Was it possible to do without the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact?

100
Was it possible to do without the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact? The non-aggression pact between Germany and the Soviet Union dated 23 on August 1939, signed by the heads of the foreign affairs agencies, V.M. Molotov and I. von Ribbentrop, became one of the main accusations personally filed by J. Stalin and the USSR. For the liberals and the external enemies of the Russian people, this pact is the theme by which they try to force Russia to repent, thereby including it among the aggressors, the instigators of the Second World War.

However, in most cases, critics of this agreement do not take into account the geopolitical realities of the time when similar agreements with Germany existed in Poland, England and other states. They look at the pact from the height of ours, still relatively good time. To understand the need for this agreement, you must feel the spirit of 1939 of the year and analyze several possible scenarios of actions by the Soviet Union.

For a start, we must remember that by 1939, there were three main forces in the world: 1) “Western democracies” - France, England, the United States and their allies; 2) Germany, Italy, Japan and their allies; 3) USSR. The inevitability of the collision in Moscow was well understood. However, Moscow had to delay the start of the Union’s entry into the war as much as possible in order to use this time to implement the program of industrialization and rearmament of the army. The worst scenario for the USSR was a clash with the German-Italo-Japanese bloc, with the hostile position of the “countries of democracy”. In addition, there was the possibility of a collision between the USSR and Britain and France, with the initial neutrality of Germany. Thus, during the Soviet-Finnish war, London and Paris actually decided to go to war with the USSR, planning to help Finland, landing an expeditionary force in Scandinavia and strike the southern borders of the USSR from the territory of the Middle East (plan for bombing oil fields in Baku).

Moscow, on the other hand, pursued such a rational policy that Germany initially struck at the Anglo-French bloc, weakening its position greatly. Only after the defeat of France, Berlin turned the Wehrmacht to the east. As a result, Germany and its allies were at war with two forces of global significance. This predetermined the outcome of the Second World War. The Anglo-Saxons hated the USSR and dreamed of its dismemberment as well as the German military-political leadership (if not more), but were forced to become allies of Moscow in order to save face during a bad game. The bosses of the USA and Great Britain gained a lot from the Second World War. But still the main goal was not achieved. The USSR not only was not destroyed and dismembered into national “Bantustans” controlled by the “world community”, but in the fire of war it became stronger, it gained the status of a superpower. The USSR was still building a fairer world order, backed by the status of the winner of the "brown plague".

Options for the development of events if the USSR had not signed a non-aggression pact

Scenario one. The USSR and Germany do not sign the non-aggression pact. USSR relations with Poland remain hostile. The military convention of the Soviet Union with England and France is not signed. In this case, the Wehrmacht trashes the Polish armed forces and seizes all of Poland, including Western Belorussia and Western Ukraine. On the western border of Germany, a "strange war" begins, when the British and French drop German troops and cities not bombs, but flyers and command, instead of organizing offensive operations, solves the task of entertaining the soldiers. Obviously, Hitler was given a "permit" to strike at the USSR.

Out on the border of the USSR, the Wehrmacht rests on the troops of the Belarusian and Kiev districts, which are on alert in connection with the war in the adjacent territory. Having no agreement with Moscow, given the anti-fascist statements of the Soviet leadership in the prewar period and Hitler’s statements about the need for "living space" in the east, the German military is forced to consider us number one enemy. It is clear that the German troops do not immediately rush into battle, it is necessary to regroup forces, develop an invasion plan, restore order in Polish territory, especially since there is a line of fairly strong fortifications in front of them.

However, the German command almost immediately can improve the strategic position of its troops - from the north-west Lithuania and Latvia hang over the Byelorussian SSR, which have minor armed forces. Their capture or “voluntary” accession made it possible to bypass our troops in Belarus from the left flank; as a result, it was no longer necessary to storm the fortifications. The Soviet command, when struck from the north, would itself have withdrawn troops from a possible ring of encirclement. In addition, German troops reached the Soviet border near Sebezh and found themselves in 550 kilometers from Moscow, where there were only two natural boundaries - Lovat and the upper reaches of the Western Dvina. Berezina and the Dnieper remained in the rear, which in 1941, in the Smolensk region, delayed the offensive of the Army Group Center for the Soviet capital for three months and forced the German command to spend 44% of its strategic reserve. As a result, the plan "Barbarossa" - a lightning war, received all the chances for implementation. If we take into account the fact that the German troops seized Estonia and the Wehrmacht reached the line to quickly capture Leningrad, the situation would have been disastrous even before the outbreak of hostilities. The USSR was forced to fight in even more stringent conditions than happened in reality.

No doubt, the USSR won in this situation, but the losses increased many times over. France and England retained their strength and resources in the integrity and with the support of the United States, at the end of the Second World War could claim control over most of the planet.

Scenario two. In this version, Moscow was supposed to stand on the side of Poland, as England and France wanted. The problem was that the Polish leadership did not want such help. Thus, in April 1939, the Polish embassy in London informed the charge d'affaires of Germany in the United Kingdom, Theodor Kordt, that "Germany can be confident that Poland will never allow any soldier of Soviet Russia to enter its territory." This was a firm position that Warsaw did not change even as a result of the political pressure of France. Even 20 August 1939, three days before the signing of the Soviet-German non-aggression treaty and eleven days before the start of World War II, Polish Foreign Minister Jozef Beck telegraphed Lukasiewicz’s ambassador to France that “no military treaties link the Poland to the Soviets and the Polish government does not intend to conclude such a contract. ” It is also necessary to take into account the fact that France and Britain were not going to give firm guarantees to the USSR and to sign a military convention.

In this case, the Soviet troops have to overcome the resistance of the Polish troops, to wage war on hostile territory, because the Poles do not want us to stand up for them. France and England on the Western Front lead a "strange war." Having entered combat contact with the Wehrmacht, with an approximate material and technical equality of forces and human resources, and in the absence of a sudden strike from both sides, the war will gradually acquire a protracted, positional character. True, the Germans will be able to flank attack through the Baltic States. The German command may try to cut off and surround the Soviet troops in Poland.

This scenario is also very unfavorable for Moscow. The USSR and Germany will deplete their forces in the struggle against each other, the “countries of democracy” will remain the winners.

Scenario Three. Warsaw, under the threat of complete liquidation of the Polish statehood, could break off allied relations with England and France, and join the German bloc. Fortunately, Warsaw already had experience of cooperation with Berlin during the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia. Actually 18 August Warsaw declared its readiness to transfer Danzig, to hold a plebiscite in the Polish corridor and to a military alliance with the Third Reich against the USSR. True, the Polish leadership made a reservation; London had to agree to that. It must be recalled that Polish politicians had long ago dug into Soviet lands and were not averse to participating in the division of the USSR, pretending to Ukraine. But Warsaw wanted Germany itself to do all the dirty work - hitting the Baltic States and Romania through East Prussia. The Poles already wanted to share the skin of a dead bear, and not to fight with him.

In this case, the German-Polish forces delivered a blow to the USSR, i.e. Hitler received at his disposal 1 million. Polish army (with the possibility of increasing its number). England and France remain officially neutral. Reich by September 1 1939 had in the Wehrmacht 3 million 180 thousand people. The Soviet Union could then put 2 million 118 thousand soldiers (peacetime staff, the number was significantly increased by the beginning of the Polish campaign). It was the whole Red Army. Therefore, it was not necessary to forget that a significant grouping of Soviet troops was in the Far East - the Special Far Eastern Army. She stood there in case of a threat from the Japanese Empire. And the threat was serious - just before the beginning of the great war in Europe, military actions in Mongolia between the Soviet and Japanese armies were in full swing. USSR threatened war on two fronts. The Japanese leadership was considering the question of the main direction of the strike: the southern direction or the northern direction. The rapid defeat of the Japanese grouping (fighting at Khalkhin-Gol) showed the power of the Soviet army, so Tokyo decided to go south, ousting England, the USA, Holland and France from the Asia-Pacific region. But the USSR had to keep the whole Great Patriotic War in the east of significant forces in order to secure their Far Eastern borders.

The Leningrad Military District was solving the problem of protecting Leningrad from Finland; it was impossible to transfer considerable forces from it to the west. The Transcaucasian region also could not use most of the forces for the war with Germany - there was the likelihood of an attack by Turkey. He was supported by the North Caucasus region. Arkhangelsk, Odessa, Moscow, Oryol, Kharkiv, North Caucasus, Volga, Ural, Central Asian military districts could help the special Western and Kiev districts. Siberian and Transbaikal were focused on supporting the Far Eastern Front. In addition, it was necessary to take into account the time factor - the rear districts needed some time to mobilize and send reinforcements.

In the Western and Kiev districts, which were to withstand the first blow of the enemy, there were 617 thousand people. Thus, the correlation of forces in personnel was in favor of Germany. Berlin could concentrate almost all available forces against the USSR and expose the western frontiers.

We must not forget the negative attitude of the Baltic states towards the USSR. They could have been occupied by the Wehrmacht, or voluntarily go over to its side — by giving Berlin, in the case of 400-500 mobilization, thousands of people. And the most terrible were not these hundreds of thousands of soldiers, but the fact that the territory of the Baltic States could be used as a convenient base for a bypass maneuver and attack on the USSR.

Obviously, Moscow understood this no worse than we are now (rather, better). Stalin was a pragmatist and knew how to count. It would be very foolish to go to war with the German-Polish coalition in 1939. England and France remained neutral. Romania, Hungary, Slovakia, Italy and Finland supported Germany. Having the geopolitical position that went to Soviet Russia after the revolution and the Civil War, when Bessarabia, Poland, Western Ukraine, Western Belarus, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Finland were alienated from our homeland, which sharply worsened the military-strategic position on the western frontiers, and fighting a strong enemy like Germany was an unacceptable risk. Moscow understood that the non-aggression pact was temporary, and that the Third Reich. Having solved its tasks in Western Europe, would again rush to the east. Therefore, in order to improve the military-strategic position in the western direction, Stalin made efforts to re-join Bessarabia, the Baltic States and parts of Finland to Russia. When it comes to the question of the survival of an entire civilization, the problem of choice for limiting states does not exist.
Our news channels

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

100 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +26
    January 24 2013
    At the time of signing this Treaty, the need for a pact was and this pact was a necessary measure after the frank failure of negotiations with England and France. The latter wanted the USSR to fight, and the gesheft from this event was eaten exclusively by them, and therefore Comrade Comrade was sent. Stalin at all known addresses. By signing this Treaty, the USSR acted exclusively in its own interests, and that’s right, but if anyone blunders about the immorality of this document, he should read information on Munich in 1938 before opening the mouth.
    1. +21
      January 24 2013
      For this agreement, it is necessary to erect monuments to Stalin and Molotov opposite the embassies of England and France in a high place - let them remember who is who.
    2. donchepano
      +11
      January 24 2013
      Quote: Sakhalininets
      measure after the frank failure of negotiations with England and France. The latter wanted the USSR to fight, and the gesheft from this event was eaten exclusively by them, and therefore Comrade Comrade was sent. Stalin at all known addresses.


