Stalin creates the foundations of a new just world

45
Stalin creates the foundations of a new just world
Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin at the Yalta Conference


General situation


By the opening of the Crimean Conference, it was obvious to everyone that the Red Army had become a decisive force capable of destroying Hitler's Germany. Russian troops were already fighting on German territory, rushing towards Berlin. The conference began with a report by the Chief of the Soviet General Staff, Alexei Antonov. Antonov spoke about the state of affairs on the Eastern Front and the plans of the Soviet Headquarters.



According to the report of the Chief of the General Staff of the US Army George Marshall, although the consequences of the Wehrmacht's attack in the Ardennes had been eliminated, the Allied forces had only just begun to concentrate their forces for a future offensive. The Allied forces were still only at the Siegfried Line and had only crossed the German border in some places.

The head of Britain, Winston Churchill, still wanted to get ahead of the Red Army in its movement into the depths of Europe. Churchill proposed to transfer the allied troops to Ljubljana (the capital of Slovenia) to meet the Red Army. Thus, the allied troops would have the opportunity to enter Austria and the Czech Republic first.

Stalin did not respond to this proposal. At the same time, the Soviet leader raised the issue of the need for better coordination of the actions of the armed forces of the three great powers and considered it expedient for the Soviet, American and British military to discuss plans for future operations. During the work of the meeting of the headquarters of the allied forces, it was decided to entrust the work of coordinating the actions of the troops to the General Staff of the Red Army and the heads of the allied military missions in Moscow.

Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill assumed that the 1945 campaign would be the last in the war against Germany, and began discussing a common policy towards the defeated country. As at the Tehran Conference, Joseph Stalin made every effort to achieve decisions that met the national interests of our country.

The USSR Ambassador to the USA, Andrei Gromyko, who participated in the Crimean Conference, recalled:

"I do not remember a case when Stalin missed or did not understand accurately enough some significant statement of his conference partners. He caught the meaning of their words on the fly. His attention, memory, it seemed, to use a comparison of today, like an electronic computer, did not miss anything. During the sessions in the Livadia Palace, I understood, perhaps more clearly than ever before, what extraordinary qualities this man possessed."

All this cemented Stalin's status as the informal leader of the Big Three. As Gromyko recalled, when Stalin spoke during meetings, "everyone present hung on his every word." Stalin's statements were not harsh, tact was observed, but the Soviet leader often spoke in such a way that "his words grated on the ears of both leaders of the Western powers."

Stalin possessed certain qualities that, against the will of Churchill and Roosevelt, forced them to recognize the leadership of the Soviet leader. As Churchill himself recalled:

“When he entered the hall of the Yalta Conference, we all, as if on command, stood up and, strangely enough, for some reason kept our hands at our sides.”


Stalin and Churchill before the meeting at the Yalta Conference

The future of Germany


One of the main issues at the conference was the post-war future of Germany. Having heard the opinions of the Western allies regarding their vision of Germany's future and the question of the capitulation of the German government, Stalin, for his part, emphasized Moscow's interest in resolving the issue of German reparations to the Soviet Union.

The Western powers had already put forward the idea of ​​dismembering Germany into several small countries during the Tehran Conference. Stalin did not support this idea. It was in the interests of the USSR to preserve a united Germany, which was to become neutral and friendly to the Union. Stalin said that "Hitlers come and go, but the German people remain."

As a result, the German people, Germany, should be personally grateful to Stalin and Russia that their country was not dismembered, as the British and Americans proposed.

Initially, control in Germany was to be exercised by the Central Control Commission, which included the commanders-in-chief of the three powers. In Germany, it was decided to establish four occupation zones. At Stalin's insistence, France was included among the victorious powers and received one occupation zone.

The participants in the Yalta Conference declared that their goal was to eliminate German militarism and Nazism and to ensure that "Germany would never again be in a position to disturb the peace." To this end, the Allies planned to: disarm and disband all German armed forces and liquidate the General Staff; seize or destroy all military equipment, liquidate or take control of the military-industrial complex; denazify Germany by destroying the National Socialist German Workers' Party (NSDAP), subjecting war criminals to fair punishment; eliminate all Nazi and militaristic influence in the social, cultural and economic life of Germany.

At Stalin's insistence, the Crimean Conference decided to collect reparations (a form of material liability for damage, from the Latin reparatio - restoration) from Germany for the damage caused to the Allied countries. To resolve the problem of reparations, a Commission for Compensation of Damages was established with its seat in Moscow. The Allies were unable to finally determine the amount of compensation. However, it was decided that the USSR would receive half of all reparations.


US President Franklin Roosevelt (1882-1945) and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill (1874-1965) discuss the Allies' plans at the Yalta Conference

Polish question


During the conference, the Western Allies, especially Churchill, questioned the legitimacy of the Soviet Union's 1939 western border, stubbornly trying to prevent Moscow from expanding its sphere of influence westward. These attempts were unsuccessful.

