Why did Stalin reach an agreement with Hitler?

16 097 272
Why did Stalin reach an agreement with Hitler?
"The Spell of the Released Spirit." 1938 Soviet cartoon by Boris Efimov


A picture of the Munich Agreement


Picture of the Munich Agreement (How the West surrendered Czechoslovakia to Hitler), when Britain and France ceded the Sudetenland region of Czechoslovakia to Hitler, effectively abandoning the allied Czechs, they clearly and frankly demonstrated to Moscow that the USSR's negotiations with the "collective West" on a collective security system were futile. And that their stagnation was no accident.



It's clear that the rulers of France and London are convinced they've found common ground with Hitler. They're deliberately turning a blind eye to the destruction of the Versailles system and the dramatic increase in the German Reich's military might. Westerners are deliberately pushing Germany eastward, in order to somehow repeat the scenario of World War I. To pit the Germans and Russians against each other in a bloody massacre, and then divide up the skins of the slain bears.

And from the Far East, the threat of the Japanese Empire, which had already tested Soviet Russia's strength on the border, loomed. Meanwhile, the West was gradually losing China, strengthening the Japanese at its expense. Russia was being exposed to attacks from both sides!

Stalin was no fool and a noble knight in politics. He understood the essence of the Great Game perfectly. Also, during the Great Purge in the USSR (The riddle of the "great purge" of 1937 of the year, Part 2) Stalin obtained the testimony of Radek, Rakovsky, Sokolovsky, and other agents of the "global conspiracy," as well as part of Trotsky's archive. Therefore, Joseph Vissarionovich understood well what was happening in the world, how and why the Russian Empire was being destroyed.


In a drawing by British-New Zealand cartoonist David Low, Stalin asks the Munich participants, laughing: "What, no chair for me?"

It was obvious that the Western masters, the "global conspiracy," and financial capital were trying to recreate the scenario of the early 20th century: the Russo-Japanese War, World War I, revolution, and the collapse of the Russian Empire. The colossal plunder of Russia. The Russian people, bled dry and condemned to death. The same "partners"—Britain, France, and the United States—were playing off against each other and setting up the Germans and Russians.

The smart and optimal thing to do was to outmaneuver them. Prevent the Russians from being pitted against the Japanese and Germans. Avoid falling into the trap that Tsar Nicholas II fell into. Do what Imperial Petersburg failed to do: reach an agreement with Germany.


The Munich Agreement (1938). Caricature by Soviet artists Mikhail Kupriyanov, Porfiry Krylov, and Nikolai Sokolov, who wrote under the collective pseudonym Kukryniksy.

General situation in Europe


Therefore, Moscow began to take certain steps. In 1938, Stalin ended the USSR's participation in the Spanish Civil War. It became clear that Russia's involvement in this war was futile and dangerous. This was one of the traps of the so-called "global conspiracy" designed to pit Germany and the USSR against each other. Most of the "revolutionary internationalists" who had drawn our country into this war had by this time found themselves among the enemies of the people.

Soviet military advisers and specialists received orders to return home. Supplies weapons and ammunition supplies were cut off. The Spanish Republicans lost the war. In March 1939, Franco's forces entered Madrid. The country was in ruins. Over a million victims and refugees. Hundreds of towns and villages were destroyed.

General Francisco Franco, however, proved to be quite a cunning man. He managed to avoid involvement in World War II, despite constantly feeding Hitler promises. And the country profited handsomely from the global carnage.

Soviet diplomats and trade representatives in Berlin began to make overtures for improved relations. Germany did not reject these attempts. In March and December 1938, the USSR and Germany concluded trade agreements aimed at restoring trade to the 1934–1935 level. But things did not go further. Hitler continued to maintain his staunch anti-Soviet stance.

At this time, the Führer, still having not yet fully digested Czechoslovakia, began to cling to Poland. Fortunately, there were plenty of pretexts. After all, Poland had profited handsomely from the collapse of the German and Austro-Hungarian empires. Many Germans lived in the northern, western, and southwestern regions of Poland, who needed to be returned to the Third Reich. Versailles also created a border that stretched Poland to the Baltic in a long corridor, cutting off the bulk of Germany from East Prussia. And the port of Danzig-Gdansk became a free city.

It's also worth considering the stupid and brazen policies of the new Polish lords. They were confident in their own strength and security—"The West will help us!"—while Warsaw sought to profit at the expense of virtually all its neighbors, especially Russia. The Poles hoped to become Germany's allies in a new war with the Russians. However, with its position on the Danzig Corridor (from a position of strength), Warsaw destroyed a potential alliance between Germany and Poland against the USSR. Therefore, Hitler decided to swallow Poland, too. And to do this, he needed to come to an agreement with Moscow.

In March 1939, Germany demanded that Poland hand over the Free City of Danzig and allow the construction of extraterritorial roads through the "Polish Corridor." Poland refused.


Austria and Czechoslovakia have already been thrown into Hitler's "Germany First" sack, while Poland, Hungary, Yugoslavia, Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, and others are meekly awaiting their turn. — "The Franco-British Family." Artist David Lowe

In March 1939, Hitler liquidated the remaining Czechoslovakia. Bohemia and Moravia came under Nazi control as a protectorate. Slovakia formally became independent, but de facto remained completely subordinate to Berlin.

The Munich Agreement effectively destroyed the previous treaty system and security in Europe. In October 1938, Poland occupied and annexed the disputed Cieszyn region, which belonged to the Czechs.

Hungary begins militarization. Hitler and Mussolini, at the First Vienna Award in November 1938, resolved the "Hungarian question" in Czechoslovakia in Hungary's favor. The southern part of Carpathian Ruthenia and parts of southern Slovakia were separated from Czechoslovakia and transferred to Hungary.

The Horthy regime was pleased, and the Hungarians wanted the party to continue. Budapest leaned toward Italy and Germany, seeking to join the Anti-Comintern Pact in order to create a "Greater Hungary" through further conquests in Czechoslovakia and the return of Transylvania, which had been taken from the Hungarians after World War I and given to Romania. After the dissolution of Czechoslovakia in 1939, the Hungarians received their share—parts of Transcarpathia and Slovakia.

Mussolini, who cherished plans to create a New Roman Empire (Mussolini's Greater Italy), envied Hitler's successes. While the Duce spoke of the rebirth of Rome, the Führer conquered one country after another. In April 1939, the Italians captured Albania, which was already under Italian protectorate.

Meanwhile, France and England were still waiting for Hitler to march east. They believed the Führer had been given generous advances and it was time to earn them. France and England, meanwhile, would grow rich, playing the role of arbiters. They would receive the ultimate prize. But Hitler was clearly slipping out of their control; he had his own plan. He didn't want a repeat of the 1914 scenario—a war on two fronts.

On March 31, 1939, England, and then France, offered guarantees of military aid to Poland, Romania, and Greece if they were attacked. The Soviet Union hadn't threatened these countries, so it was assumed they were being threatened by Germany. The West had signaled the possibility of an attack on the USSR. But Hitler wasn't impressed by this diplomatic move. He realized the game was moving to a new level. He also knew the Westerners wouldn't do anything. So Germany began preparing for the Polish campaign.

At the same time, Hitler was confident that the Wehrmacht would not clash with the Red Army during the operation.


Adolf Hitler and German Foreign Minister von Ribbentrop. August 24, 1939. Photo: Reproduction by Valery Khristoforov / Ogonyok magazine archive

On the way to the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact


Europe's rapid slide toward a major war, along with the stance of France and England, which were destroying the Versailles system and steering Germany eastward, forced Moscow to make a choice. Furthermore, the situation in the Far East worsened. In May 1939, fighting broke out at Khalkin Gol in Mongolia. The threat of a full-scale war with the Japanese Empire loomed.

In April 1939, Soviet diplomacy took two simultaneous steps. In Moscow, People's Commissar for Foreign Affairs Litvinov conveyed to the British another proposal for the creation of a unified security system with England and France. But the Russian side emphasized: enough talk; a real military alliance was needed. States threatened by aggression must receive guarantees of military assistance not only from Western countries but also from the Soviet Union. In other words, the Red Army would be granted the right to conduct military operations on the territory of Poland or Romania.

At the same time, in Berlin, the Soviet chargé d'affaires Astakhov made the following statement:

Soviet Russia has not taken advantage of the current tensions between Western democracies and Germany to the detriment of the latter, and it has no desire to do so. There is no reason why Russia cannot maintain normal relations with Germany. And normal relationships can get better and better.