      To be friends with deceitful, mean England is more expensive for oneself. Fuck such friends.
      Stalin did wisely
      1. ken
        ken
        +8
        January 24 2013
        England is a country of scum, the whole thing is that they were nosed by the Nords, Romans, French, and the one who crosses the river with a sword for looting left his sperm cells there, it happened for centuries and this is the seed of bandits of all stripes, lay firmly on English soil, that's why it was born blood and mud and the English Empire and the slaughter of the entire indigenous population of North America, and even their current adventures in East Asia, Africa. They are just criminals, they have centuries-old genes of criminals, they hid behind the facade of perverse democracy, but no better than Hitler.
        1. aviator46
          +1
          January 26 2013
          And Russia handed out sweets, in endless wars - turning from the Moscow principality into the RUSSIAN EMPIRE.
      2. aviator46
        0
        January 26 2013
        And what did Churchill ask for help - and by the way the first convoy from England, with arms, arrived in June 1941
        1. +4
          February 19 2013
          In addition to Suvorov-Rezun, other authors investigated this topic. In earnest.
          By the way.
          In 1935, a similar pact was signed between Germany and Poland. Only about this all "democratic" historians are "modestly" silent.
    3. aviator46
      0
      January 26 2013
      The offensive to the east, Germany should have led along the lines of Berlin-Poznan-Warsaw-Brest.
      On this line, the distance from the old German border to the new one is about 550 km
      . Before the partition of Poland, the distance from the German border to Moscow along the Poznan-Warsaw-Brest-Minsk-Smolensk-Moscow line was 680 + 260 + 550 = 1490 km.
      AFTER the partition of Poland, this distance was 940 km, decreasing by 550 km - more than one and a half times. 
      The implementation of the provisions of the Treaty provided Germany with almost two years to strengthen its military potential and prepare for the invasion and was one of the main reasons for the monstrous defeats of the 41st, which led to the prolongation of the war by almost 4 years and the deaths of tens of millions of people in the USSR and other countries.

      All talk about the "inevitability" and, moreover, the "benefits" of this Treaty are fairy tales for young children and big fools.
  2. +10
    January 24 2013
    At first I wanted to say that I was tired of "pushing water in a mortar" and proving obvious facts a hundred times over, but even a cursory scan of the news shows that the enemy (Western liberalism and "global value") is not asleep. So the article is a plus.
  3. +10
    January 24 2013
    That's right, I absolutely agree with the author ... and in all of this we are also forced to repent, forgetting about our own Munich treaties ... Balance all sorts of bribes from the USSR and Nazi Germany ... Whoever said anything, but Stalin was far from stupid , and always acted in the political interests in the interests of only the USSR, for which he was completely hated by all liberal G.
    1. namejs
      -8
      January 24 2013
      And to say the least about Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania. These countries received their independence by shedding blood and no one gave freedom. By the way, Lenin himself supported the principle of self-determination of peoples.

      My personal opinion about the MR pact (since this pact left a heavy burden on the fate of my homeland) was that it was a major mistake. If the USSR wanted only to preserve peace, then there was no need for some such agreements because Hitler's Germany had won.
      1. Germany could be sure that the USSR poses no greater threat. And even more - the USSR supplied resources to Germany, which were so important for the military-industrial complex ...
      2. Violent incorporation of the Baltic states pleased very strong resentment towards the Soviet Union. Although, as I said before, the anti-German sentiments dominated the Baltic countries before the war. And even if the Germans would have gone through the Baltic as in the West through Belgium / the Netherlands, they would have faced strong resistance and it would have taken a week at best for the Dobrats to Leningrad and in the meantime the Red Army would have been able to attack the flanks for a long time and nothing would have been possible for the Nazis ..

      I apologize for the grammar
      1. Andrey2302
        +1
        January 24 2013
        Countries such as "Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania appeared after 1918. After the signing of the" Brest Treaty "between again Germany and the Bolsheviks. So, this is not some kind of occupation. The USSR regained its original territories. Which were temporarily taken away, in connection with those realities that were.
        1. namejs
          -1
          January 24 2013
          Let me remind you about the Peace Treaty of Latvia of the RSFSR of 1920 on August 11, in which Russia was octaved from any claim to the sovereignty of Latvia for ever and ever (literally and written, forever and ever). Sorry, but the Brest Treaty is not a "purchase" of the Baltic States from Sweden is not an argument
        2. 0
          January 24 2013
          Quote: Andrey2302
          Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania appeared after 1918. After the signing of the "Brest Treaty" between Germany and the Bolsheviks. So, this is not an occupation. The USSR returned its original territories. Which were taken away for a while, due to the realities that were.

          Now that we have paid the so-called Paris debt, they rightfully belong to Russia, because these lands were conquered and bought by the Russian Sovereigns.
      2. -1
        January 25 2013
        Wouldn’t you go ??
      3. AlexW
        0
        January 25 2013
        for the grammar you already apologized, now it would not hurt for the content angry
        1. namejs
          0
          January 25 2013
          If you can convince me that I'm wrong, please, argue
      4. +5
        February 19 2013
        God be with her, with grammar ...
        Unfortunately, in general, the Baltic countries (or the Baltic states - as they used to say), by definition, cannot vote in defense of this pact, because one of the presidents (I won’t specify ..) managed to serve in the Wehrmacht and even fight against the Red Army in 1945.
        I will not touch on the current situation with Russians in Latvia and Estonia. One occupation museum in Riga is a spit in the face of all mankind ...
        And you say grammar .....
  4. Ash
    Ash
    +15
    January 24 2013
    Morality: never help out the Anglo-Saxons in difficult times, they’ll spoil you.
    1. 0
      January 24 2013
      You, dear, I want to put 2-3 pluses !!!!
  5. +12
    January 24 2013
    How can they not make us repent when the DAM president in front of the whole world let out snot in Katyn and bleated - it’s not me, this is the executioner - STALIN and his MINDERS. From such a shame, I already had tears. It is to what extent to hate own people and homeland? GLORY TO GREAT STALIN !!!
  6. +5
    January 24 2013
    This is the kind of material OUR history textbooks should have! Recently, in one material prepared for a history course in the 7th or 9th grade, I read the conclusion of the "teacher-historian" that as a result of the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, Russia entered World War II as an ALLY (!) Of Germany! This is what our children are taught in schools - NOT to love the Motherland. For me, too, at first it seemed that discussing such issues was like crushing water in a mortar. But now I understand that such articles should be published MASSIVELY and widely published, otherwise we will lose not only TERRITORY, but also the HISTORY of our people. Thanks to the author!
    1. aviator46
      0
      January 26 2013
      She entered - having attacked Finland, for which the USSR was expelled from the League of Nations.
  7. avt
    +9
    January 24 2013
    I put the article +, but in vain the author did not mention the Munich partition of the Czech Republic by the Naglo-Saxons, the occupation of a part of the territory of the same Czechoslovakia by Poland, the seizure of the Memel region by Lithuania from Poland - the article would have been much stronger. It is imperative to show that our potential friends are acting on the principle "your shit does not smell" !!!
    1. donchepano
      0
      January 24 2013
      Quote: avt
      in vain the author did not mention the Munich partition of the Czech Republic by the Naglo-Saxons, the occupation by Poland of a part of the territory of the same Czechoslovakia, the capture of the Memel region by Lithuania from Poland - the article would have been much stronger. It is imperative to show that our potential friends are acting on the principle "your shit does not smell" !!!


      Do not be lazy and mention all the ignorant. Now it is possible too. We are grateful
    2. aviator46
      +1
      January 26 2013
      During Munich, the USSR in every way in confidential negotiations with Germany strongly supported the position of Germany, and in confidential negotiations with Czechoslovakia in every possible way supported Czechoslovakia.
      And at a crucial moment, the USSR, in response to requests from the Czechoslovak president for intervention, replied that help should be sought in the League of Nations.
  8. +2
    January 24 2013
    Article +, an interesting vision of what would happen if ... But, as you know, history has no subjunctive mood and we have what we have.
  9. +3
    January 24 2013
    May they repent of Reykjavik. And not before the West, but before their own people.
  10. djon3volta
    +1
    January 24 2013
    that’s why Americans don’t give a written assurance that the missile defense is not directed against Russia, because if something happens they are afraid of a repeat of the Nürbergen process, when they can also judge all kinds of clintans and bushes.
  11. +9
    January 24 2013
    The geopolitical interests of countries and morality are incompatible things. Therefore, reasoning that this is moral, and this is immoral is naive. Hot debate over what is more immoral is Munich 38 or Moscow 39 have been going on for a very long time. But both sides are silent when it comes to Potsdam 45. Here they come to an agreement. Although if you look at these three events with a very third-party look, you can clearly see one thing - the division of Europe. Only the players and the balance of power between them changed.
    The key factor in international affairs is strength. The winner will find moral justification for himself.
  12. +1
    January 24 2013
    another attempt to twist history.
    Why was it necessary to teach German officers? Why was it necessary to supply strategic materials to Germany, thereby ensuring the production of weapons?
    The Molotov-Ribentrop Pact provided the border with Germany, respectively, and the danger of invasion. They also helped the Germans with artillery during the capture of Poland
    1. +5
      January 24 2013
      No one helped the Germans with the artillery of the USSR entered Poland on September 17 when the Polish Government was no longer there.
    2. ken
      ken
      +6
      January 24 2013
      But equipment, optics, and technology also came to us. It was a barter, an exchange of raw materials for machine tools. Today, they also exchange raw materials, only for chocolates. In the third, then everyone was helping the Germans, both the British and the Americans, the fact is that in Germany, according to the results of the 1st World War, people were dying of hunger, every German, including babies, was given a tribute of three thousand dollars with that money.
      Sobsno the Entente understood that it had gone too far, driving the Germans into starvation and poverty, where tens of thousands died of hunger, depriving them of their land, and therefore no one treated Hitler like today, his demands seemed justified (yes, they were at first those).
      As for Poland, the line along which the border passed was proposed by Curzon, this line was determined by ethnic borders, otherwise it would result in occupation, injustice. This is visible to everyone except the Poles - they and Belarus and Ukraine, and everything else, until the erysipelas crack.
    3. +1
      January 24 2013
      Dear, look for info: how many German officers were trained in the USSR and think how important this training was for WWII.
      Next, compare the quantity and quality of resources that the USSR supplied to Germany and compare these data with the quantity and quality of resources that were supplied to Germany in the same years, for example, by "neutral Switzerland". I'm talking about iron ore in particular.
      Nevertheless, for some reason no one blames Switzerland for supporting Hitler, but Stalin, you see, a scoundrel and a bastard, supported resources .......
      KEN below continued my thought ......
    4. +5
      January 24 2013
      We were taught until the 33rd year, according to the old agreement with the Weimer Republic. Materials were supplied according to commercial and industrial agreements. The first was signed in 1925. Then it was repeatedly extended. They were delivered not for beautiful eyes, they bought equipment (machines, propeller shafts, screws, etc.). .d.) and technology. And why not trade with someone with whom you are not at war? Pure pragmatism.
    5. +2
      January 24 2013
      bulvas, I advise you to read Guderian's memoirs: "Memoirs of a German General." There he describes well how the Germans butchered the Poles. And they did not need any help from the USSR! Moreover, his corps took Brest in one day and went on for many kilometers, without meeting the resistance of the Polish troops. Then, however, he was forced to stop and go abroad, agreed by the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, i.e. beyond the Bug, leaving Brest to the USSR. As for the training of German officers, you still need to see who trained whom more. In any case, this cooperation was beneficial to both rogue countries.
    6. +2
      January 24 2013
      Quote: bulvas
      another attempt to twist history.