The Polish question at the Yalta Conference was one of the most complex. By early February 1945, as a result of the successes of the Red Army, Poland was already under the authority of the provisional government in Warsaw, and the Polish government in exile was located in London. The emigrants refused to accept the decisions of the Tehran Conference on the Curzon Line and considered themselves the legitimate government of Poland.

At the Crimean Conference, Stalin managed to obtain confirmation from the allies of the western border of the Union along the "Curzon Line", proposed back in 1920. The return of the lands of Western Belarus and Western Little Russia-Ukraine to Russia-USSR in 1939 was confirmed by the world community.

In this case, Stalin insisted on a significant territorial expansion of Poland at the expense of Germany in the north and west. In particular, part of East Prussia became part of Poland. Therefore, the current attacks of Polish politicians on the USSR and Stalin personally are completely unreasonable. After all, it is to Stalin that Poland owes the lands previously inhabited by Western Slavs.

At the Potsdam Conference, it was finally agreed that the southern part of East Prussia and German territory east of the Oder and Neisse rivers (Pomerania, Lower Silesia and part of Brandenburg) are transferred to Poland.

In this case, Stalin was able to make the new Poland an ally of the USSR. The Western allies, realizing that they would not be able to insist on the return of power in Warsaw to the London government, agreed to a compromise at the Yalta Conference. A government was to be created in Poland with the participation of "London" Poles and free elections were to be held.

However, in fact, the "Provisional Government of National Unity" ended up under the control of the left, and the elections legitimized the pro-Soviet regime, which was headed by the Polish United Workers' Party under the leadership of Bolesław Bierut.

Poland ceased to be a buffer state hostile to Russia and the USSR. It was a big historical and Stalin's strategic victory.


Soviet sailors look at the American command ship Catoctin, which arrived in Sevastopol during the Yalta Conference.

New Socialist Europe


The Yugoslav question was also resolved in Moscow's interests. It was effectively recognized that the People's Liberation Army of Yugoslavia under the leadership of Josip Broz Tito, i.e. the communists, would gain power in Yugoslavia. True, the new Yugoslav government was to include democrats, as in Poland, but this did not change the situation. Yugoslavia became a socialist state.

The decisions on Poland and Yugoslavia meant the West's recognition of the new political situation in Europe, which had arisen thanks to the victories of the Red Army and the successes of pro-Soviet, leftist and communist forces in European countries.

The so-called "Percentage Agreement" - an agreement between Stalin and Churchill to divide South-Eastern Europe into spheres of influence - was rejected. Churchill's "50% - 50%" formula for determining the ratio of influence between the USSR and the West in Yugoslavia and Hungary, and apparently also in Poland and Czechoslovakia, was replaced by recognition of the predominant position of pro-Soviet forces in these countries. As for Bulgaria and Romania, Churchill had already recognized the predominance of the USSR in these countries in 1944.

In Crimea, the Declaration on Liberated Europe was also signed, which predetermined the principles of the policy of the victorious powers in Europe. The declaration restored the sovereignty of the peoples of the liberated countries, but for the “period of temporary instability” the three Allied powers were given the right to jointly “help” these peoples.


US President Franklin Roosevelt drives past a guard of honor of Soviet soldiers at the Saki airfield. Behind the wheel of the Willys is a 1st category reconnaissance driver of the special purpose garage (SPG), senior sergeant of state security Fyodor Khodakov. Far right is US Secretary of State Edward Stettinius. Second from right is USSR People's Commissar for Foreign Affairs Vyacheslav Mikhailovich Molotov.

Historical revenge


The decisions of the conference affected not only Europe. London and Washington understood perfectly well that without the help of the Russians, the Japanese Empire could not be quickly defeated. Therefore, the Americans and the British constantly insisted on the USSR's prompt entry into the war in the Far East.

Stalin was a true defender of the geopolitical interests of the Russian people. He had no intention of turning Russians into "cannon fodder" for the Western powers. As a price for the USSR's entry into the war with Japan, the West was forced to recognize Moscow's legitimate interests in the Far East. The secret "Agreement of the Three Great Powers on the Far East" stated that the Union would enter the war with Japan 2-3 months after the defeat of Nazi Germany and the end of the war in Europe.

The West accepted the conditions set by Moscow. The Western powers and China were supposed to recognize the independence of the Mongolian People’s Republic. The Soviet Union returned the Kuril Islands, South Sakhalin and the islands adjacent to it, lost during the unsuccessful Russian-Japanese war of 1904-1905 for Russia. The lease of Port Arthur and the preemptive rights to the Dalniy port, which was lost by the Russian state in 1905 under the Portsmouth Peace Treaty, was restored. The Soviet side was also promised to return the rights to the Chinese Eastern Railway (CER), lost after an agreement between the USSR and Manchukuo.

