Why did Great Britain and the USA delay the opening of a second front?

210
Why did Great Britain and the USA delay the opening of a second front?
Units of Company E, 16th Infantry Regiment, 1st Infantry Division, US Army, begin landing on Omaha Beach. June 6, 1944


The question of opening a second front


For the first time, the question of opening a second front was officially raised in a personal message from the head of the Soviet government, Joseph Stalin, dated July 18, 1941, to British Prime Minister Winston Churchill. Welcoming the establishment of allied relations between the USSR and England and expressing confidence in the defeat of the common enemy, Stalin noted that the military position of the two powers would be significantly improved if a front was created against Germany in the West (Northern France) and in the North (Arctic). This front could have drawn significant German forces away from the Eastern Front and would have made Hitler's invasion of England impossible.



Churchill rejected Stalin's proposal, citing a lack of forces and the threat of a "bloody defeat" for the landing. Although the British were working on the issue of landing troops in Norway in order to prevent the Germans from occupying Sweden with its strategic resources.

In September 1941, in conditions of a severe crisis on the fronts, Stalin again returned to the issue of the second front. In messages dated September 3 and 13, 1941, Stalin wrote to Churchill that Germany had transferred more than 30 fresh infantry divisions, a large number of aircraft and tanks and intensified the actions of its allies, as a result of which the USSR lost more than half of Ukraine, and the enemy reached Leningrad. According to him, the German command considered “the danger in the West to be a bluff” (it was so) and calmly transferred all forces to Russia.

Germany got the opportunity to beat its opponents one by one: first the USSR, then England. This gave England a good opportunity to open a second front. Churchill, recognizing that the Soviet Union bore the brunt of the fight against Germany, said that opening a second front was “impossible.”

The successes of the Red Army in the winter of 1941–1942 opened up new opportunities for opening a second front. The Russians held Leningrad and Moscow and inflicted sensitive counterattacks on the enemy. The Minister of Supply, Lord Beaverbrook, reported to the British War Cabinet that Russian resistance was giving England new opportunities. Russian opposition created “an almost revolutionary situation in all occupied countries and opened 2 thousand miles of coastline for the landing of British troops.”

However, the British leadership still considered Europe a prohibited zone for British troops. The British cabinet and the imperial general staff did not share Beaverbrook's opinion.

On December 7, 1941, the United States entered the war. The Americans skillfully provoked Japan to attack and became the “victim of a surprise attack” (Why Japan attacked the United States). American public opinion, which was inclined to remain neutral, forgot about the principles of neutrality and isolationism.

The US Army headquarters began developing a strategic plan that included the concentration of American military capabilities against Germany. England was to become a springboard for the invasion of Northern France. The plan was discussed on April 1, 1942 at a meeting in the White House and approved by American President Franklin Roosevelt.


Scooter review of a British commando unit before the landing in Normandy. June 1944

The USA wanted to use the USSR in the war with Japan


Roosevelt attached great political and military-strategic importance to this plan. The American president believed that it was necessary to assure Moscow of the speedy opening of a second front. This gave support to the broad masses of the US people, who sympathized with the USSR’s struggle against the Nazi invaders, and was important in anticipation of the upcoming congressional elections at the end of 1942.

From the point of view of military-strategic plans, Washington wanted to enlist the support of the USSR in the defeat of the Japanese Empire in the Pacific theater of operations. President Roosevelt and the Chiefs of Staff attached the greatest importance to Soviet participation in the war with Japan.

Roosevelt sent his special assistant G. Hopkins and US Army Chief of Staff General J. Marshall to London to familiarize the British leadership with his plans. The British leadership agreed in principle to a limited landing of the Western Allies in 1942 and the opening of a second front in 1943.

On April 11, President Roosevelt invited the adviser of the Soviet embassy A. A. Gromyko and presented him with a personal message to the head of the Soviet government. Roosevelt proposed sending a Soviet delegation to Washington for negotiations to discuss the issue of opening a second front. On April 20, Stalin announced his agreement to a meeting between Molotov and the American President to exchange views on the opening of a second front. London was also supposed to take part in the negotiations.

As a result of complex and tense negotiations between Vyacheslav Molotov and the military-political leadership of the United States and England, a decision was made to create a second front in Europe. On June 12, it was reported that an agreement had been reached on the opening of a second front.


British tank crews from C Squadron, 13/18th Royal Hussars, prepare their M4 Sherman tanks for the Normandy landings. May 1944

The allies are stalling for time


Neither in 1942 nor in 1943 was a second front opened. The landing of troops in Europe in 1942 was postponed for the sake of the offensive of American-British troops in North Africa. Roosevelt and Churchill agreed on this without the participation of Soviet representatives. From a military point of view, the Allied operations in North Africa were insignificant and could not weaken the military power of Germany and lead to its defeat. Also, the operation in North Africa, which began in November 1942, excluded the organization of a second front in Europe in 1943.

Churchill informed Moscow of the decision. In August 1942, the head of the British government arrived in the USSR for negotiations. The personal representative of the American President, Harriman, also took part in them. On 13 August 1942, Stalin handed Churchill and Harriman a memorandum stating that 1942 represented the best time to open a second front. The best forces of the German Empire fought on the Russian front.

However, Churchill reported the final refusal of the United States and Britain to open a second front in Western Europe in 1942. At the same time, he assured that the front would be opened in the spring of 1943. Moscow understood the interests of the United States and England quite well, but decided not to aggravate the issue.

The German headquarters, taking advantage of the passivity of England and the United States, launched a powerful offensive on the southern flank of the Soviet-German front in the summer and autumn of 1942. The Wehrmacht was rushing to the Volga and trying to capture the Caucasus in order to deal a mortal blow to the USSR. If the German offensive was successful, Türkiye and Japan could act against the Soviet Union.

England and the United States, at the expense of the USSR, retained their forces and resources, planning to use them at the final stage of the war in order to dictate their terms to the losing powers and establish their own world order.


British paratroopers of the 6th Airborne Division aboard an aircraft before landing in Normandy. June 6, 1944

In essence, the constant postponement by the ruling circles of the United States and Britain of the invasion of Europe from the West provided the Third Reich with such assistance that the Germans could not receive from any of their European allies. Germany could maintain dominance over most of Europe with its human, material and economic resources, and send most of its armed forces to the Eastern Front.

The year 1943 was marked by a radical turning point in the Great Patriotic War and World War II as a whole. The gigantic battle on the Volga, which lasted 200 days and nights, ended in a brilliant victory for the Soviet troops. The Wehrmacht received a terrible wound. His strategic offensive failed. Germany lost the battle for the Caucasus.

In May 1943, the Allies defeated a group of Italian-German troops in North Africa. In the Pacific, the situation stabilized, and the strategic initiative passed into the hands of the Allies (Battle of Guadalcanal). The Allies were able to concentrate their efforts on Europe and open a second front.

After the Battle of Stalingrad and the continued advance of the Red Army, a new factor emerged in the attitude of the great Western powers towards the USSR. Now they began to fear the premature, from their point of view, defeat of Germany. The goal of maximally weakening the USSR in the war has not yet been realized. In London and Washington they began to understand that the USSR could not only survive, but also win, and sharply strengthen its position and weight in the world. Therefore, they decided to delay the opening of the second front so as not to weaken Germany.

The policy of sabotage of the second front and exhaustion of the USSR acquired decisive importance in the actions of the Western powers.

“There is no doubt,” noted Soviet Ambassador M. M. Litvinov to the United States, “that the military calculations of both states (the United States and Great Britain) are based on the desire for maximum depletion and wear and tear of the forces of the Soviet Union in order to reduce its role in resolving post-war problems. They will wait for the development of military operations on our front.”

In January 1943, an Anglo-American conference was held in Casablanca, which showed that the Allies were not going to carry out any serious offensive in Europe in 1943.

In fact, although it was not stated directly, the opening of the second front was delayed until 1944. Churchill and Roosevelt sent a message to Moscow following the conference. It was written in vague terms and without specifying timeframes or information about specific operations, expressing the hope that Germany could be brought to its knees in 1943.

On January 30, 1943, Moscow asked to report on specific operations and the timing of their implementation. After consultations with Roosevelt, Churchill sent an encouraging response to Moscow, saying that preparations for “crossing the Channel” were being carried out vigorously and the operation was planned for August. He also noted that due to weather or other reasons, it may be postponed until September, but then it will be carried out by larger forces.

In fact, it was a deliberate deception. London and Washington, announcing the preparation of a landing operation in Northern France, at that time were preparing an operation in the Mediterranean theater. True, it was impossible to deceive for long, and in May Roosevelt informed Moscow that the operation was being postponed to 1944.

Also, on March 30, the allies announced a decision to once again suspend the supply of military materials to the northern sea ports of the USSR, speaking of the need to transfer all vehicles to the Mediterranean Sea. On the eve of the next German summer strategic offensive, supplies of military materials and equipment were stopped. This happened in 1942, the same thing happened in 1943. At the most difficult time, the allies refused to open a second front and left the USSR without supplies weapons and materials.

On June 11, Moscow sent a message to Washington (its text was also sent to London). It indicated that another delay in opening a second front “creates exceptional difficulties” for the USSR, which has been waging a difficult struggle with Germany and its satellites for two years.

A further exchange of views further heated the situation - the Western powers had no arguments that could justify the delay in opening a second front. On June 24, Stalin sent a message to Churchill in which he expressed the Soviet government's disappointment in the allies. Stalin noted that we are talking about saving millions of lives in the occupied regions of Russia and Europe, the colossal sacrifices of the Red Army.


British soldiers swim across a river in preparation for the Normandy landings. May 1944

Britain and the USA understand that they could lose all of Europe


The defeat of the most powerful enemy group on the Kursk Bulge, the entry of Soviet troops to the Dnieper River and their advance to the state borders of the USSR showed that the process of a radical turning point during the Great Patriotic War was completed. Germany and its allies were forced to switch to strategic defense.

The victories of the Soviet troops in the summer and autumn of 1943 dramatically changed the entire military-political situation in Europe and the world. They showed that the USSR was capable of independently defeating Germany, and the complete liberation of Europe from the Nazis was not far off.

Fearing the entry of Soviet troops into Central and Western Europe before their armies, the leadership of England and the United States intensified the process of preparing the opening of a second front. The Anglo-Saxons were afraid of missing out on time to invade Europe and capture the most important political and economic centers and strategic areas. There was a threat that the United States would not be able to dictate its terms of peace to Europe, which had been bloodless by the war.

In August 1943, a conference of heads of government and representatives of the command of the United States and Great Britain was held in Quebec. The final report of the Joint Chiefs of Staff noted that the Normandy operation would be the main offensive of the Anglo-American forces in 1944. The start of the operation was scheduled for May 1, 1944. This decision improved relations between the USSR and the Western powers.

At the Moscow Conference of the Foreign Ministers of the USSR, USA and Great Britain in October 1943, the allies still did not provide specific data, wanting to maintain freedom of action. They only confirmed their intentions to begin an operation in Northern France in the spring of 1944, subject to favorable meteorological conditions in the English Channel region, as well as a significant reduction in the German Air Force in Northwestern Europe.


Moscow conference 1943. Sitting at the round table: USSR Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov, Marshal of the Soviet Union Kliment Voroshilov, Lieutenant General Hastings Ismay (Great Britain), British Ambassador to the USSR Archibald Kerr, British Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden, British Deputy Foreign Secretary William Strang, General -Major John Dean (USA), Ambassador of the United States of America Averell Harriman, US Secretary of State Cordell Hull, Advisor to the US Secretary of State Green Hackforth, Deputy People's Commissar of Foreign Affairs of the USSR Maxim Litvinov and Andrei Vyshinsky

On November 19, 1943, on board the battleship Iowa on the way to Cairo for the Anglo-American-Chinese conference (it preceded the conference in Tehran), the American president, speaking about the need to open a second front, noted that Russian troops were already very close to Poland and Bessarabia .

Roosevelt stressed the urgency of occupying as much of Europe as possible by Anglo-American troops. Roosevelt gave France, Belgium, Luxembourg and South Germany to the British sphere of occupation. The Americans wanted to occupy Northwestern Germany and the ports of Denmark and Norway. The Anglo-Saxons also planned to capture Berlin themselves.

Churchill also did not want to allow the appearance of Soviet troops in Western Europe and proposed the “Balkan option” - an invasion of the Allied forces in the Balkans, which was supposed to cut off Soviet troops from Central Europe. In the countries of South-Eastern Europe they were going to establish regimes with an Anglo-Saxon orientation.

The Americans, who supported Churchill's Mediterranean strategy until mid-1943, believed that these plans were too late. Allied troops could get stuck in the Balkans, and at this time the Russians would capture the most important centers of Europe. The second front in France made it possible to prevent the Russians from entering the vital areas of the Ruhr and Rhine.

The Soviet delegation in Tehran sought to achieve a firm commitment from the British and Americans to open a second front. In general, Stalin got his way (Stalin's victory in Tehran). The decisions of the Tehran Conference provided for the start of a landing operation in the North of France in May 1944.

At the same time, the Allies planned to launch an operation in southern France. The USSR promised at this time to launch a decisive offensive to prevent the transfer of German troops from the Eastern Front to the Western Front. The agreements adopted in Tehran determined the political decision to begin the Normandy operation.


Marshal of the Soviet Union, Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR and Chairman of the State Defense Committee of the USSR Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill and US President Franklin Roosevelt at a banquet during the Tehran Conference. In the photo in the lower right corner there is a cake with candles on the table - on November 30, 1943, Churchill celebrated his 69th birthday in Tehran.

Value


The Allied strategic operation to land troops in French Normandy (Operation Overlord) is considered the date of the creation of the Western (second) Front of World War II. The Normandy operation is the largest amphibious operation in stories humanity - more than 3 million people took part in it, crossing the English Channel from England to Normandy. Suffice it to say that on the first day of the operation, 5 infantry divisions, 3 armored brigades and a number of other formations (about 100 thousand people) were landed.

Until this moment, neither the actions of the allied forces in Africa, nor the landings in Sicily and Italy could claim the title of “second front”. The Allies captured a large bridgehead, which allowed them to land entire armies, launch an offensive across France and liberate Paris. The Germans were able to form a full-fledged new front line only in September 1944 on the western border of Germany.

The opening of the Western Front led to the approach of victory over the Third Reich.

Berlin had to involve significant infantry and tank formations in the fight against the allied forces (mainly the armies of the United States, Great Britain, Canada and parts of the French Resistance movement). And although the war on the Western Front, for the most part, did not take on such a fierce and stubborn character as on the Eastern Front, Berlin still could not transfer these troops to the Russian Front.


British paratroopers from the 6th Airborne Brigade look out of the door of a Horse glider before taking off for Normandy. June 6, 1944

As a result, Soviet troops took Berlin in May 1945, rather than in late 1945 or early 1946. The Soviet Union saved hundreds of thousands of lives. The Red Army would have finished off the German Empire alone, but this would have happened later and with more serious human and material losses.

So, on June 23, 1944, one of the largest military operations in the history of mankind began - Operation Bagration. Moreover, the success of the Belarusian operation significantly exceeded the expectations of the Soviet command. It led to the defeat of Army Group Center, the complete cleansing of Belarus from the enemy, and they recaptured part of the Baltic states and the eastern regions of Poland from the Germans.

The Red Army, on a front of 1 km, advanced to a depth of 100 km. The successful offensive jeopardized Army Group North in the Baltic States, which subsequently greatly facilitated the Baltic operation. Two large bridgeheads across the Vistula were also captured, which simplified the Vistula-Oder operation.

According to a number of military historians, the offensive of the Soviet fronts was facilitated by the emergence of the Western Front. The German command was not able to transfer reserves from France, including large tank formations. Their presence on the Soviet-German front seriously complicated the Belarusian offensive operation.

It is also worth considering that a significant part of the German artillery was in the West, as well as aviation. This allowed the Soviet Air Force to quickly gain air superiority and destroy retreating German columns without serious opposition from the Luftwaffe.

On the other hand, the powerful Soviet offensive in Belarus did not allow the German headquarters to concentrate forces to eliminate the Allied bridgehead in Normandy. Already on June 10, the Red Army launched an offensive on the northern wing of the front, and on June 23, Operation Bagration began.

It is worth remembering that the Allies landed in France much later than they promised and than was expected. In fact, the top military-political leadership of England and the United States waited until the last moment. The Anglo-Saxons initially believed that Hitler, who was allowed by the masters of London and Washington to crush most of Europe to mobilize its economic and human resources, would quickly crush the USSR, but would get stuck fighting partisans and developing vast Russian spaces.

Then it was possible to implement the scenario of an agreement with Hitler, sharing the planet with him. Or the German generals would have eliminated the intractable Fuhrer, who would have started to become “dizzy with success.” This was facilitated by the fact that most of the German leadership before the Second World War, and even during its first stage, dreamed of an alliance with Britain. The British Empire was the model of their “Eternal Reich”; it was it that created the racial system throughout the planet, the first concentration camps and reservations.

Actually, the Anglo-Saxons were initially the creators and sponsors of the “Third Reich” project (Who brought Hitler to power; Origins of World War II: USA vs. All).

Germany was unable to crush the USSR with one lightning strike, and a protracted war of attrition and fortitude began, in which the Russian people had no equal. Then England and the USA began to wait until the enemies weakened each other in order to receive all the fruits of victory and establish complete control over the planet.

But here, too, the enemy was mistaken - the USSR, although it suffered terrible losses in this battle of the titans, was able to strengthen itself and the process of liberation of Soviet lands began, and then the liberation of Europe. A threat arose that the USSR would be able to bring under its control not only part of Eastern and South-Eastern Europe, but Central and Western Europe. It was necessary to land troops in Western Europe so as not to be late for the division of the skin of the killed German bear.

Thus, the beginning of the Normandy operation was not associated with the desire to help an ally who was waging a difficult fight against Germany and to liberate Europe from Nazi occupation, but only with the desire of the Anglo-Saxons to establish an occupation regime in European countries and prevent the USSR from occupying a dominant position in the Old World . England and the USA were in a hurry to snatch the best pieces from the bleeding German bear.

210 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. -2
    6 June 2024 05: 56
    “There is no doubt,” noted Soviet Ambassador M. M. Litvinov to the United States, “that the military calculations of both states (the United States and Great Britain) are based on the desire for maximum depletion and wear and tear of the forces of the Soviet Union

    Alas, everyone thinks, first of all, about themselves.

    The USSR calmly watched from the sidelines as Germany crushed France, also hoping that they would weaken each other as much as possible. It didn't turn out that way...

    The landing in Europe actually took place in 1943 in Italy, which took Germany's most important ally out of the war.
    When the outcome of the Battle of Kursk was predetermined, Hitler was forced to withdraw part of his forces and send them to Italy.

    This happened in 1942, the same thing happened in 1943. At the most difficult time, the Allies refused to open a second front and left the USSR without supplies of weapons and materials.

    A strange statement: deliveries under Lend-Lease were in full swing during these years, doesn’t the author at least know about the northern convoys?
    1. +2
      6 June 2024 08: 28
      Quote: Olgovich
      The USSR calmly watched from the sidelines as Germany crushed France, also hoping that they would weaken each other as much as possible. It didn't turn out that way...


      That's right, you've cooked it, then slurp it.
      Quote: Olgovich
      When the outcome of the Battle of Kursk was predetermined, Hitler was forced to withdraw part of his forces and send them to Italy.

      one defeated division of Leib Standart AG. In Italy, the SELECTED and TANK division did not even fire a single shot towards the Allies, but was used as a police formation. As soon as she made up for her losses, she flew to the eastern front in the fall.
      Hitler not only did not remove a single division from the front except the remnants of the AG - and even then it was withdrawn for a new formation, but also added three (Manstein demanded 12-15 otherwise the front would not be held). If you want to say something clever, say that the landing in Italy, did not allow the Germans to freely use their reserves.
      And at the time of the turning of the ridge of the Wehrmacht (Kursk Bulge), the allies fought with 4,5 divisions (defeated and captured) + 3 divisions (Sicily) a certain defeat, and retreated to Italy. AND ALL.!!!!
      1. -9
        6 June 2024 09: 32
        Quote: chenia
        That's right, you've cooked it, then slurp it.

        That's right: instead of the main Western Front and the secondary Eastern Front, they received a single Eastern Front with all the consequences
        Quote: chenia
        At the time of the Battle of Kursk, we received 4 (four)% of assistance under LL (


        what 4%:

        1941 29,5 29,5 -
        1942 1363,3 723,7 639,6
        1943 2965,9 1291,1 1674,8
        1944 3429,1 1060,4 2368,7
        1945 1372,0 732,9 639,1
        1. -2
          7 June 2024 12: 11
          Quote: Olgovich
          what 4%:

          Yes, a mistake, as of July 1943 -6%
    2. 0
      6 June 2024 08: 34
      Quote: Olgovich
      A strange statement: deliveries under Lend-Lease were in full swing during these years, doesn’t the author at least know about the northern convoys?

      At the time of the Battle of Kursk, we received 4 (four)% assistance under LL (in total we will receive 26%, Britain 2/3).
      Let me remind you that the Kursk Bulge is the turning point of the Wehrmacht -THE GERMAN WENT WRONG
      1. +2
        6 June 2024 10: 12
        Yes, he was, but there weren’t enough infantry anymore
    3. 0
      6 June 2024 08: 50
      That's the kind of shit we are.
      -Doesn’t the author at least know about the northern convoys?
      And here everything is not so simple. Each transport carried its own nomenclature - barrels, wheels, etc. If one of the ships was lost, it was impossible to assemble the guns. But the USSR paid regularly in gold.
      -The USSR calmly watched from the side as Germany smashed France,
      And rightly so. For the British and French concentrated aviation in the Middle East, preparing to bomb the oil fields of Baku and Grozny. And a Pact was signed with Germany.
      The USSR saved the Allies from defeat in the Ardennes. And the Nazis transferred units from the Western to the Eastern Front.
      1. +6
        6 June 2024 15: 58
        Quote: knn54
        But the USSR paid regularly in gold.

        Only for non-lend-lease deliveries. According to L-L, the USSR and the Russian Federation paid only for what the USSR kept for itself after the war. Moreover, payment was made at prices of the 40s with 90s dollars in a 1:1 ratio - without taking into account inflation. And even so, only about 5% of the total amount of deliveries was paid.
        It’s like paying with current rubles in a Soviet store.
        Quote: knn54
        The USSR saved the Allies from defeat in the Ardennes.

        At the time of the start of the Vistula-Oder, the Germans had already stopped their offensive for two weeks and were rolling back under the attacks of the Allies.
        And the story about the premature start of the operation was invented by the IVS in order to extract preferences from the Allies during the division of Europe. In fact, Stalin allowed the operation to be delayed for 3 days due to bad weather conditions.
    4. +4
      6 June 2024 08: 51
      The USSR calmly watched from the sidelines as Germany crushed France, also hoping that they would weaken each other as much as possible.
      Yes, my friend, you are a provocateur. wink laughing
      You forget that thanks to the position of France and Great Britain, the Second World War broke out in the world. Remember the Munich Agreement.
      On September 18, the prime ministers of Great Britain and France agreed on their joint demands on Czechoslovakia. All territories where the German population made up more than half must immediately pass to Germany "for the maintenance of peace and the protection of the vital interests of Czechoslovakia." Since vital interests were clearly suffering from the seizure of military factories and defensive lines, Great Britain and France gave guarantees for the new borders of Czechoslovakia. These guarantees replace the Franco-Czechoslovak and Soviet-Czechoslovak treaties. Thus, the USSR was squeezed out of Europe.

