrad" at the presentation ceremony in the conference room of the Soviet embassy during the Tehran Conference. British Prime Minister Winston Churchill stands in front of J.V. Stalin. To the right of Stalin is the People's Commissar for Foreign Affairs of the USSR V. M. Molotov. “Sword of Stalingrad” is an award sword made by special order of King George VI of Great Britain as a sign of admiration for the courage and fortitude of the defenders of Stalingrad. Kept in the Museum of the Battle of Stalingrad. November 29, 1943


Member of the State Defense Council of the USSR Kliment Efremovich Voroshilov (holds the Stalingrad sword after the presentation ceremony in the conference hall of the Soviet embassy during the Tehran Conference. After the presentation ceremony, the sword was examined by US President F. Roosevelt (sitting in the center), and after that Voroshilov again accepted the king’s award Great Britain George VI and handed it over to an officer of the Soviet honor guard. On the left in the frame is Stalin, on the right is Churchill. Behind Roosevelt stands his son, US Air Force Colonel Elliott Roosevelt, who served as the president's aide-de-camp during the conference.

The problem of opening a “second front”


Among the most important issues discussed in Tehran were:

1) the problem of the Allies opening a “second front”. This was the most difficult question. England and the United States did their best to delay the opening of a second front in Western Europe. In addition, Churchill hoped to open a “Balkan Front” with the participation of Turkey in order to, by advancing through the Balkans, cut off the Russians from the most important centers of Central Europe;

2) the Polish question - about the borders of Poland after the war;

3) the issue of the USSR entering the war with the Japanese Empire;

4) the question of the future of Iran, granting it independence;

5) issues of the post-war structure of Europe - primarily decided the fate of Germany and ensuring security in the world after the war.

The decision to open the so-called The “second front”, that is, the landing of Allied troops in Europe and the creation of the Western Front, was supposed to significantly accelerate the fall of the Third Reich. After the strategic turning point in the Great Patriotic War, which occurred during the Battles of Stalingrad and Kursk, the situation on the Eastern (Russian) Front developed favorably for the USSR.

German troops suffered irreparable losses and could no longer make up for them, and the German military-political leadership lost the strategic initiative in the war. The Wehrmacht switched to strategic defense. The Red Army pushed back the enemy, liberated the Donbass and other regions of the Ukrainian SSR, crossed the Dnieper and recaptured Kyiv. The Russians drove the enemy out of the North Caucasus and landed in Crimea.

But victory was still far away; the German Empire was still a formidable adversary with powerful armed forces and strong industry. The Germans controlled vast areas of the USSR and Eastern, Southeastern, Central and Western Europe. It was possible to accelerate the defeat of the Third Reich and its allies only through the joint efforts of the three great powers.

The Allies promised to open a second front back in 1942, but a year passed and there was no progress. Militarily, the Allies were ready to begin the operation by July-August 1943, when a fierce battle was taking place on the Eastern Front on the Oryol-Kursk Bulge. An expeditionary army of 500 was deployed in England, which was in full combat readiness, it was provided with everything necessary, including ships and vessels for combat cover, fire support and landing. The Allies could provide air superiority. The generals were eager to fight.

The front was not opened mainly for geopolitical reasons. London and Washington were not going to help Moscow. Soviet intelligence found out that in 1943 the Allies would not open a second front in northern France. They would wait "until Germany was mortally wounded by the Russian advance."


Joseph Stalin and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill at a reception at the British Embassy on the occasion of Churchill's birthday during the Tehran Conference. November 30, 1943

It must be remembered that London and Washington were the instigators of World War II (World War II - the war of the USA and England against the USSR; Origins of World War II: USA vs. All). They raised Hitler, helped the Nazis take power, restore the military and economic power of the Reich, and allowed Berlin to crush most of Europe. The Third Reich was a “battering ram” for the masters of the West to crush Soviet civilization.

At first, the masters of the West believed that Germany would be able to crush the USSR, but during this duel of titans it would be weakened, which would allow the Anglo-Saxons to force the Reich to a peace that was beneficial to them, or to finish it off. This made it possible to appropriate all the fruits of victory in the world war, subjugate all of Europe and gain the wealth of Russia. Only after it became obvious that Hitler’s Germany would not be able to defeat Russia-USSR, London and Washington revised their scenario for a world war.

The British and Americans developed a strategic plan to attack from the south, through Italy and the Balkans. Rome had to go over to the side of the Anglo-American bloc. With the help of Turkey, launch an offensive in late autumn on the Balkan Peninsula. Until that time, we continue to wait and see what happens at the front in Russia. There was a possibility that the Germans would create a strong strategic defense on the Eastern Front, and the Second World War would follow the scenario of the First World War. The mutual and protracted slaughter of the Russians and Germans strengthened the tandem of England and the USA.

The Anglo-American leadership believed that in the summer of 1944 the Germans would be able to launch a new strategic offensive on the Eastern Front, but after some successes they would be stopped and driven back again. Germany and the USSR will suffer huge losses and their armed forces will be drained of blood. At the same time, plans were being developed for the landing of allied troops in Greece and Norway.

Thus, the masters of the West waited until the last moment that the USSR and Germany would be exsanguinated during the titanic battle. This will allow Britain and the United States to act from a position of strength and dictate the conditions of the postwar world order.

The British and Americans convinced the Russians that the landing in northern France was complicated by a lack of transport, which created a supply problem. Allegedly, drawing Turkey into the war and advancing through the Balkans is a more profitable scenario. This will allow the allies to connect on Romanian territory and strike Germany from the south.

In fact, Churchill wanted to cut off most of Europe from the USSR. This also made it possible to develop new anti-Soviet scenarios and weaken the importance of the Red Army at the final stage of the war. In particular, the scenario of an anti-Hitler coup in Germany was being worked out, when the new German leadership would understand the hopelessness of the situation and agree to a separate agreement with England and the United States. The Germans will allow Anglo-American troops into their territory to save the country from the Red Army.

As a result, the main combat potential of the Wehrmacht, directed against the USSR, was preserved. After the war, an anti-Soviet buffer was created from regimes hostile to the USSR in Finland, Poland, Romania, Hungary and the new Germany.

After much debate, the issue of opening a second front was at a dead end. Then Stalin expressed his readiness to leave the conference:

“We have too much to do at home to waste time here. Nothing worthwhile, as I see it, is working out.”

Churchill realized that the issue could not be heated up any further and made a compromise. Roosevelt and Churchill promised the Soviet leader to open a second front in France no later than May 1944. The final time of the operation was planned to be determined in the first half of 1944. During the Allied operation, Soviet troops had to launch an offensive to prevent the transfer of German divisions from east to west. The allies also agreed to take measures to assist the Yugoslav partisans.