The Soviet leader not only completely restored Russia's position in the Far East, lost after 1905, but ultimately took historical revenge on Japan.


Molotov, Churchill and Roosevelt inspect the line of Soviet soldiers at the Saki airfield

New world


The idea of ​​creating a new League of Nations was also put into practice in Crimea. The new international organization was to become a guarantee of the inviolability of the new world architecture. Speaking during the discussion, Joseph Stalin again raised the issue of including Soviet republics (initially, it was about Ukraine, Belarus, and Lithuania, which suffered most from German aggression) in the United Nations along with the USSR. This proposal met with stifled resistance from England and the United States.

For Stalin, the main thing in the UN was not to get additional votes in the General Assembly, but to create a stable system that would save humanity from a new major war. As a result, the principle of unanimity of the great powers – permanent members of the Security Council, who received the right of veto – was laid at the basis of the UN's activities in resolving cardinal issues of ensuring peace. In Yalta, the date "April 25, 1945" was announced – the date of the beginning of the San Francisco Conference, which developed the UN Charter.

Stalin understood that the concessions of the Western allies were largely connected with the victories of the Red Army and the strengthening of the international position of the USSR, as well as a certain understanding that had developed between the members of the Big Three.

It must be said that later the position of Western leaders, especially Roosevelt, was harshly criticized for its unacceptable concessions to Stalin. Therefore, Stalin did not believe in the eternity of the established relations and understood the fragility of the understanding reached.

As Stalin himself said, speaking at the conference:

"As long as we are all alive, there is nothing to fear. We will not allow dangerous differences between us... But 10 years will pass, or perhaps less, and we will disappear. A new generation will come, which has not gone through everything that we have experienced, which will probably look at many issues differently than we do."

And so it happened. A little time passed, and a new war began - the "cold" one. In fact, the Third World War (World War III. War of a New Generation).

The Yalta Conference allowed the USSR-Russia to create a secure western border in Europe for several decades. This happened for the first time in Russia's thousand-year history. With the exception of a small section of the Soviet-Norwegian border, the Soviet Union had socialist countries or friendly neutral Finland as its western neighbors or allies for 45 years, having learned a good lesson during World War II and benefiting greatly from such a neighborhood.

There were powerful groups of Soviet troops in Central Europe, and armies of allied socialist countries were also located on the enemy's (NATO countries') path. This allowed two generations of Soviet (Russian) people to live in peace and security, which is a huge rarity in the history of our country.

Stalin also achieved recognition of the USSR's right to create secure borders in the Far East, which had been under constant threat from Japan and China since the beginning of the 1904th century. Japan was demilitarized, and China became an ally, a "younger brother." Stalin took revenge for the historic defeat in the war of 1905-XNUMX. the national interests of Russia-USSR were ensured reliably and for a fairly significant period of time. It is not Stalin's fault that his successors ruined everything. He did everything he could and even more.

Unfortunately, in the period 1985-1993, Russia suffered defeat in the Third World War. Mainly due to the treacherous policy of the degenerate Soviet elite, who wanted to rule and at the same time "live beautifully", to be "masters of life". The people were betrayed. Russia lost almost all the gains of the Great Victory, achieved at the cost of 27 million lives.

Our civilization is again under threat in the western strategic direction; enemies have built "hornet's nests" in the former Yugoslavia, Romania, Bulgaria, Poland and the Baltics. The situation in the Baltic direction has sharply worsened - Finland and Sweden have joined the NATO bloc.

Malorossiya-Ukraine is occupied and drenched in blood. The ancient Russian capital of Kyiv is in the hands of enemies. The "onrush to the East" continues. In order to secure the western borders of Russian civilization, we must achieve a new Victory. Otherwise, we will be crushed and turned into "cannon fodder" in the war with China.


USSR People's Commissar for Foreign Affairs Molotov (far right), British Prime Minister Churchill, US President Roosevelt and Stalin at the final dinner of the Yalta Conference.
45 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +4
    4 February 2025 05: 13
    “When he entered the hall of the Yalta Conference, we all, as if on command, stood up and, strangely enough, for some reason kept our hands at our sides.”
    This is how much they respected I.V. Stalin and the Soviet Union!
    1. +3
      4 February 2025 06: 23
      Quote: Uncle Lee
      “When he entered the hall of the Yalta Conference, we all, as if on command, stood up and, strangely enough, for some reason kept our hands at our sides.”
      This is how much they respected I.V. Stalin and the Soviet Union!

      Nina Andreeva had great respect for the Soviet Union and Comrade Stalin, but she was not at the Yalta Conference, so why her words from 1988 are attributed to Churchill is not entirely clear.
      1. +4
        4 February 2025 08: 40
        Quote: Skif3216
        Why her words from 1988 are attributed to Churchill is not entirely clear
        Yes, it seems that these words are still attributed to Churchill...
        1. +7
          4 February 2025 09: 16
          Quote: Luminman
          Yes, it seems that these words are still attributed to Churchill...

