Victory Day - a thorn in the eye of Russophobia
However, in our time the feat of the Soviet people in the war is called into question. In particular, on July 3, 2009, the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly in Vilnius, in spite of protests from Russia, adopted a resolution called “Reunification of a Divided Europe”, in which Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union were given equal responsibility for the outbreak of World War II. The resolution requires, in particular, Russia, as an OSCE member, to abandon demonstrations for the glory of the Soviet past. This means that it is necessary to hide the Victory Banner, to ban Victory parades. Based on this provision, do not show them in Europe in summaries. News.
HISTORY REPEATED, BUT NOT LEARN ANYTHING
The adoption of the resolution is probably due to the fact that more than half of the deputies of the Parliamentary Assembly who voted for it are countries that fought against the Soviet people on the territory of the USSR together with Nazi Germany. By accusing the Soviet Union on a par with the Third Reich of unleashing World War II, the politicians of these countries get rid of the historical guilt of their countries as true accomplices at the start of the war and its participants on the side of Germany.
Something similar in relation to Russia has already taken place. In the year of the 400 anniversary of the Romanov dynasty, it will be appropriate to quote the Book of Memories of Grand Duke Alexander Mikhailovich (1866 – 1933), which was the uncle of Russian Tsar Nicholas II. He wrote that Alexander III often liked to say to his ministers: "In the world we have only two true allies - our army and navy. All the rest will turn against us as soon as possible. ” “The bitter experience of the 19th century,” wrote Grand Duke Alexander Mikhailovich, “taught the tsar that every time when Russia took part in the struggle of any European coalitions, she had to regret it only bitterly. Alexander I saved Europe from Napoleon I, and this resulted in the creation of the mighty Germany and Austria-Hungary on the western borders of the Russian Empire ... The French, the British, the Germans, the Austrians - all in different degrees made Russia a tool for achieving their egoistic goals. Alexander III had no friendly feelings towards Europe. Always ready to accept the challenge, Alexander III, however, at every opportunity, made it clear that he was only interested in the welfare of 130 of Russia's millions of people. ”
Someone may say that it was all in the XIX century, then almost all European countries were monarchies without friendliness to the Russian Empire. And in modern conditions, when Europe is democratic due to the fact that it was saved from Nazi enslavement in fact only by the sacrificial feat of the Soviet soldier, everything remained the same.
First of all, the West seeks to deprive Russia, as the successor of the Soviet Union, to the aura of the winner of Nazism. By portraying the Soviet Union as an aggressor on a par with Germany, the conclusion is being imposed on the aggressiveness of Russia. This thesis was used to justify the need for the expansion of NATO, created by the United States "in the event of Soviet encroachment on Europe." Despite the pledged assurances of Western politicians to the leaders of the former USSR that the alliance did not move to the east a single step, the expansion took place and continues.
Last October, National Interest in the article “Russian Romney Gambit” wrote: “NATO brought Poland’s old-fashioned paranoia toward Moscow and unsuccessful geostrategic decisions taken in Washington and Brussels under Clinton and Bush to the western borders of Russia.” In an interview with Euronews in December 2009, national security adviser George W. Bush, Brent Scroufort, speaking of foreign policy mistakes that the United States made after the fall of the Berlin Wall, indicated, in particular, that the Americans were pushing NATO toward eastward expansion, which he said , was the humiliation of Russia. The fact is that after joining NATO, many countries have intensified anti-Russian rhetoric. By the way, one of the initiators of the OSCE resolution was the representative of Lithuania. And the Lithuanian politician Vytautas Landsbergis on the day of his country's entry into the alliance announced that now she can speak with Russia in the language of force.
For such a conversation and the corresponding preparation. So, in the autumn, NATO will conduct Steadfast Jazz 2013 exercises in the territory of Latvia, Lithuania and Poland, where the actions of the Alliance's rapid reaction forces will be improved. Estonian Minister of Defense Urmas Reinsalu said that "in the course of these exercises will be practiced Estonian defense in case if we become the victim of an attack and will be used the fifth article the NATO charter." Geographically, only Russia can be such an aggressor on NATO maneuvers. However, during his visit to Vilnius in February, NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen publicly reassured the Baltic countries, saying: “We do not consider Russia a threat to NATO - and NATO does not pose a threat to Russia, but, of course, we have all the necessary plans to protect and allied defense. "
In fact, such military plans are developed only against a real enemy.