      That you are apparently to yourself.
      The USSR did not train officers, but they did an internship and most likely German military specialists trained ours. Let it be known to you that the Reichswehr officers did the internship, but the British did the internship for the Wehrmacht officers.
      Tell me, do you think that without a non-aggression pact we would not have a common border with Germany after the seizure of Poland to it?
    7. avt
      +4
      January 24 2013
      Quote: bulvas
      another attempt to twist history.
      Why was it necessary to teach German officers? Why was it necessary to supply strategic materials to Germany, thereby ensuring the production of weapons?
      The Molotov-Ribentrop Pact provided the border with Germany, respectively, and the danger of invasion. They also helped the Germans with artillery during the capture of Poland
      Rather than chewing liberal Mlechin's gum, it's better to turn on your brain! The Germans with their equipment for the red cadets in Lipetsk and near Kazan were INSTRUCTORS, when they left in the 33rd, they left the equipment. Regarding the border - if you do not look at the globe, but take a smaller map, you can see - the Germans, if there was no pact, would have started from near Pskov, Pytalovsky district! And so on to the Black Sea / And what would happen to Leningrad? Regarding the "help" to the Germans - Stalin kept all legal decency, despite the German requests, Soviet troops entered Poland only when the Polish government fled the country. I also recommend that you familiarize yourself with the well-known fact, very unpleasant for the liberals, that the Western delegations that arrived for negotiations with the USSR, before the signing of the pact, were represented by third-rate persons, and the representatives of England DIDN'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT NEGOTIATIONS AT ALL! And finally, everyone knows the Helsinki group, but again, the de-Stalinizers diligently keep silent about the fact that not only documents on human rights were signed in Helsinki, but, first of all, documents on the INTEGRITY OF BORDERS established after World War II, that is, ALL EUROPEAN STATES, AMERICA and CANADA DEJURO RECOGNIZED THE RIBBENTROP-MOLOTOV PACT !!!! and the annexation of the KALININGRAD region to the USSR !!!
    8. +3
      January 24 2013
      Well, how much did they learn? Another British duck. The USSR collaborated with the Weimar Republic. As soon as Hitler came to power, everyone turned.
      By the way, German engineers, as well as loans, helped us a lot, it’s not known who benefited more from cooperation. And the border with Poland went to the EAST line of Curzon. I think if Pilsudski was alive, then the Poles would fight against us with the Nazis. In the Second World War, the Wehrmacht consisted of 500000 volunteers from occupied Poland.
      The article is excellent. I would like to add that in 1940 the Anglo-French Air Force from Middle Eastern bases was preparing to bomb the oil fields of Baku and Grozny, the only source of raw materials for fuel at that time. Only Hitler's attack on France frustrated these plans.
      PS Operation Catapult A total of 1297 Frenchmen were killed in this battle, about 350 were wounded: it would not hurt to remind someone.
      There would be no Munich, there would be no war. And the point.
      1. AlexW
        0
        January 25 2013
        In Poland, it is being actively discussed that they say they made a mistake fighting Germany. They seriously believe that in alliance with Hitler, the Soviets would definitely have been defeated and there would have been "Great Poland from Mozha to Mozha"
    9. Cheloveck
      +2
      January 24 2013
      Try turning your head on and try to think ..
      Able?
      Quote: bulvas
      Why was it necessary to teach German officers?

      The big question is: what could the Red Army teach in the 26-33 year of the Germans?
      Did the USSR have its own modern tanks, planes, chemical weapons?

      As the famous German aircraft designer E. Heinkel writes in his memoirs:
      “With the permission of the then government, the Reichswehr assisted in the reorganization of the army of Soviet Russia. This country needed the achievements that Germany had technically. Wilberg was in charge of the aviation department in the Reichswehr. He traveled to Russia to study the possibility of training pilots there on planes secretly built in Germany. ”

      Unshlikht - to Stalin:
      “On December 1926, we trained 16 military aircraft on fighter planes, provided technical training for the detailed study, maintenance and operation of the Napier-Lyon motor — 25 permanent mechanics and 20 variables. In the workshops at the school, a group of workers of up to 40 highly skilled people is grouped, who, under the guidance of German engineers, carry out various wood and metal works. Training at the school is carried out on the implementation of various new tactics. The study of tactical innovations is very valuable for us, since the tactical techniques of various types of aviation are studied by German school instructors by staying in America, England and France. ”

      Uborevich - Voroshilov:
      “... I have a number of facts - statements by individual officers that German officers had long-term access in America to study chemical production at the Edgeway Arsenal (1927), to study the latest tanks in the fall of 1928, and to study all military institutions during a business trip in the fall of 1927 to America, General Haye.

      Thus, it is necessary to fix that the achievements of American military equipment in large sizes are available to the Reichswehr.

      The next source should be considered England, where German officers have access to both tank maneuvers and aviation. A good attitude on the technical study of military affairs among the Germans and with Czechoslovakia ”

      Quote: bulvas
      Why was it necessary to supply strategic materials to Germany, thereby ensuring the production of weapons?

      Why is Russia now supplying strategic materials to the states (in particular, titanium, rocket engines, uranium, rare earth elements, etc.)?
      Quote: bulvas
      The Molotov-Ribentrop Pact provided the border with Germany, respectively, and the danger of invasion.
      Eeee, can you guarantee that Germany would not eat Poland without the pact? Moreover, in its entirety. And the border would pass in the immediate vicinity of Kiev and Minsk.
      Where is closer to Moscow, from Brest or from Minsk?
    10. +1
      January 24 2013
      Quote: bulvas
      The Molotov-Ribentrop Pact secured the border with Germany,

      It’s how everything is started ... But the fact that the common border with Germany was secured in any case doesn’t occur to you? Only if the pact was not signed, would this border come closer to Moscow by 250-300 km. Regardless of Moscow’s opinion .
      1. +3
        January 24 2013
        Quote: revnagan
        Only if the pact was not signed, would this border come closer to Moscow by 250-300 km, regardless of the opinion of Moscow.


        Stalin created a shield in front of Moscow and Russian territory. Honor and praise be for him!
      2. AlexW
        0
        January 25 2013
        namely, just these 250-300 km and, respectively, 3-4 weeks Hitler did not have enough to capture Moscow
    11. AlexW
      +1
      January 25 2013
      Georgians also studied at our military schools, and then there was August 2008
    12. +2
      October 21 2013
      Quote: bulvas
      Why was it necessary to teach German officers?

      And then in Germany there were simply no schools and academies ...

      Why was it necessary to supply strategic materials to Germany, thereby ensuring the production of weapons?
      For this they paid money, and considerable. And access to advanced German technology? And the supply of equipment? It is also worth something.

      They also helped the Germans with artillery during the capture of Poland
      Yeah, they helped for two days. And Poland is so peaceful and neutral that it’s straight to hug and cry.

      The Molotov-Ribentrop Pact provided the border with Germany, respectively, and the danger of invasion.
      Well, Rezun-Suvorov wrote something about this. But that is not the point. Let the Red Army not step on Poland, let Hitler solve his tasks himself. What, from this the border of the USSR and Germany will not become common? Or will Hitler leave a strip of Polish territory near the Soviet border? To blurt out such statements is only to show your own stupidity.
    13. 0
      October 21 2013
      And how many German officers (in pieces) were trained AFTER the pact? let me know.
      Compare the quantity and quality of iron ore supplied by the USSR and, for example, neutral Switzerland.
      Why don't you accuse Switzerland, in such a case, of "providing armaments"?
  13. Gwen
    +1
    January 24 2013
    Interesting thoughts on this subject are set forth in the book Red Symphony (Revelations of the Trotskyist Rakovsky). And, although it is impossible to reliably vouch for the truth of the interrogation given there, the text makes you think. Read the text here http://lib.rus.ec/b/158554/read
  14. +1
    January 24 2013
    What would the liberals take now if they didn’t sign Stalin’s non-aggression pact with Germany? They would accuse him of not signing.
    1. 0
      January 24 2013
      100% would be so
  15. 8 company
    +8
    January 24 2013
    Everyone grabbed and shared. England, won, a third of the world grabbed. The USSR was already in international isolation, and after the attack on Finland, it was also expelled from the League of Nations. In such conditions and with the devil you will sign the contract, so there really was no other way. By the way, the British have no equal in terms of hypocrisy: until June 1941, Stalin was an executioner and aggressor for them, after the German attack on the USSR, Stalin became their best friend and ally, and as soon as the war ended and the USSR bore the brunt of the war on the shoulders of its people , Stalin again became their executioner and aggressor.
    1. vardex
      0
      January 26 2013
      such as you, too, began to blame him everywhere, only after his death.
  16. andsavichev2012
    -7
    January 24 2013
    To the author: in history there are no subjunctive moods. This is an axiom. And the article is not necessary for military review, but for the overview of the fantasy world
    1. +1
      January 24 2013
      Sorry, where did you see the subjunctive moods here? and where is the fantasy? The author, in my opinion, fairly balancedly described the entire situation at that time in Europe and the world as a whole, and what the USSR could face in the future, and a decision was made precisely from the current situation ...
    2. Kubanets
      +3
      January 24 2013
      A vivid diplomatic move and now causes a gnashing of teeth among liberals. And by the way, forum users have any links to the so-called secret protocols to the Covenant. As far as I know, no one has seen them
      1. Cheloveck
        +1
        January 24 2013
        Some photocopies surfaced into perestroika, to which all links go.
        No one has seen the originals.
        Hmm, even those who photocopied it. laughing
  17. ken
    ken
    +2
    January 24 2013
    Adolf Alloizych, no less than offered to divide the world - to create the axis of Berlin - Moscow - Paris - Tokyo - Rome. Megasuper continental block. By and large, the war was for Europe, the dollar vs the mark, and today we see its consequences, that war. Hitler would not be such a scumbag.
    The pact was inevitable, but Stalin expressed his position - no continental bloc, the Soviets remain in their own, but they do not meddle in the affairs of Europe (it was not necessary for anyone, two hundred million square kilometers had to be mastered from scratch).
    It seemed that it was enough that Hitler did not take rash steps, but it turned out that it was not enough.
    In fact, they do not care about these liberals, Europe, their opinion, because behind their facade of good, everyone is doing what is beneficial for them, why should we be shy that we are trying to do the same?
  18. +2
    January 24 2013
    History does not tolerate the subjunctive mood. "If only", "would be" .... Stalin, do not say, was a very good politician and leader. In some ways - even brilliant. This agreement is another confirmation of this. After all, finding a solution at that time was very difficult, but he found it. And at the same time he showed tough political will.
    1. wax
      0
      January 24 2013
      Of course, history and subjunctive moods are incompatible, but the analysis of the grounds for making this or that historical decision is not only acceptable, but also necessary, as long as someone undertakes to make an assessment of the decisions made.
  19. Beck
    -9
    January 24 2013
    My opinion. If the question is posed, but to be.