I. Stalin, W. Churchill and F. Roosevelt at the negotiating table at the Tehran Conference

Poland and Iran


The future of Poland has also caused serious controversy.

Preliminarily, we were able to agree that the eastern border of the Polish state would run along the so-called. "Curzon Lines". This line basically corresponded to the ethnographic principle: to the west of it there were territories with a predominance of the Polish population, to the east - lands with a predominance of the Western Russian and Lithuanian population.

They decided to satisfy Warsaw’s territorial appetites at the expense of Germany (Prussia), which occupied significant Slavic and Polish lands back in the Middle Ages.

Stalin rejected the claims of Roosevelt and Churchill for Moscow's recognition of the Polish émigré government in London. The Anglo-Saxons planned to plant their puppets in Poland. The Soviet delegation did not agree to this and stated that the USSR was separating Poland from the emigrant government in England.

The Big Three adopted the Iran Declaration. The document emphasized the desire of Moscow, Washington and London to preserve the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iran. It was planned to withdraw the occupying forces after the end of the war.

Stalin was not going to leave Iran in the clutches of the Anglo-Saxons. During his stay in Tehran, Stalin studied the general condition of the Iranian elite, the influence of the British on it, and became acquainted with the state of the army. It was decided to organize an aviation and tank schools, transfer equipment to them in order to organize the training of Iranian personnel. It was beneficial for Moscow to create an Iran independent from the West in the future.


People's Artist of the USSR A.M. Gerasimov was sent to Tehran these days to paint the painting “Tehran Conference of the Leaders of the Three Allied Powers.” The painting was completed in 1945. It depicts not only the leaders of the three great powers, but also the officials who took part in the conference. There are 21 people depicted in total.

Stalin saves Germany from dismemberment


During a discussion of the post-war structure of Western Europe, the American president proposed dividing Germany after the war into 5 autonomous state entities and establishing international control (in fact, England and the United States) over the most important German industrial regions - the Ruhr, Saarland, etc. Churchill also supported him.

Churchill also proposed creating the so-called. “Danube Federation” from the Danube countries, with the inclusion of southern German territories in it. It was practically proposed to return Germany to the past - to dismember it. This laid a real “mine” under the future structure of Europe. England and the USA could destroy such a Europe at any moment and start another quarrel.

Stalin did not agree with this decision and proposed to transfer the German issue to the European Advisory Commission. The USSR, as an indemnity, received the right to annex part of East Prussia after the victory. Subsequently, the Soviet leader remained in the position of preserving the unity of Germany. Germany should be grateful to Moscow for maintaining the unity of the state and the people.

US President Roosevelt proposed the creation of an international organization (this issue has already been discussed with Moscow) on the principles of the United Nations. This organization was supposed to provide lasting peace after the Second World War. The committee, which was supposed to prevent the start of a new war and aggression from Germany and Japan, included the USSR, the USA, Great Britain and China. Stalin and Churchill generally supported this idea.

We also agreed on the Japanese issue.

The Soviet delegation, taking into account the repeated violations by the Empire of Japan of the 1941 Soviet-Japanese treaty on neutrality and assistance to Germany (plus the need for historical revenge for 1904–1905), and also meeting the wishes of the allies, declared that the USSR would enter the war with Japan after the final defeat of the Third Reich.

As a result, Stalin won a convincing diplomatic victory at the Tehran Conference. He did not allow the “allies” to push through the “southern strategy” - the allied offensive through the Balkans, and forced the allies to promise to open a second front.

The Polish issue was resolved in the interests of Russia – the restoration of Poland was due to the ethnically Polish regions once occupied by the Germans. The emigrant Polish government, which was under the control of England and the United States, was not recognized by Moscow as legitimate.

Stalin did not allow Germany to be killed and dismembered, which was historical injustice and created a zone of instability on the western borders of the USSR. Moscow benefited from a neutral, unified German state as a counterbalance to England and France. In essence, Stalin foresaw the possibility of a future strategic alliance between Russia and Germany - which was written about by Russian military analysts back in the Russian Empire and the father of the German school of geopolitics, K. Haushofer.

In the second part (published in 1941) of his article “The Continental Bloc: Berlin – Moscow – Tokyo,” Karl Haushofer wrote:

“...Eurasia cannot be strangled while its two largest peoples - the Germans and the Russians - strive in every possible way to avoid an internecine conflict similar to the Crimean War or 1914: this is an axiom of European politics...”

However, Hitler did not listen to the wise man, but destroyed the Third Reich.

Regarding Japan, Stalin allowed himself to be “persuaded,” but, in fact, a lightning operation against the Japanese was in the strategic interests of Russia and the USSR. Stalin took historical revenge on Russia for the war of 1904–1905, returned lost territories and restored the military-strategic and economic positions of the USSR in the Asia-Pacific region. During the war with Japan, the Soviet Union gained powerful positions on the Korean Peninsula and China.


Soviet and allied delegations near the Soviet embassy in Tehran. From left to right: unknown British officer, General George C. Marshall (US Chief of Staff) shakes hands with Archibald D. Clarke Kerry (British Ambassador to the USSR), member of the American delegation Harry L. Hopkins, Soviet translator, future diplomat Valentin Berezhkov, Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars USSR J.V. Stalin, Foreign Minister V.M. Molotov, Chairman of the Armistice Commission K.E. Voroshilov. December 1943
67 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +4
    28 November 2023 05: 30
    Moscow benefited from a neutral, unified German state as a counterbalance to England and France. In essence, Stalin foresaw the possibility of a future strategic alliance between Russia and Germany

    Everyone pulled the blanket over themselves - everyone wanted and looked for their own benefit in the current circumstances. But in the end, perhaps the biggest beneficiary was the United States - they defeated the powerful British Empire, although at the same time they had to sacrifice a significant strengthening of the USSR, which, it seems, was not included in the original plans, but they managed to win back in 1991, almost successfully collapsing this largest formation.
    1. +4
      28 November 2023 10: 23
      -had to launch an offensive to prevent the transfer of German divisions from east to west.
      Alas, in order to save the allies in the Ardennes, the Soviet army was forced to launch an offensive ahead of time.
      And as a result, the Germans transferred units from the Western Front, plus reserves. to Vostochny.
      -Germany should be grateful to Moscow for maintaining the unity of the state and the people.
      Stalin did not allow the Anglo-Saxons to completely finish off Germany's industry; they wanted to make it a purely agricultural country, which would lead Germany to famine.
      -The allies also agreed to take measures to assist the Yugoslav partisans.
      This was in vain - Churchill’s son Randolph managed to “process” Tito in almost a year, which backfired on the socialist camp after the end of WWII.
      And as for Japan, Hokkaido was supposed to be a Soviet occupation zone like East Germany.
      The samurai were ready to sacrifice this island during secret negotiations in 1942...1943 only for the sake of the neutrality of the USSR, which always adhered to the agreements, unlike the Anglo-Saxons.
      And lastly, it would be better to give it to Bulgaria rather than Greece.
      Alas, “history does not tolerate the subjunctive mood”
      -
      1. +6
        28 November 2023 11: 42
        Quote: knn54
        Alas, in order to save the allies in the Ardennes, the Soviet army was forced to launch an offensive ahead of time.