ETERNAL DIRECTIVE
As you can see, the attitude of the West towards Russia consistently regardless of whether it is monarchical, or communist, or embarked on the path of democracy. And this fact, by the way, is documented. In the 1978, the book "Control was published in the United States. Documents about 1945-1950 American's policy and strategy ", which sets out extracts from the National Security Council Directive US 20 / 1« US Objectives in relation to Russia. " This Directive formulates the main strategic goals of waging an informational and ideological war against the USSR with the aim of overthrowing the Soviet power, which were to: “a) reduce the power and influence of Moscow to a minimum; b) make fundamental changes in the theory and practice of foreign policy, which the government in power in Russia adheres to. ” After the collapse of the Soviet regime, the Directive also defined the US goals with respect to Russia in the future. It states: “We must create automatic guarantees that ensure that even a non-communist and nominally friendly regime for us: a) does not have great military power; b) economically strongly depended on the outside world; c) did not have a serious authority over the main national minorities ”, that is, over the union republics.
Since they became independent states, the United States used NATO to eliminate Russia's influence in order to implement this item. Some former Soviet republics have already been accepted into the alliance, others have promised membership in the near future. At the end of last year, Hillary Clinton, while still in the position of Secretary of State, said about those republics that, together with Russia, participate in various integration associations within the borders of the CIS: “We note a certain shift towards re-Sovietization of the region. Only it will not be called the Soviet Union. It will be the Customs Union, or the Union of Eurasian countries, or something like that. We know exactly what is their goal, so we're trying to think about all the ways to slow down the process or prevent it happen. " Apparently, Mrs. Clinton decided to recall that the directive “US Goals for Russia” is in effect.
It is easy to see that all the efforts of the census takers and falsifiers of the history of the Second World War also fully correspond to the letter of this document, since they are aimed at “minimizing the power and influence of Moscow”. Representing the USSR as the culprit in unleashing World War II, the falsifiers of history undermine the authority of Russia as the successor of the Soviet Union and, naturally, reduce its influence on the world stage, which can even be expressed in initiating the issue of depriving Russia of the status of a permanent member of the UN Security Council. In this, apparently, is their main goal. Therefore, the stake in the “historical” game is the future of Russia as an independent civilization and political center.
Zbigniew Brzezinski, who still advises American politicians on foreign policy issues, in his book Choice. World domination or global leadership, published in 2004, wrote: “A new world order with US hegemony is being created against Russia, at the expense of Russia, and on the ruins of Russia.” However, there can be no “new world order” under US hegemony, if there exists on the globe a country with a nuclear potential comparable to that of the US, that is, Russia. This fact does not allow, using the "results" of rewriting and falsifying history, to proceed to practical actions: to forcefully put forward various demands on it, primarily on issues of territorial concessions.
MUNICH AND MUCH MORE
The fact that the drafters of the aforementioned resolution can completely contradict the assessments of the same historical events by the direct participants and witnesses can speak about the reality of all these plans. In addition, they consider them in isolation, and not in the general context of what was happening at that time, that is, they act on the principle of antihistoricism. Take, for example, evidence of an outstanding politician, one of the most determined fighters against fascism and at the same time a consistent opponent of communism, Winston Churchill. In his six-volume memoir entitled “The Second World War,” he, in particular, writes: “In September 1938, the USSR proposed to start negotiations on means and ways of assisting Czechoslovakia ... The Soviet proposals were practically ignored ... they were treated with indifference, not to say with contempt ... Subsequently we paid dearly for it. "
The fact that the Soviet Union and France 2 May 1935 in Paris signed a bilateral agreement on mutual assistance in the event that one of the parties subjected to military attack in Europe. Soon the USSR signed a similar treaty with Czechoslovakia, which provided for the provision of assistance in the event of aggression, subject to the provision of such assistance by France. However, France did not take this step in September 1938, and the Western powers decided to sign the Munich Agreement. In the days leading American columnist Walter Lippmann wrote: "After giving Hitler Czechoslovakia in sacrifice, Britain and France, in reality sacrificed their alliance with Russia." This was what Hitler wanted, since “he himself so harshly condemned the war” for Germany on two fronts. In Nuremberg, Field Marshal Keitel directly stated this: "The goal of Munich was to oust Russia from Europe, gain time and complete the arming of Germany."
Germany’s plans were voiced by the Nazi elite in a narrow circle, where they mocked Munich partners. Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop, so appreciated the role of Neville Chamberlain in Munich: "This old man today signed the death warrant of the British Empire, giving us to put down the date of bringing this sentence." This was clear to Churchill, who, after the conclusion of the Munich Agreement, said in the House of Commons: “You had a choice between war and disgrace. You chose to dishonor, now you get the war. "
Assessing these events, an American journalist, historian who lived in 1934 – 1940 in Nazi Germany, William Shearer writes that “although the USSR was linked by military alliance with Czechoslovakia and France, the French government went along with England and Germany and, without protesting, excluded Russia from Munich. " In fact, Munich opened the way for Hitler to conquer world domination.