    It was possible to do without the Molotov-Ribentrop Pact necessary It was.

    But must not It was necessary to do without a (at least temporary) treaty of neutrality and non-aggression between the USSR and Germany. Exactly the same as was concluded between the USSR and Japan in 1940.

    What would be the difference between the MP pact and the non-aggression and neutrality treaty? Substantial. Then the USSR would not have invaded the Baltic states and the eastern part of Poland, and would not have given rise to insanation now.

    I anticipate the question of cheers-patriots and communists. Like, then Germany would come very close to the borders of the USSR. So this would have to be reflected in the non-aggression and neutrality treaty.

    You, Germany, want to get back Silesia and Danzig from Poland. Take it. We will not protest and will not interfere. But you do not occupy eastern Poland and do not send your troops into the Baltic states. This eastern Poland and the Baltic states were that "pillow" from a sudden, sure attack. And so the USSR, with the pact MR, itself brought its borders closer to the aggressor, which made it possible for the first crushing blow of the Wehrmacht.
    1. 8 company
      +5
      January 24 2013
      Quote: Beck
      The USSR pact MP itself brought its borders closer to the aggressor, which made it possible for the first crushing blow of the Wehrmacht.


      Beck, hi! You are without a skull, it's already somehow indecent wink just kidding
      And about bringing the borders closer: imagine that the Germans did not deliver their first blow from Brest and Grodno, but from the region a little west of Minsk. Then on the 5th day of the war they do not take Minsk, but Smolensk. I am sure that in this case Moscow could not be kept.
      1. Beck
        -4
        January 24 2013
        Quote: Company 8
        Beck, hi! You are without a skull, it’s somehow even indecently joking


        Hello! Without skulls, it’s somehow unusual and uncomfortable. But this indicator is not for me personally. This already speaks of those who vote. So there are some shifts.

        About the comment. Either I wrote it vaguely or you read something somehow wrong.

        England and France gave Hitler the Sudetenland. Germany requested Silizia and Danzig. Here and conclude a non-aggression and neutrality treaty with Germany. Like, take your Silesia and Danzig, but you don’t go further into eastern Poland and the Baltic states, well, to identify some meridian from Poland. That Baltic States and Eastern Poland would be buffer zone. It would be possible to appoint militants there too.

        Then, German troops would have had to concentrate not on the border with the USSR, but on the western borders of eastern Poland and the Baltic states. And before invading the USSR, German troops would have to overcome buffer zone.

        But the movement of such masses of troops cannot be made invisible. There is time to bring their troops into full combat readiness. That's what I mean.
        1. 8 company
          0
          January 24 2013
          Quote: Beck
          Like, take your Silesia and Danzig, but you don’t go further into eastern Poland and the Baltic states, well, to identify some meridian from Poland.


          It was spelled out, as I understand it. Poland was divided and agreed on non-aggression. After signing this pact, the tonality of statements by USSR officials to Germany became very gracious, because everything has been divided and there is nothing to share, sort of. There were even such pearls from Molotov:
          “Our relations with Germany, as I said, have improved dramatically. Here, the business developed along the lines of strengthening friendly relations, developing practical cooperation and political support for Germany in its quest for peace. '

          "We have always been of the opinion that a strong Germany is a prerequisite for lasting peace in Europe."

          It was not for nothing that the people called the Germans "sworn friends" at that time.
          1. Beck
            -2
            January 24 2013
            Quote: Company 8
            It was not for nothing that the people called the Germans "sworn friends" at that time.


            So what am I talking about. It was not necessary with Hitler (based on the issue of the topic) to divide the territories into spheres of influence as in the MP pact. and send troops to Poland and the Baltic states. It has come back today politically. In 1941, he mumbled militarily. When, in an atmosphere of close contact, German troops delivered a powerful, sudden blow from the adjacent areas of concentration and defeated the border Soviet armies.

            But if Poland and the Baltic states were a buffer zone, then German troops from the areas of concentration would have to do long marches before entering into contact with the Soviet troops. And this is the time, the right time to prepare for reflection.
            1. avt
              +3
              January 24 2013
              Quote: Beck
              But if Poland and the Baltic states were a buffer zone, then German troops from the areas of concentration would have to do long marches before entering into contact with the Soviet troops. And this is the time, the right time to prepare for reflection.

              Typical Mlechenskaya chewing gum, you just need to look for what and how, for example, Lieutenant General S.I. Kabanov built in the annexed Baltic states, in the failed "buffer zone", as he rebuilt artillery batteries on Moonsund and the airfield from which Berlin was bombed by Preobrazhensky, so it immediately becomes clear to a reasonable and thinking person what exactly "preparation for reflection" is. You just need to look for and meaningfully look at historical facts! Of course, it's much easier to voice your own fantasy.
              1. Beck
                +1
                January 24 2013
                Who is Mlechin?

                Quote: avt
                Of course, it’s much easier to sound your own fantasy


                The question of assumptions posed by the topic. And to draw any conclusions, I have enough knowledge of the issue that I have been interested in since the 60s.
            2. +3
              January 24 2013
              Quote: Beck
              So what am I talking about. It was not necessary with Hitler (based on the issue of the topic) to divide territories into spheres of influence as in the MP pact

              And where is the agreement of 23.08.39 talking about any section and sphere of influence?
              How could Poland be a buffer zone if in September-October there was nothing left of it?
              Baltic states - buffer zone. Do not make me laugh. Two days of transition for the Wehrmacht. Moreover, there were already German troops in the Baltic states.
            3. 8 company
              0
              January 24 2013
              Quote: Beck
              But if Poland and the Baltic states were a buffer zone


              And, you mean that there should not be troops? Hmm, this is unrealistic in an environment where everyone was preparing for a large-scale redistribution.
              1. Beck
                0
                January 25 2013
                Well then, do not sign any contract. This agreement was more important for Gnrmania in 1938. To issue a condition or one way or another. Well, with all the diplomatic tricks.
        2. AlexW
          0
          January 25 2013
          Meredian, buffer zones - propose to take Hitler's word? And who will control this zone? Hitler would create another protectorate there, arm his army and receive an additional hundreds of thousands of bayonets against the USSR.
      2. krisostomus
        0
        January 25 2013
        Your argument is not very convincing.
        Firstly, the Polish armed forces put up serious resistance to the Germans - Warsaw (350 km from the border) was taken only on September 28, Brest on September 17. For comparison, we can cite Minsk, which was already taken on the 6th day of the war at the same distance from Brest as Warsaw from the then German border. At the same time, the Poles had almost 2,5 times less tanks, and the USSR June 22, 1941, the same number of tanks.
        Secondly, the old border in 1939 was quite heavily fortified, and on June 22, 1941 new fortifications were still under construction, and there was already a mess on the old one. That is, in September 1939, the USSR was more prepared for the war with Germany. In addition, it is far from a fact that Germany would have attacked Poland in general if the USSR were neutral. And the Wehrmacht in 1939 was completely different than in 1941.
        Third, the forceful solution to the "reunification of the lands" has generated serious resistance, collaboration and Russophobia among the population. The geopolitical result is known - the collapse of the camp of socialism, and then the USSR.
        1. AlexW
          0
          January 25 2013
          firstly: I’ll drive from Brest to Minsk in general in a few hours (if traffic cops don’t stop laughing .Distance is not the most important thing in defense - what was the density of troops in Poland and Belarus? "There were 2.5 times more tanks in the USSR than the Poles" - let's say this is so. And how many times was the front line in the USSR (from the White Sea to the Black Sea) larger than the German-Polish front?
          secondly: the Manerheim line was broken, Hitler generally avoided the Maginot line. Stalin preferred to learn from the mistakes of others.
          thirdly: do you want to say that before the age of 39, Poland, the Baltic states did languish from love for Russia? What Difinziva and other special services did not carry out from there provocations and sabotage against the USSR?
    2. +1
      January 24 2013
      Content of the contract

      The contract consisted of seven short articles:
      Article I obliged the parties to refrain from aggression against each other;
      Article II obligated the parties not to support the aggression of third countries against the other side;
      Article IV obligated the parties not to join military alliances directed against the other side;
      Article V proposed ways of a peaceful resolution to conflicts;
      Article VI described the duration of the contract (ten years with automatic renewal each time for five years);
      Articles III and VII were purely technical.

      As you can see, the treaty foreseen neutrality ...
      1. Beck
        -5
        January 24 2013
        Quote: Armavir
        As you can see, the treaty provided for neutrality.


        There was neutrality. And he was broken. And what do you think, given my two comments above, when a treacherous violation would have been worse? With direct contact of borders. Or when the German troops, in order to come into contact with the Soviet troops, had to overcome a distance of 300-500-1000 kilometers. When overcoming such distances, the factor of surprise is lost, since the troops have time to prepare for reflection.

        And the second one. Distracting from the Curzon line, but proceeding from the situation of 1940-1941. If the USSR had not entered Poland and the Baltic states, and made them a buffer zone, then there would have been no insulinization now.
        1. +2
          January 24 2013
          I think that this time the USSR would not have the opportunity to somehow influence the politics of the Baltic states and the rest of Poland, and I am more inclined to believe that in Poland there would be a puppet government subordinate to Germany, not the USSR, with all the consequences ...
          And who is to rest on their laurels especially after the first successes? If you lost to Czechoslovakia + Poland, do not forget what was the internal attitude in the Baltic countries and Poland towards Russia ... in principle, such relations have remained today ... I recommend reading the translations of Polish forums on the Ursa website, in particular about the war over them opinion
        2. dmb
          +4
          January 24 2013
          Sorry to interfere. And they would not have been (insinuations). After all, a mighty power was built, for centuries. Neither Stalin, nor his comrades-in-arms, and followers, even thought to themselves that in time unredeemable flaws in the system would ultimately lead to political insignificance to power. As for your arguments about the buffer zone, they are extremely controversial. The article provides one of the hypothetical scenarios in which Germany goes to an alliance with Poland, increasing its power also at the expense of its army. The option is quite possible. As for the concentration of troops on the border ... Do you seriously believe that the leadership of the USSR did not know it in 1941, and those famous KShUs in which Zhukov gouged Pavlov are also a bluff?
          1. 0
            January 24 2013
            By the way. in continuation of the thesis about the "buffer zone" .. The pact does not allow the parties to attack each other. But he does not prohibit Germany from attacking western Ukraine and the Baltic states. If there had been an "additional. Agreement" on "non-entry" to these countries, Hitler would have violated it, he would have found an excuse "for Stalin," and there was no buffer zone. And for us to be very "bullish" in this situation, the same is not handy - the pact was just signed to delay the time during which we would prepare for war.
            Total: the capture of the Baltic states and parts of Poland is a very right decision. + to this, the arguments of the DMB.
        3. 0
          January 24 2013
          Quote: Beck
          If the USSR had not entered Poland and the Baltic states, and made them a buffer zone, then there would have been no insulinization now

          How was he supposed to make them buffer zones? Reveal the secret.
          1. namejs
            0
            January 24 2013
            Well, for example, the agreement on mutual assistance that was signed in 1939. In the Baltic countries, quite large forces of the Red Army were deployed ...
            1. 0
              January 25 2013
              Quote: Namejs
              Well, for example, the agreement on mutual assistance that was signed in 1939. In the Baltic countries, quite large forces of the Red Army were deployed ...