          The old drunkard is credited with many things, but he never said them. After 1946, he spoke exclusively negatively about Stalin.
          By the way, this is it
          Stalin accepted Russia with a plow, and left with an atomic bomb.

          and it
          Khrushchev started a fight with a dead man and came out of it defeated

          he didn't say either.
          The first is by British historian Isaac Deutscher. The phrase itself first appeared in an obituary for Stalin in The Times in 1953.
          Verbatim in the obituary it read as follows:
          "However, over the last three decades, the face of Russia has begun to change. The essence of Stalin's truly historic achievement is that he took Russia with a wooden plow and left it with nuclear reactors. He raised Russia to the level of the second industrially developed country in the world. This was not the result of purely material progress and organizational work. Such achievements would not have been possible without a comprehensive cultural revolution, during which the entire population went to school and studied very hard." The idea of ​​a nuclear bomb was invented later, to enhance the effect.
          The second one is actually from a collection of political jokes published in the 80s.
          By the way, in our information field there are a lot of statements circulating from politicians such as Thatcher, Albright, Reagan, Soros that they never said, they were invented by combat parapsychologists from the department of Mr. Patrushev in the 2000s to strengthen patriotism and rally around a national leader who can protect the people from these villains.
          1. +2
            4 February 2025 12: 08
            Quote: Skif3216
            After 1946, he spoke exclusively negatively about Stalin.
            I read Churchill's memoirs, and nowhere did he speak negatively about Stalin. He neither scolded him nor praised him, but he wrote about him with respect - this was felt in the context...
            1. +1
              4 February 2025 14: 20
              He changed his mind often.
              Quote: Luminman
              I read Churchill's memoirs, and nowhere did he speak negatively about Stalin.

              17 April 1953. Addressing the annual meeting of the Scottish Unionist Association in Glasgow:
              "Towards the end of the war, eight years ago... I could not understand why Soviet Russia did not join the Western Allies in seeking a just and lasting peace treaty. Instead, this great branch of the family of nations was led into the swamp of a boundless quest for triumph and the spread not only of Communist doctrines but of Communist control.

              On 25 February 1954, in a speech to the House of Commons: "The vast empire and the diversity of peoples which the Soviets subjugated at the moment of the Allied victory constitute the main cause of the divisions which exist today among the civilized nations. On the other hand, the way in which Stalin used the fruits of his triumph also led to other results which will be felt for a long time to come and which certainly would not have arisen in our time but for the pressure and threats of the Soviets. No one but Stalin, and nothing but the actions of Russia under his leadership, could have brought about so quickly the lasting union and brotherhood of the English-speaking peoples on which the life of the free world depends.

              "Let the dictators whose evil nature has produced terrible deeds - deeds that would never have been accomplished without their despotic personal power - carry their terrible record into history. Let Hitler take his shame to hell with him... But at this momentous moment in the history of the world and perhaps of all mankind, I do not mean only Germany and Hitler. Stalin was for many years the dictator of Russia, and the more I studied his career, the more shocked I was by the terrible mistakes he made and the utter ruthlessness he showed toward individuals and the masses with whom he came into contact.

              Doesn't look like much respect. What a classic.
              From Stettin on the Baltic to Trieste on the Adriatic, across the continent, an "iron curtain" has been drawn. Behind this line lie all the capitals of the ancient states of Central and Eastern Europe: Warsaw, Berlin, Prague, Vienna, Budapest, Belgrade, Bucharest and Sofia, all these famous cities with the populations around them are in what I must call the Soviet sphere, and all of them, in one form or another, objects not only of Soviet influence but of very high and in some cases growing control by Moscow.... The Communist parties, which were very small in all these Eastern European states, have been raised to a position and a power far beyond their numbers, and they are trying to achieve totalitarian control in everything.
              Who did all this according to Churchill?
              1. +2
                4 February 2025 14: 56
                Quote: Skif3216
                Who did all this according to Churchill?
                Just the envy of a malicious man against the backdrop of the collapse of the British Empire and the rise of Soviet influence. Incidentally, under Stalin's leadership...
                1. -1
                  4 February 2025 15: 44
                  Quote: Luminman
                  Just the envy of an evil man against the backdrop of the collapse of the British Empire and the rise of Soviet influence

                  Of course, the old drunkard was deeply upset that the USA had displaced Britain from the world Olympus.
                  Quote: Luminman
                  strengthening of Soviet influence. Incidentally, under Stalin's leadership...