The Western powers did everything they could to reject the alliance with Moscow. At first, London and Paris ignored Russia's offer. But they informed the Poles and Romanians of it. They, in turn, began to raise a fuss, declaring that they would not accept any help from Moscow because the communists wanted to occupy them. Warsaw even declared that the Germans were better for the country than the Russians.

Hitler showed that he was interested in an agreement with Moscow. On April 28, 1939, the Fuhrer gave a long speech in the Reichstag, demonstratively terminating the naval agreement with England from 1935 (according to which Germany received permission to restore the Navy to 35% of the size of the British one). fleet) and the German-Polish non-aggression treaty (the Hitler-Pilsudski Pact of 1934 for 10 years).

From that time on, the German press dramatically changed its propaganda. Attacks on "Russian Bolsheviks" ceased, but they began to sharply criticize Western plutocracies. Plutocracy (from the Greek πλοῦτος — wealth and κράτος — power) is a form of government in which real political power is concentrated in the hands of a small group of financial oligarchy, and government decisions are made in the interests of big capital.

Party ideologists began to explain that the Reich's "living space" ended at the USSR's border. The Germans had absolutely no reason to quarrel with the Russians.

Moscow appreciated this. People's Commissar for Foreign Affairs Litvinov, who had promoted a system of collective security in Europe, was dismissed. Vyacheslav Molotov, who led the People's Commissariat of Foreign Affairs, led a major purge of the agency. "from unsuitable, dubious and hostile elements"Hitler immediately responded to this; the USSR and Germany began negotiations on favorable trade and financial relations.

The fall of the pro-Western Litvinov pushed England and France into negotiations. However, no real progress was made. A third-rate delegation was sent to Moscow, which had no authority to conclude a full-fledged military alliance. The question of Soviet guarantees to the Eastern European countries was not raised. In these countries themselves, Russians were openly considered enemies. There was genuine anti-Soviet hysteria in the press and parliaments! Latvia and Estonia even preferred to sign non-aggression pacts with Germany.

Stalin, understanding the Westerners' hypocrisy, continued negotiations with them to secure a more favorable position for the USSR. The British were stalling for time, still wanting to pit Russia and Germany against each other. They themselves were conducting secret negotiations with the Nazis. On the British side, these were led by Horatio Wilson, Prime Minister Chamberlain's closest advisor and "grey eminence." The British offered the Germans a demarcation of spheres of influence, handing them all of Eastern and Southeastern Europe. "Go ahead and fight the Russians, and we'll support you," they said. The American ambassador in London, Kennedy, supported this line.

At the same time, the British signed a treaty with Japan in Tokyo, recognizing its conquests in China. Thus, preparations were underway for the Russian bear hunt. Germany and Japan were to hunt it down.

Soviet intelligence in England and Japan was not eating their bread in vain. Stalin knew about these behind-the-scenes negotiations. Meanwhile, the Germans were friendly; economic and political cooperation with Germany was extremely beneficial for the Union. The choice was obvious.

On August 3, 1939, work began on a friendly treaty. It was conducted simultaneously in Berlin and Moscow.

On August 19, a trade and credit agreement between the USSR and Germany was signed in Berlin. Germany provided the USSR with a credit of 200 million marks for the purchase of German goods over two years. During the same period, the Union supplied the Germans with goods worth 180 million marks. This agreement was beneficial for Russia, as we received machine tools, equipment, machinery, and advanced weapons, while supplying the Germans with raw materials.

On August 23, a non-aggression pact was signed, known as the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact (the Third Reich's Foreign Minister) or the Stalin-Hitler Pact. Secret agreements were drawn up. The Union was granted control of the former Russian Empire's possessions: Western Ukraine and Belarus, the Baltic states, and Bessarabia. The Russians could take them. The western part of Poland was transferred to the German sphere of influence.

This agreement allowed Russia to regain its historical lands, delaying the outbreak of war with Germany. Japan also decided to advance south first, and only then north. The Union avoided a two-front war with Japan and Germany.


V. M. Molotov signs the German-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact. Standing (left to right): Joachim von Ribbentrop, I. V. Stalin, V. N. Pavlov, F. Gaus. August 23, 1939.
272 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +3
    8 June 2026 03: 46
    A rather superficial article with elements of conspiracy theories. What part of Trotsky's archive was this? What did Stalin learn from the testimony of Radek, Rakovsky, and Sokolovsky? Are there Judeo-Masons all around again? Under Yezhov, they extracted all sorts of testimony with a chair leg.
    1. + 24
      8 June 2026 04: 02
      Quote from invisible_man
      Under Yezhov, they could extract any kind of testimony using a chair leg.

      Under Peter the Great, testimony was extracted on the rack and with a whip, so what?
      The European inquisitors extracted confessions from witches and heretics using torture devices...and everyone knows how the Gestapo in Germany extracted confessions from communists and Jews...this is a very broad topic for all European countries.
      And according to the article...the situation now is similar to 1939...we are going in circles... Poland and Germany are laying claim to Kaliningrad.
      Besides this, the Poles have set their sights on Brest in Belarus and Lviv in Ukraine. ... Latvia on Pskov... Finland on Karelia. The Romanians, France, and Britain on Odessa... the USA on Donbass... our neighbors have a very good appetite for the former possessions of the USSR and Tsarist Russia.
      So the fight for all this will be big and bloody.
      The weak are beaten, the tolerant are devoured.
      1. +4
        8 June 2026 04: 12
        Stalin made a mistake in the timing of the start of the Great Patriotic War...this mistake cost the people dearly.
        The history lesson hasn't been of much use to the current Russian leadership, which is making concessions to the West...almost the same flirtations and false expectations from the swindlers from Britain, France, the USA, and Germany...the same four main culprits who started World War II.
        I have anxious expectations about the future.
        1. + 11
          8 June 2026 04: 47
          Quote: The same LYOKHA
          Stalin was mistaken about the timing of the start of WWII.

          You're repeating other people's stupidities. It's impossible to establish the date of the attack without access to the enemy's headquarters documents. Therefore, we simply need to prepare for the attack. If there's a common border, create a buffer zone behind which to deploy defending troops, rather than driving three mechanized corps into the Bialystok salient.
          1. -7
            8 June 2026 05: 14
            You repeat other people's stupidities.

            I have my own opinion on this matter.
            Stalin had copies of Wehrmacht staff documents...there were reports from various sources...but the Supreme Commander at that time thought in political, not military terms, just as they do in the Kremlin today. A politician and a soldier think differently...and, accordingly, their decision-making is the same. hi
            Hitler... heh heh corporal... Stalin seminarian... completely different people.
            1. +8
              8 June 2026 05: 29
              Quote: The same LYOKHA
              Stalin had copies of Wehrmacht staff documents

              What?
              Quote: The same LYOKHA
              but the Supreme Commander was thinking at that time in political, not military terms

              Well, well... Why are you humiliating Comrade Stalin like that?
              Quote: The same LYOKHA
              and, accordingly, decision-making is the same.

              In your opinion, Comrade Stalin, for some political reasons, drove three mechanized corps into a deliberate encirclement?
              1. -10
                8 June 2026 05: 43
                smile
                On June 16, Soviet intelligence agents from various countries, “Ramsay,” Sandor Rado, “Dora,” Ilsa Stebe (“Alta”), “Arnold,” and “Costa,” reported by radiograms that the Germans would attack on June 22–25.
                Stalin is a great personality... he is a strategist... on the contrary, I have great respect for him despite his grave mistakes... he drew the right conclusions from his defeats and achieved his goals anyway. hi
                This is a pre-war map...it clearly didn't come to us from the battlefield.
                1. +8
                  8 June 2026 06: 06
                  Quote: The same LYOKHA
                  On June 16, Soviet intelligence agents from various countries, “Ramsay,” Sandor Rado, “Dora,” Ilsa Stebe (“Alta”), “Arnold,” and “Costa,” reported by radiograms that the Germans would attack on June 22–25.

                  These are not documents "from headquarters", these are someone's speculations and assumptions that are of no interest, since it was already clear what would happen.
                  Quote: The same LYOKHA
                  This is a pre-war map...it clearly didn't come to us from the battlefield.