        This is what Stalin told the Allies - this was one of the political arguments in favor of the USSR during the division of post-war Europe. .
        In fact, the Vistula-Oder operation had been prepared since the autumn of 1944. And there was no rush - the front plan was ready in December, and the movement of troops to the bridgeheads began as planned on New Year's Eve. Moreover, due to disgusting weather conditions, the start of the operation was delayed by 3 days.
        Quote: knn54
        And as a result, the Germans transferred units from the Western Front, plus reserves.

        Yeah... they transferred it so much that the 6th TA didn’t make it to Budapest. The TA suffered such serious losses in the Ardennes operation that its replenishment ended only by the Balaton operation.
        In general, everything was over in the Ardennes before the New Year, when Field Marshal von Rundstedt turned to Berlin for permission to stop the operation. For the "head" of the German offensive was stopped by the arriving Allied reserves, and after Patton's arrival on the southern flank, the German wedge was in danger of encirclement. The Germans fell into their own favorite trap: holding the “corner pillar” and striking the armored vehicle at the base of the advancing group.
        Quote: knn54
        The samurai were ready to sacrifice this island during secret negotiations in 1942...1943 only for the sake of the neutrality of the USSR, which always adhered to the agreements, unlike the Anglo-Saxons.

        Yeah... especially the Neutrality Pact between the USSR and Japan. Would you remind me whether the USSR denounced or annulled it? Because if he just denounced it, the Pact formally continued to be in effect for another year.
      2. +4
        28 November 2023 14: 33
        Alas, in order to save the allies in the Ardennes, the Soviet army was forced to launch an offensive ahead of time.

        Is there any evidence for the claim that the start of the Vistula-Oder operation was caused by the difficult situation of the Allies in the Ardennes?
        Yes, the offensive itself was stopped around December 25, and then the Allies began to push back the Germans, and the Vistula-Oder operation began on January 12.
        1. +3
          29 November 2023 16: 24
          Quote from Escariot
          Is there any evidence for the claim that the start of the Vistula-Oder operation was caused by the difficult situation of the Allies in the Ardennes?

          These are the stories that Comrade Stalin loved to tell.

          Znayka (Isaev) had a funny incident: they came to him on LiveJournal for clarification when the current commander-in-chief suddenly decided to perform the same song. On the one hand, Isaev could not say that the guarantor was presenting it like Trotsky: they would be taken off the ration. On the other hand, it is also impossible to protect the guarantor - Isaev was not always on the payroll of the Moscow Region, and this whole story with the Ardennes at VIF was a local meme for twenty years: they immediately spat in his face and banned him for it. So they would have crammed so much into the Panama hat that they would have to close LiveJournal.

          Therefore, poor Znayka, on the fly, made up an amazing story that yes, not in the Ardennes, but let’s say near Strasbourg, the Germans actually removed units in January and transferred them to the Eastern Front. Actually, the Germans have always done this, so it would be strange if not.
      3. +2
        29 November 2023 16: 59
        Quote: knn54
        Alas, in order to save the allies in the Ardennes, the Soviet army was forced to launch an offensive ahead of time.

        Actually, we are talking about the Belarusian operation. Which, by the way, could not have happened if the forces that were in France in the summer of ’44 had ended up in Belarus.
        Quote: knn54
        Stalin did not allow the Anglo-Saxons to completely finish off Germany's industry; they wanted to make it a purely agricultural country, which would lead Germany to famine.

        At that time, all sorts of things came out of the bowels of the State Department. Then Morgenthau, whose “plan” you are hinting at here, argued that the piece of paper was planted in his suitcase by Soviet spies, but he himself did not even see it. Maybe it's true, maybe not.
        Quote: knn54
        This was in vain - Churchill’s son Randolph managed to “process” Tito in almost a year, which backfired on the socialist camp after the end of WWII.

        In fact, the living and legitimate King of Yugoslavia, Peter II, was sitting in London. So the very fact that the British agreed to talk with the “partisans” was an achievement of the USSR (and Churchill’s betrayal of yet another ally).
        Quote: knn54
        Hokkaido was supposed to be a Soviet occupation zone like East Germany.

        These are absolutely fairy tales. The only source in which Hokkaido even somehow surfaced was Truman’s correspondence with Stalin, in which the latter, after the end of hostilities, asked to give Hokkaido “for the old Bolsheviks.” Since Truman, by the end of the summer of 45, had already figured out a little who he was dealing with, the answer was “My orders are not discussed, but executed.”
        Quote: knn54
        Who always adhered to agreements, unlike the Anglo-Saxons.

        )))
        The Japanese can tell you more about this.
        Quote: knn54
        It would be better if they gave it to Bulgaria and not Greece.

        Strange statement. Here, whoever managed (to liberate from Nazism) ate it. The British showed themselves to be surprisingly reasonable in 44, and calmly agreed with the Germans to transfer Greece to them in exchange for a problem-free exit. In the same months, the USSR began liberating neutral (in the German-Soviet war), pro-British (at that time) Bulgaria from Nazism. So here geography decides - the liberating army could not get to Greece before Bulgaria, and the British, in turn, were not going to sit idly by and wait for this.
    2. +3
      29 November 2023 16: 33
      Quote: venaya
      But in the end, perhaps the biggest beneficiary was the USA - they defeated the powerful British Empire, although at the same time they had to sacrifice a significant strengthening of the USSR, which apparently was not included in the original plans

      There is a point of view that the mother’s geopoliticians from the State Department tried to play their own game against the British: to support a weaker country so that it restrains a stronger one. Since the fate of Germany was uncertain, the USSR seemed to be the only possible counterweight to Britain in Europe.

      Well, we overdid it a little.
  2. +4
    28 November 2023 05: 30
    The problem of opening a “second front”
    They paid off with stewed meat - it was not for nothing that it was called “Second Front”. Let's join in order to be in time for the pie section! Yes
    1. 0
      28 November 2023 09: 00
      Quote from Uncle Lee
      Entered to make it in time to the pie section!