      Even then, the USSR was ready to help Czechoslovakia to protect its territorial integrity.
      “On September 21, Litvinov stated that the USSR was ready to provide military assistance to Czechoslovakia. But Poland and Romania did not allow the Red Army passage. Moreover, Poland and Hungary put forward their territorial claims to Czechoslovakia. By involving Hungary and Poland in the Czechoslovak problem, Hitler created a new eastern bloc "
      hi
      1. +6
        6 June 2024 09: 28
        And in general, England and France were the guarantors of Germany’s compliance with the Treaty of Versailles, according to which Germany was not allowed to have an army of more than 100. If they had monitored its implementation, there would have been no Second World War. And they stood in front of Hitler in the pose of “what do you want?”
    5. 0
      6 June 2024 23: 43
      The USSR calmly watched from the side as Germany smashed France
      What kind of France is this, which a few months before threatened to send troops to Finland for war with the USSR? Which has been waging a strange war for a long time, ignoring the absence of German motorized troops on its border during the war with Poland? Which of these two was for us?
      1. +1
        7 June 2024 10: 00
        Quote from alexoff
        What kind of France is this, which a few months before threatened to send troops to Finland for war with the USSR? Which has been waging a strange war for a long time, ignoring the absence of German motorized troops on its border during the war with Poland? Which of these two was About us?

        Everyone is FOR THEMSELVES!

        And for US it was much more profitable to have France/England fighting in the West, which the Germans would beat up, first of all, as was the case in WWI (thanks to the Russian leadership).

        In WWII it was the other way around. Whose losses in explosives are the greatest, besides China?

        Here is the answer.
        1. 0
          7 June 2024 13: 29
          The USSR, of course, would have been more successful if it had hit the Germans in the back in 1940, but hardly anyone expected that the French would merge in a couple of weeks; in that time they would not have had time to do anything. But this is not for the sake of the French, they don’t care
          1. +1
            7 June 2024 13: 46
            Quote from alexoff
            But this is not for the sake of the French, they don’t care

            Of course, not for the sake of the French. For YOURSELF, as in WWI in East Prussia in 1914 they saved Paris - for YOURSELF.
            1. 0
              7 June 2024 14: 36
              Don't care about Paris, the Germans have their backs open
          2. +1
            7 June 2024 15: 17
            Quote from alexoff
            hardly anyone expected that the French would merge in a couple of weeks,

            and what stopped you from striking when the Germans were already involved in breakthroughs and the picture of the defeat of France became clear? hi
            The Wehrmacht has exhausted its fuel and ammunition reserves - it's time to stab in the back... feel
            Quote: tatra
            And they stood in front of Hitler in the pose of “what do you want?”

            And they had the experience of the Brest Peace - it was difficult to trust the Bolsheviks... request
  2. -1
    6 June 2024 06: 17
    If England were not an island, but on the continent like France, the British would not be very upset if the Germans also occupied England at the beginning of WWII, just like the French. By the way, England might have raised its paws up even faster than France, and Churchill would have found a common language with Hitler, based on their common hatred of Russia.
    As for the second front, its opening in 1941-1942, when the Red Army, bleeding alone, fought against a coalition of Germans, Italians, Hungarians, Romanians, Finns at the fronts and against the military machine of the entire Western Europe that worked for Hitler, then the opening of the second front then , would be a bloody fiasco for the British and Americans. The German army was still oh so strong at that time; for the Germans there was not yet Stalingrad or Kursk, where the Red Army broke the German’s back, so that by opening a second front in 1941-1942, the “allies” would have been brutally defeated by the Germans. The bleeding Red Army also had to save its “allies.”
    And so, England and the USA waited and came at the end of WWII to share the Victory with the USSR.
    1. 0
      13 June 2024 02: 49
      the negatives were activated.
      don't know history.
      but in fact - even retreating from the USSR on all fronts, in the rear of Germany - battered divisions that were being restored - gave heat to the Anglo-Americans and even went on counter-attacks somewhere and captured prisoners.
      Historical fact.

      Even the same Tigers defeated the American-Anglos somewhere in Germany, and would have continued to defeat them, but there simply wasn’t enough fuel. And how it ended - the tanks were abandoned, and the tankers surrendered. Although, we could continue to win. It was 1945.
  3. +3
    6 June 2024 06: 51
    Quote: Olgovich
    “There is no doubt,” noted Soviet Ambassador M. M. Litvinov to the United States, “that the military calculations of both states (the United States and Great Britain) are based on the desire for maximum depletion and wear and tear of the forces of the Soviet Union

    Alas, everyone thinks, first of all, about themselves.

    The USSR calmly watched from the sidelines as Germany crushed France, also hoping that they would weaken each other as much as possible. It didn't turn out that way...

    The landing in Europe actually took place in 1943 in Italy, which took Germany's most important ally out of the war.
    When the outcome of the Battle of Kursk was predetermined, Hitler was forced to withdraw part of his forces and send them to Italy.

    This happened in 1942, the same thing happened in 1943. At the most difficult time, the Allies refused to open a second front and left the USSR without supplies of weapons and materials.

    A strange statement: deliveries under Lend-Lease were in full swing during these years, doesn’t the author at least know about the northern convoys?

    Do you know when the debt for this very Lend-Lease was finally closed? There is no point in misleading the people with the idea that they helped us out of the kindness of their hearts, supported us, and in debt, only so that Soviet citizens, and not Anglo-Saxons, would die. The same thing is happening now in Ukraine. Had they opened a second front on time, how many millions of Soviet citizens could have been saved? At the same time, they would become more afraid of war.
    1. +6
      6 June 2024 08: 19
      Do you know when the debt for this very Lend-Lease was finally closed?

      Do you know when it was formed? After the war, when they asked to return what was left, or to pay for what they wanted to keep. As a result, they paid only in the 21st century at prices of the mid-20th.
      1. 0
        6 June 2024 15: 59
        Quote from solar
        As a result, they paid only in the 21st century at prices of the mid-20th.

        Moreover, out of 11 billion of the total amount of supplies, only 722 million were paid.
  4. +9
    6 June 2024 07: 20
    Another passage from the Short Course of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks... We fought, and they waited... The Allies opened a second front when everything - from the allocation of forces and means to logistics - was ready. It could have been done differently, of course, our way. For example, at the request of the USSR or for His Majesty’s birthday, in the year 1942 (like in Dieppe, but on a large scale), to break through the strait without preparation, losing tens of thousands... But for some reason they didn’t do that, and therefore deserved true contempt in the eyes of Soviet leaders and propagandists.
    1. -2
      6 June 2024 08: 13
      Even with the current ideology, the enemies of the USSR still remain mentally pro-Western.
    2. +1
      6 June 2024 21: 42
      And if by 1944 the situation had remained in favor of the Germans, would the Allies have had “everything ready”? Quite doubtful! wink
      1. -2
        7 June 2024 10: 30
        Quote: Sugar Honeyovich
        And if by 1944 the situation had remained in favor of the Germans, would the Allies have had “everything ready”? Quite doubtful! wink

        And if by 1944 the situation had remained in favor of the Germans, then the Allies would have chosen a different strategy. But they would still have landed and fought with the Reich. Because the United States did not need competitors in Europe and a united Europe - this was their cow, and they had to milk it. smile
        1. 0
          7 June 2024 16: 25
          They would rather sit like mice overseas, praying that Hitler would get stuck in Russia longer and not turn to them. "...The United States was on the brink of disaster in 1942. If the Soviet Union had failed to defeat Hitler on its front, the Germans would have been able to conquer Great Britain. They could also have conquered Africa, and after that created a bridgehead in Latin America. This threat was constantly present in the mind of President Roosevelt" (E. Stettinius).
          1. 0
            7 June 2024 16: 51
            Quote: Sahar Medovich
            They would rather sit like mice overseas, praying that Hitler would get stuck in Russia longer and not turn to them

            Yes right now! It was not for this reason that FDR provoked Germany throughout 1941, openly supplying Britain with equipment and people, escorting convoys to Britain with a fleet, pushing the Neutral Patrol zone further and further to the West, replacing the British occupation forces in Iceland - in order to take it and give it back.
            Moreover, in the spring of 1941, an American inspection arrived on the Islands to determine the locations of the US Armed Forces. And American companies began work on modernizing the island’s ports.
            All that was needed was for the Reich to strike first. "Reuben James" didn't work: EM is too little. But the USN had so many more goals.
            However, Hitler gave FDR an excellent gift by declaring war himself.

            In any case, the US pre-war plans for a future war before 22.06.41/22.06.41/XNUMX were drawn up without taking into account the USSR. And the plans after XNUMX/XNUMX/XNUMX differed only in the mention that the USSR was also at war with Germany.
            1. 0
              7 June 2024 19: 09
              So things didn't go according to plans? That's what we're talking about... good
              1. 0
                10 June 2024 10: 16
                Quote: Sugar Honeyovich
                So things didn't go according to plans? That's what we're talking about... good

                The only difference is that the war with the Reich did not require a casus belli with numerous casualties. Numerous provocations accumulated and produced an effect that exceeded our wildest expectations.
                1. 0
                  10 June 2024 17: 41
                  Did the USA know in advance exactly how the war would go? And how will it end?
                  1. 0
                    11 June 2024 07: 53
                    It’s not hard to guess how it will end, but as for how it will go, Roosevelt, they say, had unjustified optimism.
                    1. 0
                      11 June 2024 12: 01
                      However, on June 22.06.1941, XNUMX, leading experts, incl. the Americans guessed exactly the opposite.
                      1. +1
                        11 June 2024 13: 10
                        leading experts, incl. the Americans guessed exactly the opposite.

                        Why do you think so?

                        The USSR was expected to carry out an endless sluggish massacre with the German occupation forces, similar to China or Yugoslavia. The USSR, of course, somewhat exceeded expectations, but from the Anglo-Saxon point of view, this had both pros and cons.
                      2. 0
                        11 June 2024 20: 08
                        From recorded forecasts. And which predicted the complete victory of the Germans within a matter of months, weeks and even days.
                      3. +1
                        11 June 2024 22: 42
                        From recorded forecasts.

                        Recorded forecasts? Are you talking about General Milley and his Kyiv in 72 hours? Or do you want to say that you know some American specialists in the summer of 41 who were analyzing military operations in Eastern Europe?
                      4. 0
                        12 June 2024 07: 05
                        I don't know you personally, but...:
                        "As soon as it became known about the start of Operation Barbarossa, almost every single military expert predicted the imminent collapse of Russia. American military experts calculated that the Soviet Union would last no more than three months. Churchill was bombarded with the same inaccurate forecasts: Field Marshal Sir John Dill, chief The Imperial General Staff gave the Red Army only six weeks. The British Ambassador in Moscow, Stafford Crippe, believed that it would hold out for a month. The most inaccurate estimates were from British intelligence: she believed that the Russians would hold out no more than ten days" (L. Deighton)
                      5. +2
                        12 June 2024 10: 37
                        (L. Dayton)

                        You are not quoting L. Dayton, but Yu. Mukhin. I am not going to discuss the books of this writer.

                        As for “American military experts,” one of his contemporaries writes the following:
                        . In the War Department system, remarkably little attention was paid to intelligence, which hampered any constructive planning.

                        One of our pathetic gestures in this direction was the maintenance of military attachés in most capitals of foreign countries, and since no public funds were allocated to pay unusual expenses of officials of this kind, only officers with independent financial standing could be appointed to attaché positions. As a rule, these were worthy and wealthy people, but many of them did not even know the basics of intelligence work.

                        The results of the activities of such attaches were disastrous. The situation was further aggravated by the fact that, according to the established procedure, the essential circumstance for appointment to senior positions in the intelligence department of the War Ministry was the length of service as a military attaché, and not personal ability.

                        The attitude towards intelligence as a stepson in the system of the General Staff was emphasized by many facts. For example, the number of general positions within the War Ministry was so limited by peacetime laws that one of the main departments was always headed by a colonel. This circumstance in itself, perhaps, was not of serious importance, since it was much preferable to appoint a highly qualified colonel to this position than a mediocre general. However, this practice clearly indicated how undervalued intelligence was in the army. This was reflected in our military schools, where students were taught only some aspects of battlefield reconnaissance techniques, and the broader aspects of intelligence work were almost completely ignored. We had only a few people capable of skillfully analyzing the information that came to the attention of the War Department, and especially so with regard to what had become the very essence of intelligence research and analysis, namely, industry.

                        During the first war winter, these obvious defects became a serious obstacle to work. At first, the intelligence agency could neither draw up a clear plan for the work of its organization, nor select that part of the information that seemed essential to determining the goals and capabilities of our adversaries. The head of the intelligence department usually came to the military planning department and asked with a bored expression if he could be of any help to us.

                        I note that the situation in the spring of 42 is described: that is, the state of affairs in the general staff of a warring state. The author is the head of the operational department of the General Staff. In the USSR at that time Vasilevsky held this position.
                      6. 0
                        12 June 2024 16: 45
                        Quote: Negro
                        You are not quoting L. Dayton, but Yu. Mukhin.

                        Not Mukhina, but Daytona. Although Mukhin also quoted him.
                        And as for the “deplorable results of the activity” of intelligence services, this can be said with no less justification about the vaunted English and German ones.
                      7. 0
                        12 June 2024 16: 50
                        There is also this: "
                        “English military circles almost unanimously believed that Russia would soon be defeated; representatives of the War Ministry did not make a secret of this even at press conferences held in the first days of the war at the Ministry of Information in London. ...
                        Opinions at the American embassy in Moscow were divided. Military attaché Major Ivan Eaton was convinced that the Red Army would be defeated in the very near future. Ambassador Shteynhardt was less gloomy, but the decisive clash of these two points of view occurred later..." (A. Werth).
                      8. +1
                        12 June 2024 18: 04
                        A.Vert

                        An English communist writes an anti-American book in the late 60s.
                        with no less justification this can be said about the vaunted English and German.

                        Intelligence reported everything correctly (which is rare for it): the Red Army was generally finished by the end of the summer. However, even the absence of a combat-ready army does not automatically lead to the enemy gaining control over the country’s territory.

                        The war in China had been going on for 5 years by that time, despite the extremely sad state of China as a state, even compared to the USSR in the fall of 41. 20 years before the events described, the Germans signed a peace treaty with the Bolsheviks, according to which they received significant territories, but this did not bring them happiness.

                        You pay too much attention to the chatter of journalists and various colleagues of Masha Zakharova. They could afford to gossip about anything: the situation with the USSR had no military significance for the USA and Great Britain, the defeat of the USSR was not something important for Britain in 41. In addition, by inertia, you consider the banner over the Reichstag the only option for victory: they say, try sticking your Union Jack there. While the capture of someone else's capital is usually not required for victory: none of the capitals of the countries of the Central Powers was taken in WWII, in WWII Mussolini was arrested by the king of Italy, Hirohito remained in his post, Hitler was almost removed, so to speak, by the opposition in the summer of 44 th.
                      9. 0
                        12 June 2024 19: 09
                        Quote: Negro
                        English communist
                        - this is interesting!
                        Quote: Negro
                        writes an anti-American book
                        - this is even more interesting!
                        Quote: Negro
                        Intelligence reported everything correctly (which is rare for them): the Red Army was generally finished by the end of summer
                        - the Germans just at that time became convinced of the exact opposite. Unlike midsummer. stop
                        Quote: Negro
                        You pay too much attention to the chatter of journalists and various colleagues of Masha Zakharova.
                        - in my case, not the chatter of journalists, but the testimony of eyewitnesses and historians. You can: 1). refute them? 2) suggest something better?
                        Quote: Negro
                        However, even the absence of a combat-ready army does not automatically lead to the enemy gaining control over the country’s territory.
                        - sometimes it happens. And it happens that even if there are forces to create an army and government in the country, the enemy completely controls the territory.
                        Quote: Negro
                        the situation with the USSR did not have military significance for the USA and Great Britain
                        - had very much.
                        Quote: Negro
                        the defeat of the USSR was not something important for Britain in 41
                        - was extremely important.
                        Quote: Negro
                        Capturing someone else's capital is usually not required to win
                        - not usually not required, and does not always lead to victory, it would be correct to say. The banner over the Reichstag is a consequence of the destruction of the German armed forces for the most part on the Soviet front, which the owners of the Union Jack were unable to do.
                      10. +1
                        12 June 2024 21: 42
                        - this is even more interesting!

                        On the very first page of the book about the actions of the USSR during WWII, Comrade Werth has complaints against Lyndon Johnson. It seems like where is WWII and where is Lyndon Johnson. The usual anti-American propaganda.
                        It was precisely at this time that the Germans became convinced of the exact opposite.

                        The Germans were not convinced of anything like that. The personnel spacecraft as a whole ended in the Kiev cauldron. Then the USSR fought with the militia.
                        in my case, not the chatter of journalists, but the testimony of eyewitnesses and historians

                        A historian, as I understand it, is what you call the writer Mukhin. Your second source is a journalist.

                        This is a pointless conversation. I gave a detailed description of the level of "military specialists" of that time. Moreover, I mentioned General Milley and his forecasts: that is, the current “military specialists” are not far removed from those of yesteryear. Considering the quality of information about the USSR (let me remind you that the pre-war years were the peak of spy mania), any such thoughts of contemporaries before the onset of real events are empty chatter.
                        And it happens that even if there are forces to create an army and government in the country, the enemy completely controls the territory.

                        Perhaps, although I don’t remember such cases.
                        had very much.

                        was extremely important.

                        These are your assessments, Mukhin’s and various sources such as Churchill’s toasts or Stettinius’s stories from the mid-40s. Moreover, even in your imaginary world in 41, the defeat of the USSR seemed imminent and inevitable to the British - therefore, the decision to continue the war with Germany was made by the British without taking into account the situation in the USSR.
                        not usually not required, and does not always lead to victory, it would be correct to say

                        And so and so.
                        something that Union Jack holders were unable to do.

                        What they didn't intend to do is more precise. Last time it worked without this. Unlike the Germans, the victors of WWI planned to fight the same way as last time, with minor changes - they do not seek good from good.
                        For obvious reasons, the Germans were not satisfied with the last time. They looked for radically different options - and found the blitzkrieg. At first it seemed that the Germans were right and the British were wrong. Then it stopped seeming like that.
                      11. 0
                        13 June 2024 06: 07
                        Quote: Negro
                        On the very first page of the book about the actions of the USSR during WWII, Comrade Werth has complaints against Lyndon Johnson. It seems like where is WWII and where is Lyndon Johnson.

                        And what exactly is the claim? Just in the “remember the war!” style. There is not a bit of anti-American stuff there.
                        Quote: Negro
                        Then the USSR fought with the militia.

                        And therefore, by the end of the autumn of 1941, his minister reported to Hitler that the war was lost? Germany!
                        Quote: Negro
                        A historian, as I understand it, is what you call the writer Mukhin.
                        - in this case you misunderstand.
                        Quote: Negro
                        I gave a detailed description of the level of "military specialists" of that time
                        - whatever their level - it was they, and not others. And the events of THAT time should be studied taking into account their opinion, and not someone else.
                        Quote: Negro
                        any such thoughts of contemporaries before the onset of real events are empty chatter.
                        - this is warmer: essentially the same thing the German field marshal said about his colleagues.
                        Quote: Negro
                        These are your assessments, Mukhin’s and various sources such as Churchill’s toasts or Stettinius’s stories from the mid-40s. Moreover, even in your imaginary world in 41, the defeat of the USSR seemed imminent and inevitable to the British - therefore, the decision to continue the war with Germany was made by the British without taking into account the situation in the USSR.
                        - refute.
                        Quote: Negro
                        What they weren't going to do is more accurate
                        - because they did it for them. And if they didn’t do it for them, they wouldn’t do it either.
                        Quote: Negro
                        Unlike the Germans, the victors of WWII planned to fight the same way as last time, with minor changes - they do not seek good from good.
                        For obvious reasons, the Germans were not satisfied with the last time
                        - the previous option did not suit anyone. The French and British, even more than the Germans, did not want to fight like last time. Everyone hoped it would work out. It didn't work out.
                      12. +1
                        13 June 2024 08: 22
                        And what exactly is the claim? Just in the “remember the war!” style.

                        Uh, no. If a “historical” book begins with complaints about a current politician, then this is journalism, not history. Moreover, journalism designed for a stupid reader: if the author was counting on an intelligent reader, he would not have put his message on the first page.

                        These stories themselves about the “severity of war” are deliberately delusional: yes, Ethiopia lost more in World War II than the United States and Britain combined. This just means that Ethiopia did not know how to fight, even with the Italians. The Englishman knows this very well. He capitalizes on the humanism of the public: a common thing for a European leftist.
                        And therefore, by the end of the autumn of 1941, his minister reported to Hitler that the war was lost? Germany!

                        Cough cough. Hitler's administration is a traveling drama theater. In the fall of 41, it just became clear that in the case of the USSR, the blitzkrieg did not lead to victory - a new plan was needed. At the same time, the war with the USSR closed the blockade ring around the Reich and led to a protracted war on two fronts: a sure end, as Hitler himself spoke about many times. This situation had to be overcome at any cost, but the Fuhrer had no way back.
                        In this case you misunderstand.

                        You mentioned two sources: an English journalist and a Russian fantasy author.
                        And the events of THAT time should be studied taking into account their opinion, and not someone else.

                        Right. The idea of ​​Lend-Lease and the English strategy of indirect action was reminiscent of the idea of ​​a thousand cuts: any structure ready to harm the Reich was taken into account. Of course, the USSR was also included in this list, after the Kuomintang, Yugoslav partisans, Fighting France, the Polish government in exile, etc.
                        disprove

                        Are you asking what exactly to refute? The blitzkrieg, successful from a military point of view, did not lead to victory for the Reich in the East. They completely occupied the territories of two future UN members (Ukrainian SSR and BSSR), but this was not enough. This is a historical fact, there is nothing to discuss here.
                        If they didn’t do it for them, they wouldn’t do it either.

                        They wouldn't do it, of course. As I already said, the capture of the capital of the Reich by Britain was not planned (until the year 45). Unfortunately, their real plans also did not work out well, but that’s another conversation.
                        The French and British, even more than the Germans, did not want to fight like last time. Everyone hoped it would work out.

                        They built their Maginot Line so that they could sit not in dirty trenches, but in comfortable bunkers. Meanwhile, the British are maintaining a blockade from the sea and strangling the Reich economy.
                        Such a scheme could not work as long as there was a hole in the blockade the size of the USSR: in the summer of 41, Hitler solved this problem himself, instead of the British.
                      13. 0
                        14 June 2024 16: 18
                        Why "Uh, no"? History, as we know, teaches nothing, so today it is very useful to remind us of what happened yesterday. This does not necessarily have to be purely journalism, but a combination of it with history
                        [In the fall of 41, it just became clear that in the case of the USSR the blitzkrieg did not lead to victory] - why? What if the Red Army was finished at that time?
                        [You mentioned two sources: an English journalist and a Russian fantasy author.] - not true. I haven’t mentioned a single Russian author yet, especially fantasy. I asked to refute the expert assessments I gave about the outcome of the war between Germany and the USSR at its beginning. Did they take place? If not, what happened instead?
                        [They built their Maginot Line to sit not in dirty trenches, but in comfortable bunkers] - and that’s all? Did you think that in comfortable bunkers they would be invulnerable to the Germans? As opposed to dirty trenches? Maybe there was something else after all?
                      14. +1
                        15 June 2024 10: 36
                        History, as we know, teaches nothing, so today it is very useful to remind us of what happened yesterday.

                        You see. Since this is written by a communist, his task is precisely to ensure that no lessons are drawn from the past. The past is generally not the most profitable topic for communists.
                        Palamidov approached the foreign economics professor, wanting to get an interview with him.