                  This trophy, taken from the battlefield itself, is known as the "Barbarossa Trophy Map." Photo: © Russian Ministry of Defense
                2. + 13
                  8 June 2026 06: 09
                  The dates are debatable. There were dates for April, May, and even June 22nd isn't entirely definitive. The German General Staff wasn't sure of the dates. How could Stalin have known which was the correct date?
                  1. +4
                    8 June 2026 06: 48
                    Quote: Gardamir
                    How could Stalin understand which date was correct?

                    People don't understand that a date doesn't determine anything. If you don't know anything about the enemy—where they plan to strike, what forces they have, their composition, and so on—then knowing the exact date and time won't tell you anything.
                    1. 0
                      8 June 2026 09: 05
                      There was information about the enemy—about its industrial potential, its numbers, its technical equipment, and its tactics. Unfortunately, the mistaken conclusion was that the main attack would come from the south, through Ukraine. A central attack, through Belarus with its swamps, was deemed unlikely. This wasn't Stalin's fault, but rather Zhukov and the General Staff's.
                      As for the exact date, Hitler himself postponed it several times; in fact, the end of June was not optimal for the Reich itself, but the Germans simply did not have time to deploy their main forces in May.
                      1. 0
                        8 June 2026 09: 18
                        Quote: Illanatol
                        Unfortunately, the wrong conclusion was made that the main attack would come from the south, through Ukrainian territory.

                        Why are you repeating this nonsense? The direction of the attacks is determined by the border itself and the nature of the area. Everything is indicated on the map.
                        Scheme of strategic deployment of the armed forces of the USSR in the event of war with Germany and its allies (appendix to the note of the People's Commissar of Defense of the USSR S.K. Timoshenko and the Chief of the General Staff of the Red Army G.K. Zhukov to I.V. Stalin dated May 15, 1941) Central Archives of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation. F. 28. Op. 17. D. 22. L. 12
                      2. 0
                        8 June 2026 13: 08
                        Quote: Puncher
                        Why are you repeating this nonsense? The direction of the attacks is determined by the border itself and the nature of the area. Everything is indicated on the map.


                        No nonsense. The topography was precisely what dictated that the Germans would launch their main attack in the south. Advancing through Ukraine was much easier for German mechanized and tank divisions than through the Belarusian swamps, which are impassable for tanks and artillery. Let's recall the experience of Operation Bagration... the Germans back then also didn't expect the Red Army's main attack in that direction, which largely determined the success of the Soviet offensive.
                        Moreover, the rapid capture and occupation of Ukraine was particularly desirable for the Reich. Ukraine is a source of grain, coal, and metal, and it also provides the fastest route to the oil of the Caucasus and the Caspian Sea. Therefore, the Soviet leadership stationed the most divisions in the southern sector.
                      3. +1
                        8 June 2026 13: 23
                        Quote: Illanatol
                        Let's recall the experience of Operation Bagration... the Germans then also did not expect the Red Army's main attack in this direction, which largely determined the success of the Soviet offensive.

                        Who told you? German intelligence simply missed the concentration of 6 of our aircraft, which ensured the tremendous success of our troops by destroying the strongest artillery defense and depriving the German forces of maneuver and supplies.
                      4. 0
                        9 June 2026 13: 15
                        The Germans believed that a major offensive using tanks and self-propelled guns in this direction was fundamentally impossible. They also believed that the Red Army would launch its main attack further south, in Ukraine, where they had transferred their air force.
                        So - not only... laughing
                      5. 0
                        9 June 2026 13: 25
                        Quote: Illanatol
                        The Germans believed that a major offensive using tanks and self-propelled guns in this direction was fundamentally impossible. They also believed that the Red Army would launch its main attack further south, in Ukraine, where they had transferred their air force.
                        So - not only... laughing

                        Well, well. And was it the aliens who routed the Tatsinsky Tank Corps in the winter of '44? We tried attacking with tanks, too. The Germans moved their aircraft west, not south, leaving behind 60 fighters. Why are you all telling fairy tales from our hapless generals, who greatly belittled Stalin's achievements as a commander?
                      6. -1
                        9 June 2026 13: 57
                        The Germans transferred their air force to the south. When they realized their mistake, they reinforced their forces, but it was of little help.
                        What do you mean, "tried it"? Are you aware of how far the Red Army advanced westward during Operation Bagration?

                        Two-thirds of the Luftwaffe's forces were always on the Eastern Front. The Eastern Front also accounted for 60% of German air force losses, including fighters. It was only later that some Western "historians" began to exaggerate the achievements of their aces, so you're just repeating someone else's tales.
                      7. +1
                        9 June 2026 14: 06
                        Quote: Illanatol
                        Two-thirds of the Luftwaffe's forces were always on the Eastern Front. The Eastern Front also accounted for 60% of German air force losses, including fighters. It was only later that some Western "historians" began to exaggerate the achievements of their aces, so you're just repeating someone else's tales.

                        What year?
                        Two-thirds of the Luftwaffe were in Germany in 44, defending against Allied air raids. Enough already... I'm tired of these cliches from fiction.
                      8. 0
                        8 June 2026 16: 11
                        Quote: Illanatol
                        No nonsense.

                        Look at the maps; everything is open and accessible. For May 1941, they show the possible balance of forces and the direction of attack.
                      9. -1
                        9 June 2026 13: 21
                        I already know that the Red Army's main forces were located in the southern direction. But it was here that the Wehrmacht advanced most rapidly. The South Army Group enjoyed the greatest success. Meanwhile, the North Army Group advanced much more slowly, which is reflected in the database maps. And the Germans failed to take the cities of Murmansk and Arkhangelsk, effectively border cities that, according to Operation Barbarossa, were supposed to be captured in the first days of WWII.

                        Everything is open and accessible, yeah. In the post-Soviet period, our archives were flooded with fakes (like the "Katyn materials") to satisfy the demands of the Rezuns and Solonins...
                      10. 0
                        9 June 2026 19: 07
                        Quote: Illanatol
                        There were massive injections of fakes into our archives

                        Yes, yes, the British have replaced all the archives... You are descending into utter nonsense.
                      11. +7
                        8 June 2026 10: 58
                        This is not Stalin’s mistake, but rather Zhukov and the General Staff’s.

                        + + + +
                      12. +1
                        9 June 2026 11: 29
                        They knew nothing about tactics. What the Wehrmacht had tested in Poland and France were just the beginnings of blitzkrieg and combined arms cooperation, which they honed to perfection in the period leading up to the invasion. The Red Army simply wasn't ready for that.
                  2. +7
                    8 June 2026 06: 48
                    Quote: Gardamir
                    Well, the dates are debatable.
                    One could argue, but was there a claim that all rumors of a German attack were false? It was, and many believed it; those who didn't risked being labeled alarmists, provocateurs, or simply "enemies of the people." Who prevented Joseph Stalin from at least putting the army on heightened combat alert, in response to the German babble that the concentration of German troops on our border was units withdrawn from Britain on vacation? Stalin's astonishing suspicion and mistrust, and then such "faith" in Hitler. What prevented him from devising "planned exercises" in response, strengthening his positions? Finally, who came up with the idea of ​​repairing the airfield, piling up all the aircraft as if specifically for bombing, and who essentially "stockpiled" new tanks, not yet fully operational, for the invasion? By the way, we had more new T-34s and KVs than the Germans had medium T-IIIs and T-IVs (the rest were light), and we had more MiG-3s, LaGG-3s, and Yak-1s than the Germans had Bf-109s at the time of attack. How else can we understand that the enemy intelligence services shouldn't have shot our generals and specialists; it would have been enough to report them. It's good they didn't have time to execute everyone, but there were people like Tupolev and Korolev in prison... It's hard to understand and hard to justify.
                    Yes, the USSR should have signed a treaty with the Germans and taken advantage of it. They bought German equipment, Hitler even sold us an unfinished cruiser. But we shouldn't have trusted him and shouldn't have let ourselves be exposed. Stalin overdid it here, made a mistake. Should we have abandoned the old defensive line, the one called the "Stalin Line," whatever it was? It was better than the new border, which was inherently less defensible, especially with a hostile population. War was inevitable, and we would have had Poland anyway. We could have grabbed western Ukraine after the war, or exchanged it for that same part of East Prussia, which the ungrateful Poles forget about, unlike Lviv.
                    The only thing that justifies everything, one way or another, is that the USSR under Stalin won. A silver lining: industry in the Urals and Siberia was boosted (due to evacuation). We received German rocket scientists, which in many ways gave us a significant boost in rocket production. A pole of socialism had already been created in Europe.
                    Otherwise, this isn't some kind of "conspiracy theory." The bourgeoisie turned Germany into an anti-USSR by bringing Hitler to power, so they could rake in the dust with proxies, cash in on bloodshed, and emerge from the crisis and the Great Depression. The fattening of the US is proof of that. It's a shame the great socialist country no longer exists, nor does the socialist pole of power itself, and the "multipolar world," which is somehow dependent on the dollar, is a fiction. There can be no "multipolarity" in the global pole of capitalism, which already has its own leader and master of this planetary system. We have what we have, with the likes of Abramovich and his ilk, the newly minted masters of Russia, who look to the West for help, since they have everything there, while Russia is just a cash cow for the extraction of raw materials and the transfer of assets to "partners."
                    If we don't bring back socialism and people's power, it's hard to believe that Russia, with its inverted rulers, will have a great, or even a decent, future in a capitalism plucked from the dustbin of history.
                    I thought a lot about this topic, we had a significant advantage in tanks, in aviation, and such a pogrom, such losses. Who can help us?
                    1. -1
                      8 June 2026 07: 39
                      Quote: Per se.
                      Who prevented Joseph Vissarionovich from at least bringing the army to a heightened state of combat readiness?