              Stupidity. The Balts proclaimed a policy of neutrality (not particularly adhering to it).
              1. namejs
                0
                January 25 2013
                Then you are unknowed about history. Latvia announced neutrality on September 3, 1939, and the mutual assistance agreement between the USSR and the Republic of Latvia was signed on October 5, 1939 ... the text in Russian was published in the newspaper Izvestia. 1939, October 6 ...
                You can search the Internet with keywords if you don’t believe ...

                30 soldiers were immediately sent to Latvia. in June 000 at least a little more ....
        4. +2
          October 21 2013
          Quote: Beck
          If the USSR had not entered Poland and the Baltic states,
          Hitler would have entered there and would have become much closer to Moscow, Kiev, Leningrad and Minsk.
          I don’t know what you’ve been studying there since 60’s, but there’s a little sense.
    3. mamba
      +1
      January 24 2013
      Quote: Beck
      But you do not occupy eastern Poland and do not send your troops into the Baltic states. This eastern Poland and the Baltic states were that "pillow" from a sudden, sure attack.

      They would not have become this pillow, because Hitler had his own plans for them. In the Directive on the Unified Preparation of the Armed Forces for the War of 11-1939, approved by Hitler on April 1939, 1940. it was pointed out that after the defeat of Poland, Germany should take control of Lithuania and Latvia: "The position of the limitrophic states will be determined exclusively by the military needs of Germany. With the development of events, it may become necessary to occupy the limitrophic states up to the border of old Courland and include these territories in the empire."
      And then Army Group Sever in the second week of the war takes Leningrad, unites with the Finnish army and turns to Moscow.
      1. namejs
        0
        January 24 2013
        This is rather strange, since it is true that at first Lithuania was included in the sphere of interests of Germany, but then it was returned to the sphere of "interests" of the USSR ...
        Then the question is when was the current directive issued? Since already in November 1939 Soviet military bases were deployed in Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia ...
        1. +2
          October 21 2013
          Quote: Namejs
          This is rather strange, since it is true that initially Lithuania was in the sphere of interests of Germany

          Not at all strange. For centuries, Germany had rather serious interests in the Baltic states. And the local population was not particularly reckoned with.

          again returned to the sphere of "interests" of the USSR

          Or leave the Baltic ports for Kriegsmarine, and the territory for tank groups of the Wehrmacht? And who then calls Stalin smart?
    4. AlexW
      0
      January 25 2013
      you suggest calmly watching how the aggressor moves the borders closer to our capital? It may still be better to push your own away.
      1. namejs
        0
        January 25 2013
        In any case, neopuskatsi to the level of the Nazis and divide the territory .. I already do not talk about trade agreements ...
        And in 1939, Germany wasn’t to take such a force from kotorii
        1. +2
          October 21 2013
          Quote: Namejs
          In any case, neopuskatsi to the level of the Nazis and divide the territory.

          Suggest an alternative, but no less effective option.

          And in 1939, Germany wasn’t to take such a force from kotorii

          This is exactly what our "friends" across the canal and the ocean wanted. We collide with Germany head-ons in 39, ruin our armies, and the Anglo-Franks, without even firing a single shot, as always come to a nodding analysis and dictate their terms. In the last Russian-Turkish war, it was also like this: we liberated the Balkans, and then Europe skimmed the cream. Even the hominy have benefited from Russia.
    5. +2
      October 21 2013
      Beck, your naivety (or stupidity already) can only compete with your own Germanophilia. Can anyone really believe that Hitler would have left "eastern Poland"? And what would its international status be, especially after the flight of the government? And where is the guarantee that this "buffer" would have kept Hitler or made impossible a surprise attack on the USSR? Yes, I don’t want to discuss such nonsense.
      1. Beck
        0
        October 21 2013
        Quote: Alex
        Can anyone really believe that Hitler would have left "eastern Poland"?


        I wouldn’t leave it, but it would already be completely German responsibility.

        Quote: Alex
        Beck, your naivety (or stupidity already) can only compete with your Germanophilism.


        About Germanophilism. All Uroshniki when they disagree stick labels of Anglo, Amero, China, Japan and other films. I have nothing naive, that you can not give any arguments. And you yourself are GREATER than STUPID.

        Quote: Alex
        Yes, such nonsense and do not want to discuss something.


        So why climbed in? Would walk further. Did I ask you to get in my comments? Someone asked you to intervene in discussion. He wanted to. And now he doesn’t want to see.
  20. +1
    January 24 2013
    Quote: Beck
    Then the USSR would not have invaded the Baltic states and the eastern part of Poland, and would not have given rise to insanation now.

    Poland doesn’t even need a reason for any kind of insanation, they successfully find it in everything - the legend of Poland from sea to sea has not died yet ....
    And secondly, the USSR did not take "eastern Poland" for itself, but went to the borders of the Curzon, which back in 1920. were established and I will remind you of another moment that it was Poland in those years that was the aggressor against the young USSR ... look carefully at the maps of those years where the border was supposed to run and along which line it lay afterwards into the water of the spacecraft troops. Therefore, my position in this is as follows - the USSR has regained what was illegally lost 20 years ago.
    and thirdly, don’t do it already anyway, Germany in that case would have paid these lands to cities such as Minsk, Moscow, Kiev, Leningrad, would have been much closer, which would make Blitzkrieg’s plan even easier ... But the Balts would have missed column to Leningrad along the green corridor ...
    1. wax
      +9
      January 24 2013
      The Germans' capture of Leningrad in 1941 would substantially change the entire course of the war against the USSR, even if Turkey and Japan had not opened their fronts. Stalin outplayed everyone in diplomacy, and this will never be forgiven him. Aerobatics - put their sworn enemies in the position of helping (not even just outside observers). This is the second factor that has restrained, for example, Turkey. Checkmate. Stalin’s diplomacy in the pre-war period must be studied and studied. And be proud.
      1. +1
        January 24 2013
        A big plus for you)) it is a pity that I can leave an assessment only once.
  21. +6
    January 24 2013
    << So, during the Soviet-Finnish war, London and Paris have actually decided to go to war with the USSR, planning to help Finland by landing an expeditionary force in Scandinavia and strike at the southern borders of the USSR from the Middle East (the plan of bombing oil fields in the Baku region ). >>
    The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact is ABSOLUTELY and the only right and most important decision of the Soviet leadership extremely concerned about the country's security in the face of a hostile environment and international situation THAT PERIOD, the correctness of which was confirmed by all subsequent history. The Entente, which raised Hitler (there are already a number of documents confirming this) in order to send him to the East, to destroy communism, Russia, of which Hitler openly declared himself an adversary, did everything possible to provoke this clash.
    Hitler, feeling his strength, disposed of it in his own way, deciding first to seize Western Europe. But he did not abandon his plans for a campaign to the East, and together with the countries of the West, as evidenced by the unexpected stop of the successful offensive of the Wehrmacht on Dunkirk, which made it possible for the Entente to evacuate to England practically all of its troops remaining on the continent. Hitler clearly wanted to keep them, so that later, as allies, they would participate together with the Wehrmacht in the attack on Russia, as evidenced by the unexpected flight to England during the war with her by R. Hess, who, obviously, made a corresponding offer to the British. But, having put in their pants with fear of the out of control Hitler, the British decided that Stalin with his communist ideology was the lesser "evil" for their democracy and that he was the only one who could stop the march of fascism around the world. So the Entente became an adherent of Russia in the fight against fascism, and it was the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact that played an important role in this, as well as in the final whitewash over the plague of the XNUMXth century!
  22. FIMUK
    -7
    January 24 2013
    everyone, everybody knew everything was counted, and on June 22 missed?
    how so
    1. 0
      January 24 2013
      so after all, at 5 a.m. they attacked, they all slept from a hangover.
    2. +1
      January 24 2013
      They didn't "dig" anything. The pre-war period and the beginning of the war exactly reflect the level of difference in the industrial-organizational technologies of the USSR and the Reich for 1941.
    3. avt
      +3
      January 24 2013
      Quote: FIMUK
      everyone, everybody knew everything was counted, and on June 22 missed?
      how so

      If you really care about this issue, I suggest thinking about this. You, for example, are the head of state and you know for sure that you can compete on equal terms with the Germans in a year. The army is deployed in a multimillion-dollar army, there are not enough officers {even those who are repressed are returning to the ranks}, there is a massive rearmament, time is urgently needed! And here, for example, Sorge {an agent of the Comintern - who your personal enemies Zinoviev and Trotsky created} sends telegrams, as many as 11 pieces and in each of them the exact time of the attack! curator General Orlov - Feldin from Spain, in which he worked with Antonov - Ovseenko, also the creature of your "bosom friend" Trotsky, left with the money. Everyone knows this today - the war began on June 22, 1941, but what decisions would you make then ?? And this is only so, the first approximation to the question.
  23. +4
    January 24 2013
    It must be remembered that the USSR was an outcast due to the power of the Bolsheviks, and Germany was an outcast due to the 1st World War. By the way, the now famous Made in ... appeared just then, for marking German goods - such as the indelible brand of shame, so that the consumer knew that when he bought this product, he supported Germany. Neither the USSR nor Germany had a choice against whom to be friends. Against everyone. But they couldn’t be friends with each other - Hitler was an anti-communist, he was only a churchman. Therefore, they didn’t draw up a treaty of friendship, but non-aggression - that’s a clumsy word. Then Hitler went wrong, he didn’t have to kill Western shit democracy, he had to have Easter cake in Moscow to taste. But you could have come to an agreement. They agreed with the Americans.
  24. +4
    January 24 2013
    Correct article! Stalin introduced troops to the countries of the Great Braking Road with the consent of their governments, on the basis of agreements concluded with them. Unlike how the fate of Czechoslovakia, England and France decided, did not even ask the government of the country if it wanted to go under the Germans, and at that time, their friends -polyakov. And after that they are so white and fluffy? They were already bald and golubye. And the countries of the Eastern Trade Union should remember history. After the collapse of the Russian Empire, who was there at first in the big sidekicks? dermocrats of Europe. "As in the anus it became assertive, so we need these Balts. And let the population of the HTP countries organize demonstrations like - we want to join a single family. In the 90s, history repeated itself. Geiropa gladly accepted into her same-sex family, the peoples of the Great TP. For 20 years, no one needs them anymore. So they should erect monuments to Stalin and Molotov, for the fact that by the age of 90 they remained independent peoples with their own language and culture.
  25. Larus
    +2
    January 24 2013
    I got this topic already. To begin with, it is necessary to assess those treaties and pacts that were concluded by the countries of the geyropa and the attitude towards us from the future allies (temporary), which led to the signing of this document.
    But constantly raising this topic, it is precisely the countries of the geyropov who are trying to shut up their SINS.
  26. +3
    January 24 2013
    Quote: Beck
    But it was impossible to do without a (at least temporary) treaty of neutrality and non-aggression between the USSR and Germany. Exactly the same as was concluded between the USSR and Japan in 1940.