      What does it have to do with jewellery? After all, they had to not be late! Nevertheless, they were never able to take Berlin. You asked.
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. +2
        29 November 2023 16: 13
        Quote: Stas157
        They were never able to take Berlin.

        Long conversation.
        Quote: Stas157
        You asked

        Let me remind you that the border of the GDR ran far to the west of the ceasefire line in May 45. Despite the fact that in the spring of 45 the SES command (and Alexander) had a lot of questions.
        What does it have to do with jewellery?

        Jewelry accurately - this is the USSR in the Far East, on the same day as the second atomic bomb, less than a week before the surrender of Japan.
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. +2
      28 November 2023 23: 11
      A little untrue, of course. Felling to the “second front” in Normandy
      went on a long time ago - in North Africa and Italy. The Allies squeezed a lot out of
      Mediterranean. And the stew... It turned out to be golden, like everything else,
      what was bought under Lend-Lease.
      Well, remember the 4.5 million pairs of army shoes with a “European last”.
      Narrow, with low rise. We didn't come in. Look at the footage of the chronicle. The infantry did not wear
      this shoe.
  3. +4
    28 November 2023 06: 00
    Moscow benefited from a neutral, unified German state as a counterbalance to England and France

    In the post-war period, everyone talked about the unity of Germany, however, no one except the Germans themselves wanted this unity. Everyone was afraid of a repeat of the interwar period (20-30s) and the imminent revival of Germany
  4. +2
    28 November 2023 07: 07
    The German Empire was still...

    Maybe the Third Reich?
  5. -4
    28 November 2023 07: 24
    This is still typical Soviet propaganda. Yes, the second front was needed like air. But the allies waited until they were ready. But she didn’t exist in 1943. And the hussars' sortie near Dieppe at 42 m clearly showed this. By Soviet standards, 500 thousand bayonets on the island is force. It can be thrown across the English Channel and ground down in a month. The Allies could not afford such meat assaults, although they were not avoided during the war either. And the Southern, Italian front was the right political and military decision. But there the pace of advance in 43-45 was not high. In short, when the allies were confident of 100% readiness, then they landed.
    1. +10
      28 November 2023 08: 21
      In short, when the allies were confident of 100% readiness, then they landed.
      When the German forces were basically crushed in the East and reserves had to be transferred from Europe. When the German forces in Europe weakened significantly, then they landed. Or maybe the Western Front, when it opened, significantly drew forces from the East?
      1. +5
        28 November 2023 08: 51
        Quote: kor1vet1974
        In short, when the allies were confident of 100% readiness, then they landed.
        When the German forces were basically crushed in the East and reserves had to be transferred from Europe. When the German forces in Europe weakened significantly, then they landed. Or maybe the Western Front, when it opened, significantly drew forces from the East?

        Even before D-Day, Germany had up to a million soldiers in France and the Benelux, but these million bayonets could have been on the eastern front. In 1943, most of the Axis air force and virtually the entire navy were operating against the Allies. So, in fact, significant forces were drawn off even before the landing.
        1. +5
          28 November 2023 09: 23
          So, in fact, significant forces were drawn off even before the landing.
          The Allies practically held the front. And what was there in the East? So small, some kind, which were filled with corpses laughing But the allies, wow... didn’t allow reinforcements, they bore the brunt on two fronts.
          1. 0
            28 November 2023 09: 35
            Quote: kor1vet1974
            So, in fact, significant forces were drawn off even before the landing.
            The Allies practically held the front. And what was there in the East? So small, some kind, which were filled with corpses laughing But the allies, wow... didn’t allow reinforcements, they bore the brunt on two fronts.

            Why are you twisting my words? I wrote what I wrote, and not these nonsense of yours about “some kind of small matter.” So it’s better not to embarrass yourself by engaging in demagoguery and replacing my words with your brand.
  6. -3
    28 November 2023 08: 46
    The front was not opened mainly for geopolitical reasons. London and Washington were not going to help Moscow. Soviet intelligence found out that in 1943 the Allies would not open a second front in northern France. They would wait "until Germany was mortally wounded by the Russian advance."

    Another lie from propagandists. In addition to landing the landing force itself (for which there were not yet enough funds), this landing force had to be supplied in some way. The most obvious method of capturing a large port was unacceptable, because as Dieppe showed, even an disabled team could defend the port’s fortifications from an attack from the sea for quite a long time, and then completely destroy the port. The British got around this problem by building mobile Mulberry harbors and laying pipelines along the bottom of the English Channel. And before the spring of 1944, the Allies were unable to prepare the necessary technical means.
  7. +1
    28 November 2023 08: 53
    The enemies of the USSR, who captured the USSR, with their anti-Soviet Perestroika, squeal that without the American Lend-Lease, the Soviet people would not have won.
    Firstly, this was not US “aid” to the Soviet Union, as they squeal, but it was a general anti-Hitler coalition, to which the US contribution was weapons and food, and the USSR paid with the lives of its military.
    Secondly, they like to brandish a long list of Lend-Lease, but not one of them has ever calculated what percentage Lend-Lease is relative to the USSR’s expenses for the war, and the historian Pykhalov calculated -10%.
    1. -3
      28 November 2023 09: 12
      Quote: tatra

      Secondly, they like to brandish a long list of Lend-Lease, but not one of them has ever calculated what percentage Lend-Lease is relative to the USSR’s expenses for the war, and the historian Pykhalov calculated -10%.

      This is 10% of total production, but for specific industries the situation is different. Every fourth (and at times even every third) shell was filled with explosives supplied under Lend-Lease. Or, for example, the aluminum from which Soviet aircraft and engines for the T-34 were made was half Lend-Lease. Also, up to half of the domestic production of aviation gasoline was supplied under Lend-Lease. And the USSR simply had nowhere to take all this from. Even for money, but here it’s free. So this is not 10%, but actually closing a huge hole that the USSR had nothing to cover with.
      1. +3
        28 November 2023 12: 22
        Well, the enemies of the USSR will not calm down, for all 35 years since their Perestroika they have been trying to discredit the Victory of the Soviet people. You have no victories or achievements in your work.
      2. +3
        28 November 2023 14: 33
        Why is it free? Lend-Lease is for gold, if anything, and the last payment was already made under Putin. So no big deal.
        1. -2
          28 November 2023 15: 29
          Quote: vladimmiroff
          Why is it free? Lend-Lease is for gold, if anything, and the last payment was already made under Putin. So no big deal.