                      And what would that have accomplished? Let's say the commander of the 22nd Panzer Division had known that on June 22nd, at exactly four o'clock, etc., what would he have done? Would he have called Zhukov and begged for permission to withdraw from Brest, since he was already under German artillery fire? Well, he would have put his division on high alert. Would that have protected the fuel and ammunition depots?
                      1. +8
                        8 June 2026 09: 18
                        Quote: Puncher
                        And what would it give?
                        Let's think about it... First, what was the old defensive line? It was based on the experience of the First World War, largely on the Osowiec fortress, better known for its "Attack of the Dead Men." The Germans had been unable to take it for a long time due to its favorable location on the terrain. The "Stalin Line" conveniently integrated the defensive nodes into the terrain.
                        If we were pushing back the border, the whole point was to create a sanitary buffer, not to dismantle what had been done. That is, all our main units should have been on the "Stalin Line," which needed to be fortified, not mothballed or, especially, disarmed. That's one thing.
                        Secondly, they wanted to create mechanized corps. Why couldn't they have been created using the new equipment that was arriving, rather than disrupting the old structure without building a new one? This should have been a test run at the second line of defense, as a reserve, not at the border. At the border, with this approach, the Wehrmacht should have been allowed into the "sanitary zone" and the border guards and NKVD detachments should have been withdrawn to partisan operations, to the already prepared secret caches of necessary supplies. The main forces would have met the Germans at the "Stalin Line," where the new corps with T-34s, BT-7Ms (with diesel engines), and KVs would have arrived.
                        Wouldn't anything have changed? I think if Hitler had known about this, he might not have dared to attack. What history would have been like in that case is a big question; the Anglo-Saxons wouldn't have allied with Hitler if the West's main enemy had been the USSR and its communists, not their protégé, the Anglophile Hitler, who worked for someone else's uncle and turned the Germans into cannon fodder.
                        History is repeating itself now, except the USSR and Stalin are gone, we're stuck in a bourgeois world with oligarchs, and for five years now, we've been unable to deal with Ukraine, even as the number of billionaires in capitalist Russia has skyrocketed. It's time to start discussing topics like, "Why did Putin trust the West and negotiate with Trump?"
                      2. -4
                        8 June 2026 09: 35
                        Quote: Per se.
                        That is, all our main units should have been located on the "Stalin Line"

                        Comrade Stalin and Zhukov disagree with you. See "Strategic Deployment Plan for the USSR Armed Forces in the Event of War with Germany and Its Allies (Appendix to the memorandum of the USSR People's Commissar of Defense S.K. Timoshenko and Chief of the Red Army General Staff G.K. Zhukov to I.V. Stalin, May 15, 1941)."
                        On June 22, 1941, all units were located exactly where indicated on the map according to this diagram from May 15, 1941. The reason for their location is also indicated on the diagram.
                        Quote: Per se.
                        I think that if Hitler had known about this, he might not have dared to attack.

                        Had Hitler known what forces were on the border and what was advancing toward it, he would have torn up Operation Barbarossa like a piece of paper and begun building a defense. History would undoubtedly have taken a different course. Perhaps millions would have survived.
                      3. +4
                        8 June 2026 09: 53
                        Quote: Puncher
                        Had Hitler known what forces were on the border and what was advancing toward it, he would have torn up Operation Barbarossa like a piece of paper and begun building a defense. History would undoubtedly have taken a different course. Perhaps millions would have survived.

                        Guderian, in his memoirs, recalled a conversation with Hitler in August 41: Hitler said that if he had known how many tanks the Soviets had, he would not have started the war... So, military secrets aren't always a blessing. Imagine if we advertised the T-34 and KV-1 tanks the way the Armata was recently dragged around exhibitions.
                      4. -1
                        8 June 2026 10: 12
                        Quote: Konnick
                        So a military secret is not always a good thing.

                        Yes, Stalin outsmarted himself in the end.
                        Quote: Konnick
                        Imagine if we advertised the T-34 and KV-1 tanks the way we recently dragged the Armata around all the exhibitions.

                        This would have significantly slowed down the production of tanks in Germany, as they would have had to urgently eliminate the backlog, which would have led to a halt in the production of obviously outdated tanks.
                        P.S.: The Finns not only saw the SMK, but also measured all the armor parameters, assessed the armament, and photographed it from every angle. But this somehow remained a mystery to the Germans... The Abwehr, it seems, was a bunch of lazybones.
                      5. +2
                        8 June 2026 10: 17
                        Quote: Puncher
                        The Abwehr seemed to be a bunch of lazy people.

                        And Canaris is a British agent
                      6. +1
                        9 June 2026 10: 12
                        And not only that, half of the Italian Navy's intelligence worked for the Allies)))
                      7. man
                        0
                        8 June 2026 15: 32
                        Quote: Puncher
                        This would have significantly slowed down the production of tanks in Germany, as they would have had to urgently eliminate the backlog, which would have led to a halt in the production of obviously outdated tanks.

                        On the other hand, it might be for the best... but they were wasting resources on old stuff...
                      8. 0
                        8 June 2026 16: 32
                        Quote: mann
                        On the other hand, it might be for the best... but they were wasting resources on old stuff...

                        Perhaps. But I personally think we were lucky that the Germans rushed to produce Tigers and King Tigers. They spent a lot of resources restructuring production, mistakenly deciding that quality was better than quantity.
                        Ultimately, they received a good tank, but only a few. The constant movement across the front led to frequent breakdowns, and the excessive weight limited evacuation options. They lost many tanks simply abandoned. Had they limited their T4 and T5 tanks, our soldiers would have been worse off because there would have been more of them.
                      9. man
                        0
                        8 June 2026 18: 39
                        Quote: Puncher
                        Perhaps. But I personally think we were lucky that the Germans rushed to produce Tigers and King Tigers. They spent a lot of resources restructuring production, mistakenly deciding that quality was better than quantity.

                        I won't argue; I'm judging by a program on the Pobeda channel about six years ago. I remember the program's participants lamenting how difficult it was to knock out Tiger tanks at the Kursk Bulge, especially their frontal armor. Our troops had to hide their tanks on the flanks and fire at their sides. It was better, of course. ask the tankers, they are on VO.
                      10. +2
                        8 June 2026 19: 50
                        Quote: mann
                        lamented that it was very difficult to knock out the Tigers

                        A very difficult target on the battlefield. But you have to get there. When you have plenty of tanks, it's usually not far. When a company needs to be constantly redeployed to dangerous areas because there are so few tanks, the question arises of how to get there without breaking down. And if it breaks down, how to tow it to the rear for repairs, because a Tiger isn't a Four; one tractor isn't enough to tow it, and two isn't enough.
                      11. man
                        0
                        8 June 2026 20: 13
                        If you search for "Battle of Kursk," you'll find out how many tanks we lost and how many the Germans lost... I'm personally shocked... I still haven't recovered... I had to have a few drinks...
                      12. +2
                        9 June 2026 04: 29
                        Quote: mann
                        If you search for "Battle of Kursk," you'll find out how many tanks we lost and how many the Germans lost... I'm personally shocked...