    In that situation, it was impossible. The German side made an indispensable condition an agreement on the division of spheres. And the USSR, with a full understanding of the inevitability of the defeat of Poland, could not but stipulate in advance the line of future demarcation. There could be no other line, since the Curzon Line was the only universally recognized line for the ethnic division of Europe with which all the major countries agreed in one way or another.

    Quote: Beck
    You, Germany, want to get back Silesia and Danzig from Poland. Take it. We will not protest and will not interfere. But you do not occupy eastern Poland and do not send your troops into the Baltic states. This eastern Poland and the Baltic states were that "pillow" from a sudden, sure attack. And so the USSR, with the pact MR, itself brought its borders closer to the aggressor, which made it possible for the first crushing blow of the Wehrmacht.


    Were not. The fact is that the Balts also had Pacts with Germany. Moreover, Finland withdrew from all military treaties and declared neutrality in the war. And Eastern Poland for the role of "pillow" is just as good as turd for the role of an anti-tank shell. There is actually NOTHING in it except for backward agricultural areas. The main industry of Poland was located in the West and in the center. Hypothetical eastern Poland could not support any significant army. And the Germans were categorically against the presence in their rear of a bridgehead for the deployment of the anti-German coalition troops in the form of an independent splinter of Poland. They needed a GUARANTEE that at the start of the war in France they would not be hit in the rear by the Royal Navi, covered with all the might. Therefore, they would certainly grab this piece for themselves. Not by force, so by politics. They would put a pro-German government of the Vichy type there and at the X hour they would use the infrastructure of the region as they wished.

    With the Baltic, it is also not so simple. That we can now assess the low probability of their joint actions. But then the USSR then could not predict that a future strike would come in a westerly direction. It was necessary to reckon with the danger from the north-north-west. In 1939, dictatorships had already taken root in the Baltic states, and with the Germans' proper activity, pro-German regimes could also arise. But there are also not 15 people in the armies.

    Quote: Beck
    Then, German troops would have had to concentrate not on the border with the USSR, but on the western borders of eastern Poland and the Baltic states. And before invading the USSR, German troops would have to cross the buffer zone.


    So they were geographically concentrated in the same place! :) Besides, what's the difference? The concentration area makes sense if you can actively COUNTER the concentration. And the Red Army itself was ordered to go there. And who guaranteed that independent fascist regimes would not arise in these "sprats", which would provide the Germans with territory for sending troops "in the face of the Soviet threat"?
    1. Beck
      -1
      January 24 2013
      The topic was raised - What would happen if the pact looked different. I put forward my version. And the cheers-patriot, as always in a rage of inviolability of the genius of the communist leadership and the whitewash of the invasion of Soviet troops in other states, pounced on all sides.

      I will try to explain in another way.

      The first one. Germany needed Silesia and Danzig. The second one. Germany needed a temporary peace in the east with the USSR, in view of the impending confrontation in the West against France and England. Germany turns to the USSR with a proposal to conclude a non-aggression pact with a division of spheres of influence. That is, Germany occupies Silesia along with Warsaw and Danzig, and the USSR is given freedom in relation to eastern Poland, the Baltic states and Finland. So they did. Occupied and divided. Now there is an insulination that the USSR is also guilty of a mess. The topic poses the question - how else? I replied. Most did not fully understand.

      In my vision.

      Point 1. Germany occupies Poland up to 22 degrees east longitude. A demarcation line runs along this meridian.
      Point 2. On this line are Soviet observation posts to monitor the implementation of the agreements.

      This is the app. Thus, it would not be necessary for the Soviet troops to occupy neighboring countries and today there would be no pokes. In the event of aggression, German troops had to march a distance of 300-500 km. Such movements cannot be unnoticed. Soviet armies in the west of the USSR manage to deploy troops and meet the aggressor fully armed. And do not take a powerful blow suddenly.

      That's it.
      1. +2
        January 25 2013
        So they explain to you in simple words why it CANNOT look different. You, as an apologist for democratoid newhistorism, obviously know that the contract is concluded by MUTUAL agreement of the parties. Unless, of course, this is an agreement on unconditional surrender. :) So the Germans did not want to hear about any neutrality without separation. Also, they would not tolerate the presence of ANY independent regime on the fragments of Poland, since their General Staff considered this territory a springboard for the Franco-British landing.

        The phrase about "the Germans wanted Silesia" in this case demonstrates a shallow familiarity with the situation. The Germans needed a reliable rear before throwing themselves to the West. They have already covered and blocked all their current industrial needs by capturing the Czech Republic and the arsenals of its army. And only 2 political configurations could give a reliable rear, which in fact boil down to 1 - the common border with the USSR passing through the territory of Poland. Because the scornful disgusting anti-Sovietism of the British cabinet was well understood and taken into account in Berlin.

        Speaking about "observation posts" you keep forgetting that you have to operate not with the realities of today where there are satellites, AWACS aircraft, strategic missiles and highly mobile rapid response units, but with the realities of the USSR in 1938-1939! When even the concept of mobile defense had no intelligible embodiment. The ONLY type of defense worked out in the Red Army was positional defense, on PRE-equipped lines, PREVIOUSLY mobilized units.
        It is now enough just to see the movement of troops. And it is possible to inflict damage on the territory of the enemy in an hour incompatible with the further conduct of the operation. Just dump special ammunition in strategic areas and that’s it, the war is over. And then the invasion army needed to STOP! And even in the USSR, the rate of advance of tank strike groups to previously equipped positions was estimated at 60-100 km per day. Well, what's the point of 300 km of empty land? The Wehrmacht will whistle in 2 days, so what? Will something change a lot?

        And today's claims are jackal howl. It’s just that in some modern states, demonstrative horror before the Russians is an integral part of political tools.
        1. Beck
          0
          January 26 2013
          Quote: abc_alex
          So they explain to you in simple words why


          Subjective hypothesis I made an assumption.

          Again. Military advantage. The Nazi attack would not be unexpected. Since it was necessary to overcome the march of these 300-500 kki. Our observation posts and other types of intelligence would report on the convoys of troops. Our armies would have time to turn around.

          Political advantages. Our soldiers would not be associated with the invaders in the Baltic states and Poland. For them, the Wehrmacht troops would be invaders. And our troops would be true liberators. And then, in 1941. Baltic divisions would not be created to fight against the Red Army, and in 1944 divisions would be created to fight the fascists. And today there would be no insurances on this subject.
  27. ng1941
    -1
    January 24 2013
    1) Did the author not think that the Soviet army could very well prepare to repel German aggression in a year? An interesting position is that the USSR was shown to be an absolutely inert state in which everything suddenly froze (well, the Germans capture Poland, and the Russians sit and quietly smoke aside, like we have nothing to do with and the enemy suddenly comes to our borders ....)
    2) It’s cool, the enemy is crushing us, the terrible enemy, the army is broken, communications are destroyed, confusion, BUT we persistently refuse the help (for free, that is, for nothing) of the neighboring state, because we don’t like Russians, communists, to emphasize the necessary advice. ... (it seems like nonsense (or does it just seem so to me?)
    3) And there isn’t a word about the Reich (it doesn’t have a vote in the alternative! That’s the point.), Well, Poland decided to join or not join the union, and Germany was just waiting for Poland to embrace, it turns out that the Poles are to blame for the fact that Polish -German war .... but did Germany need such an ally?
    1. 0
      January 25 2013
      1. No. The USSR did everything possible to prepare itself. Up to the point that he closed furniture factories to make airplanes. Think of the USSR of the 39th as it is, and not through the prism of the USSR of the 70s or even Russia. Understand that back in the early 30s the USSR had a toy army of less than a million in number, and a militia-picking system for the army.

      2. Exactly! This was nonsense. The behavior of Poland then did not understand even the French and British. After all, the Poles refused not only direct military assistance to the USSR, they rejected the project of ANY cooperation with the USSR, even in the coalition with F and A, even the supply of weapons! And do not forget, Poland of the 30s is a consistent, ideological enemy of the USSR. The Polish government is hostile to the USSR. Would you go to fight for the interests of your enemy?

      3. The Poles are to blame for not allowing Entente-2 to take shape. By proclaiming their selfish interests above the interests of balancing Europe. Yes, then the Polish elite considered it best to fish in troubled waters for as long as possible, making profit for themselves, demonstrating either rapprochement with Germany or rapprochement with Britain. And most importantly, leaving for himself the opportunity to return the territory of eastern Ukraine. As a result, they themselves (themselves, no one forced them) accepted for themselves an absolutely idiotic, utopian, unrealizable guarantee system from Fr and Br, excluding the USSR. A system that under no circumstances could keep Poland independent. Since France (and everyone knew it then) did not want to fight in Europe, and there was simply NOTHING to Britain.
      The only ones who could really help Poland were Russians. But it was the Russians who despised the Poles and did not want to see among the allies. Although the USSR was perhaps the only state in Europe that had an interest in really helping Poland, because both Fr. and A had existed beautifully without Poland on the map 20 years ago. And even won the war against Germany.
  28. namejs
    -4
    January 24 2013
    According to my certain need, I didn’t, because the USSR was a major power and could stand up for itself. The USSR alone had bigger tanks than all the rest of the world together ...

    Then about the scripts.
    1. I don’t see the point of such an agreement, since even if Germany, without the agreement of the USSR, attacked Polsha, what would have prevented the Poles from helping? The opinion is that the Poles are proud to refuse to help the USSR and let themselves be smashed to smithereens. This is the same as a drowning person refusing your life circle because he’s not like him ....

    Another thing about the Baltic countries and the threat of their voluntary entry into an alliance with Germany ...

    First of all, not Latvians or Lithuanians experienced no love for the Germans and considered them as potential enemies. And such a mood was in high political circles themselves. So for example, the Minister of Defense (Ministry of War then) Balodis escho 1938 virozila that will be able to sleep peacefully only when everything is 60 mil. Germans will explode.
    Of course, the main hopes of defense were placed on the Western powers since the USSR was not trusted at all.
    1. +1
      January 25 2013
      The USSR in the 30s was not a "major power". You are captive to a widespread and persistently widespread mistake in "liberal historiography". USSR in the 30s was backward agrarian country. Even individual advanced industries, such as aircraft construction, were dependent on imports of technology and materials.
      Even the tanks so beloved by all in huge numbers - this is a British model produced at a factory built by the United States.
      And no illusions needed. Such a huge number of tanks of the USSR could not be used at a time. They were built in reserve, it was assumed that such a quantity was needed to conduct a war without replenishment of equipment. Since the production capacities of the USSR to provide the army and the country in a war would not be enough.