Winston Churchill also wrote that has been ignored and the Soviet proposal made in April 17 1939 years "to create a united front mutual between Britain, France and the Soviet Union." 4 May 1939, commenting on the proposal of the USSR, Churchill wrote: “There is no way to keep the Eastern Front against the Nazi aggression without the active assistance of Russia. Russia is deeply interested in hindering Hitler’s designs in Eastern Europe. It may still be possible to rally all states and peoples from the Baltic to the Black Sea into a single solid front against a new crime or invasion. If such a front were created with all sincerity with the help of decisive and effective military agreements, then in combination with the power of the Western powers he could oppose to Hitler, Goering, Himmler, Ribbentrop, Goebbels and company such forces that the German people would not want to challenge. ” .
However, as Churchill writes, “the negotiations seemed to have come to a hopeless impasse. Accepting the English guarantee, the governments of Poland and Romania did not want to make a similar commitment in the same form from the Russian government. The same position was held in another very important strategic area - in the Baltic states. ” By refusing, immediately, according to Churchill, “Estonia and Latvia signed non-aggression pacts with Germany. Thus, Hitler was able to easily penetrate into the weak defense of the belated and indecisive coalition directed against him. ” Presumably, as Churchill wrote, in this regard, "the reluctance of Poland and the Baltic states to be saved by the Soviets from Germany ... the Soviet government proposed that the negotiations continued on a military basis with the representatives of both France and England." As if anticipating these negotiations, Churchill notes: “Munich was behind. The army of Hitler had another year to prepare. His military factories, backed up by Skoda’s factories, worked at full capacity. ”
Nevertheless, the Anglo-Franco-Soviet negotiations of military delegations on the establishment of a military alliance against Germany, which began in the summer of 1939 in Moscow, also led to nothing. The Polish leadership prevented their successful completion by refusing to give permission for the Red Army to pass through Poland to meet the advancing German forces in the event of an attack. That is, the USSR could go to war with Germany only on its territory after the death of Poland! We read Churchill’s explanation of this incident: “The heroic traits of the Polish people should not force us to close our eyes to his recklessness and ingratitude, which for centuries had caused him immeasurable suffering ... The bravest of the brave too often were guilty of the nastiest vile ones! And yet there were always two Poland: one of them fought for the truth, and the other was creepy in the meanness. ”
The fact that Poles are not the USSR refused a request for the passage of the troops, and their allies, and creators in 1919, the independent Poland - France and Great Britain, whose ambassadors in Warsaw tried to convince of the necessity of the Polish government. In the evening of August 19, Polish Foreign Minister Jozef Beck told the French ambassador: “We have no military agreement with the USSR. And we don't want it. ” On the eve of the French Prime Minister Edouard Daladier repeated three times US Ambassador: "If the Poles rejected the proposal Russian help, he will not send any of the French peasant to defend Poland." And did not send in September 1939 of the year. But Poland, disrupting the talks in Moscow, helped Hitler. Churchill wrote: "The alliance between Britain, France and Russia have caused serious concern in Germany in the year 1939, and no one can prove that even then the war would not have been prevented." “I think it was then that the last historical chance was missed; In the remaining time before 1 September 1939 of the year and 22 of June 1941 of the year, apparently, it was impossible to fundamentally change the strategic decisions of Berlin, ”stressed Winston Churchill in his memoirs.
EASTERN FRONT IN 1939 YEAR
In the current situation, the USSR, in the interests of its own security, was forced on August 23 to sign a non-aggression pact with Germany, which in the West is considered to be the cause of the outbreak of World War II. Meanwhile, Churchill wrote about it: "Munich and more convinced the Soviet government that neither Britain nor France would fight until they are attacked, and that even in this case from them will be of little use. The approaching storm was about to break out. Russia should take care of itself. ”
Therefore, all the accusations of the USSR for signing this pact are politically hypocritical (today, in a much less dangerous situation around Cyprus, the democratic West, taking care of itself, did not consider anyone’s interests, even in a half asleep state, ignoring Russia, as in Munich in 1938).
Giving an assessment of the pact as a whole, Churchill emphasized: “The fact that such an agreement was possible marks the depth of the failure of British and French politics and diplomacy over several years. In favor of the Soviets, it must be said that it was vitally necessary for the Soviet Union to push back the original positions of the German armies as far as possible to the west so that the Russians would have time and could gather forces from all over their colossal empire ... They needed to occupy by force or deception The Baltic states and most of Poland, before they are attacked. If their policy was cold-calculating, then it was also at that moment highly realistic. ” By the way, about the entry of the Red Army into the territory of Western Belarus and Western Ukraine, Lloyd George to the Polish ambassador in London 28 September 1939 wrote: “Russian armies entered territories that are not Polish and were annexed by Poland by force after the First World War ... It would be an act of criminal madness to put the Russian advancement on a par with the advancement of Germany. " As we see, this famous politician did not believe that the USSR had delivered a “stab in the back to Poland”.