                        The main losses occurred during the attack on German positions where tanks were dug in and firing at our tanks in a fairly narrow area. Yes, a Tiger tank is very dangerous in combat. But remember how the Germans lost their first Tigers? They simply broke down and couldn't be evacuated.
                      13. -1
                        8 June 2026 13: 31
                        Not entirely accurate. Hitler wasn't talking about how many tanks the USSR had on the eve of the war, but rather how many tanks the USSR was producing per month after the war began. Hitler simply didn't immediately believe that the USSR had been able to so quickly restore armored vehicle production after the evacuation and outproduce the Reich by more than two to one.

                        So what if they advertised it? Incidentally, the Germans initially had a low opinion of the T-34; its first battles weren't particularly successful, and they suffered losses.
                        There is no need to consider the T-34 and KV some kind of wonder weapons; with the right tactics, the Germans quite successfully destroyed these tanks with artillery fire and Stuka dive bombers.
                      14. +1
                        8 June 2026 13: 40
                        Quote: Illanatol
                        Not entirely accurate. Hitler wasn't talking about how many tanks the USSR had on the eve of the war, but rather how many tanks the USSR produced per month after the war began.

                        How could Hitler possibly know about tank production? Here's a quote from Guderian's memoirs.
                        The meeting then moved on to a discussion of individual issues. As for my tank group, the most important thing was to reverse the plan to withdraw our troops from the Yelnya salient, as this salient could later serve as the starting point for an offensive on Moscow. I emphasized the need to replace our engines, which wore out very quickly there due to the unprecedented dust, if any operations requiring tanks to cover long distances were to be carried out this year. We also needed to replace our tank losses with new ones. After some hesitation, Hitler promised to allocate 300 tank engines for the entire Eastern Front—a number that did not satisfy me at all. We were completely denied new tanks, as Hitler intended all new tanks for the new tank units being formed in Germany. During the discussion, I pointed out to Hitler that the Russians had a significant advantage in tanks, which would increase if our tank losses remained equal. Hitler then blurted out: "If I had known that the Russians actually had the number of tanks that were mentioned in your book, I probably would not have started this war.".
                      15. 0
                        9 June 2026 13: 40
                        Quote: Konnick
                        How could Hitler possibly know about tank production? Here's a quote from Guderian's memoirs.


                        Nowhere are they more dishonest than in war memoirs. Guderian is lying, he needed an excuse for his failures, for never being able to take Tula.

                        Where from? It's very simple. After the PMR, Soviet specialists were able to visit the Reich's largest military factories producing aircraft, tanks, and anti-aircraft guns, and even acquire some of the latest German military equipment (for example, the 88mm anti-aircraft gun, which became the basis for the 85mm Soviet anti-aircraft gun). Accordingly, German specialists also visited Soviet military enterprises... so they had information. And espionage, including industrial espionage, was still a thing.

                        I repeat, Guderian is telling fairy tales with hindsight. The USSR didn't produce many of the newest T-34 and KV-1 tanks, or new fighter aircraft, before the start of WWII. Their quality left much to be desired, trained crews were few by June 22, and combat tactics were imperfect. Even the newest tanks had problems with radio communication. Do you know how a T-34 crew commander, in the initial (and later) period of WWII, managed his crew and gave commands? A driver would turn left—two kicks to the left shoulder! That's it. So even these newest tanks weren't exactly water-warfare weapons! And the majority of the Red Army's armored vehicles were obsolete light tanks, which had already been thoroughly studied in Germany (captured from the Finns) and received a big failing grade. The Germans captured and trophy thousands of perfectly serviceable BT and T-26 tanks, but not only did they practically never use them themselves, but they did not even transfer them to their junior allies, even though the Italians and Romanians were experiencing an acute shortage of armored vehicles.

                        What's the point of these "tank armadas"? Are you aware that during the initial stages of WWII, the Red Army's non-combat losses in tanks (and other equipment) were many times greater than their combat losses? Lack of supplies, shortages of fuel and ammunition, numerous breakdowns and wear and tear on equipment...

                        And Guderian, like others like him, is simply a worthy descendant of Baron Munchausen, to the amusement of Rezun and Solonin. Read less of this nonsense.


                        "There were five of us, twenty-five of them, and both of them had brass knuckles. But we would have given them a run for their money if they had caught up with us..." laughing
                      16. man
                        +3
                        8 June 2026 15: 26
                        Quote: Konnick
                        So, a military secret isn't always a blessing. Imagine if we advertised the T-34 and KV-1 tanks the way we recently dragged the Armata around at exhibitions.

                        It's a shame the stupid Ukrainians weren't afraid of the Armata... despite the exhibitions and advertising... request
                      17. 0
                        8 June 2026 19: 34
                        But instead of armata, they're getting zircons, daggers, and hazelnuts. So it's unlikely the great Ukrainians came out on top here.
                      18. man
                        +1
                        8 June 2026 20: 06
                        Quote: Leontrotsky
                        But instead of armata, they're getting zircons, daggers, and hazelnuts. So it's unlikely the great Ukrainians came out on top here.

                        You're saying something... the Supreme Commander himself said that we only fire missiles at barns. You want me not to believe it. TO THE Supreme One??? Outrageous!!!
                      19. +1
                        8 June 2026 23: 27
                        Don't misrepresent the Supreme Commander's words))) He spoke about the latest use of walnut. Or do you consider Yuzhmash a shed?
                      20. man
                        0
                        9 June 2026 09: 22
                        Quote: Leontrotsky
                        Don't distort the words of the Supreme Commander))) He said about last using walnut. Or do you consider Yuzhmash to be a shed?

                        I don’t remember the Supreme Commander specifying the date... And then, on the territory of Yuzhmash, our people could have easily found a barn, especially on the orders of the Supreme Commander.
                      21. 0
                        9 June 2026 12: 07
                        He not only specified the date, but also voiced the geography of the places where the barn was destroyed (Belaia Tserkov, if memory serves). And as for Yuzhmash, is there any basis for the assertion that the barn was destroyed there too? Apart from your words and assumptions, there is nothing else.
                      22. man
                        0
                        9 June 2026 18: 06
                        Quote: Leontrotsky
                        And as for Yuzhmash, is there any basis for the assertion that the barn there was also destroyed?

                        Didn't they even get into the barn? smile
                      23. 0
                        10 June 2026 09: 28
                        Apparently not in the barn. But considering that the Ukrainian government barred the media from Yuzhmash to show that the hazelnut maker had essentially done nothing (no matter how much negative PR the nut maker would have received!), it's likely that he did something wrong there.
                      24. +4
                        8 June 2026 13: 25
                        Quote: Puncher
                        If Hitler had known what forces were on the border and what forces were moving towards it, he would have torn up the Barbarossa plan like a piece of paper and would have started building a defense.


                        Hitler knew everything perfectly well and, as he himself believed, had every chance of success. The Reich's intelligence was in good order. He made a mistake, like Trump now, not in the purely military sphere; he was operating from faulty ideological assumptions. The USSR did not turn out to be a "colossus with feet of clay"... The USSR survived then, in the initial period, not so much thanks to its generals, but rather to the work of the home front, the unity of the Soviet people, the effective planned economy, and other things that even today, AI cannot accurately calculate.
                      25. -2
                        8 June 2026 16: 15
                        Quote: Illanatol
                        Hitler knew everything perfectly well and had, as he himself believed, every chance of success.