      1) I repeat. The Polish regime was openly hostile to the USSR. NOBODY AND NEVER fights for their enemies. The regime’s hostility was such that even realizing the threat of loss of independence, the Poles did not go closer. Jozef Beck formulated the position of Poland as follows: “With the Germans, we risk losing our freedom, and with the Russians, our soul” Yes, this seems absurd, but the Poles really preferred to give themselves to pieces, but did not agree to the help of the Russians.

      2) The Baltic states did not have much sympathy for the Russians either. Moreover, in the 20-30s they actively and actively discussed the idea of ​​the Soviet threat and even tried to create a military alliance on this subject. But this is not about sympathy. in the late 30s, the regimes in the Baltic were actually dictatorships. Everyone was waiting and preparing for war. And if, for example, an army of German invasion approached the Lithuanian border, the Lithuanians would have the simplest choice to either surrender or the Russians. Since it would be foolish to count on the decisive help of the Western powers. The USSR had no illusions about the Baltic states, since the position of the regimes there was clear and clearly anti-Soviet, therefore, the most realistic option was seen as the allied actions of the Reich and the Baltic states.
      It was not a matter of sympathy, but a balance of power.
      1. namejs
        0
        January 25 2013
        Quote: abc_alex
        The USSR in the 30s was not a "major power". You are captive to a widespread and persistently widespread mistake in "liberal historiography". The USSR of the 30s was a backward agrarian country. Even some advanced industries, such as aircraft manufacturing, were dependent on imported technologies and materials.
        Even the tanks so beloved by all in huge numbers - this is a British model produced at a factory built by the United States.
        And no illusions needed. Such a huge number of tanks of the USSR could not be used at a time. They were built in reserve, it was assumed that such a quantity was needed to conduct a war without replenishment of equipment. Since the production capacities of the USSR to provide the army and the country in a war would not be enough.


        It’s just that it’s not enough to produce more tanks than in service with all countries of the world taken together and also of other weapons.
        And if we accept that the USSR was a backward state, why did the USSR supply the Germans with everything necessary for military industry? And this supply of the same manganes and other metals as well as food was very significant. It would have become much harder for the Nazis to fight, or even just impossible ...


        Quote: abc_alex
        I repeat. The Polish regime was openly hostile to the USSR. NOBODY AND NEVER fights for their enemies. The regime’s hostility was such that even realizing the threat of loss of independence, the Poles did not go closer. Jozef Beck formulated Poland’s position as follows: “With the Germans we risk losing our freedom, and with the Russians we risk our souls” Yes, this seems absurd, but the Poles really preferred to let themselves be smashed, but did not agree to the help of the Russians.


        There are many cases in history when the enemies in the face of a larger krupnova of the enemy ина dined .. Before the war, the Poles were too confident and therefore blatant .... The same Great Britain, which was one of the worst enemies, became allies ... Even as it was recently spread, the Americans planned attacks on Canada to weaken the British Empire but plans were remembered because of other threats ...


        Quote: abc_alex
        The Baltic states did not have much sympathy for the Russians either. Moreover, in the 20-30s they actively and actively discussed the idea of ​​the Soviet threat and even tried to create a military alliance on this subject. But this is not about sympathy. in the late 30s, the regimes in the Baltic were actually dictatorships. Everyone was waiting and preparing for war. And if, for example, an army of German invasion approached the Lithuanian border, the Lithuanians would have the simplest choice to either surrender or the Russians. Since it would be foolish to count on the decisive help of the Western powers. The USSR had no illusions about the Baltic states, since the position of the regimes there was clear and clearly anti-Soviet, therefore, the most realistic option was seen as the allied actions of the Reich and the Baltic states.
        It was not a matter of sympathy, but a balance of power.




        Sympathy and love was not true. But you forget that this dislike was against the Germans because you felt a potential threat. In the case of German aggression, the Germans would have faced violent resistances to Tembole and something would have hurt the USSR’s intervention in the conflict, and the German army in 1939 was far from being so strong as to tegats with the Red Army. Yes, she was better prepared and could inflict sensitive damage, but the Soviet Union could easily put the quantity ...
        And just do it, Germany was terribly afraid of a war on two fronts - it was not in vain that Hitler enlisted the support of Stalin before taking up Polsha ...
  29. krisostomus
    +1
    January 24 2013
    The author’s not very clear logic for all options
    Scenario 1. Why did the author decide that Hitler would abide by his agreements with the USSR, if he did not comply with them with others, just as the USSR did not comply with them? Was Stalin so naive? Well, how do you order to understand the further actions of the USSR to seize the territory of another sovereign state of Poland, the legality of the borders of which he himself recognized by the Riga Treaty and, moreover, had a non-aggression treaty with her? The propaganda claiming that the state of Poland and its government ceased to exist is not convincing, since in September 1941 the USSR restored diplomatic relations and concluded an agreement on a joint struggle against Germany with the nonexistent government of this nonexistent state of Poland. Therefore, the future "allies" quite logically assumed that in the attack on Poland, the USSR and Germany acted as allies and divided it among themselves by prior agreement. And why did Hitler have to believe Stalin if Stalin also did not comply with his agreements?
    Scenario 2. Yes, it was not necessary to act on the side of Poland, as well as to impose its help on the neighbors by force, overcoming their resistance. It was possible to provide the Polish troops with asylum, as well as the troops of the Baltic countries in the event of an attack by Germany, and not make enemies for themselves with unnecessary repression, and above all among the officers. And these are dozens of well-trained divisions, not the people's militia, which then had to plug the holes. All this had to be done after June 22, 1941, but under different conditions and with the loss of a huge "social base" of supporters. As a result, Germany and the USSR were still exhausting their forces, while the USSR was in much worse conditions, and the "countries of democracy" won.
    Scenario 3. Well, if, as Soviet propaganda always claimed, there was no agreement between the USSR and Germany on the division of Europe, what prevented Poland from joining this bloc with Germany before the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact? Well, after August 23, 1939, the Poles were even more likely to assume that their statehood had already faced a double threat. Why didn’t they?
    1. 0
      January 25 2013
      1) And the Germans were interested in compliance. Economically. I recall that the rise of the German economy under Hitler was primarily due to the growth of domestic demand. And domestic demand was provided by the brand. But for the purchase of raw materials which the Germans did not have at all, currency is needed. Currency comes from foreign trade. But the British metropolis dominates in foreign markets, which makes German goods uncompetitive in their colonies by non-economic measures. Therefore, the Germans experienced total currency hunger. The USSR was a huge market, free from restrictions. And Weimar Germany traded a lot and profitably with the USSR.

      As for the "recognized borders" and Stalin's logic, he postponed the entry of troops to the last. Even when the Germans declared that they had already captured Warsaw, liquidated Poland as a state and the Polish army as an organized force, he waited almost a day. He had little choice. The Germans devoured Poland - this is indisputable. Well, either they will stand on the old border of the USSR, or on the new one. Guderian then, I remind you, went all the way to Brest!

      2) What does it mean to "give refuge to the troops"? Where, how, on what basis? To begin with, in this case, you need to have treaties with governments. Otherwise, an unpleasant situation will arise when the armed units on our territory are subordinate to someone far away. Such things require a clear international legal study. And Poland and the Baltic states simply categorically refused to interact with the USSR. Up to threats to actually go over to the side of the Germans if the USSR participates in the security system. Well, why is it needed?
      And then what "dozens of well-trained divisions" Where did you count so many of them? This is, at best, a CROWD of several divisions, armed with the edge of the world, partly not wanting to fight at all, partly not wanting to fight for the Russians, but for the most part demoralized and unable to properly integrate into the structures of the Red Army. Moreover, the Poles are subordinate to the government in London.
      If you need an example, look at the actions of the Anders army Poles. They even had the opportunity to kill the Germans did not outweigh the contempt for the Russians.
      By the way, the "fragments of the empire" knew very well about such behavior of the armies. That is why in the Baltics, for example, in case of war, mobilization measures were NOT ALLEGED AT ALL. That is, no one in the USSR believed in the loyalty of the Balts.