          Do you know what Lend-Lease actually is? This is the delivery of weapons and materials on free lease for the duration of the war with the possibility of redemption. Those. At the time of delivery, Lend-Lease was free. Of course, not all deliveries were under Lend-Lease, but the absolute majority were. There was also reverse Lend-Lease from the USSR, but it was literally a percentage of direct Lend-Lease.
          And what he paid off under Putin is about the phrase “during the war.” After the end of the war, the leasing ceased to operate and the USSR, according to the agreement it signed, undertook to return the unspent property to the USA or buy it back at the residual price. The USA even offered a 50% discount, but Stalin did not return part of the property and did not pay any money for it. And it was for this unreturned property (including, for example, 4 Liberty class ships) that Putin returned the money.
          1. +2
            28 November 2023 23: 51
            So, it was inconvenient to return through the iron fence. What kind of return can there be to the enemy? It’s like the Anglo-Saxons declared a fence, and not the other way around.
            1. +2
              29 November 2023 16: 07
              Quote: Essex62
              So, it was inconvenient to return through the iron fence

              Money goes through any fence, I assure you.
            2. 0
              29 November 2023 23: 54
              Quote: Essex62
              So, it was inconvenient to return through the iron fence. What kind of return can there be to the enemy? It’s like the Anglo-Saxons declared a fence, and not the other way around.

              Did the US somehow prevent the return of the 4 Liberty ships? I have not heard of any fence around Soviet ports.
              1. +1
                30 November 2023 08: 25
                The fence is figurative. The main thing is that from allies, insolent people and mattresses turned into enemies. And why then give away something that could bleed them in case of a mess?
                1. +1
                  30 November 2023 08: 46
                  Quote: Essex62
                  turned into enemies

                  And it’s not a sin to steal from enemies; the former seminarian was well versed in this.

                  But you're right, of course. The USSR was an enemy of every country in the world from the first to the last day of its existence. If any of these countries, for some reason of their own, gave gifts to the USSR, this is certainly not a problem for the USSR.
      3. +2
        29 November 2023 16: 10
        Quote from Escariot
        the aluminum from which Soviet aircraft and engines for the T-34 were made was half Lend-Lease.

        And for the second half in English.
        Quote from Escariot
        So this is not 10%, but actually closing a huge hole that the USSR had nothing to cover with.

        Yes, the capitalists have solved the main problem of the planned mobilization economy: nomenklatura. She can still keep the plan for the shaft, but never the nomenclature. Therefore, all these tricks with 2-10% of GDP are a common scam. The strengthening of the USSR was primarily qualitative, much more than quantitative.
    2. +2
      28 November 2023 11: 08
      Quote: tatra
      not one of them calculated what percentage Lend-Lease was relative to the USSR’s expenses for the war

      To calculate the percentage of Lend-Lease from the percentage of USSR expenditure on the war, you need to know the volume of this very Lend-Lease, the figures of which fluctuate greatly, not even falling into the percentage error
      1. +1
        28 November 2023 12: 40
        Lend-Lease volume is $10,8 billion (in gold equivalent, about 11000 tons of gold).
        Lend-Lease was given in cash, for which the Soviet side independently chose from the goods offered; there were special catalogs and samples provided by companies wishing to participate in Lend-Lease deliveries.
        Lend Lease closed the bottlenecks of Soviet industry, such as ballistic gunpowder for MLRS or brake bands for the T-34 - relatively cheap, but without which the tank cannot move, and for which special steel was required.
    3. +2
      28 November 2023 11: 47
      Quote: tatra
      Secondly, they like to brandish a long list of Lend-Lease, but not one of them has ever calculated what percentage Lend-Lease is relative to the USSR’s expenses for the war, and the historian Pykhalov calculated -10%.

      Average temperature in the hospital, including the morgue. ©
      But what happens if you look in detail. Let's say, for gunpowder production:

  8. 0
    28 November 2023 08: 53
    . the Soviet leader remained in the position of preserving the unity of Germany. Germany should be grateful to Moscow for maintaining the unity of the state and the people.

    Germany should be twice grateful. Also for the reunification of the GDR with the Federal Republic of Germany.
    And therefore, the grateful Krauts are now sending Leopard tanks, Iris-T air defense systems and Taurus cruise missiles to Ukraine.
  9. +3
    28 November 2023 09: 42
    There was a time when there were individuals, but now they are some kind of pygmies. Still, I.V. Stalin, a Georgian by nationality, did more for the greatness and respect of Russia throughout the world than all the tsars and general secretaries combined, and the last so-called presidents generally drove the Russian Federation into the borders of the XNUMXth century, creating a system that cannot be defined. Complete regression in development.
    “Between the huge Russian bear and the American bison sat I, a poor little English donkey,” - this is how Winston Churchill recalled the negotiations in Tehran in 1943
    And this is said by Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill, an aristocrat who hated Russia to the core, be it imperial or in the form of the USSR. Respect for the USSR and personally for Stalin.
    "Roosevelt. This issue has not yet been resolved.

    Stalin. Then nothing will come of Operation Overlord. Who bears the moral and military responsibility for the preparation and execution of Operation Overlord? If this is unknown, then Operation Overlord is just a talk... There must be one person who is responsible for both the preparation and execution of the operation."
    No one before Stalin, not after him, among the heads of state spoke so with the US President. The ingratiating speeches of Gorbachev, Yeltsin and the current president make me sick.
    I would like to remind you of Stalin’s response to Churchill’s Fulton speech

    Interview with I.V. Stalin to the Pravda newspaper about Churchill's speech in Fulton (March 14, 1946).

    Question. How do you assess the last speech of Mr. Churchill, delivered by him in the United States of America?

    Question. Can Mr. Churchill's speech be considered detrimental to the cause of peace and security?

    Answer. Of course, yes. In fact, Mr. Churchill now stands in the position of the arsonists of the war. And Mr. Churchill is not alone here - he has friends not only in England, but also in the United States of America.

    It should be noted that Mr. Churchill and his friends are strikingly reminiscent of Hitler and his friends in this respect. Hitler began the work of starting a war by proclaiming a racial theory, declaring that only people who speak the German language represent a full-fledged nation. Mr. Churchill begins the work of starting a war also with a racial theory, arguing that only nations that speak English are full-fledged nations called upon to decide the destinies of the whole world. German racial theory led Hitler and his friends to the conclusion that the Germans, as the only complete nation, should dominate other nations. The English racial theory leads Mr. Churchill and his friends to the conclusion that the nations speaking English, as the only full-fledged ones, should dominate the rest of the nations of the world
    The sighted one only sees and sees, but the one who has gained sight contemplates and foresees.
  10. BAI
    +1
    28 November 2023 09: 49
    Looking at the photo, I would say that Stalin and Voroshilov have different weapons in their hands.
  11. +1
    28 November 2023 11: 08
    American troops, under the pretext of protecting cargo delivered to the Soviet Union, entered Iran at the end of 1942. Without any formalities, the Americans occupied the ports of Bandar Shahpur and Khorramshahr.