                        He knew nothing. The Soviet tanks were a surprise to him, both qualitatively and quantitatively. And they hadn't expected to encounter the second strategic echelon at Smolensk at all, as they'd assumed they'd all been "digested" in the cauldrons near Minsk and that only disorganized mobilized forces remained ahead.
                      26. AMG
                        +2
                        8 June 2026 17: 58
                        It turns out that if the Führer didn't do this, then the magical numbers of Soviet weapons didn't work on him. Didn't the Germans know their quality? Didn't they know the Red Army's difficulties in the "Winter" War? They knew well and were prepared for war. They didn't understand the profound spiritual and economic capabilities of the Soviet state!
                      27. +1
                        8 June 2026 13: 20
                        Fairy tales. The old defensive line was never destroyed. These were all fabrications of Khrushchev, who bore his share of responsibility for the initial failure of the defense.
                        The experience of WWI is wasted. Did the Maginot Line help the French much in 1940?
                        The same thing... the Germans would have broken through any line then due to their superior mobility and operational efficiency of their forces, which allowed them to create a local multiple superiority in manpower and equipment.
                        Tanks don't fight by themselves. Armed forces are effective when they work as a system. What good was it that the Red Army had more tanks and aircraft if they had little actual motorized infantry, poor radio communications, and gun tractors were few and far between, moving at walking pace? We were doomed to defeat in the initial period, no matter what. And superiority in tanks and aircraft was of no real use. This wasn't just a problem for our army; the British and French weren't exactly doing well either.
                      28. 0
                        9 June 2026 06: 53
                        Quote: Illanatol
                        Fairy tales. The old defensive line was never destroyed.
                        This is very optimistic, but no one has exaggerated it. Otherwise, I repeat.
                        You're justifying what happened; no one will accuse you of "conspiracy theories" or the subjunctive mood of "alternative history." It's simpler, but what conclusions can we draw for today if there's a war tomorrow, if tomorrow there's a military campaign? That's why history teaches nothing, and it tends to repeat itself.
                      29. +2
                        8 June 2026 12: 34
                        Kuznetsov placed all fleets on Readiness Level 2 on June 19. At his own risk. From his memoirs:
                        Not long ago, I happened to hear from Army General I.V. Tyulenev—at that time he commanded the Moscow Military District—that on June 21 at around 2 p.m., I.V. Stalin called him and demanded that the combat readiness of the air defense be increased.
                        This confirms once again: on the afternoon of June 21, I.V. Stalin acknowledged a clash with Germany as, if not inevitable, then quite probable. This is further confirmed by the fact that that evening, Moscow leaders A.S. Shcherbakov and V.P. Pronin were summoned to Stalin. According to Vasily Prokhorovich Pronin, Stalin ordered district party secretaries to be detained in their posts that Saturday and forbidden from leaving the city. "A German attack is possible," he warned. It's a shame the remaining hours weren't used to maximum effect.

                        One can only guess how events would have developed if Potapov had given the necessary orders just as far in advance.
                      30. +3
                        8 June 2026 13: 42
                        Quote: a.shlidt
                        One can only guess how events would have developed if Potapov had given the necessary orders just as far in advance.


                        Exactly the same. Kuznetsov acted not on his own initiative, but on orders from higher command. It was no accident that his comrades from Moscow came to see him, after which he placed the fleet on high alert.
                        It was simply much easier for him to do so. The fleet is a much more compact structure and better equipped with radio communications (though even a flag command would have sufficed). District commanders also received orders from the center, but simply didn't have time to carry them out, and some (Pavlov) were negligent.
                        NKVD troops (border guards) met the aggression with full combat readiness. The "bloody secret police" performed their professional duties better than the army, but this is neither politically correct nor tolerant for those debunking the "cult of Stalin and Beria."
                        However, the beginning of the war would have been difficult regardless. Objectively, the enemy had superiority in key areas. The number of tanks and aircraft alone is meaningless without proper tactics, organization, and command.
                      31. +1
                        9 June 2026 14: 00
                        Again, tales in the spirit of Khrushchev, again Stalin is to blame.
                        Remember once and for all: units and formations achieve full combat readiness and combat effectiveness only when their armored vehicles and personnel are fully staffed according to wartime establishment levels. According to regulations, such measures required 30 days. In short, it was practically impossible.
                        Giving an order and carrying it out are two very different things.
                    2. +2
                      8 June 2026 17: 17
                      Quote: Per se.
                      Finally, who came up with the idea of ​​starting repairs at the airfield, piling up all the aircraft as if specifically for bombing?

                      All questions should be directed to the Air Force engineer who thwarted the airfield refurbishment plan in 1940. As a result, the 1941 plan was effectively implemented on the principle of "two years in one."
                      And yes, the airfields had to be ready by 1942. Because in 1942 the reform of the Air Force with the formation of new units had to be completed.
                      Quote: Per se.
                      Who was essentially "storing" new tanks, not yet fully operational, for the invasion?

                      If these tanks had not been in the border districts, they would now be raising the claim that Stalin had exposed the border units with their outdated tanks to the Panzerwaffe's steamroller. smile
                      The tanks were stored in parks because the V-2's engine life was meager, and only one new engine was available for every 10 tanks. "Meager" means that driving training alone took up half of the lifespan.
                      Quote: Per se.
                      The MiG-3, LaGG-3 and Yak-1 had more Bf-109s than the Germans had at the time of the attack.

                      What's the point? There are no crews—nothing to cook with. Novikov complained at a meeting in December 1940 that the Air Force ran out of gasoline from late spring to early fall. And there are only one or two training aircraft per squadron—it's impossible to even maintain the pilots' skills.
                      Quote: Per se.
                      Was it necessary to abandon the old line of defense, the one called the "Stalin Line", whatever it was, it was better than the new border line, which was less convenient to defend in itself, and also had a hostile population

                      The Germans broke through the old defensive line, already occupied by mobilized units, in the southern direction in 2-3 days.
                      1. +2
                        9 June 2026 06: 49
                        Quote: Alexey RA
                        The Germans broke through the old defensive line, already occupied by mobilized units, in the southern direction in 2-3 days.

                        The old defensive line, almost dismantled, and with hastily "mobilized units" to boot. You're justifying what happened; no one will accuse you of "conspiracy theories" or the subjunctive mood of "alternative history." It's simpler, but what conclusions can we draw for today if there's a war tomorrow, if tomorrow we're going on a campaign? That's why history teaches nothing, and it tends to repeat itself.
                    3. AMG
                      0
                      8 June 2026 17: 41
                      It's possible to think so, but we also need to understand that quantity isn't always the determining factor. If the planes had been parked at the old airfields, as usual, in neat rows, the same thing would have happened. Remember the airfield air defenses—quadruple Maxims at best. Even after the defeat of the Egyptian air force in 1967, some of our air force commanders looked at the planes parked on the concrete airfields and imagined what would have happened if... The new planes weren't up to par with the German ones; that's a long story. The pilots were also less well-trained. After all, even with the Japanese in 1939, there were problems until Spanish veterans got involved. The tank forces were undergoing reorganization, as no one had any idea how to operate such a colossus of a thousand tanks on the battlefield. They didn't even have time to conduct a single mechanized corps exercise before the war. The tanks were assembled, but the units weren't provided with tankers, repair trucks, or trucks. Therefore, by the end of 1941, a new organization of tank forces had to be adopted. And this wasn't just a matter of individual mistakes, but also the country's economic capabilities. As for Tupolev, he wasn't in prison; he was simply living, in Moscow, not so bad. He was minding his own business and wasn't distracted by extraneous matters.
                    4. 0
                      9 June 2026 00: 21
                      Quote: Per se.
                      I thought a lot about this topic, we had a significant advantage in tanks, in aviation, and such a pogrom, such losses. Who can help us?

                      Read the acceptance report of the People's Commissariat of Defense from May 7, 1940 - it describes in detail what will happen a year later and why it happened.
                      Just read it.
                  3. man
                    +2
                    8 June 2026 09: 42
                    Quote: Gardamir
                    The dates are debatable. There were dates for April, May, and even June 22nd isn't entirely definitive. The German General Staff wasn't sure of the dates. How could Stalin have known which was the correct date?

                    Nevertheless, the corresponding directives on combat readiness from the Kremlin were sent for every date, including June 22.
                3. +5
                  8 June 2026 06: 34
                  There was a sea of ​​information, completely contradictory, the analysis was weak... So he found out on June 16th that there would be an attack on the 22nd, and so what? It was already too late.
                  1. 0
                    8 June 2026 07: 36
                    Quote: Andrey VOV
                    There was a sea of ​​information, completely contradictory, the analysis was weak... So he found out on June 16th that there would be an attack on the 22nd, and so what? It was already too late.

                    Even if they knew for sure, nothing much changed... And what kind of army is this that needs a month's or more advance notice of military action? All this blaming for the "surprise attack" came from those who simply couldn't organize a proper response to the aggression due to objective and subjective reasons, including personal ones... and most importantly, due to the fear of the senior command staff to show will and act proactively, rather than wait for orders from the General Staff.
                    1. -2
                      8 June 2026 07: 53
                      Quote: Konnick
                      and most importantly, due to the fear of the senior command staff, to show will and act proactively, and not wait for instructions from the General Staff

                      What an interesting person you are. Put yourself in the shoes of the commander of the 22nd Tank Division. The division was located south of Brest, on the border. Barracks, rear units, warehouses, tank depot.
                      During the artillery preparation, the 34th German Infantry Division inflicted heavy losses on our 22nd Panzer Division, located in the southern military town of Brest, 2,5-3,5 km from the state border.
                      The division also lost most of its tanks, artillery, and vehicles, as well as more than half of its fuel trucks, workshops, and kitchens, to artillery and air strikes. Enemy fire also set fire to and then exploded the division's artillery depot and fuel and lubricants depot.