      3. Aha, here ignorance has gone. Poland entered into a pact with Germany, entered. Almost the first to report to Hitler in readiness. In Berlin, German Foreign Minister Konstantin von Neurath and Polish Ambassador to Berlin Jozef Lipsky 26th of January 1934 As much as 5 years earlier than the "bloody Stalinist regime" the Poles have already marked their loyalty to the Nazis! :)
      So the next time you talk about Stalin’s motives, keep in mind that the probability of the joint actions of P and G was not at all zero. Moreover, it was the Germans who gave the Poles the whole territory on which they still drip saliva and which Tukhachevsky then conquered from them.
      1. krisostomus
        +1
        January 25 2013
        Well, how the Germans were interested in keeping the pact is evidenced on June 22, 1941. And then the point is not that a non-aggression pact was concluded, but that this pact affected third countries, in particular the division of the sovereign state of Poland. And the fact that this was exactly what was done by prior conspiracy testifies to the fact that the troops, even having gone beyond the agreed line, silently pulled back. And Stalin delayed the introduction of troops only for two reasons - firstly, he was well aware that Britain, the USA and France could view the USSR as a military ally of Germany, and, secondly, this must somehow be explained to the workers' and communist movement in the West. Well, after the introduction of troops, he went all out, believing that now with a new "ally" he was holding God by the beard. This is very clearly evidenced by Molotov's speech at the session of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, where he bluntly stated that “a short blow on Poland from the first German army, and then the Red Army, was sufficient so that nothing would remain of this ugly brainchild of the Versailles Treaty. ". Further, in general, Molotov issued the most important "pearl" stating that "it is not only senseless, but also criminal to wage a war like the war for the" destruction of Hitlerism. "What is not clear? After that, the USSR took up other" ugly children of Versailles "- Finland, the Baltic states , Romania and tried to pull off a similar scenario with Bulgaria and Yugoslavia.
        As for Anders' army, it would be strange if, after such an "incendiary" speech by Molotov, he was eager to fight for the Russians. And the fact that the Poles fought very well against "Hitlerism" in the British Air Force is a well-known fact. The armed forces of the "ugly brainchild of Versailles" were hardly less efficient than the Red Army, as evidenced by the war with Finland. Only the forces were already very unequal. If there were no war with Finland, the fate of Leningrad might have been different. In any case, the Finns did not fire at Leningrad having such an opportunity. That is, the main argument of the USSR for what they started the war - it turned out to be a bluff, and they did not cross the old border. They returned theirs.
        The pact is the pact of strife, as mentioned above. Poland had the same pact with the USSR. Nevertheless, it is well known that Poland flatly refused to join the Axis countries. Therefore, Stalin's motives give rise to absolutely no doubt - to expand the borders of the empire in any way and to cooperate in this with anyone who contributes to this more. At the time, only Hitler contributed to this. Therefore, there is not much to argue about. From the point of view of Russians, Stalin was a hero-statesman who fought to expand the borders of the empire. From the point of view of the neighbors who have undergone this "expansion", he is a common aggressor who spits on international agreements. Probably, at one time, the Germans considered Hitler a hero-builder of the Reich, while others did not.
  30. +1
    January 24 2013
    We must not lose sight of the fact that at the time of negotiations with Germany, the USSR was conducting military operations in the Far East with Japan ... and few wished to wage war on two fronts. We must say thanks to Poland’s greed ... it could be with Czechoslovakia ... she could become an ally of Germany.
    1. +4
      January 24 2013
      Yes, Poland must be said “thank you.” After all, it was she who did not let Soviet troops through its territory to help the Czech Republic, although there was an agreement (the USSR, France and England are the guarantors of Czech sovereignty). Those two merged (as always). And the Russians were not allowed,
      1. namejs
        +1
        January 24 2013
        Czechs themselves decided nesoprativlatsa ...
        And the Munich Agreement and Actuality was immoral
    2. namejs
      0
      January 24 2013
      Nenad overestimate the possibilities of Germany. By the beginning of the war, Germany imported from the required amount of 45% wheat. 29% wool 36% cotton 56% rubber 30% oil products in 35% iron ore 68% manganese 41% pig 52% chromium 52% nickel 63% aluminum .. And this is only from the Western powers (France, UK). Germany received most of the other resources from the USSR. If Germany and Germany had begun any aggression, it would only remain to create an economic blockade and the German war machine would wither ...
      1. 0
        January 25 2013
        This, of course, is not true. Especially about the USSR. Rather, ideologically justified lies.
        To begin with, it is not necessary to distort the picture, limiting German imports by France and Britain. Since then you forget that the Germans received a huge amount of iron ore from Sweden, and the lion's share of copper from Finland.
        The USSR, until 1939, and in fact, until 1940 with Germany, had no commercial relations at all.
        And even if we take the statistics of German imports for the last prewar years, then NONE, ANY resource imported from the USSR did not occupy 10% of the Germans’s needs either.
        It turns out, for example, that Germany received 27% of aluminum from the USSR. At the same time, it is known that this resource was strategic, distributed literally by kilograms and was not exported from the USSR anywhere.
        1. namejs
          0
          January 25 2013
          Well, maybe I wrote it vaguely, but these figures are imports from England, France and the USA but not from the USSR
          I just cited these figures as an example that exactly the same amount of supply of siren has decreased since the start of the war. And if the Soviet Union did not begin to supply much-needed resources, who knows how the events would develop.
          Yes, yes - until the time when Rumania was torn away from Bessarabia, Rumania was not allied with Germany, and after it became. Vivod?
          1. 0
            January 25 2013
            The Romanians did not have much choice. Or the allies of Germany, or a country occupied by Germany. And no other way. So Bessarabia has nothing to do with it.
            Oil. Only oil.
            1. namejs
              0
              January 25 2013
              Well, maybe, but the Soviet Union only contributed to such an acceleration of such a scenario ...
  31. Algor73
    -1
    January 24 2013
    It is difficult now to assert the correctness of the pact. But it was a necessary measure. From the height of the years passed and based on the available information (and it is not always reliable), we draw subjective conclusions. Not always true. And whether it was possible to do without signing the pact, or not - it is rather a philosophical question. Since it was signed, it was impossible to get by at that time.
  32. +2
    January 24 2013
    Oh, even the 8th company saw the light, they were always not normal (I served in the 9th smile ) But seriously, let's calculate: How many kilometers did the Germans not reach Moscow? Around 30. How far were the borders of the invasion start drawn? at 150-250km. Any questions?
  33. -1
    January 25 2013
    The big question is: what could the Red Army teach in the 26-33 year of the Germans?
    Did the USSR have its own modern tanks, planes, chemical weapons?

    Germany generally had no tanks, military aircraft or chemical weapons.
    On tanks:
    USSR poorly poor were the MS-1 and T-26, tankette. There was a good tank school in Kazan where Guderian studied.
    By aviation:
    I-5 fighters
    Scouts P-5
    TB-1 bombers
    Training U-2
    Taught in Borisoglebsk.
    Chemists were taught in Saratov.
    I recommend reading materials on the history of the USSR, watching documentaries on YoUTube. With regards to the armored forces a lot of material on the forum of the game World of Tanks.
    1. Cheloveck
      0
      January 25 2013
      Quote: GOLUBENKO
      Germany generally had no tanks, military aircraft or chemical weapons.
      Oh well...
      In the spring of 1929, 10 tanks arrived from Germany in Kazan. For the purpose of conspiracy, they were called “tractors” in the documents: 2 large Daimler-Benz tractors, 2 large and 2 light Krupp tractors, 2 large and 2 light Rheinmetall tractors (Dyakov Yu.L., Bushueva T.S. A fascist sword was forged in the USSR ... P.180.)
      By the end of 1929, there were 43 Fokker D-XIII, 2 Fokker D-VII, 6 Heinkel HD-17, 6 Albatross L-76, 6 Albatross L-78, 1 “ Heinkel HD-21 ", 1" Junkers A-20 ", 1" Junkers F-13 "(Sobolev DA, Khazanov DB. German trace in the history of Russian aviation. P.114.)
      The agreement on joint aerochemical tests was signed on August 21, 1926. The Soviet side provided its training ground and had to provide the necessary working conditions. The Germans took upon themselves the training during the experiments of Soviet specialists. (Dyakov Yu.L., Bushueva TS The fascist sword was forged in the USSR ... P.74.)

      Quote: GOLUBENKO
      On tanks: the USSR poorly were the MS-1 and T-26, tankettes. There was a good tank school in Kazan where Guderian studied.
      So, the MS-1 was, and the t-26 was put into service in 1931.
      Guderian did not study in Kazan, but came there with an inspection for several days in 1932.

      Quote: GOLUBENKO
      By Aviation: I-5 Fighters; R-5 Scouts; TB-1 Bombers; U-2 Training; Taught in Borisoglebsk.

      Again, the I-5 was adopted in 1932, the R-5 went into production in the 1930s, the TB-1 in the series from the summer of the 29th, the U-2 went into production in May 1929.

      In total, the bottom line is that there was nothing to teach the Germans on, and therefore the Germans taught the Red Army.
      The photo shows one of the "tractors" Grosstraktor II (Rheinmetall-Borsig)
    2. 0
      January 25 2013
      Yes, but our generals studied en masse at the Wehrmacht General Staff Academy. A surprise, right? Here is such a thing! It turns out that none of the "Soviet marshals" having experience of the Civil War had the slightest idea of ​​what the management of a regular army was on the scale of a regular European war. :) Therefore, who taught whom more to fight is still a question.
      1. Beck
        0
        January 25 2013
        Quote: abc_alex
        It turns out that none of the "Soviet marshals" having experience of the Civil War had the slightest idea of ​​what the management of a regular army is on the scale of a regular European war.


        Exactly. Such marshals as Voroshilov, Budyonny, Kulik, Gorodovikov and others had no idea about the leadership of large army formations. What is clearly reflected in the tragedies of the Finnish War and the first period of the Second World War. So far, these marshals have not been replaced.

        Cause. These marshals were fictitious army commanders in the Civil War. They became commanders only because of their social background. They were propaganda brands. Armies were commanded by headquarters, consisting entirely of generals and officers of the tsarist army.

        These generals and officers, after the Civil War, taught at the military academies and schools of the Red Army. It was from them (until they were shot in 37-38) that the future marshals of Victory - Zhukov, Rokossovsky, Vatutin, Chernyakhovsky and others - managed to get a military education. They replaced the uneducated and incompetent "brand marshals" on the fields of the Second World War.
    3. -2
      January 25 2013
      Quote: GOLUBENKO
      There was a good tank school in Kazan where Guderian studied.

      Yes, how much can you write this nonsense !!!
      Goering also studied in Lipetsk, Goebels at the University of Patrice Lumumba, and Himler at the KGB high school with Andropov.
  34. -1
    January 25 2013
    about the MR pact, my opinion is that for that time we needed it like air, and politically and militarily, our cooperation with the Germans was also beneficial for us, we ourselves learned from the Germans and the Saxons so that then they sharpened our teeth on us now that faith they don't have a corrupt nation
  35. liachenko
    0
    January 25 2013
    This time it will not work out to mix but not to shake so a hangover WILL NOT BE FOR ANYONE - nothing will hurt http://www.casocialism.com/2013/01/blog-post_25.html
  36. Yankes
    -1
    January 26 2013
    the country of the red-bellied, headed by the main cannibal, unequivocally joined the WWII on the side of Nazi Germany .. what other opinions could there be if we tore together Poland to shreds .. and then the mustachioed sub-region is all the rest by agreement with Germany .... only the idiot can deny the obvious .. Especially since all these secret additions to the protocol are all declassified ..... the komunyaki themselves wanted to hack everything and break off ...
    1. vardex
      +1
      January 26 2013
      One may ask: how could it happen that the Soviet Government agreed to conclude a non-aggression pact with treacherous people and monsters such as Hitler and Ribbentrop? Was there a mistake made by the Soviet Government here? Of course not! The non-aggression pact is a peace pact between two states. It was such a pact that Germany proposed to us in 1939. Could the Soviet Government refuse such a proposal? I think that not a single peace-loving state can refuse a peace agreement with a neighboring power, even if such monsters and cannibals as Hitler and Ribbentrop are at the head of this power. And this, of course, under one indispensable condition - if a peace agreement does not affect either directly or indirectly the territorial integrity, independence and honor of a peace-loving state. As you know, the non-aggression pact between Germany and the USSR is just such a pact.

      - I. Stalin
  37. 0
    January 27 2013
    Wow fan of all German appeared, okay.
    Quote: Cheloveck
    In the spring of 1929, 10 tanks arrived from Germany in Kazan.

    Too shy to ask, is Kazan not Weimar Germany? No USSR.
    That is, Germany had tanks, but at a tank school in Kazan. And what am I wrong in?
    Quote: Cheloveck
    By the end of 1929, there were 43 “Fokker D-XIII” in the Lipetsk school, etc.

    Oh, again. German aircraft in the USSR. In Germany itself they are not.
    Quote: Cheloveck
    The agreement on joint aerochemical tests was signed on August 21, 1926. The Soviet side provided its training ground and had to provide the necessary working conditions. The Germans undertook training during the experiments of Soviet specialists

    The agreement on joint aerochemical tests was signed on August 21, 1926. The Soviet side provided its training ground and had to provide the necessary working conditions. The Germans undertook training during the experiments of Soviet specialists

    And then the Germans are in the USSR, so what am I wrong in my words? If you yourself with facts in your hands prove my comments. Oh, shkolota, shkolota.

    Quote: Cheloveck
    Again, the I-5 was adopted in 1932, the R-5 went into production in the 1930s, the TB-1 in the series from the summer of the 29th, the U-2 went into production in May 1929.

    I want to say what? Google the Internet on the history of Soviet aviation and there will be many surprises for yourself that there was a technique before the indicated brands. And I have listed it is the most famous dating back to that time.
    Eh, trolls, trolls young fans of the Third Reich, how did you turn your brains on the wrong side.
    1. +5
      February 19 2013
      Yes, do not worry so much. Fursenko's brothers, coupled with grefs and boos, are doing their job. Slowly and confidently ....

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

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