                  I think it was necessary to act more subtly, and not as usual, the allies had enough problems among themselves, instead they got the perfect bogeyman that united everyone. It was not for nothing that Churchill wrote
                  Nothing but the horror of Stalinized Russia could have brought the concept of a united Europe from a dream state to the forefront of modern thought. Nothing but the policies of the Soviet Union and Stalin could have been the foundation of the deep and lasting unity that now exists between Germany and the Western world, between Germany and Great Britain, and, I believe, between Germany and France…

  2. +1
    4 February 2025 05: 51
    A new generation will come who have not gone through everything that we have experienced.
    Comrade Stalin seemed to be looking into the water
  3. +6
    4 February 2025 06: 09
    Thanks to the author for at least such a modest article about Stalin, I want to note that the author clearly does not agree with the current "party line" in relation to Stalin. And most of us too. For example, in Russia there is the A.S. Pushkin State Museum of Fine Arts. The most important "institution" for Russia and for world culture as a whole. And there is the Minister of Culture Lyubimova who appointed Likhacheva as the director of this A.S. Pushkin State Museum of Fine Arts. So this Likhacheva, giving an interview to the native "sister" of "Echo of Moscow" RTVi, stated that she herself treats Stalin, and demands from us, as an object of pop culture, well, like Mickey Mouse. And her and our position in relation to Stalin, should be, in the opinion of this Likhacheva, a simple position: he died - that's it, we've moved on. That's how she put it, both about Mickey Mouse and that he died! These are the opinions about the Great Stalin of today's "state people", who were appointed to the most important position for Russia by the Minister of Culture from the Russian Government. But if you saw what happy faces these RTVi presenters had after Likhacheva's words about Stalin. They were simply beaming with happiness that it turns out that such worms can eat Russia from the inside... And we naively ask why there is a Yeltsin Center and not a Stalin Center.
    1. 0
      4 February 2025 08: 38
      Quote: north 2
      And we naively ask why there is a Yeltsin Center and not a Stalin Center.
      The outcome of the war was decided in Stalingrad, but try to find it on a modern map.
      Funds were found in the budget to rename Rostov to Rostov the Great...
      1. +2
        4 February 2025 14: 30
        Quote: Nagan
        The outcome of the war was decided in Stalingrad, but try to find it on a modern map.

        Have you just kicked the USSR, which renamed the city and demolished all the Stalin monuments?
        1. -2
          4 February 2025 19: 31
          Quote: your1970
          Have you just kicked the USSR, which renamed the city and demolished all the Stalin monuments?
          If for you the USSR is Khrushchev, then yes, I kicked the USSR.
          1. -1
            5 February 2025 07: 16
            Quote: Nagan
            Quote: your1970
            Have you just kicked the USSR, which renamed the city and demolished all the Stalin monuments?
            If for you the USSR is Khrushchev, then yes, I kicked the USSR.

            No one Of the 5 General Secretaries after Stalin, none returned Stalingrad to its name.
            1. -1
              5 February 2025 07: 18
              Quote: your1970
              None of the 5 General Secretaries after Stalin returned Stalingrad to its name.

              Which doesn't do them any credit.
      2. +1
        4 February 2025 18: 58
        The outcome of the war was decided in Stalingrad, but try to find it on a modern map.


        Stalingrad was renamed back in 1961, what does the modern map have to do with it?
      3. 0
        5 February 2025 20: 33
        When Saint-Just came out to defend Robespierre before the convention, he said that mediocrities always want to put a genius on the scaffold. Fortunately, this did not happen here, and to demonstrate your "courage" by kicking the dead, you do not need a lot of brains, however, no matter how hard you try, the truth still appears on the surface, as in the case of the same Catania, after 30 years of lies, the government had to admit that it was the Fritzes, and interesting details will continue to emerge.
  4. -7
    4 February 2025 06: 16
    All this happened not because of the personal merits of Comrade Stalin, but because behind him was the strongest army in the world and the strongest military industry in the world.
    1. +6
      4 February 2025 07: 16
      All this happened not because of the personal merits of Comrade Stalin, but because behind him was the strongest army in the world and the strongest military industry in the world.

      What a twist! Are you serious?
      In order to discuss Comrade Stalin, first read his biography.
      There you will also read about the industrialization and rearmament of the Red Army, which Comrade Stalin did not manage to do by June 22, 1941.
      And already after the Battle of Kursk (July - August 1943), when Soviet generals and marshals learned to fight the Germans, and all this under the clear leadership of Comrade Stalin.
      When industry was fully on a war footing, again under the leadership of Comrade Stalin, the offensive operations of the USSR were almost completely supplied with ammunition and equipment.
      Only then did industry and the army become the strongest in the world, and not vice versa!
      History needs to be known the real way!
    2. +4
      4 February 2025 07: 48
      Quote: Spare
      All this happened not because of the personal merits of Comrade Stalin, but because behind him was the strongest army in the world and the strongest military industry in the world.