                      Would your willpower have affected the outcome of the artillery shelling on June 22? Or would you have withdrawn the division away from the border without permission before June 22 to avoid a surprise attack? The division commissar would have shot you on the spot just for attempting that.
                      1. +4
                        8 June 2026 08: 04
                        Quote: Puncher
                        Quote: Konnick
                        and most importantly, due to the fear of the senior command staff, to show will and act proactively, and not wait for instructions from the General Staff

                        What an interesting person you are. Put yourself in the shoes of the commander of the 22nd Tank Division. The division was located south of Brest, on the border. Barracks, rear units, warehouses, tank depot.
                        During the artillery preparation, the 34th German Infantry Division inflicted heavy losses on our 22nd Panzer Division, located in the southern military town of Brest, 2,5-3,5 km from the state border.
                        The division also lost most of its tanks, artillery, and vehicles, as well as more than half of its fuel trucks, workshops, and kitchens, to artillery and air strikes. Enemy fire also set fire to and then exploded the division's artillery depot and fuel and lubricants depot.

                        Would your willpower have affected the outcome of the artillery shelling on June 22? Or would you have withdrawn the division away from the border without permission before June 22 to avoid a surprise attack? The division commissar would have shot you on the spot just for attempting that.

                        There was a directive from June 18th...Who prevented division commander Puganov from dispersing the division and not keeping the equipment in proper rows...
                        For example, the commander of the 67th Rifle Division, Dedayev, withdrew his division from the barracks in Liepaja and dispersed it the day before June 22, and the Germans bombed the empty barracks... he was not afraid and took risks, rather than saving his... from accusations of provocation by some divisional commissar.
                      2. -3
                        8 June 2026 08: 24
                        Quote: Konnick
                        Who prevented division commander Puganov from dispersing the division rather than keeping the equipment in proper rows?

                        Are you comparing the situation in Liepaja to Brest? How can that be? And how do you imagine "dispersing" a tank division near the state border? The depots are still there; there's enough fuel there for 250 tanks at several stations. And the ammunition. Where can they be "dispersed"? The only option there is to withdraw the divisions to at least Zhabinka, or better yet, Kobryn. But Comrade Zhukov said Brest because that's what he had in his plan. The division was doomed from the start, and the commander's will had no effect.
                      3. +2
                        8 June 2026 08: 46
                        Quote: Puncher
                        And how do you imagine the "dispersal" of a tank division near the state border?

                        Well, I imagine... usually, equipment in parks is stored in neat rows, like snowdrifts in winter. Airplanes were also stored in neat rows. Commanders like order. What prevented them from dispersing tanks across the training ground? And the pilots from dragging the planes into the bushes, which is what they did with the rest... No need for blankets on beds and tanks in parks to be lined up.
                      4. -3
                        8 June 2026 10: 52
                        There was a directive from June 18th...
                        Please provide this document.
                        I'm tired of these conspiracy theorists on all the history forums.
                      5. +3
                        8 June 2026 10: 57
                        Quote: Lewww
                        There was a directive from June 18th...
                        Please provide this document.
                        I'm tired of these conspiracy theorists on all the history forums.

                        Thank Khrushchev for the document's disappearance. The directive is mentioned in Pavlov's trial.
                      6. -4
                        8 June 2026 11: 06
                        Well, I get it - first Khrushchev destroyed important documents, and then Yakovlev and his henchmen flooded the archives with fakes.
                        An ironclad counterargument Yes
                        It's a pity that you're only allowed to give one minus, otherwise you would have given me 20 right away. laughing
                      7. +2
                        8 June 2026 11: 01
                        There was a directive from June 18th...Who prevented division commander Puganov from dispersing the division and not keeping the equipment in proper rows...
                        For example, the commander of the 67th Rifle Division, Dedayev, withdrew his division from the barracks in Liepaja and dispersed it the day before June 22, and the Germans bombed the empty barracks... he was not afraid and took risks, rather than saving his... from accusations of provocation by some divisional commissar.

                        Today this history is repeating itself.
                      8. +3
                        8 June 2026 11: 03
                        ,,just like the 23rd TD, on June 18.06, it received the order:
                        "Bring the units to full combat readiness in accordance with the combat alert plan, but do not declare the alert itself."
                        “The divisions are to leave their winter quarters and concentrate in the forests in the area of ​​the following populated areas: Tirkiliai, Seda, Telshai, and Trishkii.”
                        21.06 The units continued to inspect their equipment and were replenished with everything necessary for combat.
                        At 11:00 a.m. we received mobilization sets of topographic maps.
                      9. +3
                        8 June 2026 11: 44
                        All your arguments are from the "if only" series, based on the so-called hindsight.
                        Stalin is not the God of the Christian religion, who is always right. He is a man who did what he could at the time.
                        I didn't want to provoke a war ahead of time.
                        In the end, he won because he prepared the country and did not give up after the summer failures of 1941, and that is the main thing.
                      10. +3
                        8 June 2026 08: 22
                        Quote: Puncher
                        The division was located south of Brest, on the border.

                        And this was the main mistake of our General Staff: to place units close to the border within range of even artillery fire.
                      11. -4
                        8 June 2026 08: 53
                        Quote: Konnick
                        And this was the main mistake of our General Staff: to place units close to the border within range of even artillery fire.

                        This is not a mistake, but a strategic deployment plan that failed.
                      12. +1
                        8 June 2026 08: 57
                        The division was located south of Brest, on the border
                        - Do you have the names of those geniuses who stationed troops on the border?
                      13. +4
                        8 June 2026 09: 08
                        Quote: faiver
                        - Do you have the names of those geniuses who stationed troops on the border?

                        Chief of the General Staff, Comrade Georgy Konstantinovich Zhukov.
                      14. man
                        +1
                        8 June 2026 09: 54
                        Quote: Puncher
                        Quote: faiver
                        - Do you have the names of those geniuses who stationed troops on the border?

                        Chief of the General Staff, Comrade Georgy Konstantinovich Zhukov.

                        Georgy Konstantinovich, of course, was an outstanding military leader, but staff work was not for him...
                      15. 0
                        8 June 2026 10: 08
                        Zhukov became Chief of the General Staff in January 41, the 22nd TD of the Red Army began to form in February, such things cannot be done in a month, and I doubt that he himself would have pointed to the map - here is the 22nd TD, here is the 15th, but he certainly signed the final order on the formation and establishment of the PPD.
                        So, in fact, Zhukov has almost nothing to do with it, but the weak personnel of the General Staff is obvious...
                      16. -2
                        8 June 2026 10: 17
                        Quote: faiver
                        Zhukov became Chief of the General Staff in January 41, the 22nd Red Army Tank Division began to form in February, such things can't be done in a month.

                        What does the formation of a unit and the determination of its deployment have to do with this?
                        Quote: faiver
                        I doubt he would have clicked on the map himself - here is the 22nd TD

                        He is the Chief of the General Staff, and this could not have been done without his approval.
                        Quote: faiver
                        So, in fact, Zhukov has almost nothing to do with it.

                        Oh, wow... The boss, who is supposedly responsible for everything his staff does, turns out to have absolutely nothing to do with it? Excellent... Super... Brilliant!
                      17. 0
                        8 June 2026 12: 00
                        You're a genius here, my dear. All the preparatory work is done by the so-called "middle staff." Have you ever seen the volume of documents signed daily by, say, the mayor and his deputies of a city of three hundred thousand? I have...
                      18. -2
                        8 June 2026 12: 20
                        Quote: faiver
                        You are our dearest genius here.

                        Thanks of course.
                        Quote: faiver
                        I saw....