                        “I am delighted,” said the professor, “all the construction that I saw in the USSR is grandiose.” I have no doubt that the five-year plan will be fulfilled. I will write about this.

                        About this, six months later, he actually published a book in which, on two hundred pages, he argued that the five-year plan would be completed on time and that the USSR would become one of the most powerful industrial countries. And on page two hundred and one, the professor stated that it is for this reason that the Land of Soviets must be destroyed as soon as possible, otherwise it will bring natural death to capitalist society. The professor turned out to be a more businesslike person than the talkative Heinrich.

                        As we know, Ilf and Petrov also lied to us, beyond the scope of everyday life. Natural death came in a completely different direction, at the same time, capitalist society, just after the death of the Land of Soviets, faced quite unexpected difficulties. But this does not change the fact that the BBC correspondent in the USSR was pushing Soviet propaganda - he simply kicked other USSR correspondents out of the country.
                        why? What if the Red Army was finished at that time?

                        Because blitzkrieg is a spring. It compressed for six months or a year, fired, but the enemy did not leave the war. For a new blitzkrieg, it will take another year to compress it (Blau) - but the enemy will gather a new army during this year, and the new blow of the blitzkrieg will be weaker - since this whole year also needs to be fought somehow, and it will not be possible to devote all resources to preparing a new blitzkrieg.
                        I haven’t mentioned a single Russian author yet, especially fantasy.

                        You quoted from the work of the writer Mukhin.
                        I asked to refute the expert assessments I gave about the outcome of the war between Germany and the USSR at its beginning.

                        There are no experts on war. These are crooks. Actually, we happened to see it online. And the obvious crazy people, and those who pretended to be crazy, and people who seemed reasonable in tone - no one at the beginning of 2022 expected such a development of events.
                        Of course, there were enough statements in the newspapers that the USSR had come to an end. Some (the writer Zweig) even managed to get poisoned allegedly because of this in 42. On the other hand, you remember some disorganized cries from German ministers that the war was already lost - and before that in the fall of 41 it was very far away.
                        but only? Did you think that in comfortable bunkers they would be invulnerable to the Germans?

                        Last time the Germans did not succeed with trenches - it is quite logical that they would not succeed with bunkers even more so. By the way, the Germans thought so too: they took a detour through Belgium.
          2. +2
            8 June 2024 00: 33
            . The United States was on the brink of disaster in 1942. ...(E. Stettinius)


            These and many other amazing things were told by Edward Stettinius to Congress when he testified about treason. He did not live to see the activities of Senator McCarthy, which is a pity.
            1. 0
              8 June 2024 11: 28
              Very interesting! Is it possible to be more specific?
              1. +2
                8 June 2024 11: 46
                What exactly is more detailed?

                Stettinius was the administrator of the Lend-Lease program before his appointment as Secretary of State. In 46, the Democrats lost both houses of Congress (for the first time since the beginning of Roosevelt's reign) - and suddenly it turned out that a lot of questions had accumulated for the Roosevelt administration. At the same time, it just so happened that good Uncle Joe turned out to be not a father, but you know who.

                The work of Stettinius in organizing assistance to the USSR was examined taking into account new circumstances. Then we heard amazing stories from Stettinius that the Germans had almost landed in Brazil and had almost begun a tank attack on Texas through the Amazon - and only the urgent help of Comrade. Stalin was prevented by the inevitable collapse of the Texas front and the Dallas Cauldron.

                Of course, all this was selective nonsense. Stettinius was the first candidate for imprisonment for anti-American activities, but died before the McCarthy Commission began its work.
                1. 0
                  8 June 2024 18: 33
                  And what kinds of questions were proposed to the administration of the late most elected president? And did anyone end up in jail?
                  1. +2
                    8 June 2024 19: 33
                    . did anyone end up in jail?

                    Unfortunately no. McCarthy quickly drank himself to death, and Eisenhower tried to shield all his cronies - and his cronies included almost the entire former administration. Even figures who almost derailed trains for the sake of workers and peasants, like former Vice President Wallace, were simply relegated to the background.
                    1. 0
                      8 June 2024 22: 16
                      Well, with such a scale of “treason to the Motherland,” the problem was not that McCarthy drank himself to death, but that his neck was broken by those exposed by him. With the help of his colleagues. (Isn’t that why he got drunk?). And in this situation, it is unlikely that anything unpleasant would happen to Stettinius.
                      1. +2
                        8 June 2024 22: 30
                        It's difficult to discuss althistory. On the one hand, in America it is not customary to imprison senior officials; on the other hand, Yalta was a symbol of betrayal for the Republicans: and Stettinius was the Secretary of State in Yalta. So no matter how small the chances of landing among the top management were, Mr. Stettinius was first in line.
  5. +8
    6 June 2024 08: 01
    Quote: Olgovich
    Alas, everyone thinks, first of all, about themselves.

    The USSR calmly watched from the side as Germany smashed France,


    After France betrayed Czechoslovakia in Munich, it disavowed the tripartite defensive alliance (USSR-France-Czechoslovakia). In addition, France, together with England, began to develop a plan of aggression against the USSR, launching an air strike on the Baku oil fields. Why should the USSR sign for France after something like this?
    It’s not even worth mentioning the lethargy of France during the German-Polish campaign of 1939: the Poles themselves showed earlier how “white and fluffy” they were. They fully deserved it because no one really wanted to help them, the Poles.
    It is quite reasonable to think about your own interests first. Solving your problems at the expense of others is also rational, on the one hand, but on the other, this can come back like a boomerang.
    1. +2
      6 June 2024 22: 45
      In addition, France, together with England, began to develop a plan of aggression against the USSR, launching an air strike on the Baku oil fields.

      Before this, the USSR concluded a friendship treaty with Germany.
      Why should the USSR sign for France after something like this?

      Not for France, but for myself. For a minute, 26 million of us died. And it was possible to end things with Hitler with little bloodshed, if you didn’t hold on to the concluded Treaty of Friendship, it was the right moment.
      1. +1
        7 June 2024 10: 34
        Quote from solar
        But it was possible to end with Hitler with little bloodshed, if you did not hold on to the concluded Treaty of Friendship, it was the right moment.

        Did not have. Simply because the USSR did not have an army in the period 1939-1941. Yes, and until 1939 too.
        The minutes of the meeting following the results of the SFV and the results of 1940, as well as the Act of Acceptance of the NPO, clearly show what yawning heights Comrade Voroshilov achieved in building the army of the world's first state of workers and peasants. If it weren’t for the propaganda that made him a symbol of the army, then in 1940 the first red officer could have easily received a military medal. His subordinates were put up against the wall for even smaller mistakes.
  6. +1
    6 June 2024 08: 12
    Do not forget that we are talking about a second front in Europe - in fact, there were several fronts, and the same British fought on them since 1939.

    Speaking of the second front in Europe, the Allies opened it when they considered it necessary - after the cleansing of Africa and the withdrawal of Italy from the war. By this time, they had accumulated enough funds for a win-win option.

    As far as I understand, in 1941-1942 the allies feared that the USSR would not survive and would leave the war in one way or another, but then they became convinced that the USSR had survived and they had less reason to rush to defeat Germany.

    In addition, for the United States, initially the main theater of war was the Pacific, where they saw an immediate threat to their interests.

    That is, the allies acted based on their own interests, for which it is absolutely impossible to blame them. It would be strange if any country sent its citizens to death in the interests of another country.
    1. -2
      6 June 2024 10: 04
      [/quote]For the USA, initially the main theater of operations was the Pacific
      - the main thing for the United States was the European theater of operations, the allies agreed on this at the beginning of 1942.
      after the cleansing of Africa and the withdrawal of Italy from the war[quote]
      - the decisive factor for the opening of a second front was the victory in the Battle of the Atlantic, and there a radical change occurred in mid-1943.
      1. +2
        6 June 2024 10: 10
        “The decisive factor for the opening of a second front was the victory in the Battle of the Atlantic, and there a radical change occurred in mid-1943.”

        And that too. It is believed that the turning point was Gretton's convoy, May 1943.

        However, the Allies landed in Oran back in 1942, and the convoy system operated effectively earlier. That is, I think that German submarines could not have stopped the landing across the English Channel; they did not operate there. They would have reached Britain by convoys.
        1. +1
          6 June 2024 15: 03
          [/quote]However, the Allies landed in Oran back in 1942[quote]
          - everything is true, but the scale is completely different.
          Submarines, of course, could not stop the landing, but they were able to interrupt England’s communications. The realization that this was impossible, on both sides, came only in mid-1943. The Allies could not take such a risk. But there were many other factors that delayed the landing.
          1. Lack of landing craft.
          2. The actual presence in England of the required number of TRAINED ground forces.
          3. Availability of the required amount of military equipment.
          4. Favorable weather conditions for a significant period of time.
          5. Complete air supremacy.
          6. Accumulated reserves of both hp and equipment, fuel and lubricants, etc.
          "tipping point" is a convention. There have been failures and victories before. It is important when the leadership came to realize the realities. Moreover, if everything is relatively simple with your problems, then getting an objective picture of the enemy’s state is not very easy.
          1. -4
            6 June 2024 21: 01
            The lack of landing craft at the WB did not prevent them from leaving France (Dunkirk), abandoning their allies. The presence of manpower and mating units can never be considered “sufficient” a priori (it will not be enough (c)), when the weather is good, this is just a joke, did England parachute to America? Did the Soviet developers not take something into account when they designed the PT? I cried about complete air supremacy. If desired, American “air fortresses” based in England (on an island, on an island, on the best island in the world, on an island on an island on the most island, all citizens are lucky...), with the support of fighters, would provide superiority in the air and on the ground (that's what happened). And regarding reserves... The USSR was able to accumulate having a front... how many thousands of kilometers there? I don’t want and I can’t put it on one side of the scale
          2. +2
            7 June 2024 07: 38
            Actually, your words do not contradict mine - the allies landed troops when they considered it necessary and possible. No one deliberately delayed it - and no one accelerated it “at any cost” to some date.
            1. +1
              7 June 2024 10: 02
              Quite right, everyone fought for themselves. hi
      2. +5
        6 June 2024 16: 03
        Quote: Sergey Valov
        - the decisive factor for the opening of a second front was the victory in the Battle of the Atlantic, and there a radical change occurred in mid-1943.

        Not only. The decisive factor for the start of large operations in Europe was the completion of the formation and training of US ground forces. In the same "Torch" the Yankees threw into battle everything they had combat-ready at that time - that's why they landed in Africa, where only Rommel was.
        Let me remind you that the US Army in 1939 consisted of only 4 divisions, of which two were outside the Metropolis. With the appropriate military-industrial complex capabilities for such an army.
        And out of two mainland divisions, the Yankees had to make a hundred.
        1. 0
          6 June 2024 16: 13
          Without winning the Battle of the Atlantic, landing on the continent would have looked like a gamble, perhaps a successful one, but a gamble. And about building up the US military muscles, you are absolutely right. The Allies in WWII quite logically went from small to large - first Africa, then Italy, and only after France.
          1. +1
            7 June 2024 10: 42
            Quote: Sergey Valov
            The Allies in WWII quite logically went from small to large - first Africa, then Italy, and only after France.

            ICHH, they agreed on this already at the beginning of 1941. The pre-war American plans directly state that the strategic goals of the future war were determined at the ABC-1 conference: the main goal is Germany, the main theater of operations is European, the primary task is to remove Italy from the war as the weakest Axis link.
            So they had some kind of strategy and they stuck to it. smile
            1. +1
              7 June 2024 14: 01
              And I’m talking about that, only in other words. drinks
  7. +1
    6 June 2024 09: 33
    Yes, everything is very simple, two points why. These luminaries hated both communism and fascism equally. And when Hitler, as the Anglo-Saxons pushed him to do, attacked the USSR, they simply clapped their hands. Just another year and the Sea Lion a la 42/43 would have happened in the end. At the same time, it is unlikely that the United States would have been able to prevent this. And point two is to have time to snatch at least something, to prevent us from reaching the English Channel. That's all the secrets.
    1. -1
      6 June 2024 21: 04
      “These luminaries hated both communism and fascism equally.”

      They didn’t hate them, they were equally afraid of them. And fascism attracted them.
      1. +1
        8 June 2024 11: 20
        Why should they love communism? The doctrine of communism is the dictatorship of the proletariat and the destruction of capitalism throughout the world. For them, communism and fascism are almost the same thing. Stalin only dissolved the Comintern at 43.
        1. +1
          8 June 2024 11: 25
          For them, communism and fascism are almost the same thing

          Of course no. There were no problems with fascism: Portugal and Spain became members of NATO. But communism is rather a religion hostile to any modernist society.
  8. +4
    6 June 2024 09: 55
    Britain, in principle, could not open a second front on its own, resources did not allow it, and the defeat of the expeditionary force and the escape from Duncairn was still fresh in the memory. Thanks to Hitler for letting the British go home.
    The main front of the United States was in the Pacific Ocean, and this was the structure of the armed forces - aviation and navy.
    To open a second front, it is necessary to gather troops and transfer them across the ocean, and this is not to cross a river.
    In the years 40-43 there was a struggle on communications with the Nazi submarine fleet, and only after equipping military aircraft and ships with radio devices for detecting enemy submarines and gaining dominance at sea, it became possible to transfer millions of soldiers and thousands of tons of cargo to the British Isles that had to be placed and prepared watercraft and solve a lot of other problems.
    In 43, the Battle of Britain was long over, and V-1 and 2 did not even have the theoretical ability to undermine the British economy and had a purely psychological effect.
    The British special services also worked well - even after the landing began, the Nazis did not bring reserves into battle, believing that this was not the main blow, and when the Allied forces gained a foothold, it was too late.
    1. +1
      6 June 2024 10: 36
      gather troops and transfer them across the ocean, but this is not crossing a river.
      However, they crossed the river. Operation Torch - the Allied landing in French North Africa, Morocco and Algeria. began on November 8, 1942.
      1. +2
        6 June 2024 15: 19
        That's right, almost a year after the US entered the war...
      2. +2
        6 June 2024 16: 11
        Quote: kor1vet1974
        However, they crossed the river. Operation Torch - the Allied landing in French North Africa, Morocco and Algeria. began on November 8, 1942.

        So this is not a landing operation. Torch was planned as a landing on neutral ports, whose defenses would be resisted only for show.
        The landing involves landing on an unequipped beach and supplying supplies through it for the first weeks. And with this in 1942 everything was bad.
        Plus, the German forces in Africa were limited and located far away, outside the territory of African France, so nothing threatened the landing at the first most dangerous stage.
    2. +2
      6 June 2024 16: 09
      Quote: Jacques Sekavar
      The main front of the United States was in the Pacific Ocean, and this was the structure of the armed forces - aviation and navy.

      Quite the opposite: according to all US strategic plans after January 1941, the main theater of operations was Europe, the main enemy was Germany, and the first target was Italy, as the weakest link of the Axis. The Allies agreed on this at the ABC-1 conference - and then its decisions formed the basis of military planning.
      And that theater of operations was secondary for the United States. This was especially clearly visible in 1942: when Nimitz was not given high-speed light aircraft from the Atlantic to accompany the aircraft at Midway, and the army in Southeast Asia was sent the first P-400 Cobras, written off by the British.
  9. -2
    6 June 2024 10: 39
    In order to understand the role of the allies in the Second World War, one must imagine that they did not exist.
    General.
    They immediately merged and went into neutrality or even became an ally of Germany, as they are now. wink
    1. 0
      10 June 2024 10: 26
      Quote: Arzt
      In order to understand the role of the allies in the Second World War, one must imagine that they did not exist.
      General.

      It will suck. This neutrality will be given to us at great cost. Just offhand - four-wheel drive trucks, almost all high-octane and additives, half aluminum, half copper, components for gunpowder (for some the dependence was 100%), machine tools and entire factories - yok.
      1. 0
        10 June 2024 13: 04
        . It will suck. This neutrality will be given to us at great cost. Just offhand - four-wheel drive trucks, almost all high-octane and additives, half aluminum, half copper, components for gunpowder (for some the dependence was 100%), machine tools and entire factories - yok.

        This is the tip of the iceberg.
        We are accustomed to consider only Lend-Lease as the Allies’ contribution to the Victory. This is deceit.

        Just imagine that the Germans transfer 10 air defense guns from the Western Front to the East and use them in the infantry. This is an immediate DOUBLE OF ANTI-TANK ARTILLERY.

        There is no Battle of the Atlantic, all German aviation is intact and it is here. + 2000 aircraft.
        Fleet.
        Basmarck and Co. in the Black Sea. The Turks will let you through. Massive landing in Georgia.

        Well, dry land.
        Von Bock wrote that it seems that 2 weeks and 2 divisions were not enough for him near Moscow.
        And here are 25 divisions +
        All this already in 1941.
        Well, the cherry on the cake, the non-aggression pact between Japan and the United States...

        We're happy, definitely. Yes
        1. 0
          10 June 2024 19: 15
          Quote: Arzt
          Fleet.
          Basmarck and Co. in the Black Sea. The Turks will let you through. Massive landing in Georgia.

          For the fleet, something else is worse: the resources spent in real life on the construction of 1000 submarines go to armament and equipment for the ground forces.
          Quote: Arzt
          Well, dry land.
          Von Bock wrote that it seems that 2 weeks and 2 divisions were not enough for him near Moscow.
          And here are 25 divisions +

          But here everything is not clear. PMSM, starting from Smolensk, the offensive capabilities of the Wehrmacht were determined not by the number of divisions, but by supply. The first bell rang back in July, when the Civil Aviation North was forced to “remove the infantry from pay” in the Tallinn direction, switching supplies to 4 TGr. As a result, Tallinn held out until the end of August. And then it only got worse. The crowning achievement of everything was a gigantic traffic jam at the Warsaw junction, in which winter uniforms and spare parts for Civil Aviation Center tanks were stuck for months.
          And the reason for all this was the main postulate of “Barbarossa” - after the defeat of the main forces of the Red Army in a border battle, the pursuit phase begins without strong battles. Accordingly, supply capabilities were designed for pursuit rather than full-scale operations. However, when calculating supplies for battles deep in the territory of the USSR, “Barbarossa” simply did not add up even in theory - Europe did not have so many trucks for Soviet directions.
          1. 0
            10 June 2024 19: 50
            For the fleet, something else is worse: the resources spent in real life on the construction of 1000 submarines go to armament and equipment for the ground forces.

            This is already extreme. But no. It will all end in 41.

            But here everything is not clear. PMSM, starting from Smolensk, the offensive capabilities of the Wehrmacht were determined not by the number of divisions, but by supply. The first bell rang back in July, when the Civil Aviation North was forced to “remove the infantry from pay” in the Tallinn direction, switching supplies to 4 TGr. As a result, Tallinn held out until the end of August. And then it only got worse. The crowning achievement of everything was a gigantic traffic jam at the Warsaw junction, in which winter uniforms and spare parts for Civil Aviation Center tanks were stuck for months.
            And the reason for all this was the main postulate of “Barbarossa” - after the defeat of the main forces of the Red Army in a border battle, the pursuit phase begins without strong battles. Accordingly, supply capabilities were designed for pursuit rather than full-scale operations. However, when calculating supplies for battles deep in the territory of the USSR, “Barbarossa” simply did not add up even in theory - Europe did not have so many trucks for Soviet directions.

            Don't think. Von Bock did not write memoirs, but kept a diary. So everything is written there, as he thought then. It was literally not enough.
            Stalin was already at the station, what are we talking about? wink
        2. +1
          11 June 2024 08: 15
          . We are accustomed to consider only Lend-Lease as the Allies’ contribution to the Victory. This is deceit.

          Khe khe.

          You seem to be arguing with patriots, but you remain in the same doctrine of the Second World War, invented by Stalin and worked out in detail by Epishev. While in reality there was a Soviet-German conflict within the framework of WWII. If only, let's say.
          1. Roosevelt fails in his feint with his ears; in 40, the conditional Taft wins.
          2. He makes it clear to Churchill that the kind grandfather will not fit in.
          3. Churchill goes to parliament and says “Wee Shell Fight on the Beaches” crossed out:
          Making this decision was more painful and harmful for me than drinking a cup of poison. Trusting in God, I drink this cup in order to stop this meat grinder by his decision. … I vowed to fight until my last breath. ... It would be easier for me to accept martyrdom, but I was forced to take into account the wise opinion of all military experts.
          At the same time, it’s spring ’41, Barbarossa is inevitable.

          Here, there is an opinion, Comrade Stalin would simply recognize the Brest-Litovsk Peace Treaty in an amicable way - so that he would not have to go beyond the Arkhangelsk-Astrakhan line.
          1. 0
            11 June 2024 09: 18
            . Cough cough.

            You seem to be arguing with patriots, but you remain in the same doctrine of the Second World War, invented by Stalin and worked out in detail by Epishev. While in reality there was a Soviet-German conflict within the framework of WWII. If only, let's say.
            1. Roosevelt fails in his feint with his ears; in 40, the conditional Taft wins.
            2. He makes it clear to Churchill that the kind grandfather will not fit in.
            3. Churchill goes to parliament and says “Wee Shell Fight on the Beaches” crossed out:
            Making this decision was more painful and harmful for me than drinking a cup of poison. Trusting in God, I drink this cup in order to stop this meat grinder by his decision. … I vowed to fight until my last breath. ... It would be easier for me to accept martyrdom, but I was forced to take into account the wise opinion of all military experts.
            At the same time, it’s spring ’41, Barbarossa is inevitable.

            Here, there is an opinion, Comrade Stalin would simply recognize the Brest-Litovsk Peace Treaty in an amicable way - so that he would not have to go beyond the Arkhangelsk-Astrakhan line.

            Churchill's genius was that he understood who Hitler was. Namely, Adolf will not calm down in any case, and that means we must at least enter into an alliance with the devil in order to calm him down.
            But he could, theoretically, follow the lead of part of the English elite and conclude a pact with Hitler.
            Then we would not exist as a state.
            1. +1
              11 June 2024 09: 23
              Churchill's genius was that


              He wrote his memoirs beautifully, and was able to outlive everyone who could tell a different story.

              Gravedigger of the Empire.
              1. 0
                11 June 2024 09: 49
                . He wrote his memoirs beautifully, and was able to outlive everyone who could tell a different story.

                Gravedigger of the Empire.

                Others did not leave memoirs, although they could have. Apparently there was nothing to say. wink

                Regarding the empire, I would say this: I saved England at the cost of the empire. Although judging by their standard of living, the empire did not go away, it simply took on a different form. Yes
      2. +1
        11 June 2024 08: 33
        Just offhand - four-wheel drive trucks, almost all high-octane and additives, half aluminum, half copper, components for gunpowder (for some the dependence was 100%), machine tools and entire factories - yok.