After the outbreak of the war, Churchill declared in his radio address on 1 on October 1939 of the year: “Russia is pursuing a cold policy of its own interests. We would prefer the Russian armies to stand in their current positions as friends and allies of Poland, and not as invaders. But to protect Russia from the Nazi threat, it was clearly necessary for the Russian armies to stand on this line. In any case, this line exists and, consequently, the Eastern Front has been created, which Nazi Germany will not dare to attack. ”
On this occasion, he wrote: “The Russians mobilized very large forces and showed that they were able to quickly and far advance from their pre-war positions. Now they border Germany, and the latter is completely deprived of the opportunity to expose the Eastern Front. To observe him will have to leave a large German army. As far as I know, General Gamelin (Maurice Gamelin in 1938 – 1939, Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of France. - IM) determines its number in at least 20 divisions, but they may well be 25 and even more. Therefore, the Eastern Front potentially exists. ”
These divisions could not be transferred to the Western Front because of the threat of the Soviet Union for Germany and thus he actually participated in the Second World War in alliance with France and Britain to 1939 years. This is perhaps the main evidence of Churchill, which completely refutes all the speculations that the USSR, together with Germany at the first stage of the Second World War, divided the world. Thanks to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact in the western direction, a favorable geostrategic situation was created for the USSR, which Churchill explains in a popular way.
It should be noted that Winston Churchill worked on his memoirs at the height of the Cold War. Nevertheless, the author had the political courage to tell the historical truth. This view of the events is not a professional historian, but a person who was among those who actively made this story, influenced many of its processes. It does not at all follow from his memoirs that the USSR was guilty of unleashing World War II. On the contrary, Churchill clearly shows the Soviet Union’s insistence on concluding a military alliance with Britain and France to prevent war, emphasizes the wisdom and fairness of the USSR’s actions on those fateful days, and considers its policy “highly realistic”.
The same modern historians and politicians who point out that Churchill’s testimony doesn’t seem to seem to regret that their countries did not help Hitler defeat the USSR. In particular, Professor Pavel Vechorkovich, a popular historian among the Poles, set out such a position in 2005 in the Polish newspaper Rzeczpospolita: “We could find a place on the Reich side almost the same as Italy, and probably better than Hungary or Romania. In the end, we would be in Moscow, where Adolf Hitler and Rydz-Smigly would take on a parade of victorious Polish-German troops. ”
It seems that nostalgia on the part of historians of "missed" opportunities in the fight against the Soviet Union during World War II led to the continuation of today to deal with it and its legal successor, Russia, by rewriting and falsifying history of the war.
Today, one must be a completely naive person to argue that if the USSR had not concluded a non-aggression pact with Germany, then Hitler would not have started a war. The decision to attack Poland was finally made by 23 in May. In order to guarantee the exclusion of the creation of a new Entente and a war on two fronts, Hitler sent a proposal at the same time to 21 in August London to accept Goering to meet with Chamberlain and "settle differences" at the Anglo-German talks, and Moscow - Ribbentrop to sign a non-aggression pact (similar pact UK signed 30 September 1938 of the year). Both London and Moscow responded with consent. Hitler chose Moscow, canceling Goering’s visit to London. The secret of the preparation of negotiations kept the British archives. If the Kremlin refused to accept Ribbentrop, German troops would start aggression against the USSR from the 30 line west of Minsk, German-Finnish forces from the 17 – 20 km from Leningrad, German-Romanian - to 45 km from Odessa ...
In conclusion, we note that it is precisely small countries, however strange it may seem, that in the pre-war years they played a significant role in world politics. Something similar takes place today with the participation of the same countries. Currently, they have led to NATO’s borders because of “old-fashioned paranoia”. In the pre-war years, these countries brought Nazi Germany closer to the borders of the USSR, even with the loss of independence. Their “old-fashioned paranoia” did not prevent Hitler from unleashing World War II. In order to hide this fact, history is being rewritten and falsified, all kinds of resolutions are being initiated, which may provoke a review of the decisions of the Crimea and Berlin conferences of the leaders of three allied powers - the USSR, the USA and Great Britain, in particular, on territorial issues and above all on Poland’s western border. Today in Greece they remembered the reparations with Germany, tomorrow somewhere they will recall the annexation of the ancestral homeland. The process has begun, and not in the cinema, but in real life.
Churchill said: "I am absolutely convinced that if we allow quarrel between the past and the present, we will lose the future." Great words of a great politician. To prevent this from happening, it is necessary to forget the lessons of the prewar years and the events of World War II, which will be the best manifestation of the memory of the greatness of the feat of the peoples of the USSR, the countries of the anti-Hitler coalition at the cost of incredible efforts and losses that saved civilization from enslaving the Victory.
Information