      Powerful industry and the strongest army, did not arise by themselves , and thanks to the will of I.V. Stalin. And the post-war structure of Europe in favor of the USSR, the merit of the Supreme. As Molotov recalled
      Stalin said more than once that Russia wins wars, but does not know how to use the fruits of victory.
      And the response to Churchill's Fulton speech
      Mr. Churchill also begins the business of unleashing war with racial theory, asserting that only nations speaking English are full-fledged nations, called upon to decide the fate of the entire world. The German racial theory led Hitler and his friends to the conclusion that the Germans, as the only full-fledged nation, should rule over other nations. The English racial theory leads Mr. Churchill and his friends to the conclusion that nations speaking English, as the only full-fledged nations, should rule over the other nations of the world.

      In fact, Mr. Churchill and his friends in England and the United States present an ultimatum to nations that do not speak English: recognize our domination voluntarily, and then everything will be all right, otherwise war is inevitable.
      How he looked into the water!
      Secondly, we must not forget the following circumstance. The Germans made an invasion of the USSR through Finland, Poland, Romania, Hungary. The Germans could invade through these countries because in these countries there were then governments hostile to the Soviet Union. As a result of the German invasion, the Soviet Union irretrievably lost about seven million people to the German penal servitude in battles with the Germans, as well as thanks to the German occupation and the hijacking of the Soviet people. In other words, the Soviet Union was lost by people several times more than England and the United States of America combined. It is possible that in some places these colossal sacrifices of the Soviet people, which ensured the liberation of Europe from the Hitlerite yoke, are prone to oblivion. But the Soviet Union cannot forget about them. The question is, what can be surprising is that the Soviet Union, wishing to protect itself for the future, is trying to ensure that there are governments in these countries that are loyal to the Soviet Union? How can you, without going mad, qualify these peaceful aspirations of the Soviet Union as expansionist tendencies of our state?
      Isn't such an answer fair today? The role of personality in history, no matter how you look at it, does exist. The marked traitor - Gorbachev, having come to power by the will of the same renegades, ruling one of superpowers of the world , squandered, threw to the wind not only the successes and achievements of the USSR, in foreign and domestic policy, but even those few successful centuries-old achievements of Russia in tsarist times. So much for the role of personality in history! After Comrade Stalin, the country was ruled by pygmies in the literal and figurative sense. They were oh so far from the level of Lenin and Stalin.
    3. 0
      4 February 2025 08: 40
      Quote: Spare
      All this happened not because of the personal merits of Comrade Stalin, but because behind him was the strongest army in the world and the strongest military industry in the world.

      And whose merit was it that there was such an army and such an industry?
      1. +1
        5 February 2025 11: 28
        Quote: Nagan
        And whose merit was it that there was such an army and such an industry?

        Have you forgotten the favorite thesis of domestic liberals since the time of Korotich's "Ogonyok": Not thanks, but contrary!
        Everything that was best in the USSR was created in spite of the bloody dictator, and everything that was worst was definitely his merit. laughing
        /sarcasm off/
  5. 0
    4 February 2025 07: 02
    Stalin was strong first of all because of his personnel, which he had been creating for many years. All his orders were on the edge of human capabilities. Once he told his ministers to prepare their replacements. And they were only 45 years old. Was everything good in his circle: That is another topic.
  6. +2
    4 February 2025 07: 08
    The world order laid down in Yalta in 1945 was first destroyed by the political impotent Gorbachev, who gave the green light to the unification of Germany and what soon followed - the collapse of Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia, the creation of the incomprehensible entity of Kosovo, the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact and the CMEA, as a result of which our world became completely non-polar. And what was left of Yalta It is supported only by the fact that we have nuclear weapons that have not had time to go bad during the years of the alcoholic Yeltsin’s rule.

    The agreements made in Yalta were, after all, a symbol of peace, albeit a rather fragile one, but still peace. But this whole struggle of the West after the collapse of the USSR for universal human values ​​that no one understood created a world without clear rules and agreements, which can easily turn into uncontrollable and global chaos...

    In a word, today's world is already a beginning eras of wars...
    1. 0
      4 February 2025 07: 41
      Quote: Luminman
      The world order established in Yalta in 1945 was first destroyed by the political impotent Gorbachev

      Not quite so, the destruction of the world order began under Brezhnev - in 1975, at the so-called Helsinki Conference, this was a failure of Soviet diplomacy.
      1. +4
        4 February 2025 08: 27
        Quote: bober1982
        So, they started to destroy the world order under Brezhnev - since 1975, at the so-called Helsinki Conference
        It's just local intergovernmental agreement, no different from many others, such as the ban on nuclear weapons testing in three environments or the neutrality of Antarctica...
      2. +2
        4 February 2025 08: 38
        In 1974, Brezhnev suffered a stroke and wanted to leave his post, but he was not allowed to do so, although they saw that the man could no longer fulfill his duties.
    2. 0
      4 February 2025 14: 32
      Quote: Luminman
      The world order established in Yalta in 1945 was first destroyed by the political impotent Gorbachev,