        Come on.
        Guderian's turn to Kyiv. Let's say there is Rommel's fifth tank group in the operational reserve. Guderian to Kyiv, and Rommel to Moscow. Beginning of September '41.
        Blau. You, I think, know that the first victory of the spacecraft over the Wehrmacht, because the spacecraft was stronger, was Kursk. Blau's failure was an accident. Someone is talking about the Romanians who have degenerated just below the permissible level of bestiality, others about the Tiger battalion stuck somewhere on the railway, but I will say first of all about the already manifested results of Hitler’s negative personnel selection, which in this case is fully visible in the person of Paulus , Weichs and Zeitzler. Even with all other things being equal, with a different choice of characters, Stalingrad would not have happened. That is pure chance.
  10. +1
    6 June 2024 11: 49
    A set of terrifying cranberry stamps.
    In 1940, England was kicked in the butt on the continent and until 1941 they were pressed on the islands, thoroughly depleting their aviation and industrial capacity. I note that in 1940 the WB left most of its heavy weapons in Dunkirk and on the continent - new ones still had to be made, despite the fact that the Germans were strangling their supplies by sea very effectively until 1943. In addition, they were pressed in North Africa, where the issue of breaking into key territories for the functioning of the empire (and the subsequent fall of the entire SA and WB into the clutches of the Germans) hung in the balance even in 1942.
    In such conditions, how do you imagine the opening of a 2nd front in Europe in 1941-1942? I can’t imagine it personally. Joseph Vissarionovich, as always, knew better, because his army ran on land, it did not need to be transported across the English Channel under the dominance of German aviation to where the Wehrmacht, still full of strength, would ride them with tanks, bombers and artillery for their dear soul.
    1941-1942 2nd front in flight for objective reasons. At the very end of 1941, Germany declares war on the United States and the chances increase, but here you need to understand the following.
    1942 was the time when the Amers were harshly pushed by the Japs, and there the scale of action was over vast areas and quite serious. Up until 1943+ it was very, very sweaty for the Amers. Their industry was forced to rivet equipment for THIS conflict - and this (at first) was non-strategic aviation, the navy.
    That is, in 1942 they were not at all interested in slandering the invasion of Europe - their industry was just developing.
    Until the middle of 1943, they fought there with the Japs, quite desperately. Somewhere in the summer, the Amers freed up (objectively) resources because the Japs began to sag. Also, around the summer of 1943, the Wehrmacht had completely merged in North Africa.
    Thus, until the summer of 1943, talking about serious preparations for the opening of a 2nd front in Europe was a complete misunderstanding of how sweaty our “friends” were. No, not sweatier than us, definitely - just DIFFERENT. When you have a fight at your side and you have loaded a lorry and move forward or on foot, this is one thing, but when your fight is on the other side of the world and along the way they try to drown and bomb you, but it doesn’t end on the spot - it’s not very conducive to laying your eggs in two baskets.

    From the summer of 1943, preparation would have been really possible - although the Japas were quite dangerous and combat-ready, the hands of the same WB were actually freed up, and they also gained experience there in the fight against the Germans in the SA. As a result, they begin to prepare - they increase the volume of Lend-Lease, they begin the Italian campaign (objectively, this is the second front on land because it is a landing on the continent against the main German ally, that’s it).
    Considering that the Germans were still strong enough in the air to carry out a landing in Normandy in 1943 in conditions when the Germans’ technical park had not yet been crushed under the Kursk Bulge, this would really be adventurism. They preferred Italy, because it would be much more difficult to push out allies there with tanks than in Western Europe. And because there was no such Luftwaffe airfield supply network there.
    So the Germans have been tried since the summer of 1943 in Europe, albeit in the south. They try it very successfully.
    At the end of 1943 (November-December) Tehran comes, where they decide questions like what goes where and when. To Tehran scale. a landing in Europe could hardly have taken place because a qualitatively different level of joint development and planning was required than it was before Tehran.
    And from Tehran to landing in western Europe - 7 months. Could you have landed earlier? Probably yes - but don’t forget that in Europe it was winter 3 months from Tehran, what do we have in winter and early spring in the Atlantic? That's right - shitty, shitty weather. And that means additional losses and risks, additional bonuses for those sitting on the Atlantic Wall. This is a factor that cannot be ignored during major landing operations.

    As a result, we have a real window of the 2nd front - this is 3 months before its real opening. To argue that they could have done this a year or two earlier is something irrational and crabby.
    1. 0
      6 June 2024 23: 55
      begin the Italian campaign (objectively this is the second front on land because it is a landing on the continent against the main German ally

      Well, Italy was such an ally that it was probably better not to have such allies. The Czech Republic, Romania, Finland, even Vichy France - these were normal allies for them, but the Italians turned out to be worse than nothing. They were also betrayed by the entire horde at the first crack.
      1. +1
        7 June 2024 10: 47
        Quote from alexoff
        Well, Italy was such an ally that it was probably better not to have such allies.

        Nevertheless, Italy was a member of the Axis. And its withdrawal from the war was considered a primary task for the Yankees - to knock out the weakest link. Strategically, the victory over Italy opened up the Mediterranean Sea for the Allies, which reduced communications between Europe and Southeast Asia. And it created a threat to Southern France and Southern Germany.
        1. -1
          7 June 2024 13: 30
          Strategically, victory over Italy opened the Mediterranean Sea to the Allies
          Yes, even before the knockout of Italy it was quite open to the allies, otherwise they would not have reached Italy.
          1. 0
            7 June 2024 13: 37
            Quote from alexoff
            Yes, even before the knockout of Italy it was quite open to the allies, otherwise they would not have reached Italy.

            There was no through passage. It was impossible to find cover for each convoy assigned to the Husky. smile
            1. +1
              8 June 2024 00: 38
              The comrade does not know that the seizure of the Mediterranean, among other things, knocked out Turkish supplies - another serious blow for the consumptive economy of the Reich. Chrome ores, again. Well, removing the threat from Suez and the Middle East freed up enormous resources of the Commonwealth, primarily logistics.
  11. -5
    6 June 2024 12: 04
    To begin with, it is worth realizing one simple thing - the second front was opened not against Germany, but against the USSR, in order to prevent the USSR, having defeated Germany, from gaining all of Europe.
    1. -4
      6 June 2024 15: 19
      against the USSR, in order to prevent the USSR, having defeated Germany, from gaining all of Europe.
      The USSR in Europe took exactly what it could, due to a mountain of reasons (logistics, forces, funds, etc.) take. I physically couldn’t do more.
      And the allies understood this very well; they carefully studied our requests for LL.
      Hitler was in the center of Europe and had problems with logistics - but for us it would have been much more difficult
    2. -1
      7 June 2024 01: 11
      And why did Stalin rush the allies so much with this very second front? Apparently the man didn’t know what he was doing. Eh, if Shark507 were nearby, I would tell you.
  12. +1
    6 June 2024 13: 16
    It would be in the interests of the USSR to remain completely neutral in WWII and not participate in the next showdown between the great powers. Until 41, in principle, it worked, so the USSR squeezed out everything that was bad for the Finns, Romanians and Poles and resolved issues with Japan. The execution may not be brilliant, but the idea is quite correct, as life has shown.

    It was also in the interests of the United States not to get involved in the conflict, but to wait until the main players brought each other down first. And then, on a political space protected to the level of not just a foundation, but a foundation pit, build your Pax Americana. In principle, this is what happened, although I still had to take part in the mix and then compete with the USSR for influence in the 3rd world. But the Yankees destroyed the British Empire technically, you will agree.

    It was in the interests of Britain that the Germans, French and Russians would knock out their manpower on the continent and destroy all industry and calm down for 50 years, until next time. In the Far East, it would be good if the Japanese rubbed their noses in with the Americans and got stuck in an endless war in China. And in ruins, Britain would still rule the seas. It didn’t work out, it didn’t work out. The empire collapsed as a result of WWII, but they did not fall under occupation and took the place of the beloved wife of the new hegemon. Could be worse.

    In the end, as often happens for everyone, everything did not go the way we would like, it’s just that the United States managed to steer better than anyone else. It's stupid to blame them for this. Everyone must think for themselves first of all.
    1. -6
      6 June 2024 15: 23
      It would be in the interests of the USSR to remain completely neutral in WWII and not participate in the next showdown between the great powers. Until 41, in principle, it worked, so the USSR squeezed out everything that was bad for the Finns, Romanians and Poles and resolved issues with Japan. The execution may not be brilliant, but the idea is quite correct, as life has shown. moreover- if The Third Reich would not have ended up in the USSR where the World Bank and the USA pushed it - it could well have made peace with England after some time and ruled Europe for a very long time.
      The USSR would coexist quite peacefully with it.
      1. +2
        6 June 2024 19: 52
        Yeah, it would exist peacefully, of course. Have you read Mein Kampf? The Germans dreamed of living space in the east and the genocide of the Slavs and Jews. War was inevitable.

        Moreover, by 1941, their reserves of gold had run out, and their reserves of loot were also coming to an end. Consequently, the Reich could not continue to buy the resources of the USSR that it needed so much. All that was left was to take it by force.
        1. -3
          6 June 2024 20: 47
          Have you read Mein Kampf? - and you?

          stocks of loot were also running out. -they on loot They lasted 4 years of war. If they had stopped in France, they would have had enough resources.
          They would stupidly sell the technologies of the USSR - they would only survive on this.

          Consequently, the Reich could not continue to buy the resources of the USSR that it needed so much. -Sweden had enough to buy ore throughout the war; without the war, I would have bought it for the same money but cheaper from the USSR.
          Taking it by force is also quite expensive.
          The USSR coexisted quite peacefully with the 1939rd Reich until 3
          Therefore, there is no clear predetermination of an attack on the USSR.
          If it weren’t for the Englishwoman and the USA, there might well have been no war.
          1. -1
            6 June 2024 20: 55
            I read it, and you should read it. You will understand why it is impossible to coexist peacefully with such a monster. And in addition to the ideological ones, there were also military-political ones (two bears cannot get along in the same den, plus Hitler saw the USSR as a potential ally of England, was afraid of a blow to the dog and hoped that England would surrender after the fall of the USSR, since it was not possible to force it to peace by bombing) and financial reasons (the economy built by the Nazis by 1939 could not live without constant new conquests). Plus erroneous intelligence data - “a colossus with feet of clay.” If the Germans had not stopped at France, they began to develop Barbarossa immediately after its fall.

            So we are talking about gold reserves, this is not at all the same as the ability to survive on a war economy, to put it mildly. The Germans probably could not sell critical technologies to the enemy; this is stupidity and suicide. The volumes of purchases from Sweden were much smaller. And to take it by force was considered to be cheap, because it was “colossal” and because they projected the experience of WWII - they say it would be as easy as with Tsarist Russia.
            1. -1
              6 June 2024 21: 11
              Quote: Kmon
              The Germans probably could not sell critical technologies to the enemy; this is stupidity and suicide.
              -yeah.... artillery - EVERYTHING belay types, samples of aircraft and tanks, unfinished ships, machine tools - ALL belay assortment (including large presses and rolling mills), communications, chemistry - including ready-made laboratories, electrical and electronics.
              It’s easier to name something that was not supplied to the USSR.

              Even more anecdotally, having announced a “Crusade against Bolshevism” in Fulton, the British some time later sold jet engines for combat aircraft - top critical technologies of the time

              Quote: Kmon
              the economy built by the Nazis by 1939 could not live without constant new conquests
              -the built economy existed perfectly well under the bombings belay -the only serious losses by 1945 were fuel plants. All other industrial losses were from bombing belay danced from 3 to 12%
              If the industry operates under bombing, without it it will give quite decent growth.
              Moreover, the costs of military equipment, etc. would fall sharply.

              God forbid that you consider me a supporter of Hitler - but the fact that with an IDEOLOGICAL enemy, a member of NATO and a participant in the Cold War, Germany - the USSR quite peacefully traded gas, oil and other things until death - this is a historical fact.
              The same could have happened after 1939......
              1. +1
                6 June 2024 21: 35
                Where do you get the information about everything? As far as I remember, the Germans did not supply the most modern equipment, and this is logical. But the British only committed such a stupid thing once... Although it was stupid, they rather tried to play their own game, out of old habit, considering themselves a superpower. But the US quickly showed them their place. As for the Federal Republic of Germany, this is still not the Third Reich with its obsession with genocidal ideology and war.

                Have you read Wages of destruction? The fact is that the war economy and the peace economy are two completely different things. The Germans could not stop the running flywheel of war without a sharp decline in the standard of living of ordinary Germans and the probable collapse of the brand, which the Nazis did not want and were afraid of, remembering the experience of WWI. Hence the slogan “Guns and Butter”. Paradoxically, war stimulates the economy and provides jobs, but only as long as it lasts. Then a severe crisis comes, as happened in post-war Britain, Germany, etc. Unless, of course, a huge new market appears, like the USA did after WWII.
              2. +1
                6 June 2024 21: 44
                Well, I repeat, after Poland the Germans would not have stopped. Appetite comes with eating, and the USSR, especially after the Winter War, was considered an easy, fat (so many resources) target. The only thing was that the rear had to be secured first... So both 1940 and 1941 were inevitable. Especially considering the Nazis’ pathological hatred of “Judeo-Bolshevism” and the Slavs. In the Second World War, of course, there were also ideological contradictions, but without such intensity.
          2. +1
            7 June 2024 11: 03
            Quote: your1970
            stocks of loot were also running out. -They lasted 4 years of war on the loot. If they had stopped in France, they would have had enough resources.

            Nope. The Reich found itself in a classic situation:
            You need to run as fast just to stay in place, but to get somewhere, you must run at least twice as fast!

            The problems began even before WWII.
            In 1938, public debt reached an astronomical figure of 42 billion marks, i.e., tripled compared with 1932.
            295 million marks in gold and currency received during the Anschluss of Austria were consumed in a year.
            © gunter-spb
            So we take over the country, pay off the debts, make new ones - and start over. smile
            Quote: your1970
            They would stupidly sell the technologies of the USSR - they would only survive on this.

            The problem is that the USSR simply will not sell as much grain as the Reich needs. The only way to pump this grain out of the USSR is to occupy its “breadbaskets” and take out the harvest, leaving it only for the needs of collective farmers (yes, collective farms remain - it is more convenient to rob them than many farmers). At the same time, everything that was previously used to supply the urban population is exported - because the Reich is not interested in this population.
          3. 0
            8 June 2024 11: 28
            Germany sold coal to Sweden throughout the war. And without coal, Sweden would also have come to economic ruin.
        2. +2
          6 June 2024 23: 06
          Yeah, it would exist peacefully, of course. Have you read Mein Kampf? The Germans dreamed of living space in the east and the genocide of the Slavs and Jews.

          In Mein Kampf there is nothing about the genocide of Jews and especially Slavs. Although the book is undoubtedly anti-Semitic. Hitler of that time had not yet reached the ideas of genocide.
          As for “living space in the east,” according to Hitler’s ideas at that time, the USSR was about to collapse (which was quite common at the time of writing the book) and a no-man’s free space would form in the east. Mein Kapf was written in 1924, when many things looked different.
          1. 0
            7 June 2024 13: 42
            Quote from solar
            As for “living space in the east,” according to Hitler’s ideas at that time, the USSR was about to collapse (which was quite common at the time of writing the book) and a no-man’s free space would form in the east. Mein Kapf was written in 1924, when many things looked different.

            The concept of “living space in the east” is older than the USSR. It originated back in the days when Nicholas II ruled in the east of Germany.
            So for the Germans Lebensraum existed regardless of the system or the existing situation in Russia - Hitler just picked up the banner that had fallen from the hands of the Alldeutscher Verband.
      2. +1
        7 June 2024 10: 52
        Quote: your1970
        if the Third Reich had not gone to the USSR where the World Bank and the USA pushed it, it could well have made peace with England after some time and ruled Europe for a very long time.

        Come on. The German compass points to the East - this was not written by the Americans and the British. And not even Hitler. And the concept of lebensraum appeared even before Atualf the Mad - also in the Reich, but in the second.
        In the absence of a strong fleet and problems with finances and food, guess where the Reich's vector of aggression will turn? wink
        1. -1
          7 June 2024 11: 39
          In the absence of a strong fleet and problems with finances and food, guess where the Reich's vector of aggression will turn?
          Debatable. Extremely.
          There was food - all of Europe was working. Cutting the army and agreeing on peace with England (or a new “Strange War”) would be enough.
          Finance - trade rules.
          Throughout the war, industry stood on peaceful tracks; civilian production of goods did not decrease.
          Everything possible was decided by Hess’s flight; everything screams about peace negotiations, and quite possibly behind Hitler’s back (as in 1945 with the Americans). And the corporal would accidentally choke on a cabbage cutlet and that’s all.
          No wonder the old man did not raise his arms to his chest - urgently hanged himself before our administration took over. And the documents were recently classified again for another 70 years belay

          The Reich fleet - in my land-based opinion - was the second/third (no further!) in power in the world at that time
          1. +4
            7 June 2024 13: 54
            Quote: your1970
            There was food - all of Europe was working.

            Did not have. The reduction in meat distribution standards even reached Halder’s diaries. And the shortage of grain led to the failure of negotiations with Spain on joining the Axis - the caudillo refused to exchange the already allocated American grain loan for nothing from the Reich.
            And as for the whole of Europe... in 1941, the Reich itself owed its allies 2 million tons of grain.
            The Green Folder is Herr Thomas, who is a “military economist,” who composed it. Available in the original in the Bundesarchive / Military Archive. The "economic" measures in the occupied territory are being painted. In particular, from the USSR, in any situation and any mood of the local population, it is expected to receive 2.5 million tons of grain, which the USSR promised Germany from the 1941 harvest and which are already included in the Reich's food balance (without them in any way), 3 million tons of grain per army food (if you drag it from the Reich, there is not enough rail capacity) and about 2 million tons more for Germany’s obligations to Romania, Hungary and others. Total approximately 8 million tons of grain. Herr Thomas did not build rainbow illusions and clearly stated that this plan can only be realized if the current agricultural system is preserved, including mainly in the form of collective farms (if you start extensive experimentation with the forms of ownership, you can drive past the 1941 harvest with songs) and severe non-economic coercion regarding the seizure of grain. It also says that when implementing this plan, millions of indigenous people are expected to starve to death, but the Reich should not be bothered, since the occupied territories are required as a source of raw materials, not a highly developed industrial area, and the peak of mortality will be in industrial areas that and so are not able to provide themselves with agricultural products.
            © D. Shein
            Quote: your1970
            Cutting the army and agreeing on peace with England (or a new “Strange War”) would be enough.

            Why on earth should England negotiate with the Reich if the United States has already fully entered into it - even allowing US Army officers to serve in the British Armed Forces? wink
            But the Reich cannot cut the army without solving the Soviet question - because in the East the Bolsheviks and Commissars are forging a new army at a feverish pace. And this is clearly seen not only from intelligence reports, but also from the usual analysis of USSR purchases under the Protocols. For the same STZ, very specific machines came from the Reich.
            Quote: your1970
            The Reich fleet - in my land-based opinion - was the second/third (no further!) in power in the world at that time

            Mwa-ha-ha... the Reich fleet was inferior even to the forces that England held directly on the Island - without taking into account the various Formations and Fleets outside the Metropolis. Two live LKs and three or four SRTs - that’s all the Reich has.
            1. -1
              7 June 2024 19: 00
              Persuaded!!
              I surrender to you the Third Reich belay feel
  13. +2
    6 June 2024 13: 21
    Quote: Knell Wardenheart
    I can’t imagine it personally. Joseph Vissarionovich, as always, knew better, because his army ran on land, it did not need to be transported across the English Channel under the dominance of German aviation to where the Wehrmacht, still full of strength, would ride them with tanks, bombers and artillery for their dear soul.


    The dominance of German aviation... did it exist? The British seem to have won the air war for their islands, don’t they? Where would the Luftwaffe's dominance in the straits come from?

    And when an army runs on land, is it not vulnerable to air attacks? In fact, it is much more difficult to cover “running armies” from the air than a landing force.

    Well, yes, let the Russian vankas first weaken the Wehrmacht, and only then we can catch up ourselves.
    Gentlemen, ****.

    Quote: Knell Wardenheart
    As a result, they begin to prepare - they increase the volume of Lend-Lease, they begin the Italian campaign (objectively, this is the second front on land because it is a landing on the continent against the main German ally, that’s it)


    Britain itself was the main recipient of supplies under Lend-Lease, although its contribution to the database against the Reich was more modest than that of the USSR.
    The main German ally was still Japan, which, without even entering the war against the USSR, shackled the approximately 800 thousand Red Army group in the Far East. Italy's role was still more modest. And the quarrel between Britain and Italy was not at all due to a desire to help the USSR, it was a showdown between the colonial powers over North Africa.
    1. +4
      6 June 2024 13: 55
      The dominance of German aviation... did it exist? The British seem to have won the air war for their islands, don’t they? Where would the Luftwaffe's dominance in the straits come from?

      Until 1943, the Germans had complete dominance of their aviation over their continental territory. Yes, in the Battle of Britain, the Angles carried them out - over their territory, I note. And literally on the last nozzle. What would have happened over the territory of Germany or France if the English had rushed there a year after the Battle of Britain? Nothing good would happen - it’s one thing when a German “heavy plane” flies towards you and you and it hover over your territory, where there are radars and air defenses and airfields, and quite another thing when you visit the Germans on fighter planes, and they are there waiting for you and they don’t have to think about whether there will be any fuel left for the return trip to the airfields.

      And when an army runs on land, is it not vulnerable to air attacks? In fact, it is much more difficult to cover “running armies” from the air than a landing force.

      But you can postpone the landing, since the enemy was unable to climb over the puddle. So they “tempered”, they had such an opportunity.
      And as for covering the landing from the sea, everything is not so simple. The capacity of land airfields and the ability to protect them is higher on land than any aircraft carriers and cover at sea. And the supply is easier to organize.
      Do not forget that on land, an attack on bare-knee terrain is always hell, but in the case of landing forces this is the norm. Even though the “Atlantic Wall” was bullshit, no intelligence service knows 100% of the enemy’s plans and capabilities, as well as his degree of awareness of his plans. When attacked on land, you can retreat; when attacked, an amphibious assault force can only retreat to Valhalla.

      Well, yes, let the Russian vankas first weaken the Wehrmacht, and only then we can catch up ourselves.

      Here you need to understand what kind of relations there were between the USSR and the capital states before the war. It is very difficult to trust and respect a country that has been yelling for years that it will come and skin your elites and hang it on the wall.

      And about Lend-Lease - actually, did they owe us anything? Why the hell, objectively?
      This is how we helped the Americans in the war with Japan, for example, for 3 years? Maybe we somehow helped England fight back during the Battle of Britain? In everything related to lend-lease, we should, as it is now fashionable to say, make a simpler face. Because yesterday’s sworn enemies, those against whom we were generally preparing to fight, stupidly helped us. They helped at least somehow. This reasoning about “they gave little, they didn’t open the front” is really some kind of Jewish logic. They didn't owe us ANYTHING. In general, stupidly NOTHING. We had no obligations before the war.
    2. +3
      6 June 2024 16: 15
      Quote: Illanatol
      The dominance of German aviation... did it exist? The British seem to have won the air war for their islands, don’t they?

      Over the islands - yes, the limes won the air. But already in the Channel and over France, air battles took place with varying degrees of success. Remember the same Dieppe.
      Quote: Illanatol
      In fact, it is much more difficult to cover “running armies” from the air than a landing force.

      The landing force has one bottleneck - the supply center on the shore, which is most often one. This is not a railway network on land, but one point, a strike on which will leave the landing force without anything for a few days.
  14. -2
    6 June 2024 13: 38
    The best forces of the German Empire fought on the Russian front.
    - Yes, yours to the left, a museum exhibit....
  15. +3
    6 June 2024 14: 05
    Pathetic.
    There were also articles about the beginning of WW2, when the TRUTH stated that it was Poland, England and France that attacked Germany... (not verbatim)
    Something like this.

    and on the other hand, having no traditions of a strong ground army and strong numerous troops before the war between England and the United States, it was clearly difficult to quickly gather troops for landing.
    Once upon a time on Samizdat they discussed the rather small US ground forces before the war and their desire to increase them for the war. Hold the east, Africa and the Arabs.
    It seems like some unsuccessful landing had a smaller impact...
    Well, catching fish in troubled waters, of course...
  16. +1
    6 June 2024 14: 09
    What are the complaints against them? They had their own interests, and we were seen as an enemy even more terrible than Hitler.
  17. +5
    6 June 2024 14: 19
    Poor knowledge of history, Samsonov. Unsuccessful
    1. +3
      7 June 2024 14: 52
      This author has his own version of the story. You just don't know.
  18. +2
    6 June 2024 14: 26
    Quote: Knell Wardenheart
    Until 1943, the Germans had complete dominance of their aviation over their continental territory. Yes, in the Battle of Britain, the Angles carried them out - over their territory, I note. And literally on the last nozzle.