    It’s just that in the fall of 1942, the British admitted their inability to break through a transport corridor through Iran for the “southern Lend-Lease” and officially handed over the facility (and the country) to the Americans. Before this, the Americans worked “as subcontractors” to the British administration.
    Well, the Yankees followed the standard pattern - they appointed the Army responsible for construction.
    In October 1942, it was decided that the United States, instead of England, would take over the main control over the organization of supplies to Russia through Iran. This was to make it easier for the British to fight the enemy in India and the Middle East. Major General D. Connolly was appointed commander of the troops in the Persian Gulf region, who brought a team of good specialists to Iran. Colonel Schingler became the head of transport, Colonel Yunt - the Trans-Iranian Railway, Major General Ridley became the chief of staff of the national Iranian formations, Colonel Schwarzkopf, the head of the New Jersey police, - the adviser to the Iranian gendarmerie. American civilian advisers to the Iranian government were also appointed. The chief financial advisor was Dr. Milspouf, who had previously served with the Shah. Several regiments of auxiliary troops, white and colored, were sent to Iran.
    © Stettinius E. Lend-Lease - a weapon of victory.
  12. +6
    28 November 2023 12: 22
    The attempts to impose certain moral principles on international relations are not entirely clear. Every head of state is obliged to think, first of all, about the interests of his people, and, on a residual basis, about the interests of someone else.

    That’s what everyone did, for which thanks to Stalin (but Roosevelt and Churchill cannot be blamed for the same).

    The interests of one’s own people are most often achieved at the expense of the interests of some other peoples, which is what the conversation was about. It is clear that Germany and its allies must pay for everything; the question is with what, how much, when and how.

    The question of Poland was important, but Stalin achieved more than just making Poland his ally.

    Stalin managed to create a pro-Soviet military and economic bloc so that the USSR would not remain isolated. Whether the post-war confrontation was inevitable is an open question for me, I'm not sure. Perhaps it was inevitable even without taking into account ideology - look at modern Russia, which is ideologically in no way different from its opponents, and yet is in confrontation. But already alone.

    True, the previous centuries of the existence of the Russian Empire indicate that peaceful existence with Europe is quite possible.

    In general, I don’t dare say.

    The Author's text is interesting, but it is oversaturated with ideological cliches, which are often not facts, but are presented as such.
    1. 0
      29 November 2023 00: 03
      Are you sure that the towers are in opposition to the West? The West got involved in our civil war in order to weaken Russia as much as possible. This is how they have always been doing this, doesn’t this fact seem like an ideological cliche to you? It is possible to coexist peacefully with Europe when it is independent and Russia itself is strong.
    2. +3
      29 November 2023 02: 10
      Quote: S.Z.
      Whether the post-war confrontation was inevitable is an open question for me, I'm not sure.

      This confrontation began back in 1918, it was just temporarily interrupted in 1941, because if the Germans had grown into the USSR, then the Anglo-Saxons could have found themselves isolated. And all sorts of plans for the atomic bombing of the USSR immediately after the war (totality and others) show that no one was going to be friends. Only one can rule the planet, no competitors needed
  13. +3
    28 November 2023 12: 24
    Quote: Alexey RA
    It’s just that in the fall of 1942, the British admitted their inability to break through a transport corridor through Iran for the “southern Lend-Lease” and officially handed over the facility (and the country) to the Americans.


    Given the overexertion of the British on all fronts, this is understandable. If you sell military bases for destroyers, then you are not doing very well.
    1. +3
      28 November 2023 15: 07
      Quote: S.Z.
      Given the overexertion of the British on all fronts, this is understandable. If you sell military bases for destroyers, then you are not doing very well.

      In fact, the inability of the British on their own to significantly increase the capacity of Iran’s ports and roads was clear from the very beginning of the work. And already in the autumn of 1941, American companies were involved in the work.
      But in the second half of 1942, the situation with Lend-Lease sharply worsened - the northern route was temporarily closed, and the eastern route could not be fully used due to a lack of tonnage at FESCO (the transfer of ships along the L-L route was just beginning). Plus, fighting began on the southern sector of the front, including Stalingrad. It was urgent to break through the southern route. And then the Empire completely transferred the entire front of work and control over Iran to the United States. Anyway, most of the work was done by the Yankees, most of the equipment for construction was theirs, and supplies to the USSR also came mostly from the USA.
      The results were not long in coming:
      By May 1943, the volume of deliveries to Russia through Iran increased 2,5 times compared to the end of the English management period and 10 times compared to August 1941 and amounted to over 100 000 tons per month. Since then, this volume has increased.
      © Stettinius E. Lend-Lease - a weapon of victory.
    2. +3
      29 November 2023 16: 03
      Quote: S.Z.
      If you sell military bases for destroyers, then you are not doing very well.

      Destroyer motherships are only part of the deal. Its main content was Roosevelt’s desire to clear the remainder of the British debts for WWII - without this it was impossible to issue new loans to the British, and the British were running out of their money. After the disaster in France, Roosevelt had to get creative.

      The next thought in the same direction was Lend-Lease.
  14. +3
    28 November 2023 12: 27
    Stalin was a powerful negotiator and knew how to advance a position. From today this is clearly visible. Stalin's antipode - Gorbachev, this one, on the contrary, gave up everything.
  15. +2
    28 November 2023 12: 36
    Quote: venaya
    Moscow benefited from a neutral, unified German state as a counterbalance to England and France. In essence, Stalin foresaw the possibility of a future strategic alliance between Russia and Germany

    Everyone pulled the blanket over themselves - everyone wanted and looked for their own benefit in the current circumstances. But in the end, perhaps the biggest beneficiary was the United States - they defeated the powerful British Empire, although at the same time they had to sacrifice a significant strengthening of the USSR, which, it seems, was not included in the original plans, but they managed to win back in 1991, almost successfully collapsing this largest formation.


    The benefits of the USSR should not be underestimated.

    The USSR began a war of survival, and as a result it not only survived, but also received a powerful bloc of allies - states dependent on itself. An excellent result considering the start.

    Britain started a war for influence and other benefits, but this war turned into a war of survival and she lost it - the empire collapsed.

    The United States waged a war for influence and other benefits - well, that’s exactly what they got.

    Therefore, the USSR, despite the gigantic losses, IMHO, received everything that was possible and even more.
  16. +3
    28 November 2023 15: 38
    Quote: Glagol1
    Stalin was a powerful negotiator and knew how to advance a position. From today this is clearly visible. Stalin's antipode - Gorbachev, this one, on the contrary, gave up everything.