      More precisely, Khrushchev, who sowed distrust of the USSR abroad....
      1. +2
        4 February 2025 14: 59
        Quote: your1970
        More precisely, Khrushchev, who sowed distrust of the USSR abroad....
        Khrushchev's actions, of course, did not give authority to the Soviet Union, but at least he knew where to stop and did not loosen the management reins or let them go. Unlike Gorbachev...
    3. +1
      5 February 2025 14: 08
      Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, the Middle East. These are the ones that are on everyone's lips. And what was happening in Southeast Asia, Africa, and even in Latin America, there was some movement. The decolonization of British India alone, with its subsequent collapse, is worth something. I don't think that more people die in wars today than during the Cold War. On the territory of the former USSR - more, you can't argue with that.
  7. 0
    4 February 2025 09: 27
    England and especially the USA did not need a just world, but a world in which everyone would submit to their interests, including the USSR. Which we are seeing today.
    Any attempts to violate US hegemony are suppressed by any means under any pretext.
  8. +3
    4 February 2025 10: 09
    Very interesting, sensible, informative and logical. Simple, accessible style of presentation. Respect to the author. The only remark is the last phrase about Russia being defeated in 1985-1993 as a result of the actions of the degenerate Soviet elite. Firstly, it was not Russia that was defeated, but the USSR. That is, all 15 republics. Secondly, the goal of this "elite" was precisely the restoration of capitalism in the Soviet republics. And they achieved their goal. But what a huge price society had to pay for their victory!
  9. 0
    4 February 2025 11: 15
    As a result, the German people, Germany, should be personally grateful to Stalin and Russia that their country was not dismembered, as the British and Americans proposed.

    To hell with the gratitude of the German people (which, yes, never existed and could never exist in principle).
    And the Russian people should be grateful for keeping united the monster that has already unleashed two world massacres and killed 27 million of our people?
    Dividing a united Germany into harmless pieces was the only reasonable solution then, and it’s sad that it was proposed by Western countries – they remembered everything.

    Result: Germany is again the locomotive of anti-Russia

    .As for reparations, they compensated for as much as... 4% of the USSR's losses and were forgiven... "friends", as were their crimes - a "smart" decision, yes.
    Therefore, the current attacks of Polish political figures on the USSR and Stalin personally are completely unreasonable. After all, it is to Stalin that Poland owes the fact that it was given the lands previously inhabited by Western Slavs.

    It would have been unreasonable to give them these lands - and they wouldn’t be tearing down our monuments there today.

    The Yalta Conference allowed the USSR-Russia to create a secure western border in Europe for several decades. This happened for the first time in Russia's thousand-year history
    And 1815-1854?

    In order for the border to be secure, it would be necessary not to feed the socialist allies with Russian bread and lands, pleasing them to the detriment of oneself, but to set up one's military bases there forever - as a condition of their existence - after what they did in WWII.
    Joseph Stalin once again raised the question of including the Soviet republics (initially the discussion was about Ukraine, Belarus and Lithuania, which suffered the most from German aggression) in the United Nations along with the USSR Joseph Stalin once again raised the question of including the Soviet republics (initially the discussion was about Ukraine, Belarus and Lithuania, which suffered the most from German aggression) in the United Nations along with the USSR

    And the RSFSR suffered the most, suffered the greatest losses and the blockade of Leningrad - that means it didn't deserve it, right.. And what kind of savagery is this?of countries, have representation alongside...country?!

    Unfortunately, in the period 1985-1993 Russia suffered defeat in the Third World War.

    It was not the fawning, forgiveness of crimes and endless gifts to social friends with the hope of gratitude and socialism that had to be carried out, but a strict recovery of the full damage in the Great Patriotic War and military bases - regardless of the system.

    Germany hasn't paid us back yet for WWI...
    1. 0
      5 February 2025 11: 34
      Quote: Olgovich
      In order for the border to be secure, it would be necessary not to feed the socialist allies with Russian bread and lands, pleasing them to the detriment of oneself

      You also remember about grain for France - and everything will end in the end. wink
      Quote: Olgovich
      And the RSFSR suffered the most, suffered the greatest losses and the blockade of Leningrad - that means it didn’t deserve it, right...

      What kind of Great Russian chauvinistic statements are these? Don't you remember what the founder bequeathed regarding the "great nation"?
      although great only for its violence, great only in the same way as the great ruler
      © VIL
      1. 0
        5 February 2025 12: 43
        Don't you remember what the founder bequeathed regarding the "great nation"?
        although great only for its violence, great only in the same way as the great ruler

        And then the example of a Great Russian bully turns out to be... a Georgian. Knowing is not the same as understanding. winked
        1. 0
          5 February 2025 16: 23
          Quote: Nefarious skeptic
          And then the example of a Great Russian bully turns out to be... a Georgian.