    And whose territory is the straits, by the way? The British considered and still consider them theirs. The Royal Air Force operated quite confidently over the straits.

    German air superiority over Germany was very relative, given the British air raids.

    Quote: Knell Wardenheart
    But you can postpone the landing, since the enemy was unable to climb over the puddle. So they “tempered”, they had such an opportunity.
    And as for covering the landing from the sea, everything is not so simple. The capacity of land airfields and the ability to protect them is higher on land




    The range of the British aircraft was quite enough to cover both the straits and the coastal zone in possible landing areas.

    Quote: Knell Wardenheart
    And the supply is easier to organize


    It is easier to transport goods by sea. And faster, I note.

    Quote: Knell Wardenheart
    When attacked on land, you can retreat; when attacked, an amphibious assault force can only retreat to Valhalla.


    Debatable. The landing force can be evacuated if there are sufficient funds. They did not retreat from Dunkirk to Valhalla.

    Quote: Knell Wardenheart
    Here you need to understand what kind of relations there were between the USSR and the capital states before the war. It is very difficult to trust and respect a country that has been yelling for years that it will come and skin your elites and hang it on the wall.


    Nothing to do with it at all. Moreover, the British themselves set the USSR up for conflict. Intervention, Curzon's note, etc.

    Quote: Knell Wardenheart
    And about Lend-Lease - actually, did they owe us anything? Why the hell, objectively?
    This is how we helped the Americans in the war with Japan, for example, for 3 years? Maybe we somehow helped England fight back during the Battle of Britain?


    How everything started. Learn materiel.

    1. They became indebted to us when they became allies. The Anglo-Saxons (not only the British, but also the Yankees) were well aware of how much their own situation would worsen if Hitler broke the USSR and took control of its resources (human, raw materials, industrial potential). By helping the USSR, they helped themselves too. The more German soldiers the Red Army destroys, the more British and American lives will be saved.
    2. We did not have a military alliance with the United States against Japan; we were neutrals in this conflict. When the Yankees turned to the USSR for help, the USSR helped within the agreed time frame.
    3. The USSR repeatedly proposed to both England and France to conclude a military alliance against the Reich. The democracies preferred the “Munich agreement”, throwing their ally, Czechoslovakia, to the wolves. After which the countries of the “Little Entente” changed their master and went over to Hitler’s side. In the current situation, the USSR no longer had any motivation to sign for England and France. The democracies first had to deal with the consequences of their own policy of “appeasement.”
    Only after the Britons realized that the Fuhrer would not joke with them did they become ripe for an alliance with the USSR.
    1. 0
      6 June 2024 23: 24
      1. They became indebted to us when they became allies. The Anglo-Saxons (not only the British, but also the Yankees) were well aware of how much their own situation would worsen if Hitler broke the USSR and took control of its resources (human, raw materials, industrial potential).

      The most logical thing for them would be to take turns supporting the USSR and Germany until they bleed each other dry. This is exactly what Truman proposed in 1941. But Roosevelt had a different view, and he decided.
      German air superiority over Germany was very relative, given the British air raids.

      At a high altitude, where the Germans could not reach.
      Nothing to do with it at all. Moreover, the British themselves set the USSR up for conflict. Intervention, Curzon's note, etc.

      The USSR initially positioned itself as a country hostile to the capitalist encirclement.
      “To the grief of all the bourgeois, we will fan the world fire.”
      3. The USSR repeatedly proposed to both England and France to conclude a military alliance against the Reich.

      And he concluded a Treaty of Friendship with the Reich. And he declared France and England to be criminals waging a criminal war against Germany.
      1. -1
        7 June 2024 08: 37
        Quote from solar
        And he concluded a Treaty of Friendship with the Reich. And he declared France and England to be criminals waging a criminal war against Germany.

        Is this how they teach it in Ukrainian schools?
        1. +1
          7 June 2024 08: 59
          I don’t know, I studied in a Soviet school, and they didn’t talk about it there. But now this is no secret for everyone who sometimes gets distracted from the TV. It's the 21st century after all.
          https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Договор_о_дружбе_и_границе_между_СССР_и_Германией

          This was also not taught in Soviet schools, but in the 21st century this is also no longer a secret.
          ..Recently, the ruling circles of England and France have been trying to portray themselves as fighters for the democratic rights of peoples against Hitlerism, and the British government has announced that it is supposedly for him the goal of the war against Germany is, no more and no less, the “destruction of Hitlerism”. ... But this kind of war has no justification for itself. ... It is not only senseless, but also criminal to wage such a war as the war “for the destruction of Hitlerism”, hiding behind the false flag of the “struggle for democracy”...

          From the speech of V.M. Molotov “On the foreign policy of the Soviet Union” at the extraordinary session of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR on October 31, 1939.
          ...But no matter how much the gentlemen from the Havas agency lie, they cannot deny that:
          a) Not Germany attacked France and England, but France and England attacked Germany, taking responsibility for the current war;
          b) After the opening of hostilities, Germany turned to France and England with peace proposals, and the Soviet Union openly supported Germany’s peace proposals, because it believed and continues to believe that an early end to the war would radically ease the situation of all countries and peoples;...

          Stalin I.V.
          Reply to the editor of Pravda
          Source:
          Stalin I.V. Essays. – T. 14. – M.: Publishing house “Pisatel”, 1997. P. 343–345.
          Of course, two years later the USSR was already understanding the fight against “Hitlerism.”
          But back in 1940, the USSR was actively negotiating to join the Axis powers as a full-fledged ally - the “Pact of Four”. The signing failed for reasons beyond the control of the USSR.
          https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Пакт_четырёх_держав
          1. -2
            7 June 2024 09: 25
            Quote from solar
            https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Договор_о_дружбе_и_границе_между_СССР_и_Германией

            No, I have no complaints about this. It is normal practice to have a “treaty of friendship and good neighborliness” with a bordering country. The absence of such a treaty means that countries have unresolved grievances and war could break out at any moment.

            Quote from solar
            It was not Germany that attacked France and England, but France and England that attacked Germany, taking responsibility for the current war;

            It's hard to argue with this, it's just a statement of fact.

            Quote from solar
            It is not only senseless, but also criminal to wage such a war as the war “for the destruction of Hitlerism”, hiding behind the false flag of the “struggle for democracy”...

            One can argue here, but in principle it is also logical. It’s one thing to promise Poland protection (and betray Poland), and another thing to wage a war “to destroy” someone.

            Quote from solar
            Of course, two years later the USSR was already understanding the fight against “Hitlerism.”

            It seems that we have already discussed this topic with you. I consider Stalin’s gravest (even criminal) mistake when in 1944 he crossed the line of war for the liberation of the territory of the USSR and transferred it into the phase of the struggle for the destruction of “Hitler Germany” and the “liberation of Europe” (which lived wonderfully under Hitler and was absolutely not to be liberated requested).

            Quote from solar
            But back in 1940, the USSR was actively negotiating to join the Axis powers as a full-fledged ally - the “Pact of Four”. The signing failed for reasons beyond the control of the USSR.

            The reasons very much depended on the USSR. And there is nothing surprising in the very fact of such negotiations. In 1939, the USSR conducted similar negotiations with England and France in an attempt to conclude a defensive alliance against Germany. Did not work out. I had to go to Hitler.
            1. 0
              7 June 2024 12: 20
              Quote: DenVB
              I consider Stalin’s gravest (even criminal) mistake when in 1944 he crossed the line of war for the liberation of the territory of the USSR and transferred it into the phase of the struggle for the destruction of “Hitler Germany” and the “liberation of Europe” (which lived wonderfully under Hitler and was absolutely not to be liberated requested).

              What's the alternative? Get a cordon sanitaire again, but with American bases?
              We must separate propaganda from real goals. Exemption Europe, in fact, was the creation by the USSR of its cordon sanitaire, separating the territory of the Union from the hostile bloc. A kind of forefield on which the first blow will fall. And which allows you to bring your bases closer to the vital centers of opposing capital countries. Remember that only thanks to the base in the GDR, Soviet ballistic missiles were able to reach Britain and France already in 1958.

              For the leadership of the USSR understood perfectly well that the Allies and the USSR were situational allies, and after the threat of Nazism was eliminated, everything would return to the times of the 30s.
              1. -1
                7 June 2024 13: 06
                Quote: Alexey RA
                The liberation of Europe in fact was the creation by the USSR of its cordon sanitaire, separating the territory of the Union from the hostile bloc.

                Politically it makes no sense. In this “cordon” we had to keep a huge number of occupation (yes, de facto occupation) troops for forty years so that this cordon would not defect to the enemy. And in the end, I still had to accept the inevitable and leave.

                Quote: Alexey RA
                A kind of forefield on which the first blow will fall.

                From a military point of view, this is also meaningless. The mistake of 1941 would have been repeated - the enemy (if he had a desire to attack) would have broken up our troops piecemeal: first the “first strategic echelon” in the “forefield”, then the “second strategic echelon” in the “old lands”.

                It is possible to use the “forefield” as the first line of defense, but in a different way - with small forces specially trained for rearguard battles. And this cannot be done successfully on every landscape. And the depth of the forefield must be reasonable - so that after the inevitable breakthrough, the defending troops have time to escape the encirclement.
                1. 0
                  7 June 2024 14: 02
                  Quote: DenVB
                  Politically it makes no sense. In this “cordon” we had to keep a huge number of occupation (yes, de facto occupation) troops for forty years so that this cordon would not defect to the enemy.

                  It was the same on the other side. The well-known British Army of the Rhine hung like a heavy weight on Britain's military budget for many years, without giving any return.
                  Quote: DenVB
                  And in the end, I still had to accept the inevitable and leave.

                  So the departure of the USSR from the Warsaw Wars countries is a natural result of the beginning of the collapse of the USSR itself. As long as the Union was strong, everything was fine.
                  Quote: DenVB
                  From a military point of view, this is also meaningless. The mistake of 1941 would have been repeated - the enemy (if he had a desire to attack) would have broken up our troops piecemeal: first the “first strategic echelon” in the “forefield”, then the “second strategic echelon” in the “old lands”.

                  Nope. The problem is that NATO forces in Europe were not enough to defeat the first echelon of the ATS. And the strengthening of forces in Europe, unlike in 1941, was impossible to hide. Because NATO's main striking power was located overseas.
                  It’s not for nothing that almost every Reforger was considered a possible prelude to war and led to an increase in combat readiness.
                  1. +1
                    7 June 2024 15: 27
                    Quote: Alexey RA
                    The well-known British Army of the Rhine hung like a heavy weight on Britain's military budget for many years, without giving any return.

                    What do we care about that?

                    Quote: Alexey RA
                    So the departure of the USSR from the Warsaw Wars countries is a natural result of the beginning of the collapse of the USSR itself. As long as the Union was strong, everything was fine.

                    And the maintenance of groups of troops and, in general, the maintenance of the “socialist camp”, which in our economic model hung like a weight around our neck, did not contribute to the collapse of the USSR?

                    Quote: Alexey RA
                    The problem is that NATO forces in Europe were not enough to defeat the first echelon of the ATS.

                    The problem is that NATO, strictly speaking, did not seriously plan to attack the USSR - especially with ground forces. The demographic transition had long been completed; they valued people. They were much more afraid of us than we were of them. That is, the whole idea of ​​“holding the frontier so that we are not attacked” looks doubly senseless.

                    Stalin was not that stupid. His real motives are well understood: firstly, to take revenge on Hitler for the “treacherous attack” and the damage caused, and secondly, to bring the happiness of socialism to the peoples of Europe, if not all, then at least those whom he can reach.

                    The first is emotionally understandable, but unreasonable.

                    The second, in retrospect, just looks stupid. Even then it was doubtful.
                    1. 0
                      7 June 2024 19: 07
                      Quote: DenVB
                      And the maintenance of groups of troops and, in general, the maintenance of the “socialist camp”, which in our economic model hung like a weight around our neck, did not contribute to the collapse of the USSR?

                      And this is a price for security.
                      In addition, without the Department of Internal Affairs we would have to maintain the same groups of troops on our territory. And even more - because there would be much less time to make a decision - the strike would be delivered from the border line of the USSR, and not from the borders of the Department of Internal Affairs.
                      And there would be much more force in this blow - because the socialist camp of our reality in this case would go together with NATO. Do you want a combination of the Bundeswehr and the NPA on the border? wink
                      And as for feeding the socialist camp - they were still more useful than from Africa and BV, where the money simply burned up.
                      Quote: DenVB
                      The problem is that NATO, strictly speaking, did not seriously plan to attack the USSR - especially with ground forces. The demographic transition had long been completed; they valued people.

                      So this is in a situation where Europe is divided into two camps.
                      Now imagine NATO with Romania, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, a united Germany and crazy Poland. Here, as if it didn’t dawn on Dropshot, fortunately Lemay was in favor of attacking the USSR with all his limbs.
                      1. +2
                        7 June 2024 21: 40
                        Quote: Alexey RA
                        And this is a price for security.

                        I told you: they were more afraid of us than we were of them.

                        Quote: Alexey RA
                        In addition, without the Department of Internal Affairs we would have to maintain the same groups of troops on our territory. And even more - because there would be much less time to make a decision - the strike would be delivered from the border line of the USSR, and not from the borders of the Department of Internal Affairs.

                        This is all some kind of fantasy about some incomprehensible “blow”. Decapitating missile strike? Well, they would have struck from Turkey. Or from the Baltic - from a submarine. Or what kind of strike are we talking about - tank wedges? Even with Hussein it somehow didn’t work out very quickly.

                        Quote: Alexey RA
                        And there would be much more force in this blow - because the socialist camp of our reality in this case would go together with NATO. Do you want a combination of the Bundeswehr and the NPA on the border?

                        And think about why NATO was created in the first place. Don't deceive yourself. The groups of troops were not for protection, but to “scare” the West. They slept there and in their nightmares they saw our tanks driving through the Fulda Gap. And they made anti-tank helicopters.

                        Quote: Alexey RA
                        Here, as if it didn’t dawn on Dropshot, fortunately Lemay was in favor of attacking the USSR with all his limbs.

                        All our groups of troops would not interfere with a dropshot. And in general, why this Lemay with dropshots, if these Bolsheviks sit quietly within their borders, do not bother to free anyone, and are building some kind of incomprehensible socialism for themselves. Well, let them build. The whole story could have gone a different way.

                        Quote: Alexey RA
                        Now imagine NATO with Romania, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, a united Germany and crazy Poland.

                        Would there be a crazy Poland? If we had not gone to liberate her, perhaps the General Government would have remained. With an exemplary Ordnung.

                        Quote: Alexey RA
                        And as for feeding the socialist camp - they were still more useful than from Africa and BV, where the money simply burned up.

                        This is a dubious argument. There seemed to be no more benefit from unliberated Finland than from socialist Poland.
                      2. 0
                        10 June 2024 19: 24
                        Quote: DenVB
                        And think about why NATO was created in the first place. Don't deceive yourself. The groups of troops were not for protection, but to “scare” the West. They slept there and in their nightmares they saw our tanks driving through the Fulda Gap. And they made anti-tank helicopters.

                        In the “USSR stood on the border” option, NATO will be organized to protect Europe from the Bolshevik army hanging over it, which had previously defeated the best army in Europe.
                        And yes, there are no Fulda Gap. But there is NATO with the armies of not only the “old West”, but also the cordon sanitaire, which in reality has departed from the USSR. The situation is somewhat different - NATO has a numerical superiority over the USSR.
                        Quote: DenVB
                        Would there be a crazy Poland?

                        And she is always there. Greater Poland from sea to sea. Which, not having time to gain independence, went to war against all its neighbors, tearing off pieces of territory from them.
                      3. 0
                        11 June 2024 11: 16
                        Quote: Alexey RA
                        In the “USSR stood on the border” option, NATO will be organized to protect Europe from the Bolshevik army hanging over it, which had previously defeated the best army in Europe.

                        It’s as if you don’t read what I write to you, but continue to give out something you’ve memorized. We proceed from the fact that the USSR did not plunder the best army in Europe. Remained within its borders. Why defend Europe from an overhanging army that clearly does not want to go there?

                        Quote: Alexey RA
                        And she is always there.

                        You don't read again. Until we began to “liberate” Poland in 1944, it did not exist. It could have stayed that way.
                      4. 0
                        11 June 2024 12: 32
                        Quote: DenVB
                        We proceed from the fact that the USSR did not plunder the best army in Europe.

                        What happened to her? Did you leave the USSR for the borders in 1941?
                        No, even in the current reality there will be Kursk and Bagration. Only Budapest, the Vistula-Oder and Berlin will be missing.
                        The Wehrmacht in the East will be defeated. After which its remnants will sit on the eastern border in case the USSR changes its mind.
                        And the Allies will only have to defeat the forces of the Reich in the west, and then crush the whole of Europe.
                        Quote: DenVB
                        Until we began to “liberate” Poland in 1944, it did not exist.

                        Seriously? Could you remind me how Vilno and other Kresy Wschodnie ended up in Poland? And where should the eastern border of liberated Poland be in 1945, according to its government in exile?
                        Or do you want to return the USSR to the borders of 1939? After this, I’m afraid that Khrushchev will not become the first general secretary to be dismissed.
                      5. 0
                        11 June 2024 12: 49
                        Quote: Alexey RA
                        What happened to her? Did you leave the USSR for the borders in 1941?

                        You participate very enthusiastically in the discussion, seemingly completely ignoring its subject:
                        Quote: DenVB
                        I consider Stalin’s gravest (even criminal) mistake when in 1944 he crossed the brink of war for the liberation of the territory of the USSR


                        Quote: Alexey RA
                        Or do you want to return the USSR to the borders of 1939?

                        One of the two of us doesn't understand what he wants.
                      6. 0
                        10 June 2024 19: 03
                        Well, if the USSR had not occupied half of Europe, they would not have seen it as a particular threat (in fact, this was the case until the 1940s, and the army of the USSR was even weaker than the armies of the Little Entente, but no one touched it, despite the general dislike of communism), so that the Dropshots wouldn’t have planned either, and the intensity of the relationship would have been lower. What difference does it make to Europeans that these Russians are building socialism in their bearish corner, if their tanks are not stationed on the border with Western Europe, and the United States is busy settling post-war Europe and decolonizing, that is, gutting former empires? The Finnish version would be preferable.
                      7. 0
                        10 June 2024 19: 19
                        Quote: Kmon
                        Well, if the USSR had not occupied half of Europe, they would not have seen it as a particular threat (in fact, this was the case until the 1940s, and the army of the USSR was even weaker than the armies of the Little Entente, but no one touched it, despite the general dislike of communism)

                        So it’s one thing for the USSR of the 30s with its “bast Bolsheviks” and ostentatious maneuvers. And another thing is the USSR of the 40s with an army that actually defeated the best army in Europe. Here the same Poles will have the first thought - will the Union want to get even for the 20th year?
                        Quote: Kmon
                        What difference does it make to Europeans that these Russians are building socialism in their bearish corner if their tanks are not stationed on the border with Western Europe?

                        Why not? They are standing - after all, in this version, the border of Western Europe has shifted to the East, and Poland and Czechoslovakia are not Soviet, but completely European countries.
                      8. 0
                        10 June 2024 20: 23
                        Well, it fell apart, so what? He went back and didn’t stay to get even for the 20th year. That is, he made it clear that he does not pose a threat if he is not touched first. Plus there would be a certain gratitude, since they would not be considered occupiers.

                        But Eastern Europe does not represent an independent force and generally obeys Western Europe, while Western Europe would have no reason to be afraid. Moreover, it would be possible to agree on their neutral status, so there would be a buffer without any Cold War. And thousands of tanks would not be needed on the border.
            2. +1
              7 June 2024 21: 23
              It is normal practice to have a “treaty of friendship and good neighborliness” with a bordering country.

              Standard practice is to have a non-aggression pact, as many had. The friendship agreement is the next stage. And it was already concluded after the beginning of the Second World War.
              It's hard to argue with this, it's just a statement of fact.

              You're doing a great job of making excuses for Hitler. Actually, it was Germany that attacked Poland, an ally of England and France.
              One can argue here, but in principle it is also logical.

              You have problems with logic. Are you not aware that the USSR waged a war to destroy fascism (that very “Hitlerism”, the war against which Molotov condemned as criminal)?
              I consider Stalin’s gravest (even criminal) mistake when in 1944 he crossed the line of war for the liberation of the territory of the USSR and transferred it into the phase of the struggle for the destruction of “Hitler Germany” and the “liberation of Europe” (which lived wonderfully under Hitler and was absolutely not to be liberated requested).

              This was not Stalin’s personal position, but a joint one of the allies, which the USSR joined back in 1941. The goals of the war were outlined in the Washington Declaration of January 1, 1942
              The text of the declaration contained confirmation of the position of the parties that “complete victory over the common enemy is a necessary condition for the protection of life, freedom, independence and the right to freedom of religion, as well as for the triumph of human rights and justice both in the native land and in other territories, and that the parties are now engaged in a common struggle against barbarously cruel forces who want to conquer the whole world.” The principle of “total victory” for the first time outlined the Allied policy aimed at the “unconditional surrender” of the Axis countries. The main goal of the parties was the defeat of “Hitlerism”, which meant the agreement of the parties with the identity of the totalitarian militaristic regimes in Germany, Italy and Japan.

              In addition, if you look carefully, you will find that Soviet troops independently liberated only Poland from German occupation; most of the countries occupied by the Nazis were liberated by the Allies, either independently or jointly with the USSR.
              1. 0
                7 June 2024 22: 06
                Quote from solar
                Standard practice is to have a non-aggression pact, as many had. The friendship agreement is the next stage.

                No.
                A treaty of friendship, also known as a friendship treaty, is a common generic name for any treaty establishing close ties between countries. Friendship treaties have been used for agreements about use and development of resources, territorial integrity, access to harbours, trading lanes and fisheries, and promises of cooperation.

                Just a “non-aggression pact” is a rather non-standard “feature” that, for obvious reasons, became popular in interwar Europe, where everyone was afraid of everyone.
                In the United States, these types of treaties are commonly a Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation. More than a hundred "Treaties of Friendship, Commerce, and Navigation" have been signed since independence.


                Quote from solar
                You're doing a great job of making excuses for Hitler. Actually, it was Germany that attacked Poland, an ally of England and France.

                Germany attacked Poland. And England and France declared war on Germany. Nobody forced them. They were not going to defend Poland, this was clear to everyone (except the Poles). What's the point of arguing with well-known facts?

                Quote from solar
                This was not Stalin’s personal position, but a joint one of the allies, which the USSR joined back in 1941. The goals of the war were outlined in the Washington Declaration of January 1, 1942

                And who forced Stalin to follow these declarations? He could have wiped himself with all the promises, as England and France wiped themselves with them in September 1939. He would have announced that due to large losses in manpower, the Soviet Union was temporarily unable to continue active hostilities. Fight without us for now, if you have such a desire. request

                Quote from solar
                In addition, if you look carefully, you will find that Soviet troops independently liberated only Poland from German occupation; most of the countries occupied by the Nazis were liberated by the Allies, either independently or jointly with the USSR.