    Churchill was no stranger to politics either. But the real power was with the USSR and the USA. Which, however, does not in any way detract from Stalin’s merits. Comparing him with Gorbachev is at least uncharitable for the latter.
  17. +2
    28 November 2023 17: 30
    Mr. Samsonov, before writing, read Churchel, World War II
  18. 0
    28 November 2023 18: 57
    The article is pure Samsonism
    Quote: Alexey RA
    Quote: knn54
    Alas, in order to save the allies in the Ardennes, the Soviet army was forced to launch an offensive ahead of time.

    This is what Stalin told the Allies - this was one of the political arguments in favor of the USSR during the division of post-war Europe. .
    In fact, the Vistula-Oder operation had been prepared since the autumn of 1944. And there was no rush - the front plan was ready in December, and the movement of troops to the bridgeheads began as planned on New Year's Eve. Moreover, due to disgusting weather conditions, the start of the operation was delayed by 3 days.
    Quote: knn54
    And as a result, the Germans transferred units from the Western Front, plus reserves.

    Yeah... they transferred it so much that the 6th TA didn’t make it to Budapest. The TA suffered such serious losses in the Ardennes operation that its replenishment ended only by the Balaton operation.
    In general, everything was over in the Ardennes before the New Year, when Field Marshal von Rundstedt turned to Berlin for permission to stop the operation. For the "head" of the German offensive was stopped by the arriving Allied reserves, and after Patton's arrival on the southern flank, the German wedge was in danger of encirclement. The Germans fell into their own favorite trap: holding the “corner pillar” and striking the armored vehicle at the base of the advancing group.
    Quote: knn54
    The samurai were ready to sacrifice this island during secret negotiations in 1942...1943 only for the sake of the neutrality of the USSR, which always adhered to the agreements, unlike the Anglo-Saxons.

    Yeah... especially the Neutrality Pact between the USSR and Japan. Would you remind me whether the USSR denounced or annulled it? Because if he just denounced it, the Pact formally continued to be in effect for another year.

    Hurray for the patriots, historical facts are not particularly interesting, for them the landing in Normandy is a minor skirmish, and the low rate of advance of the Anglo-American troops is a consequence of their cowardice.
    1. +1
      29 November 2023 15: 58
      Quote from Tim666
      low rate of advance of Anglo-American troops

      Low offensive tempo?
  19. +1
    28 November 2023 19: 03
    Quote: tatra
    The enemies of the USSR, who captured the USSR, with their anti-Soviet Perestroika, squeal that without the American Lend-Lease, the Soviet people would not have won.
    Firstly, this was not US “aid” to the Soviet Union, as they squeal, but it was a general anti-Hitler coalition, to which the US contribution was weapons and food, and the USSR paid with the lives of its military.
    Secondly, they like to brandish a long list of Lend-Lease, but not one of them has ever calculated what percentage Lend-Lease is relative to the USSR’s expenses for the war, and the historian Pykhalov calculated -10%.

    It was calculated that the increase in the retirement age was supported by 80% of the population of the Russian Federation,)
  20. +4
    28 November 2023 20: 03
    It must be remembered that London and Washington were the instigators of World War II


    UK - definitely yes.

    This is Great Britain first treacherously declared war on Hitler on August 3, 1939.
    But he did not expect this at all and did not want it.
    If it weren’t for this step of unmotivated aggression, maybe WW2 wouldn’t have happened at all?
    They would divide Poland and that’s it.

    But Comrade Molotov warned them:
    ...If we talk about the great powers of Europe, Germany is in the position of a state striving for a speedy end to the war and for peace, while England and France, which only yesterday stood up against aggression, stand for the continuation of the war and against the conclusion of peace.
    ...the British government announced that for it the goal of the war against Germany was, no more and no less, how. "destruction of Hitlerism".
    ...It is not only senseless, but also criminal to wage such a war as the war for the “destruction of Hitlerism” covered by the false flag of the struggle for “democracy”.
  21. The comment was deleted.
  22. -1
    29 November 2023 02: 13
    Quote from solar
    Lend-Lease volume is $10,8 billion (in gold equivalent, about 11000 tons of gold).
    Lend-Lease was given in cash, for which the Soviet side independently chose from the goods offered; there were special catalogs and samples provided by companies wishing to participate in Lend-Lease deliveries.
    Lend Lease closed the bottlenecks of Soviet industry, such as ballistic gunpowder for MLRS or brake bands for the T-34 - relatively cheap, but without which the tank cannot move, and for which special steel was required.

    And another half of all Soviet shells and bombs carried American explosives, because in the USSR, due to the Stakhanovites, little toluene, the basis for the production of explosives, was produced.
  23. 0
    29 November 2023 02: 17
    Quote: DKuznecov
    A little untrue, of course. Felling to the “second front” in Normandy
    went on a long time ago - in North Africa and Italy. The Allies squeezed a lot out of
    Mediterranean. And the stew... It turned out to be golden, like everything else,
    what was bought under Lend-Lease.
    Well, remember the 4.5 million pairs of army shoes with a “European last”.
    Narrow, with low rise. We didn't come in. Look at the footage of the chronicle. The infantry did not wear
    this shoe.

    Even as I wore them and after the war they were carried around with all my might, my grandfather also remembered Lenliz boots and that after the war they were carried around in civilian life, endlessly changing the heels.
  24. 0
    29 November 2023 07: 51
    Quote from Tim666
    Hurray for the patriots, historical facts are not particularly interesting, for them the landing in Normandy is a minor skirmish, and the low rate of advance of the Anglo-American troops is a consequence of their cowardice.


    Do not confuse patriots and idiots - they sound similar, but they are not always the same people.
  25. +1
    29 November 2023 07: 55
    Quote from: dump22

    It was Great Britain that was the first to treacherously declare war on Hitler on August 3, 1939.
    But he did not expect this at all and did not want it.
    If it weren’t for this step of unmotivated aggression, maybe WW2 wouldn’t have happened at all?
    They would divide Poland and that’s it.


    I think not all.

    As for “treacherous”, you are wrong - Britain warned about guarantees to Poland, Hitler simply did not believe in these warnings. He didn’t want a war with Britain, it’s true, his interests were in the East.

    Besides Britain, there was also France, which also declared war on Germany.

    Most likely, if Britain had not intervened, Hitler would have gone to the East, to the USSR. But it is not exactly.
    1. 0
      29 November 2023 13: 17
      Your sarcasm detector seems to be broken...
  26. 0
    29 November 2023 07: 56
    Quote from Tim666
    It was calculated that the increase in the retirement age was supported by 80% of the population of the Russian Federation,)


    What does this have to do with the topic?
  27. +1
    29 November 2023 13: 31
    Quote from: dump22
    Your sarcasm detector seems to be broken...