          To be precise, two Georgians and a Pole.
          But at the same time, the founder criticized them precisely for Russian chauvinism, and not for Georgian or Polish. For VIL, these three became Russified and turned into Great Russian nationalists.
          I am also afraid that Com. Dzerzhinsky, who traveled to the Caucasus to investigate the case of the "crimes" of these "social nationals", distinguished himself here, too, only by his truly Russian mood (it is known that Russified foreigners always overdo it in terms of truly Russian mood)

          Of course, Stalin and Dzerzhinsky should be made politically responsible for this whole truly Great Russian-nationalist campaign.
          1. 0
            5 February 2025 16: 50
            But at the same time, the founder criticized them precisely for their Russian chauvinism, and not for Georgian or Polish. For VIL, these three became Russified and turned into Great Russian nationalists.

            And for you? Or did "these three" in Georgia act on behalf of Georgia and Poland, and not Russia? How then can they be Georgian or Polish nationalists?
            At the same time, we can also recall "The Inspector General":
            Quote: Mayor
            A box is a box. To hell with it! And if they ask why a church hasn't been built at the charitable institution, for which a sum was allocated a year ago, then don't forget to say that it was started but burned down. I submitted a report about that. Otherwise, perhaps, someone will forget and foolishly say that it was never started. And say
            Derzhimorde, so that he doesn't give too much freedom to his fists; he, for the sake of order, puts lanterns under everyone's eyes - both the right one and the guilty one. Let's go, let's go, Pyotr Ivanovich!

            And perhaps it will become clear why Ilyich used this word (derzhimorda) in relation to those specific people whom he "scolded" in his article. And these specific people "gave free rein to their fists, mindlessly carrying out the orders of their superiors." Exactly the same way as Derzhimorda did in Gogol.
    2. 0
      5 February 2025 12: 06
      And what kind of wildness is this - parts of the country have representation alongside... the country?!

      So extra votes in the UN... that's suddenly bad, right? Then why did Britain bend over backwards to push its dominions into the League of Nations? That's also... savagery? Or is it something else?
      Dividing a united Germany into harmless pieces was the only reasonable solution then, and it’s sad that it was proposed by Western countries – they remembered everything.

      1) Germany was divided.
      2) Three of its four pieces were collected in the FRG at the London conference in 3 (although even earlier, first Bizonia appeared, then Trizonia, which launched the unification process). Participants of the conference were Britain, France, the USA, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg. Without the participation of the USSR.
      And the RSFSR suffered the most, suffered the greatest losses and the blockade of Leningrad - that means it didn’t deserve it, right...

      1) Is it so hard to guess that the USSR in the UN is the RSFSR? For some reason, in 1993 Russia declared itself not the successor of the RSFSR, but the successor of the USSR
      The Russian Federation is the legal successor of the USSR on its territory, as well as the legal successor (successor) of the USSR in relation to membership in international organizations, their bodies, participation in international treaties, as well as in relation to the obligations and assets of the USSR provided for by international treaties outside the territory of the Russian Federation ...

      2) Belarus and Ukraine suffered the most in the Great Patriotic War.
  10. +1
    4 February 2025 12: 08
    What is there to be afraid of? We have a grandmaster, a master of multi-move moves.
  11. -1
    4 February 2025 12: 24
    Stalin is a Leader, not an effective top manager.
  12. -2
    4 February 2025 14: 05
    To the author 100%
    We should also stop chatting on every corner about possible negotiations. If you can beat the enemy, you need to beat him and defeat him. Then your enemies will stick to you and friends will appear - this is the main lesson of the Yalta Conference
  13. +1
    4 February 2025 14: 29
    I don't understand the author's delight about the decisions taken on Poland, imposed by Stalin, such as not returning the western regions of Ukraine to Poland and including the territories populated by Germans in its composition. I feel sorry for the Germans, who were subsequently expelled from these territories, purely on a human level, you know all about the Ukrainian Nazis. They are the ones who, with their decision, really planted a bomb under the USSR, which eventually exploded more terribly than an atomic bomb. It would be better if the Poles denazified the Banderites, it would be reasonable and fair.
  14. +1
    4 February 2025 15: 08
    Stalin creates the foundations of a new just world


    Let's analyze the proposal? Stalin creates? No, he participates in the creation. Of a new just world? The inhabitants of the African continent, Indochina and others will not agree, it is not new, not at all just and not a world at all.
  15. 0
    4 February 2025 18: 32
    Under Stalin, the railwaymen did not misbehave, but sat in caches and camps.
  16. fiv
    0
    4 February 2025 20: 30
    Something has been heard too often about the Yalta Conference in the last week. Yes, 80 years, an important event, historical truth... And to remind some people what they owe to the USSR, although it is useless to remind them. But the feeling that they are preparing society for a new "Yalta" is nagging and I am becoming anxious about achieving the goals of the SVO. After all, our partners love to deceive us, such nasty creatures.