                Especially. Otherwise they would have managed without us altogether.
                1. +1
                  7 June 2024 22: 37
                  Just a “non-aggression pact” is a rather non-standard “feature” that, for obvious reasons, became popular in interwar Europe, where everyone was afraid of everyone.

                  It is this period that we are talking about. The agreement on friendship with Germany after the start of World War II is far from typical for that period.
                  Germany attacked Poland. And England and France declared war on Germany. Nobody forced them.

                  They fulfilled the terms of the agreement with Poland. Germany knew about this. There is no need to justify the fascists.
                  Who forced Stalin to follow these declarations?

                  Allied obligations, of course.
                  I would announce that due to large losses in manpower, the Soviet Union is temporarily unable to continue active hostilities.

                  The war would have continued longer. Until October 1945. Not only the Japanese, but also the Germans would have received bombs. But it would be a different world.
                  I could wipe myself with all the promises, just as England and France wiped themselves with them in September 1939.

                  Only in your imagination. In principle, they fulfilled them - they declared war on Germany.
                  1. -1
                    7 June 2024 23: 03
                    Quote from solar
                    The agreement on friendship with Germany after the start of World War II is far from typical for that period.

                    What does the period have to do with it? You are stubbornly trying to pull the owl onto the globe. Yes, the USSR really did not want to fight with Germany. And he tried to reinforce this reluctance with a standard diplomatic procedure - a treaty of friendship and borders. Borders only appeared after the disappearance of Poland - before there was no reason for such an agreement. And the world liberation is trying to present this formal piece of paper as evidence of some deep friendship between Hitler and Stalin. It was as if two dictators were sitting in a bathhouse, drinking Russian vodka with fried German sausage and planning to conquer the world. But this did not happen - as you yourself know, the USSR never became part of the Axis.

                    Quote from solar
                    They fulfilled the terms of the agreement with Poland.

                    Of course not. This is already funny.

                    Quote from solar
                    Allied obligations, of course.

                    I remind you once again of what happened to Poland, to which England also had allied obligations.

                    Quote from solar
                    The war would have continued longer. Until October 1945. Not only the Japanese, but also the Germans would have received bombs.

                    Too bad, so sad.

                    Quote from solar
                    But it would be a different world.

                    This is exactly what I have been saying from the very beginning.

                    Quote from solar
                    Only in your imagination. In principle, they fulfilled them - they declared war on Germany.

                    Who prevented Stalin from fulfilling his allied obligations in 1944 as fundamentally as England and France did in September 1939? “Thoughts are with you” and all that. fellow
                    1. +1
                      7 June 2024 23: 20
                      What does the period have to do with it? You are stubbornly trying to pull the owl onto the globe. Yes, the USSR really did not want to fight with Germany. And he tried to reinforce this reluctance with a standard diplomatic procedure - a treaty of friendship and borders.

                      You list which countries had “standard” Friendship Treaties with Nazi Germany, then we will evaluate their “standardness”.
                      I remind you once again of what happened to Poland, to which England also had allied obligations.

                      England did not stop the war with Germany until Germany was completely defeated.
                      Who prevented Stalin from fulfilling his allied obligations in 1944 as fundamentally as England and France did in September 1939?

                      First of all, Stalin himself. There would be no “socialist world”. And Stalin’s obligations were completely different. In any case, Hitler would have lost the war, but if the Allies considered this a violation of obligations, they could well consider themselves free from them. And where did you get the idea that Hitler would stop the war with the USSR?
                      1. -1
                        7 June 2024 23: 46
                        Quote from solar
                        You list which countries had “standard” Friendship Treaties with Nazi Germany, then we will evaluate their “standardness”.

                        You have strange methods for assessing standardness. Why should standardization be assessed specifically according to Nazi Germany?

                        Among Germany's completely voluntary allies were, for example, Romania, Hungary and Bulgaria.

                        There were good relations with Franco - Spain even seemed to resell to the Germans part of the oil purchased from American oil companies.

                        Neutral Sweden traded calmly with Nazi Germany throughout World War II. And even German soldiers traveled from Norway on vacation home through Sweden. What kind of agreement they had - I just don’t know, look for yourself on Wikipedia.

                        Quote from solar
                        England did not stop the war with Germany until Germany was completely defeated.

                        Well, Stalin could not stop the war until at least all the world’s evil was completely defeated. Participating in it in the same way as England did in 1939.

                        Quote from solar
                        There would be no “socialist world”.

                        And to hell with it.

                        Quote from solar
                        the allies considered this a violation of obligations; they could well consider themselves free from them.

                        Horrible.

                        Quote from solar
                        And where did you get the idea that Hitler would stop the war with the USSR?

                        Why does he need it in 1944? His own generals had already almost killed him. Or do you think he would go to Barbarossa 2 again? After “Bagration” and with the obvious reluctance of the USSR to invade Germany? Then the generals would definitely have killed him, with an organized crowd and, perhaps, even with their feet.
      2. +3
        7 June 2024 14: 40
        This is exactly what Truman proposed in 1941.

        Let me remind you that Truman was a member of parliament at the age of 41. What the deputies of the State Duma of the Russian Federation are proposing, for example, it’s scary to even remember
        1. +1
          7 June 2024 19: 08
          Quote: Negro
          Let me remind you that Truman was a member of parliament at the age of 41. What the deputies of the State Duma of the Russian Federation are proposing, for example, it’s scary to even remember

          You will also remember the speeches of Vladimir Volfovich - the leader of the parliamentary faction and the third party in the country. laughing
          1. -1
            7 June 2024 22: 13
            Quote: Alexey RA
            Will you still remember Vladimir Volfovich’s speeches?

            Unlike Truman, Vladimir Volfovich never became president. lol
          2. +2
            8 June 2024 00: 13
            . leader of the parliamentary faction

            And the deputy speaker.
            and the third party in the country

            At one time the first.

            However, Truman was not the completely deceased Zhirinovsky. More likely, another deceased figure. He became famous mainly for his investigations into the theft of the Roosevelt administration on military contracts - for which, by the way, no one from the big business was imprisoned, including during his presidency.
        2. +1
          7 June 2024 20: 47
          Yes, Truman was one of many then. But in general, his position was undoubtedly most beneficial to the States, no matter how cynical it sounds... The USSR, like Germany, was neither a friend nor an ally for the States at that time. But Roosevelt decided, and, fortunately for us, he had very different views on this problem
          1. -1
            7 June 2024 22: 20
            Quote from solar
            But Roosevelt decided, and, fortunately for us, he had very different views on this problem

            And as soon as Truman came to power, the United States began to pursue exactly the policy that he promised in 1941. They switched from supporting the USSR to supporting Germany.
            1. +2
              8 June 2024 00: 26
              . as soon as Truman came to power, the United States began to pursue exactly the policy that he promised in 1941. They switched from supporting the USSR to supporting Germany.

              Of course not. Roosevelt and his cronies could not stand Truman and kept him very far from business. It took him at least six months to keep up with what was happening, but in general we see Truman’s completely policy only in his second term.

              If a new era of relations with the USSR had begun immediately on April 12, then both the end of the war and its results would have been completely different.
              1. -1
                8 June 2024 00: 37
                Quote: Negro
                If a new era of relations with the USSR had begun immediately on April 12, then both the end of the war and its results would have been completely different.

                Well, not so much “immediately”. By that time, Hitler was portrayed to the American public in such black terms that no one would have understood Truman even in the United States.

                Quote: Negro
                It took him at least six months to keep up with what was happening, but in general we see Truman’s completely policy only in his second term.

                Already in 1948, the Americans began to supply West Berlin with an “air bridge” to spite the USSR - this is it, exactly what Truman promised in 1941.
                1. +2
                  8 June 2024 00: 46
                  . Even in the USA no one would understand Truman.

                  So no one.
                  The difficulty in understanding the Russian is that we do not take knowledge of the fact that he is not a European but an Asian and therefore thinks deviously. We can no more understand a Russian than a Chineseman or a Japanese and, from what I have seen of them, I have no particular desire to understand them except to ascertain how much lead or iron it takes to kill them. In addition to his other amiable characteristics, the Russian has no regard for human life and is an all out son of bitch, a barbarian and a chronic drunk.

                  Already in 1948, the Americans began to supply West Berlin with an “air bridge” to spite the USSR

                  Have you eaten too much henbane? “To spite the USSR” supply its own garrison?
                  1. -1
                    8 June 2024 00: 58
                    Quote: Negro
                    So no one.

                    I was referring to the hypothetical scenario of saving Hitler from the USSR in April 1945.

                    Quote: Negro
                    Have you eaten too much henbane? “To spite the USSR” supply its own garrison?

                    What was the American garrison doing there? Who prevented him from being taken out of there and giving West Berlin to the USSR, which only allowed the Americans there out of ridiculous Stalinist decency?
                    1. +2
                      8 June 2024 09: 31
                      hypothetical scenario of saving Hitler from the USSR in April 1945.

                      Why the hell save Hitler? As of April 45, no one needs Hitler alive, including the command of the Wehrmacht and the SS.
                      give West Berlin to the USSR

                      Sorry? Why on earth? Who behaved so well that he deserved such gifts from Santa Claus?
                      who let the Americans in there only out of ridiculous Stalinist decency?

                      About what, but about ridiculous Stalinist decency never heard of it.
                      Comrade Stalin's antics regarding Berlin could cost him very dearly - unlike you, he understood this perfectly well. When the Americans actually destroyed their army in 3 years, then Comrade Stalin suddenly became bolder. And yet he did not dare to shoot down the planes.

                      By the way, there is a point of view that the very presence of Comrade Stalin’s forces in Berlin is not ridiculous decency, but direct betrayal of Eisenhower, Marshall and Stettinius. In an alt-history with a competent Truman, disrupting the Berlin offensive operation would have been the main task of the SES - and there were opportunities for this.
                      1. 0
                        8 June 2024 09: 55
                        Quote: Negro
                        Why the hell save Hitler?

                        Well, if only Truman had immediately rushed to literally fulfill his promises of 1941. So I say - no one would understand him.

                        Quote: Negro
                        As of April 45, no one needs Hitler alive, including the command of the Wehrmacht and the SS.

                        Even I did not imagine that Truman coordinated his actions with the SS command.

                        Quote: Negro
                        Sorry? Why on earth? Who behaved so well that he deserved such gifts from Santa Claus?

                        The one who gave such gifts?

                        Quote: Negro
                        By the way, there is a point of view that the very presence of Comrade Stalin’s forces in Berlin is not an absurd decency, but a direct betrayal of Eisenhower, Marshall and Stettinius.

                        That is, there was still an agreement to leave Berlin to the SS command, but these three did not fulfill it, allowing the evil communists to abuse a potential ally?
                      2. +2
                        8 June 2024 12: 58
                        literally fulfill their 1941 promises

                        Kind of a strange idea. The role of the Fuhrer changed greatly between the ages of 41 and 45.
                        that Truman coordinated his actions with the SS command.

                        Where should he go? For such a development of events, it is necessary to replace Roosevelt - and with an alternative Roosevelt, WWII in 45 would have looked different in any case, if it had taken place at all.
                        The one who gave such gifts?

                        By 48, the love of American uncles for Comrade Stalin had cooled greatly. Comrade Stalin quickly began to get on the nerves of conscious people. So the gifts for Comrade Stalin are over.
                        That is, there was still an agreement to leave Berlin to the SS command

                        The United States did not have strategic intelligence, so there was no one there to reach such agreements. The USS was a village amateur group.
                        In the conditions of Roosevelt's incompetence and Truman's incompetence, decisions were actually made by the three named above. First of all, Marshall. For a number of reasons, these decisions were made against US interests. They led to the weakening of the US ally, the future Germany, and the immense strengthening of the US main enemy, the USSR.
                      3. -1
                        8 June 2024 13: 49
                        Quote: Negro
                        Kind of a strange idea. The role of the Fuhrer changed greatly between the ages of 41 and 45.

                        The role of the Fuhrer was not specified in Truman's policy statement.

                        Quote: Negro
                        By 48, the love of American uncles for Comrade Stalin had cooled greatly. Comrade Stalin quickly began to get on the nerves of conscious people. So the gifts for Comrade Stalin are over.

                        The Truman Doctrine began to work, in other words. Which practically put into practice what he promised in 1941.

                        Quote: Negro
                        For a number of reasons, these decisions were made against US interests.

                        The American command simply followed the agreements reached back in 1943. As I already said, if Truman had begun to cancel these agreements right from the first days, neither his closest allies nor most of his own generals would have understood him.

                        Quote: Negro
                        and the immense strengthening of the main enemy of the USA, the USSR.

                        There was nothing “immeasurable” there. Well, they took out a serious amount of industrial equipment and various junk from Germany and gained access to the Reich’s missile technologies. This is all the benefit that the USSR derived from the “liberation of Europe” and the “fight against Hitlerism.”
                      4. +2
                        8 June 2024 16: 15
                        . The role of the Fuhrer was not specified in Truman's policy statement.

                        Not a policy statement, but an interview in a newspaper in the style of “Sergei Mironov put the insolent Russophobe Lady Gaga in her place.”

                        As you correctly noted, Hitler was not mentioned there. In 45, the presence of Hitler alive hindered the cause of peace, not helped.
                        Which practically put into practice what he promised in 1941.

                        Which was a reaction to the already mentioned discussion of the Yalta betrayal by Congress. Truman rather comically told the city and the world how he and Roosevelt had been deceived by the treacherous Comrade Stalin in Potsdam and Yalta, respectively.
                        The American command simply followed the agreements reached back in 1943.

                        There were no "agreements". All these issues were decided by random people in a random order. The Soviet side received more than others because it understood better than others what it wanted - and the ideas of the Soviet side were not as delusional as the State Department's idea of ​​a world government.
                        Neither his closest allies nor most of his own generals would have understood him.

                        Churchill was up and down against these “decisions” - they were also directed against Britain’s position as the leading post-war European power. Eisenhower himself for a long time avoided accusations of treason - and questions about this were asked to him already in the spring of 45. I quoted the position of the commander of the 3rd Army, Patton, above.
                        Well, they took out a serious amount of industrial equipment and various junk from Germany and gained access to the Reich’s missile technologies.

                        And also to nuclear technologies, reserves of fissile materials, the most advanced developments in jet aircraft, guided weapons and much more.

                        That is the problem. From the point of view of US interests, there was no way to allow the USSR into the territory of the Reich, and especially into Berlin.
                      5. 0
                        8 June 2024 17: 23
                        Quote: Negro
                        Not a policy statement, but an interview in a newspaper in the style of “Sergei Mironov put the insolent Russophobe Lady Gaga in her place.”

                        And Hitler wrote his policy statement in prison.

                        Quote: Negro
                        As you correctly noted, Hitler was not mentioned there.

                        There was mention of helping the losing side. This is what Truman began to do in 1948 - however, already on the losing side. A little late, not my fault.

                        Quote: Negro
                        Which was a reaction to the already mentioned discussion of the Yalta betrayal by Congress. Truman rather comically told the city and the world how he and Roosevelt had been deceived by the treacherous Comrade Stalin in Potsdam and Yalta, respectively.

                        Really, comical. Especially about Tehran. Where Roosevelt and Churchill deceived Stalin, persuading him to fight Hitler to the end, in return promising him concessions in Eastern Europe. And Stalin bought this bait.

                        Quote: Negro
                        There were no "agreements".

                        Hello, garage.
                        The European Advisory Commission (EAC) is a body for developing joint decisions of the allied countries, members of the anti-Hitler coalition, at the end of the Second World War, created in accordance with the decision of the Moscow Conference of 1943 of the Foreign Ministers of Great Britain, the Soviet Union and the United States America [1] [2].

                        The European Advisory Commission began its work in London in December 1943. The Soviet Union was represented in the commission by the USSR Ambassador to Great Britain F.T. Gusev, United States - US Ambassador to Great Britain D.G. Winant, Great Britain - head. Central European Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs W. Strang. Since November 1944, the commission included a representative of France, Commissioner for Foreign Affairs of the French Committee for National Liberation R. Massigli[3].

                        During its work, the JCC offered the governments of the countries of the anti-Hitler coalition a solution to the following issues of the post-war structure of Europe:

                        Proposal to divide Germany into three occupation zones, each controlled by the victorious state.
                        ...
                        Division of Berlin into three sectors.
                        ...
                        The work of the European Advisory Commission was discussed at the Yalta Conference in 1945, where it was decided to give France a seat on the commission, as well as to allocate France an occupation zone in Germany at the expense of the occupation zones of Great Britain and the United States. France also received its occupation zone in the western part of Austria.

                        Quote: Negro
                        And also to nuclear technologies, reserves of fissile materials, the most advanced developments in jet aircraft, guided weapons and much more.

                        Reich nuclear technology? Whose leading physicists believed that an atomic bomb was possible only after the bombing of Hiroshima? Cutting-edge developments in jet aviation - is it Jumo 004? Well, not a bad engine for ’45. True, by the Korean War it was hopelessly outdated.

                        All? Not much for the “immeasurable strengthening” of the USSR.

                        Quote: Negro
                        From the point of view of US interests, there was no way to allow the USSR into the territory of the Reich, and especially into Berlin.

                        From the point of view of the true interests of the USSR (and not Stalin’s dreams of bringing socialism to Europe), he had nothing to do in the Reich and especially in Berlin. It was necessary to stop in 1944 at the borders of 1941 and leave the rest to the allies.
                      6. +2
                        8 June 2024 21: 43
                        Hitler actually wrote his policy statement in prison...

                        That is, he had time to think. On the other hand, the result was not a programmatic statement, but an incoherent anti-Semitic graphomania.
                        There was mention of helping the losing side.

                        It was mentioned there let them kill each other as much as possible . In 48, Truman chose a demonstratively peaceful option, although there were enough proposals to groan - the USSR had nothing to respond to.
                        On the other hand, Comrade Stalin was no simpleton either: Truman has elections coming up, which he is losing miserably in the polls. Not the best time for a fallout. At the same time, Comrade Stalin does not have any elections, and the fallout has been going on for thirty years without interruptions - in general, it doesn’t matter to him.
                        Where Roosevelt and Churchill deceived Stalin, persuading him to fight Hitler to the end, in return promising him concessions in Eastern Europe. And Stalin bought this bait.

                        If you don't want to, fight. The end of 43 is Kyiv and Smolensk, that is, plus or minus the same Dnieper-Dvina line. Everyone was happy with this option, if Comrade Stalin did not mind.
                        European Advisory Commission,

                        Oh yes, both Churchill and the Americans write a lot about this sharashka. Alcoholics Anonymous Club. When they crawled out from under the table with their contour maps, everyone was pretty surprised.
                        Reich nuclear technology? Whose leading physicists believed that an atomic bomb was possible only after the bombing of Hiroshima?

                        The question is answered by Nikolai Rill, Hero of Socialist Labor, and a number of other laureates of the Stalin Prizes of 49 and 51.
                        Cutting-edge developments in jet aviation - is it Jumo 004?

                        First of all, these are developments in supersonic gliders. By installing an English engine on a German glider, the USSR leapfrogged the gap of two generations of aircraft that it had in 45. The La-9 was essentially a good aircraft at the beginning of the war against the backdrop of the latest English and American piston engines and the first jets, and the Mig-15 was immediately, plus or minus, an analogue of the newest Saber. The Saber was significantly superior to the MiG-15 in terms of electronics, but there was no talk of the gap that was between the Yak-3 of 44 and the P-80 of the same year.
                        Not much for the “immeasurable strengthening” of the USSR.

                        The post-war scientific and technical breakthrough of the USSR in all areas, primarily in the military, was mainly the development of the German heritage. It fizzled out by the mid-60s.
                        It was necessary to stop in 1944 at the borders of 1941 and leave the rest to the allies.

                        Khe khe.
                        You have your own opinion, Comrade Stalin has his ridiculous decency - another.
                      7. -1
                        8 June 2024 22: 38
                        Quote: Negro
                        That is, he had time to think.

                        And Truman just ran through the newspapers and chatted whatever came into his head. It's amazing how such a person could become president...

                        Quote: Negro
                        In 48, Truman chose a demonstratively peaceful option, although there were enough proposals to suck - the USSR had nothing to respond to.

                        If there was a Hitler who could be pushed to die, that would be in the spirit of Truman. He himself was a scoundrel, but not a maniac - they would not have understood him, this was not Hiroshima with the Japs, who needed revenge for Pearl Harbor.



                        Quote: Negro
                        First of all, these are developments in supersonic gliders.

                        What?

                        Quote: Negro
                        The post-war scientific and technical breakthrough of the USSR in all areas, primarily in the military, was mainly the development of the German heritage. It fizzled out by the mid-60s.

                        Funny.

                        Quote: Negro
                        You have your own opinion, Comrade Stalin with his ridiculous decency has a different opinion.

                        Certainly. But we are not talking about Stalin’s opinion, but about what the further course of history showed - that the socialist bloc turned out to be an unnecessary burden, for the “liberation” of which more than a million soldiers paid with the lives of them.
                        Quote: Negro
                        The end of 43 is Kyiv and Smolensk, that is, plus or minus the same Dnieper-Dvina line. Everyone was happy with this option, if Comrade Stalin didn’t mind.

                        Don't try to pretend to be dumber than you are. The version of the end of 1943 would not have suited anyone. And the point was that Stalin would continue the war with Hitler to the end, not only to the borders of the USSR. Any other option would have meant huge losses for the Allies, even if they had succeeded at all.
                        Quote: Negro
                        Oh yes, both Churchill and the Americans write a lot about this sharashka. Alcoholics Anonymous Club. When they crawled out from under the table with their contour maps, everyone was pretty surprised.

                        It’s not clear why this commission infuriated you so much. This is common practice in international negotiations. Ninety-nine percent of the work is done behind the scenes by professional diplomats, after which the leaders at the summits simply shake hands and drink champagne:
                        The recommendations of the EAC shaped the development of postwar Europe. While it was by no means obvious at the Potsdam Conference that Germany would be partitioned into two states, the recommendations of the EAC allowed each occupying power full control over its occupied zone and deprived the ACC of an overruling influence. The subsequent Cold War was thus reflected in the partition of Germany as each occupying force could develop its zone on its own.
                      8. +2
                        9 June 2024 08: 16
                        Truman simply ran through the newspapers and chatted whatever came into his head. It's amazing how such a person could become president...

                        You don't have to be conscious to become an American president. Moreover, Truman's statements were not unusual for that time.
                        If there was a Hitler who could be pushed to die, that would be in the spirit of Truman.

                        Let me remind you that two years later, Truman’s USA finally got involved in a war with Soviet proxies.
                        What?

                        The Mig-15 and F-86 look like twins for a reason. Same engine, same German research on swept wings. The first American supersonic aircraft had a completely different wing, and the USSR at that time generally made airplanes from water pipes, plywood, rags and French engines from the early 30s.
                        for the “liberation” of which more than a million soldiers were paid with the lives.

                        Comrade Stalin has a different arithmetic. In 50 he had many times more people at his disposal than in 39 - but he didn’t see any difference in what kind of people they were. There are crazy people who consider Stalin a Russian nationalist, but what can we take from them, the poor ones...
                        the point was that Stalin would continue the war with Hitler to the end, not only to the borders of the USSR. Any other option would have meant huge losses for the Allies, even if they had succeeded at all.

                        As I already noted, by the end of the summer of 44 there was a fairly popular opinion that the need for Comrade Stalin for US defense purposes had disappeared.
                        Ninety-nine percent of the work is done behind the scenes by professional diplomats

                        Churchill writes this. Some clerks who did not have any instructions, at least from Roosevelt. There could be no talk of any “decisions” of this rabble that would be binding on Roosevelt Churchill and certainly not Stalin.
                      9. -1
                        9 June 2024 10: 03
                        Quote: Negro
                        You don't have to be conscious to become an American president.