    Alas for me...
  28. 0
    2 December 2023 11: 21
    It is also worth noting that the allies sensibly assessed the capabilities of their armed forces. Even in the conditions of the actual end of the war, the tension of the last German forces in attempts to at least slow down our advance, when the German officers who retained their adequacy were thinking more about who to surrender to (choosing, naturally, Western captivity), the landing of the Western armies was a disaster.
    The subsequent attempt at an offensive resulted in a monstrous defeat, and we had to launch another offensive without rest or preparation in order to save the valiant Western warriors from complete collapse. Can you imagine what would have happened if they tried to jump out even earlier?! Roosevelt and Churchill could not start when we asked. The Germans would have crushed them into dust and trampled them all into the ground.
    1. +2
      2 December 2023 21: 19
      )))
      Oddly enough, the correct conclusion was drawn from absolutely delusional premises. No, Overlord, for a number of reasons (both the multiple superiority of the SES and German mistakes), was never under threat. Moreover, Overlord, as well as the relatively successful Dnieper-Carpathian operation, tied up all the resources of the Reich and ensured the success of Bagration.

      But yes, it was impossible to hold it before the summer of 44. Overlord required a year of preparation and Italian experience to prepare properly. Overlord 42 or 43 would be a disaster.
      1. -2
        3 December 2023 08: 29
        This refers to the “monstrous forces of the victors in the war,” that is, Britain and the USA, who valiantly... screwed up everything they could, laying down tens of thousands of people right on the shore on which they landed. More than two million people against the not-so-full three divisions of the Germans. Covering the shore with their corpses, the Anglo-Saxon heroes finally landed with grief. They passed through France, where no one really fought with them, and hit the Siegfried Line. FROM THE REAR.
        Exhausted, lousy supplied, bloodless German front-line soldiers, who were hit in the back by fresh, trained, well-fed Anglo-Saxon warriors, began to surround and destroy them, like a slipper crushing cockroaches, completely stopping the attack from the rear.
        Oh yeah, the Overlord wasn't under threat. ) If Stalin had waited a month, all two million heroes would have given up for nothing))
        1. +3
          3 December 2023 11: 45
          Quote: Mikhail3
          This refers to the “monstrous forces of the victors in the war,” that is, Britain and the USA, who valiantly... screwed up everything they could, laying down tens of thousands of people right on the shore on which they landed.

          Of course you are lying. The losses of the SES during the landing were quite moderate: half as low, for example, as the losses of the Kerch landing six months earlier.
          Quote: Mikhail3
          More than two million people

          There were 2,5 million people there by September, when Allied forces converged at Dijon and re-formed the Western Front. Not upon disembarkation.
          Quote: Mikhail3
          against not very complete three German divisions. ... We passed through France, where no one really fought with them,

          In reality, the number of forces involved on both sides in Overlord, its timing and results in terms of the area of ​​​​liberated (from the presence of the Germans) territories are very reminiscent of Bagration. Two differences.
          1. All the best forces that the Reich could muster worked in France. Belarus was considered a secondary sector of the front.
          2. KA, thanks to a successful pitting, exchanged losses with the Germans with only 2:3 in favor of the Germans. This is a great result for her. In the mentioned Dnieper-Carpathian, for example, the exchange was 1:4. SES traded with the Germans approximately 1:2 in their favor.
          Quote: Mikhail3
          all two million heroes would give up))

          A hint at the Soviet 41? No, surrendering in army groups is not for the Allies. These are more about evacuations.
        2. +1
          3 December 2023 18: 57
          In France, the Germans had twelve tank divisions, of which six were electricians. Quite a force, to put it mildly. Plus infantry.
          1. +2
            4 December 2023 09: 16
            Quote: Calm_type
            six are electricians.

            Electricians as a fighting force, if they differed from Wehrmacht units, were not for the better. Of course, it’s not necessary once at a time, but nevertheless, it hardly makes sense to single them out.
            Electricians of the last months of formation are completely bio-waste.
            Quote: Calm_type
            In France, the Germans had twelve tank divisions

            But this is more interesting. Even more interesting is that half of the vehicles in these divisions are panthers.

            In general, the situation with the summer of ’44 is funny. Listen to the patriots, so Eisenhower brought 2,5 million Anglo-Saxons to surrender to two battalions of Germans (one - Georgian collaborators, the second - limited in fitness due to ear and stomach diseases). Only Stalin's order and the actions of the French communists thwarted this plan. At the same time, the Battle of the Nations took place in the Belarusian forests, which broke the Reich.

            Meanwhile, in the real world, in the Belarusian forests there were two tank battalions (one of fours, the other of Tigers), which were covered by 37 (thirty-seven) fighters. 4 Soviet fronts and 2 Soviet air armies fought with them. The Belarusian forests really whispered “Hitler kaput” - but such thoughts were not inspired by the successes of their grandfathers, but, for example, by the third tank army of the Wehrmacht without a single tank division in its composition. Previously, OKH did not allow itself such innovations.

            Where were all the tank divisions and all the German aviation? They were in France.
            1. 0
              6 December 2023 22: 42
              Can you tell me more about the 37 fighters? Why so little?
            2. 0
              6 December 2023 22: 44
              Well, in addition to the tunchegs, there were almost five hundred Hetzero-Shtugs of all sorts... But against 5000 “best WWII tanks” then, of course...
              1. 0
                6 December 2023 23: 35
                Quote: Calm_type
                Can you tell me more about 37 fighters? Why so little?

                A secondary section of a secondary front. By the middle of 44, the Reich was quite concerned about the air defense of its own cities.
                The number of fighters in the 6th Air Fleet on May 31 was 60, and by June 22 (before the start of the operation), as a result of attacks on airfields and air battles, only 40 remained

                Wikipedia, Belarusian operation.

                To be fair, there were several hundred attack aircraft. 1:12 to KA.
                Quote: Calm_type
                there were all sorts of Hetzero-stugs

                There were no Hetzers there; they only made it in time for the battles on the Vistula. Stugas and Marders, rarely Jagdpanzers and Noshorns.

                It’s funny, but in the case of Belarus, the Germans abandoned their own WWII military achievements and tried to return to the pre-tank era, defending not even a WWII-type front line, but a network of fortified cities and strongholds, something in the style of the Middle Ages. The idea didn't work out.

                We certainly appreciate that the Belarusian operation was in fact the very deep operation that theorists dreamed of before the war. But on the other hand, the enemies were substituted simply as if by order.