                        This goes back to Reagan somewhere. When television became the brain of the nation.

                        Quote: Negro
                        Moreover, Truman's statements were not unusual for that time.

                        Exactly. He clearly voiced the opinion of a significant part of the political community.

                        Quote: Negro
                        Let me remind you that two years later, Truman’s USA finally got involved in a war with Soviet proxies.

                        And?

                        Quote: Negro
                        The Mig-15 and F-86 look like twins for a reason. Same engine, same German research on swept wings.

                        In order to understand the advantages of a swept wing, a specialist only needs to see a picture of it in a magazine.

                        Quote: Negro
                        Comrade Stalin has a different arithmetic. In 50 he had many times more people at his disposal than in 39 - but he didn’t see any difference in what kind of people they were.

                        I’m saying that I consider Stalin’s actions to “liberate Europe” to be a criminal mistake. We didn't get anything worthy as a result of this. Yes, the Soviet missile program would have shifted to the right for about five years without captured know-how. But the American missile program would shift just as much to the right. It's funny, but if not for Stalin, the Reich could well have been the first to fly to the moon.

                        Quote: Negro
                        As I already noted, by the end of the summer of 44 there was a fairly popular opinion that the need for Comrade Stalin for US defense purposes had disappeared.

                        There has never been such a need. Comrade Stalin was needed to defeat Germany, and this has nothing to do with the defense of the United States.

                        Quote: Negro
                        There could be no talk of any “decisions” of this rabble that would be binding on Roosevelt Churchill and certainly not Stalin.

                        Of course, they were not mandatory. But they were accepted and implemented. That is why the Allies appeared in Berlin in July. Again, of course, Stalin’s naivety and short-sightedness. In retrospect, it is clear that it was more profitable to leave the Americans territories in the south, but not to create this hornet’s nest in the center of the GDR.
                      10. +1
                        10 June 2024 09: 16
                        This goes back to Reagan somewhere. When television became the brain of the nation.

                        Cough cough. Roosevelt 4th term, Wilson the second half of the 2nd term. As luck would have it, it was towards the end of the world wars that this happened.
                        He clearly voiced the opinion of a significant part of the political community.

                        The opinion of the globalists, so to speak. Another part of the political community believed that the showdown in Eastern Europe should not concern America at all.

                        Roosevelt's activities were treason from both points of view.
                        And?

                        It turns out that Hitler is not needed for such a thing, MacArthur is enough.
                        In order to understand the advantages of a swept wing, a specialist only needs to see a picture of it in a magazine.

                        How smart everyone is after 80 years. It is obvious to a specialist that it will not fly, its takeoff and landing characteristics are poor. To have a different opinion, you need to seriously engage specifically with the supersonic topic. By the end of the war, the USSR had not yet finished mastering metal planes, what kind of supersonic aircraft there were.
                        We didn't get anything worthy as a result of this.

                        You didn't get it, Comrade Stalin did. It is in vain that you unite yourself with Comrade Stalin in the word “we”. His conversation with these “we” was short.
                        it has nothing to do with US defense.

                        Find the name of the Lend-Lease law and read it.
                        That is why the Allies appeared in Berlin in July

                        Berlin was also divided at the Sukharev conference. Otherwise, according to the scenario in the spring of 45, Comrade Stalin might not have appeared in Berlin at all. I think we've already discussed this.
                      11. 0
                        11 June 2024 10: 34
                        Quote: Negro
                        Wilson second half of 2nd term.

                        How can be President in the second half of the 2nd term?

                        Quote: Negro
                        It turns out that Hitler is not needed for such a thing, MacArthur is enough.

                        For the Korean War? Well, maybe.

                        Quote: Negro
                        It is obvious to a specialist that it will not fly, its takeoff and landing characteristics are poor.

                        A specialist will guess that supersonic and good takeoff and landing characteristics are generally difficult to combine. Actually, this was already clear even at subsonic levels.

                        Quote: Negro
                        You didn't get it, Comrade Stalin did. It is in vain that you unite yourself with Comrade Stalin in the word “we”. His conversation with these “we” was short.


                        This is empty talk.
                        Quote: Negro
                        Find the name of the Lend-Lease law and read it.

                        The US Secretary of Defense is still called the Minister of, yes, defense. Everything is defended and defended.

                        Quote: Negro
                        Otherwise, according to the scenario in the spring of 45, Comrade Stalin might not have appeared in Berlin at all.

                        Of course he could. I've been telling you about this for a long time. True, in this case the Americans would not have appeared there either. Win-win.
          2. +2
            8 June 2024 00: 18
            Not quite.

            First, you're missing context. The very idea that the United States could, and even more so should, help someone in the European war was quite bold in 41, not to say illegal
            Secondly, if the USA and the Reich were objective allies and fell out only because of the quarrelsome nature of some geopoliticians and the laziness of others, then the USSR was an enemy of the USA from the first to the last day of its existence. When the current Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation tried to portray the USSR, the first, and in general the only thing they did was to quarrel with the United States.
  19. -3
    6 June 2024 15: 00
    Why did Great Britain and the USA delay the opening of a second front?

    They waited to see who would win the battle between the USSR and Nazi Germany, and when the winner became obvious, they decided to cling to him.
    1. +1
      7 June 2024 14: 36
      Let me remind you that Britain attacked the Reich two years before the Reich fell out with the Soviet regime.
  20. +3
    6 June 2024 15: 16
    Politics is a game where everyone is for himself, even if you are with someone else.
  21. -2
    6 June 2024 15: 16
    I still knew when I studied in the USSR
  22. -1
    6 June 2024 15: 41
    Then England and the USA began to wait until the enemies weakened each other in order to receive all the fruits of victory and establish complete control over the planet.
    take it wider - over the entire solar system laughing
    England and the USA were in a hurry to snatch the best pieces from the bleeding German bear.
    A metaphor is not a dog, without it there is nothing (c)
  23. 0
    6 June 2024 17: 29
    I don’t think that the Allies were financially and organizationally ready for such a large operation much earlier than mid-1944. First of all, it was necessary to gain experience in smaller landings, plus gain air superiority over the Channel. It’s easy to criticize the supposedly treacherous allies, but I suggest we remember how most of the much simpler landing operations of our own ended. Not counting the mess of 41-42 (like the crazy Strelninsk-Peterhof landings or the Demyask “foot-ski” landing), let’s look at ’43, when they seemed to have wiser and gained experience: the Etilgen landing, the Dnieper landing. What was the result?? Even in 44 they managed to organize the Merikyula landing in an outrageous manner!! However, the allies also had failures then, remember the landing in Holland.
  24. 0
    7 June 2024 02: 09
    I think that it is impossible to judge unambiguously the actions, much less the plans, of those individuals whose decisions were of a strategic and geopolitical nature at that time. There are too many lies and forgery of historical facts. One thing is certain. The Anglo-Saxons have it written in their genetic code: - Destroy the Russians at any cost!!!!
    Everything is obvious. You just need to look at the facts, know the history that happened, and not what Hollywood shows us.
    If we don’t tell our children what happened, how it happened and why... then So-Tok, Hollywood, and other media will tell them. But heroes are not born, they are brought up, ideology is not around from birth....
    Eternal memory and glory to the soldiers of the Red Army! It is only thanks to them that the world exists.
  25. kig
    -1
    7 June 2024 03: 20
    Why didn't the Red Army help the Warsaw Uprising? - a question about the second front from the same pack.
  26. 0
    7 June 2024 07: 54
    Quote: Alexey RA
    Over the islands - yes, the limes won the air. But already in the Channel and over France, air battles took place with varying degrees of success. Remember the same Dieppe.


    Fights with varying success mean the lack of dominance of one of the sides. The British (with the help of the Yankees), in the event of preparation for the landing, could concentrate more significant air forces if they were not distracted by secondary operations in other theaters of operations.

    Quote: Alexey RA
    The landing force has one bottleneck - the supply center on the shore, which is most often one. This is not a railway network on land, but one point, a strike on which will leave the landing force without anything for a few days.


    Such a large-scale landing would hardly have had one supply point. It’s easier to cover a point target by concentrating target air defense and low-mobile but powerful anti-aircraft guns. And aviation, of course.

    The railway network... the railway also has nodes, railway stations, which are also priority targets.
    1. +1
      7 June 2024 12: 37
      Quote: Illanatol
      Fights with varying success mean the lack of dominance of one of the sides. The British (with the help of the Yankees), in the event of preparation for the landing, could concentrate more significant air forces if they were not distracted by secondary operations in other theaters of operations.

      So the Yankees had only one theater of operations for the Army Air Forces - the European one. And they were able to concentrate air force forces on the Island only by 1944.
      Quote: Illanatol
      Such a large-scale landing would hardly have had one supply point.

      This means shifting the deadlines to the right - in order to build everything necessary to equip the unloading points.
      And yes, we should not forget that there is no point in landing in France with small forces - there will be another Dieppe or Italian butts. To quickly crush German forces and occupy a strategic bridgehead with normal ports through which the group will be supplied at the second stage, it will be necessary to carry out a front-line operation. With the appropriate amount of forces for the landing itself and for supplies through the beaches until the capture of the ports. In general, this is not fast even for the US military-industrial complex.
      Quote: Illanatol
      It’s easier to cover a point target by concentrating target air defense and low-mobile but powerful anti-aircraft guns. And aviation, of course.

      Port of Bari. 1943
  27. -2
    7 June 2024 07: 57
    Quote: kig
    Why didn't the Red Army help the Warsaw Uprising? - a question about the second front from the same pack.


    Did the Home Army coordinate its actions with the Soviet leadership? By the way, why didn’t the British and Yankees really help the Polish uprising? These were their charges.
  28. 0
    7 June 2024 08: 10
    Quote from solar
    The most logical thing for them would be to take turns supporting the USSR and Germany until they bleed each other dry. This is exactly what Truman proposed in 1941. But Roosevelt had a different view, and he decided


    That's it. And such an ally’s logic smells too bad. If you want to take a wait-and-see attitude, don’t make alliances.

    Quote from solar
    The USSR initially positioned itself as a country hostile to the capitalist encirclement.
    “To the grief of all the bourgeois, we will fan the world fire.”


    It is not intentions that matter, but capabilities. Soviet Russia (later the USSR) did not pose any real threat in the initial period. But “democracy” is just the opposite. They practically (and not at the level of slogans) positioned themselves as a force hostile to the Soviet people.

    Quote from solar
    At a high altitude, where the Germans could not reach.


    Come on. The Germans could and did fly at high altitudes, that’s not the problem. And the raids on Germany were initially carried out not by “flying fortresses”, but by thinner equipment.
    In addition, it is difficult to conduct targeted bombing from high altitudes, except to bomb cities. But it wasn’t just cities that were bombed.

    Quote from solar
    And he concluded a Treaty of Friendship with the Reich. And he declared France and England to be criminals waging a criminal war against Germany.


    There is no friendship in international relations. A non-aggression pact was concluded. The USSR was the last to conclude such a pact. Let me remind you that the first were the Poles. In 1938, in Munich, England and France concluded a similar pact.
    But you never know what anyone said and claimed, it’s just a verbal veil, nothing more. Only practical actions matter. It will not be possible to register the USSR as Germany's allies and accomplices, since the neutrality of the USSR in the wars waged by the Reich was recognized by everyone (including the League of Nations). In addition, it did not even occur to Hitler to ask the USSR for help, for example, in the war with France (he did not forget to turn to Italy for help).
    1. +2
      7 June 2024 14: 04
      such ally logic smells too bad

      The United States was not in any military alliances.
      Soviet Russia (later the USSR) did not pose any real threat in the initial period

      Comrade Trotsky is listening to you attentively.
      They practically (and not at the level of slogans) positioned themselves as a force hostile to the Soviet people.

      Political instructors, as usual, pass off Soviet power as the Soviet people.
      A non-aggression pact was concluded. The USSR was the last to conclude such a pact.

      They write to you about a treaty of friendship, and not about a non-aggression pact. England and France did not conclude anything like this.
      It didn’t occur to him to ask the USSR for help, for example, in the war with France (he did not forget to turn to Italy for help).

      Did the USSR have a common border with France?
      By the way, why didn’t the British and Yankees really help the Polish uprising? These were their charges.

      Their aircraft did not reach Warsaw, and Stalin forbade the use of Soviet airfields. By the way, after this incident, the sane part of the State Department began to drown because friendship with the USSR had outlived its usefulness: fortunately for comrade. Stalin, Messrs. Hull and Stettinius did not belong to the sane part of the State Department.
  29. -1
    7 June 2024 08: 27
    Quote: your1970
    Until 41, in principle, it worked, so the USSR squeezed out everything that was bad for the Finns, Romanians and Poles and resolved issues with Japan. The execution may not be brilliant, but the idea is quite correct, as life has shown. Moreover, if the Third Reich had not gone to the USSR where the World Bank and the USA pushed it, it could well have made peace with England after some time and ruled Europe for a very long time.


    Reconciliation between the Reich and England was impossible in principle, since such a thing would ruin all the plans of the American elite. Namely, the American elite was behind the preparation of these projects - two world wars. The main prize is control over Europe, as a consequence of the weakening of all European powers (competitors, and therefore enemies, with the biggest being England) as well as the seizure of the “English inheritance” - control over the English colonies (initially economic), which relegated England to the category of minor powers .

    Hess had no chance of the mission succeeding. Any strong alliance of two great European powers in any configuration (Germany-England, France-USSR) deprived the United States of the opportunity to dominate Europe.
    This trend continues in our time. To preserve it, the Ukrainian card was also played.
  30. -1
    7 June 2024 14: 13
    Quote: Alexey RA
    So the Yankees had only one theater of operations for the Army Air Forces - the European one. And they were able to concentrate air force forces on the Island only by 1944.


    Army Air Force? There is simply the Air Force. And Navy aviation (deck-based, BO).
    Were they able or willing only by 1944? And it was, first of all, about the Royal Air Force.
    The European theater of operations is too blurry. It was possible not to be distracted by Italy; anyway, as an ally of Germany, it was of little use. Well, the Anglo-Saxons had their own priorities; they thought little about helping their ally, the USSR.

    Quote: Alexey RA
    This means shifting the deadlines to the right - in order to build everything necessary to equip the unloading points.
    And yes, we should not forget that there is no point in landing in France with small forces - there will be another Dieppe or Italian butts. To quickly crush German forces and occupy a strategic bridgehead with normal ports through which the group will be supplied at the second stage, it will be necessary to carry out a front-line operation. With the appropriate amount of forces for the landing itself and for supplies through the beaches until the capture of the ports. In general, this is not fast even for the US military-industrial complex.


    I don’t understand what unloading points you are talking about? What can be arranged on the shore occupied by the enemy? If we were talking about landing points, then what was missing in English ports and airfields? Haven't you got enough gliders? We need to do better, gentlemen!

    “Italian butts” led to the success of the Allies, let’s not forget. Well, yes, of course, for gentlemen it is preferable to fight not where it is most necessary, but where it is easier and more convenient. If the enemy is first beaten half to death, and even tied up, then a true gentleman will also give him tinsel. It was the Russians who did not think about convenience and stubbornly fought in the most unfavorable positions. Barbarians, what can we take from them...

    It was not fast, but a year earlier, that is, in 1943, was quite possible. In any case, the Allies hit the chest with their heels, promising “dear Joseph” to open a second front in 1943. But they decided to screw it up, of course, based on their own benefit.
    1. +1
      7 June 2024 15: 08
      Quote: Illanatol
      Army Air Force? There is simply the Air Force. And Navy aviation (deck-based, BO).

      Nope. The United States in WWII has the Army Air Force and the Navy Air Force. The Air Force was able to separate from the Army only in 1947.
      Quote: Illanatol
      Were they able or willing only by 1944? And it was, first of all, about the Royal Air Force.

      The RAF can do little without American support. Beyond the frontline zone, their limit is night bombing of area targets “by dead reckoning.”
      Quote: Illanatol
      It was possible not to be distracted by Italy; anyway, as an ally of Germany, it was of little use.

      Occupied Italy is a springboard that threatens southern France. And free passage through the Mediterranean Sea.
      Plus, Italy is the first experience for the United States in operating large formations of troops since WWII. By our standards, the US Ground Forces in 1943 were located somewhere between 1941 and 1942 - Kasserine Pass alone is worth something.
      Quote: Illanatol
      I don’t understand what unloading points you are talking about?

      We are talking about supplying troops that have already landed. A 1944 American motorized division consumed 700 tons of supplies per day.
      And all this needs to be pushed from the ship to the warehouse via an unequipped beach. Because it will not be possible to capture the port by landing in Northern France.
      So it will be necessary to build the infrastructure of a mobile landing supply port. Otherwise, the landed army will quickly be reduced in combat capabilities to a division.
      Quote: Illanatol
      Well, yes, of course, for gentlemen it is preferable to fight not where it is most necessary, but where it is easier and more convenient.

      Who needs it more? The Allies had a plan for war with the Axis before June 22.06, regardless of the state of the USSR. It was according to this plan that they fought. For the sake of this plan, they even abandoned their own - the same MacArthur forces in the Philippines. Couldn't hold out until the USN gained an advantage over the IJN? We can’t help you in any way - the fleet won’t come to your aid, no one will change strategy for your sake.
      Quote: Illanatol
      In any case, the Allies hit the chest with their heels, promising “dear Joseph” to open a second front in 1943.

      And they discovered it, and in Europe. smile
  31. 0
    7 June 2024 14: 20
    Quote: DenVB
    Politically it makes no sense. In this “cordon” we had to keep a huge number of occupation (yes, de facto occupation) troops for forty years so that this cordon would not defect to the enemy. And in the end, I still had to accept the inevitable and leave.


    No. The presence of this cordon pushed the army groups of a potential enemy away from our own borders. And it gave us a head start in time to create our own nuclear missile shield. Which began to ensure our national security even after we had to leave. The fact that leaving was inevitable cannot be proven.
    1. 0
      7 June 2024 15: 10
      Quote: Illanatol
      The presence of this cordon pushed the army groups of a potential enemy away from our own borders. And it gave us a head start in time to create our own nuclear missile shield.

      And it scattered the efforts of the intelligence services of that side, which now had to process not only the USSR, but also all of its allies. smile
  32. 0
    8 June 2024 08: 04
    Quote: Alexey RA
    Nope. The United States in WWII has the Army Air Force and the Navy Air Force. The Air Force was able to separate from the Army only in 1947.


    The Air Force is the Air Force; this name is inherent only to a separate branch of the Armed Forces. If aviation is integrated into another type of aircraft, it is simply aviation (Navy, Ground Forces, etc.). That is, such a translation into Russian as the Fleet Air Force (Air Force NAVY) is incorrect. Not the Air Force, but simply naval aviation.

    Quote: Alexey RA
    The RAF can do little without American support. Beyond the frontline zone, their limit is night bombing of area targets “by dead reckoning.”


    What prevented the US from providing support? And all that was required was to bomb the fortifications of the Atlantic Wall in order to clear a bridgehead for the invasion. Quite within the reach of British aircraft. If you concentrate your forces on this task, without being distracted by essentially meaningless attempts to damage the industrial potential of the Reich and bombing German cities, then it can be completed by 1943, if not earlier.

    Quote: Alexey RA
    Occupied Italy is a springboard that threatens southern France. And free passage through the Mediterranean Sea.


    Southern France had no significance at all in the scale of the war as a whole. The British fleet operated in the Mediterranean Sea even before the occupation of Italy, otherwise a landing in this country would have been impossible. All this is too small for a real excuse.
    The Anglo-Saxons deliberately delayed the conflict, being distracted by secondary operations, this is obvious and undeniable.

    Quote: Alexey RA
    The Allies had a plan for war with the Axis before June 22.06, regardless of the state of the USSR.


    It would be nice to provide a link to this plan. It is amazing how the Allies came up with a plan for war with the Reich, back in the days when the United States was neutral. laughing
    Based on this logic, the USSR was a meaningless factor, since it was not even taken into account in the plans?
    Fresh and original...laughing

    Quote: Alexey RA
    And they discovered it, and in Europe.


    The second front turned out to be too small for such great powers.
    1. +1
      10 June 2024 11: 04
      Quote: Illanatol
      The Air Force is the Air Force; this name is inherent only to a separate branch of the Armed Forces. If aviation is integrated into another type of aircraft, it is simply aviation (Navy, Ground Forces, etc.).

      However, in bourgeois language this structure was called the “US Army Air Forces” - United States Army Air Forces.
      Quote: Illanatol
      And all that was required was to bomb the fortifications of the Atlantic Wall in order to clear a bridgehead for the invasion. Quite within the reach of British aircraft.

      How British aviation worked against fortified targets is well described by Paul Brickhill: a field strewn with craters without a single hit.
      Quote: Illanatol
      The British fleet operated in the Mediterranean Sea even before the occupation of Italy, otherwise a landing in this country would have been impossible.

      Fleet - yes. And then you must remember about the losses in the same 1942.
      The problem is that civilian shipping has been closed. And the resources of the colonies went to the industry of the Metropolis around Africa.
      Quote: Illanatol
      It would be nice to provide a link to this plan. It is amazing how the Allies came up with a plan for war with the Reich, back in the days when the United States was neutral.

      He-he-he... I'll tell you more - the main provisions of the future war were developed at a conference of representatives of the headquarters of the warring Britain and Canada and the neutral USA in January-March 1941 in Washington, known as ABC-1:
      - America's territorial interests are in the Western Hemisphere;
      - The security of the British Commonwealth must be maintained under all circumstances, including maintaining positions in the Far East;
      - The security of maritime communications between the allied powers is of utmost importance.
      Offensive actions:
      - Early elimination of Fascist Italy as a member of the Axis;
      - Support of neutral powers and underground resistance groups in resistance to the Axis;
      - Continuous air offensive to destroy Axis military power;
      - Building up forces for a possible attack on Germany and capturing positions from which this attack can be launched;
      - The Atlantic and Europe were identified as the "decisive theatre" and, as such, were to be the main focus of the US war effort, although the "great importance" of the Middle East and Africa was also noted.

      And in the spring of 1941, American quartermasters came to Britain to select future locations for the basing of aviation and ground forces.
      However, what else can you expect from a state that openly pumped Britain up with weapons, even to the point of building aircraft carriers (escorts) at its shipyards - an unthinkable violation of the laws of war by the standards of the First World War.

      Here is the Navy's plan for a future war: Navy Basic War Plan-Rainbow No. 5 (WPL-46):
      http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/pha/misc/rainbow5.html
      And in the second paragraph of the Introduction it is directly written that the basis of the plan is ABC-1 and subsequent plans:
      It is based upon the Report of the United States-British Staff Conversations (Short Title ABC-1), the Joint Canada-United States Defense Plan (Short Title ABC-22), and the Joint Army and Navy Basic War Plan-Rainbow No . 5.

      Quote: Illanatol
      The second front turned out to be too small for such great powers.

      Everything is according to the strategic plan:
      - Building up forces for a possible attack on Germany and capturing positions from which this attack can be launched;
  33. 0
    8 June 2024 08: 27
    Quote: Negro
    The United States was not in any military alliances.


    Officially, the British government became an ally of the USSR under an agreement signed on July 12, 1941 in Moscow. This day became the day of the creation of the anti-Hitler coalition.

    On August 14, 1941, a joint statement was published by US President Roosevelt and British Prime Minister Churchill regarding the goals of the war and the principles of the world after the end of hostilities. This document was called the Atlantic Charter.

    June 11, 1942 - Signing in Washington of an agreement between the USSR and the USA on mutual assistance during the war and on cooperation after the war.

    This could well be interpreted as a military alliance.

    Did Roosevelt come to Tehran and Yalta to purely communicate on neutral topics?


    Quote: Negro
    Comrade Trotsky is listening to you attentively.


    Hardly. After being awarded with a valuable gift - an ice pick that was put into the body, he has not listened to anything for a long time, and his words and opinions mean little to us.

    Quote: Negro
    Political instructors, as usual, pass off Soviet power as the Soviet people.


    Well, yes, external aggressors attack the government and the regime. It is true that not only the power elite, but also the people suffer from aggression.

    Quote: Negro
    They write to you about a treaty of friendship, and not about a non-aggression pact. England and France did not conclude anything like this.


    Firstly, we still do not know what exactly England and France concluded with the Reich. Some agreements could be classified. The “Treaty of Friendship” is an insignificant piece of paper, since friendship in international relations is only a fiction. This “agreement” did not impose any real obligations (especially in the military sphere) on the parties. You can trade without the notorious “friendship”.

    Quote: Negro
    Did the USSR have a common border with France?


    No. But this was not required. Transit through Poland and Germany is quite possible.
    Let me remind you that until 1938 the USSR had a triple military alliance with France and Czechoslovakia (against Germany), also without common borders.
    1. +2
      8 June 2024 09: 11
      This could well be interpreted as a military alliance.

      You can interpret anything you want. The United States was not a member of any military alliances, and certainly not with the participation of the USSR. The fact that they fought against a common enemy - you never know how many coincidences there are in life.
      Did Roosevelt come to Tehran and Yalta to purely communicate on neutral topics?

      Once the Democrats lost Congress, this question was asked.
      Roosevelt traveled to Tehran and especially to Yalta as a private person, as a tourist. The USA as a state did not undertake any obligations - since the USA as a state is represented by Congress. Roosevelt did not send anything to Congress based on the results of his trips; accordingly, no acts of Congress based on the results of these voyages of his exist.
      his words and opinions mean little to us.

      Yes? It's in vain. The USSR was a globalist project. And he didn’t hide it for a minute. Comrade Stalin was literally asked to tighten up the activities of the Comintern for a couple of years - but after this couple of years, the leaders of this Comintern entered different countries in tanks. You may not be aware, but contemporaries did not always look at this with approval.
      Well, yes, external aggressors attack the government and the regime.

      You see, I can remember exactly one case when the USSR did not have time to defend itself preventively, so to speak. And there are different conversations about this.
      On the other hand, if some country had such an energetic neighbor as the Soviet government, then this, as a rule, was not good.
      And the multinational Soviet people are not identical to the Soviet government - it seems that in 1991 this was established experimentally.
      Firstly, we still do not know what exactly England and France concluded with the Reich. Some agreements could be classified.

      Seriously? The first time I've heard. And the secret agreements of France, where rarely any government lasted six months, are completely ridiculous.
      "Treaty of Friendship" is an insignificant piece of paper,

      Cough cough. All the pieces of paper are insignificant. However, the USSR and the Reich stood out from the general background in this regard.
      Transit through Poland and Germany is quite possible.

      As one Soviet joke said, “grandfather went blind, but not crazy.” The liberating army did not allow sick people to “transit” them.
      Let me remind you that until 1938 the USSR had a triple military alliance with France and Czechoslovakia (against Germany), also without common borders.

      This “triple military alliance” exists mainly in Russian LiveJournal.
  34. -1
    8 June 2024 09: 32
    Quote: Negro


    You can interpret anything you want. The United States was not a member of any military alliances, and certainly not with the participation of the USSR. The fact that they fought against a common enemy - you never know how many coincidences there are in life.


    This is not only my interpretation, but also the leadership of Western countries, including the United States. Your IMHO goes through the woods as inadequate.

    Quote: Negro

    Once the Democrats lost Congress, this question was asked.
    Roosevelt traveled to Tehran and especially to Yalta as a private person, as a tourist. The USA as a state did not undertake any obligations - since the USA as a state is represented by Congress. Roosevelt did not send anything to Congress based on the results of his trips; accordingly, no acts of Congress based on the results of these voyages of his exist.


    Brad.
    No, he traveled as head of state and Supreme Commander. And the President of the United States fully represents the state.

    Quote: Negro

    Yes? It's in vain. The USSR was a globalist project. And he didn’t hide it for a minute. Comrade Stalin was literally asked to tighten up the activities of the Comintern for a couple of years - but after this couple of years, the leaders of this Comintern entered different countries in tanks. You may not be aware, but contemporaries did not always look at this with approval.


    We were talking about the first years of Soviet power, when there was simply no practical opportunity to drive tanks anywhere. Before the adoption of the law on universal conscription, the Red Army was a very small army, by the standards of its time.

    Quote: Negro

    You see, I can remember exactly one case when the USSR did not have time to defend itself preventively, so to speak.


    Quite enough considering the scale.


    Quote: Negro
    And the multinational Soviet people are not identical to the Soviet government - it seems that in 1991 this was established experimentally.


    In 1991, no multinational Soviet people, as well as Soviet power, simply did not exist. Which proves their close connection.


    Quote: Negro
    Seriously? The first time I've heard. And the secret agreements of France, where rarely any government lasted six months, are completely ridiculous.


    From what? Different governments - identical interests. Why air your dirty laundry out into the world?

    Quote: Negro
    Cough cough. All the pieces of paper are insignificant. However, the USSR and the Reich stood out from the general background in this regard.


    They didn't stand out in any way.

    Quote: Negro
    The liberating army was not allowed to “transit” sick people.


    Yes, yes, 10-12 Soviet divisions would have conquered the entire Reich without any problems. Keep burning...

    Quote: Negro

    This “triple military alliance” exists mainly in Russian LiveJournal.


    No, he really existed. The signatures of Bartu and Litvinov are quite authentic.
    1. +2
      8 June 2024 12: 25
      .The signatures of Bartu and Litvinov are quite authentic.

      This is the first time I have heard about an agreement with such signatories. If we are talking about the Soviet-French agreement of 1935, then it was signed by other people, and it was an insignificant piece of paper about a joint expression of concern. Great stupidity, moreover, since it gave Hitler a convenient excuse to occupy the Rhineland.
      Yes, yes, 10-12 Soviet divisions would have conquered the entire Reich without any problems

      For the sake of 10-12 Soviet divisions there is no need to get dirty. Speaking of the formidable Soviet-Czechoslovak alliance. The Red Army, by the way, a couple of months before Gelb finished fighting with Finland - the German side’s impressions of its successes were the saddest.
      They didn't stand out in any way
      .
      Do you remember the next time after 1941 there were misunderstandings, so to speak, between countries that had a friendship treaty?
      Different governments - identical interests.

      That is, you dreamed up a secret agreement that was kept secret by the French right, the French socialists, the occupying German regime and all post-war governments - including the great friend of the USSR, Monsieur Thorez. Moreover, of course, you don’t need to prove anything like that - you are an artist, you see it that way.
      In 1991, no multinational Soviet people, as well as Soviet power, simply did not exist

      Where did you disappear to? You, my friend, are clearly overtired with your althistory.
      Quite enough considering the scale.

      A state and a half to be exact. Reich and Slovakia.

      Some have enough, some don't. In all other cases, when comrade is alive. Under Stalin, some bourgeois state had a common land border with the USSR, the USSR managed to defend itself against it first.
      We were talking about the first years of Soviet power, when there was simply no practical opportunity to ride tanks anywhere

      During these years, the USSR was of no interest to anyone. All the most striking cases of interest in the USSR by the armed international community ("Curzon's Ultimatum", "Our response to Chamberlain", etc.) were associated with the activities of the Comintern - that is, the USSR's gross and systematic violation of the principles of the Westphalian system.
      No, he traveled as head of state and Supreme Commander. And the President of the United States fully represents the state.

      Well, you have your own opinion, the US Congress has its own. While Roosevelt was alive, he really went far beyond the scope of his job description, so to speak - but here God gave and God took it.
      Roosevelt did what he considered necessary and when he considered it necessary. The wishes of the Soviet side were taken into account for reference. The Soviet side, for its part, could kick Mr. Roosevelt in the neck if something did not suit it - but somehow it held on.
      This is not only my interpretation, but also the leadership of Western countries, including the USA

      The leadership of Western countries, including the USA, is that you? You're kidding me, the self-propelled grandfather is sleeping now.
  35. -1
    8 June 2024 13: 53
    Quote: Negro
    If we are talking about the Soviet-French agreement of 1935, then it was signed by other people, and it was an insignificant piece of paper about a joint expression of concern. Great stupidity, moreover, since it gave Hitler a convenient excuse to occupy the Rhineland.


    What is more important is who initiated the conclusion of this agreement. These were the above-mentioned persons, without whose sanction (taking into account their posts) the conclusion of international treaties is impossible. So this is an agreement between Litvinov and Bartu.

    If there was a reason, there would be a reason. If France had wished, it could have easily stopped these attempts by Hitler, but the French simply did not want to interfere with Hitler. This is real stupidity on their part.


    Quote: Negro
    For the sake of 10-12 Soviet divisions there is no need to get dirty. Speaking of the formidable Soviet-Czechoslovak alliance. The Red Army, by the way, a couple of months before Gelb finished fighting with Finland - the German side’s impressions of its successes were the saddest.


    There are no extra divisions.
    Well, let’s say that in those conditions any army would not have shined, not just the Soviet one. And impressions of the fighting qualities of the Italian army, taking into account its combat experience of the war in Abyssinia, are also not brilliant. But Italy took part in this campaign.
    Hitler also did not refuse the help of Romanians and Hungarians in the future. Apparently, he believed that it was still worth getting dirty.

    So your thesis about the threat to the Reich from the “liberation army” can be considered invalid?

    Quote: Negro
    Do you remember the next time after 1941 there were misunderstandings, so to speak, between countries that had a friendship treaty?


    Even members of the same military bloc sometimes clashed. Türkiye and Greece were members of NATO, but were in conflict in Cyprus. And membership in one military bloc is much more significant than “friendship treaties.”
    The world is ruled by interests, not paragraphs on paper.

    Quote: Negro
    That is, you dreamed up a secret agreement that was kept secret by the French right, the French socialists, the occupying German regime and all post-war governments - including the great friend of the USSR, Monsieur Thorez.


    Not an agreement, but, so to speak, secret additions. By the way, no one has ever seen the original “secret additions” to the PMR (on the division of spheres of influence). There are only clumsy fakes.

    However, the fact that Hitler guaranteed France the inviolability of its overseas colonies and kept this promise even after the defeat of France can well be considered a manifestation of “friendship”, and in practice.

    Quote: Negro
    Some have enough, some don't.


    Nothing.

    Quote: Negro
    Where did you disappear to?


    That's where he disappeared. Unity disappeared, “daring scattered people”, “independent Ukrainians” appeared, and the list goes on. By 1991, in fact, there was no longer a single state or a single nation. A continuous "parade of sovereignties".
    The agreements in Belovezhskaya Pushcha only formally recorded this reality.

    Quote: Negro
    During these years, the USSR was of no interest to anyone.


    Well, Lord Curzon did show some interest. And yes, the USSR was of little interest because it did not pose any threat to anyone.
    1. +2
      8 June 2024 16: 59
      . but the French simply did not want to interfere with Hitler

      What makes the “military alliance” of countries that did not only have a common border, but also a border with even one common state, even more comical. It is a bit reminiscent of the agreements between the Russian Federation and Uganda on mutual guarantees of the non-deployment of nuclear weapons in space.
      There are no extra divisions

      Of course it happens. Nobody needs some kind of left-wing armed people of unknown combat capability and who are subordinate to someone unknown. The Red Army would be useful somewhere in Yugoslavia, shooting peasants, but Yugoslavia was not yet on the agenda.
      Italy took part in this campaign.

      Italy had a border with France and did not require any transit through the Reich.
      Hitler also did not refuse the help of Romanians and Hungarians in the future.

      Which I greatly regretted.
      So your thesis about the threat to the Reich from the “liberation army” can be considered invalid?

      The thesis of a liberation army was developed in detail by Goebbels in the summer of 41. In relation to Gelb, your statement that the USSR was not invited to Belgium is ridiculous.
      And membership in one military bloc is much more significant than “friendship treaties.”

      That is, you are not in the know. Happens.

      Speaking of Greece and Turkey. There was a military bloc, whose members never acted together at any time, except for military operations against the participants of this military bloc itself.
      Can you guess who we're talking about?
      no one has ever seen either. There are only clumsy fakes.

      Your documents are not documents, yeah.
      kept this promise even after the defeat of France - it can well be considered a manifestation of “friendship”, and in practice.

      Good Hitler could not fight in Britain at sea, trying to occupy the French colonies. What a lucky coincidence.
      However, the Japanese could easily fight Britain at sea, so they quickly took over French Indochina (now Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos). And at the same time Thailand.
      That's where he disappeared. Unity has disappeared,...

      ...a lot of important urgent matters that have nothing to do with the Soviet regime.
      Well, Lord Curzon did show some interest.

      All the most striking cases of interest in the USSR by the armed international community ("Curzon's Ultimatum", "Our response to Chamberlain", etc.) were associated with the activities of the Comintern - that is, the USSR's gross and systematic violation of the principles of the Westphalian system.

      As I said above, the USSR aroused interest when you were caught with your pants down at someone else’s door.
  36. 0
    8 June 2024 14: 03
    Quote: Negro
    The leadership of Western countries, including the USA, is that you? You're kidding me, the self-propelled grandfather is sleeping now.


    No. What was celebrated there recently in Normandy, including Biden?
  37. -1
    9 June 2024 08: 30
    Quote: Negro
    What makes the “military alliance” of countries that did not only have a common border, but also a border with even one common state, even more comical.


    Are you familiar with the expression “war on two fronts”?

    During World War I, France and Russia were allies and fought together against a common enemy - Germany.
    Even then they did not have a common border. Poland, which had a border with Germany, was part of the Little Entente, subordinate to France.

    Quote: Negro
    Of course it happens. Nobody needs some kind of left-wing armed people of unknown combat capability and who are subordinate to someone unknown.


    Rave. When concluding a military alliance and joint databases, all this is agreed upon in advance.
    During the operation in Poland, the Red Army showed its fighting qualities, the assigned tasks were completed. Hitler then even begged Stalin to cross the Polish border early, but Stalin waited until the deadline stipulated by Poland’s agreement with England and France on providing direct military assistance expired (17 days).

    Quote: Negro
    Which I greatly regretted.


    He began to regret much more when his former allies ran over to the other side.


    Quote: Negro
    The thesis of a liberation army was developed in detail by Goebbels in the summer of 41.


    Yes, he is still the Light of Truth... tongue

    Quote: Negro
    Good Hitler could not fight in Britain at sea, trying to occupy the French colonies.


    In the Mediterranean - it could very well, together with Italy. Was Rommel's corps delivered to Africa? No more forces were required to occupy Algeria. And the Vichy government, actually an ally of Hitler, calmly delivered troops to the colonies.
    Hitler was not responsible for Japan's actions. Japan was not represented in Munich.

    Quote: Negro
    .a lot of important urgent matters that have nothing to do with the Soviet regime.


    That is, you admitted that the united Soviet people disappeared along with Soviet power? The question is closed.

    Quote: Negro
    All the most striking cases of interest in the USSR by the armed international community ("Curzon's Ultimatum", "Our response to Chamberlain", etc.) were associated with the activities of the Comintern - that is, the USSR's gross and systematic violation of the principles of the Westphalian system.


    Why should the USSR recognize these “principles” in the development of which it did not take part?
    As if Western countries followed these principles, yeah. If this were so, wars in Europe would be impossible...
  38. -1
    9 June 2024 13: 29
    Quote: Negro
    That is, you are not in the know. Happens.

    Speaking of Greece and Turkey. There was a military bloc, whose members never acted together at any time, except for military operations against the participants of this military bloc itself.
    Can you guess who we're talking about?


    Happens. Since “friendship agreements” are not often found in the practice of international relations, to put it mildly. Such an agreement is a worthless piece of paper that does not define the specific obligations of the parties. "Friendship" between states is nonsense. There are alliances, but there are no friendships.

    Are we talking about the Department of Internal Affairs? A defensive alliance is especially effective when it does not have to be used practically. It is created in order to avoid war. The Department of Internal Affairs fulfilled its main function, helped the USSR avoid a major war and gave time to create a nuclear missile shield - the main guarantor of our security.

    Don't be driven by blizzards. No one fought, no one went beyond the limits prescribed by the terms of the bloc agreement. The USSR simply helped to extinguish the “color revolutions” in Hungary and Czechoslovakia, suppressed revolts against the legitimate and internationally recognized legitimate government.

    But the conflict between Greece and Turkey is a completely different matter, a conflict between two states.
  39. -2
    9 June 2024 13: 45
    Quote from solar
    Before this, the USSR concluded a friendship treaty with Germany.


    But this was not a military alliance directed against France.
    Let me remind you that when England and France declared war on the Reich because of its attack on Poland, for some reason they did not declare war on the USSR. Who, even after the entry of the Red Army into the “eastern armies,” denied the neutral status of the USSR in this conflict? England, France, Germany itself, the League of Nations - no.
    Poles captured by the Red Army initially received internee status. Which is typical for the practice of neutral countries. They became prisoners of war when the “king in exile” Sikorsky formally declared war on the USSR.
    It is quite unusual for war to be declared retroactively, however. This means that even Sikorsky did not believe that before this there had been a war between the USSR and Poland.
  40. -2
    9 June 2024 13: 52
    Quote from solar
    And it was concluded after the start of World War II.


    In which the USSR was initially neutral. The USSR did not have a military alliance with either side. The urgent need was to gain time and “channel” aggression to the West, outmaneuvering the democracies.
  41. -2
    9 June 2024 13: 55
    Quote: Alexey RA
    At the time of the start of the Vistula-Oder, the Germans had already stopped their offensive for two weeks and were rolling back under the attacks of the Allies.


    Because the German group did not receive proper reinforcements. They were sent to the Eastern Front. The fact that the Red Army was preparing a large-scale offensive was no secret to the Germans.
    1. 0
      10 June 2024 11: 20
      Quote: Illanatol
      Because the German group did not receive proper reinforcements. They were sent to the Eastern Front.

      Then the Allies can chalk up the success of the Budapest operation - since the German group did not receive adequate reinforcements: 6 TA SS was so worn out in the Ardennes that it was restored only at Balaton. smile

      Failure Die Wacht am Rhein - this is a cooperative checkmate between the Germans and the Allies. The first planned the operation not only without a safety margin, but also contrary to their own doctrines - one “corner pillar” of Bastogne, left completely unattended, for what it’s worth. And the latter did not show the instability that they should have according to German plans. smile
      The Germans were also very lucky that after 4 days of fighting they managed to knock the Yankees out of Saint-Vith - otherwise they would have mirrored the Kharkov operation of 1942, receiving a blow from both the south and the north under the base of the wedge, followed by a pit. smile
      1. +1
        10 June 2024 11: 50
        managed to knock the Yankees out of Saint-Vith - otherwise they would have mirrored the Kharkov operation of 1942, receiving a blow from both the south and the north

        St. Vith in the north, where Montgomery commanded. That is, by definition, there could be no talk of any offensive or cauldron.
        1. 0
          10 June 2024 12: 20
          Quote: Negro
          St. Vith in the north, where Montgomery commanded. That is, by definition, there could be no talk of any offensive or cauldron.

          EMNIP, as soon as the first panic passed at Soyuznikov’s headquarters, they began planning to close von Rundstedt’s forces into a classic pincer movement: Patton from the south and Monty from the north. But Monty resisted with all his limbs and pushed back the date of the offensive until January 3, when the German manpower for the most part managed to jump out of the emerging cauldron.
          If Saint-Vith had been held, then Monty would have had fewer arguments, and the Allies would have had two classic corner pillars - two communication centers to the left and right of the breakthrough, between which there would have been only 50 km. Classics of the Eastern Front of 1941 and 1942, only in the role of a spacecraft - the Wehrmacht.
          1. +1
            10 June 2024 13: 36
            .If Saint-Vith had been held, then Monty would have had fewer arguments, and the Allies would have had two classic corner pillars

            In this alt-history, Monty would for some reason act differently from the way he always acted - which is unlikely.

            Monty was preparing to cross the Rhine and was not going to be distracted. Patton managed to turn around, strike at Bastogne from the south, turn around again, break through the Siegfried Line, reach from Belgium to Frankfurt am Main, cross the Rhine there - and Monty continued to prepare for the crossing of the Rhine. Stick to your line, so to speak.
    2. +1
      10 June 2024 11: 53
      . Because the German group did not receive proper reinforcements. They were sent to the Eastern Front

      Suddenly, a war on two fronts (like a war on a wide front) has its disadvantages. In particular, you cannot concentrate all your efforts on one area.

      On the other hand, specifically near the Ardennes, no reinforcements were required: even those forces that were available were stopped due to logistical limitations.
  42. -1
    9 June 2024 13: 58
    Quote from solar
    Do you know when it was formed? After the war, when they asked to return what was left, or to pay for what they wanted to keep. As a result, they paid only in the 21st century at prices of the mid-20th.


    Connoisseur. Can you remind me when the British paid for Lend-Lease with the USA and at what rate?
  43. -1
    9 June 2024 14: 02
    Quote: Kmon
    Consequently, the Reich could not continue to buy the resources of the USSR that it needed so much. All that was left was to take it by force.


    That's a stupid question. The Reich could sell technology and industrial equipment, vehicles, etc.
    The conflict was not primarily caused by economic reasons.
  44. 0
    11 June 2024 09: 34
    Now there is a more important question - will we repeat the fate of the Third Reich?... and on the site “historians” are all chewing on questions that have long been clarified from WWII
  45. 0
    11 June 2024 14: 21
    We looked to see whether they would survive or not. They thought whether the councils would be able to cope on their own or not, it was not for nothing that they began to give lend-lease, step by step (the same way they work in Ukraine - first helmets, then small arms, artillery, high-mars, and so on). They realized that they couldn’t pull it off. So they decided to fit in (like the Korean War). They entered when it suited them.
    America is about benefit, primarily for themselves. Until you understand this, you will always lose...
  46. 0
    12 June 2024 16: 42
    Considering the events of those years from the 21st century, it can be argued that the leadership of the USSR made a strategic mistake by continuing military operations beyond the borders defined by the League of Nations. Having stopped the troops at this border, the leadership of the USSR had to begin negotiations with the USA and Great Britain on the continuation of hostilities and Germany on concluding peace with the exchange of prisoners and with the payment of reparations and indemnities by Germany. In addition, it was possible to negotiate with Germany about the zone of influence of the USSR in Eastern Europe. Only in this way could the USSR save the lives of millions of Soviet citizens and destroy the plans of Great Britain and the USA to subjugate Europe and bleed the USSR dry. In addition, this step would have forced the United States and Great Britain to open a second front much earlier and actually fight Germany in Europe, and not pretend that they are at war with it. The world would be different anyway. Quite possible, without a nuclear arms race and with a weaker US and UK. Germany and the USSR, not the USA, could become the masters of Europe.
  47. 0
    15 June 2024 13: 46
    “If we see that Germany is winning, then we should help Russia, and if Russia is winning, then we should help Germany, and thus let them kill as many as possible, although I do not want to see Hitler under any circumstances winners" G. Truman.
    Everything was done to weaken and destroy powerful continental powers. What other questions might there be?
    1. 0
      Yesterday, 14: 20
      It was the powerful continental powers that had to give an asymmetrical response. Later, France and the USSR could have created a coalition, but in the USSR, birds of a feather were in power. Now Russia and Germany can unite Europe. China is still a partner, and games with Islam are very dangerous.