                        That's certainly an argument. A cast-iron one. Your boss is a "chump" for signing pointless documents without reading them...
                      19. +1
                        8 June 2026 12: 06
                        You forget that this border was ours for only 2 years and is not equipped.
                        Brest was the largest city near the border, and the fortress barracks were located there. So, units were moved there while the military camps were being built. Furthermore, the army had dramatically increased in size several times over, there was a shortage of personnel, command and control was still poor, and there was a shortage of equipment and supplies.
                        No one really knew whether the war would start on June 22 or how everything would go.
                        Now we know everything and can let people reason about it from the sofa with a smart look.
                      20. -3
                        8 June 2026 12: 24
                        Quote: Wened75
                        There were also barracks in the fortress.

                        Only the 22nd TD wasn't in the fortress. And it wouldn't have fit in there anyway.
                        Quote: Wened75
                        while military towns were being built.

                        Where were they built? In Kobrin, and that's why the 4th Army units were exposed to German artillery?
                        Quote: Wened75
                        Now we know everything and can let people reason about it from the sofa with a smart look.

                        Hmmm... It turns out that understanding that troops on the border are immediately subject to enemy artillery fire requires many years of reflection... Oh, how...
                      21. AMG
                        0
                        8 June 2026 18: 47
                        Or maybe the district commander, D.G. Pavlov? Should each division really be overseen by the Chief of the General Staff?
                      22. 0
                        8 June 2026 19: 56
                        Quote from AMG
                        Should each division really be supervised by a Chief of the General Staff?

                        Who else? The front commander's job is to ensure the execution of General Staff orders.
                      23. AMG
                        -1
                        8 June 2026 20: 14
                        From July 11, 1940, D.G. Pavlov commanded the Western Special District. It was his domain; he could submit his proposals to the General Staff. When the Red Army troops entered Western Belarus in the fall of 1939, where were they supposed to spend the winter? They had to be housed somewhere. For some, the Brest Fortress was simply a barracks. And the Chief of the General Staff also had superiors.
                      24. +3
                        8 June 2026 10: 53
                        Or would you have withdrawn the division away from the border without permission before June 22nd to avoid a surprise attack? The division commissar would have shot you on the spot just for attempting that.

                        "Good afternoon! Some commanders have taken on this responsibility. ZhBD 23 TD
                      25. -2
                        8 June 2026 11: 16
                        Quote: bubalik
                        ZhBD 23 TD

                        The 23rd Panzer Division advanced from Libau (which is far from the border) to the border. The division was in no danger in Libau itself, and it advanced according to plan, not because the commander had a whim.
                      26. +2
                        8 June 2026 11: 27
                        “This does not change the fact that the division was raised on alert, redeployed and ready for combat operations by 22.06.
                      27. ANB
                        +4
                        8 June 2026 11: 02
                        Or would you have withdrawn the division away from the border without permission before June 22nd to avoid a surprise attack? The division commissar would have shot you on the spot just for attempting that.

                        My grandfather's mountain rifle division was stationed in the Carpathians.
                        A week before the war, the division commander took everyone out into the field.
                        On June 22, soldiers saw how their permanent deployment site was completely bombed.
                        After which the division deployed according to the plan to cover the border.
                        The Germans came, looked and left to avoid any harm.
                        A week later, we had to retreat behind enemy lines, since our neighbors had not done the same and the Germans had passed through them.
                        The question is - why did someone do this, while someone else was chewing snot?
                      28. -3
                        8 June 2026 11: 21
                        Quote: ANB
                        My grandfather's mountain rifle division was stationed in the Carpathians.

                        Number?
                        Quote: ANB
                        A week before the war, the division commander took everyone out into the field.

                        So the order was received.
                        And yes, there were no Germans in the Carpathians; they were advancing north towards Lviv.
                      29. 0
                        8 June 2026 11: 36
                        Quote: Puncher
                        Number?

                        Looks like a 44 GSD
                      30. -2
                        8 June 2026 11: 43
                        Quote: Konnick
                        Quote: Puncher
                        Number?

                        Looks like a 44 GSD

                        The 12th Army was lazy on June 22
                      31. +1
                        8 June 2026 11: 54
                        Quote: Puncher
                        The 12th Army was lazy on June 22

                        Just like Vlasov's mechanized corps
                      32. -3
                        8 June 2026 12: 18
                        Quote: Konnick
                        Just like Vlasov's mechanized corps

                        And by the way, there in Tarnapol, at the headquarters of the Southwestern Front, sat Zhukov, senselessly driving divisions along the roads here, there, and back...
                      33. 0
                        8 June 2026 12: 35
                        Quote: Puncher
                        Quote: Konnick
                        Just like Vlasov's mechanized corps

                        And by the way, there in Tarnapol, at the headquarters of the Southwestern Front, sat Zhukov, senselessly driving divisions along the roads here, there, and back...

                        Zhukov had only just begun... Kirponos continued. And how Zhukov disliked Commissar Popel, who had fought better than his friend Ryabyshev.
                    2. -1
                      8 June 2026 12: 55
                      With that configuration and that number of troops on the border, no army of that time could have repelled the attacks of four German tank groups. So, they put the troops in the Baltics on alert, and what helped? No. When a division occupies a defensive position along a front of more than 30 kilometers, how can they possibly repel a concentrated attack by superior enemy forces at a single point?
                      1. 0
                        8 June 2026 13: 05
                        Quote: Andrey VOV
                        With that configuration and that number of troops on the border, no army of that time could have repelled the attacks of four German tank groups. So, they put the troops in the Baltics on alert, and what helped? No. When a division occupies a defensive position along a front of more than 30 kilometers, how can they possibly repel a concentrated attack by superior enemy forces at a single point?

                        The deployment of troops 50 km from the border would allow mobile units to concentrate on the direction of the main attacks, rather than trying to close the gaps with a continuous front on the border.
                      2. 0
                        8 June 2026 13: 43
                        Read carefully: with the forces we had... they couldn't have repelled a tank group's attack in the Baltics. The fact is, the cover plans and the initial strike were based on the theory and practice of the First World War, which suggested that there would first be border battles, a buildup of forces and equipment, and then, after a while, the main forces would be drawn into the war. But on June 22, 1941, the Germans launched their main attacks, and we were unable to counter their tank groups. Furthermore, the attacks were initially launched at great depth.
                      3. 0
                        8 June 2026 13: 48
                        Quote: Andrey VOV
                        Well, they wouldn't have been able to repel a tank group's attack in the Baltics.

                        I have no doubt about it, but they had to be able to so ineptly expose the tanks on the border to attack.
                      4. 0
                        8 June 2026 13: 50
                        No matter where they were deployed, the outcome would not have been radically different. The T-26 battalions burned terribly, and air superiority in the air in the western direction was overwhelming... I could be wrong, but at Brody, almost a third of the Anks' losses were due to air attacks while still on the march during the advance.
                      5. +1
                        8 June 2026 13: 56
                        Quote: Andrey VOV
                        The BTs burned terribly

                        In stupid frontal attacks, tanks, like cavalry in raids, were supposed to act on the enemy's communications, and they were used to close the gaps.
                      6. 0
                        8 June 2026 14: 08
                        They couldn't act any other way back then; you couldn't do much raiding without fuel and ammunition supplies. It was Budanov who occupied the airfield and had fuel, but in '41...
                      7. 0
                        8 June 2026 14: 27
                        Quote: Andrey VOV
                        They couldn't act any other way back then; you couldn't do much raiding without fuel and ammunition supplies. It was Budanov who occupied the airfield and had fuel, but in '41...

                        The fuel was in the rear columns of the German mobile units, it could be drained from trucks, it is not diesel
                      8. 0
                        8 June 2026 15: 04
                        I disagree. Well, if you throw BTs and T-26s at them like that... well, they could be penetrated with the most ordinary small arms and anti-aircraft guns... aviation... a couple of shots and that's it. This isn't a panacea for June 1941, just as tank ambushes can't be considered absolute; they work and don't work under different conditions... especially since now we know what, how, and why, but back then... only on the 24th, if I'm not mistaken, Pavlov got a map, upon seeing which he understood the entire catastrophe and its full scale.
                      9. 0
                        8 June 2026 15: 06
                        It's like what happened to Major Reichel in 1942... He came across a map that only showed part of the entire "Blau" plan, but it was enough to understand the plan, but it was too late, too late... We all know what happened next... and again they misjudged the direction of the Germans' main attack in the summer of '42... just like in the summer of '43...
                      10. 0
                        8 June 2026 15: 13
                        Quote: Andrey VOV
                        I don't agree, well, if you send BTs and T-26s into such a rush... well, they could be penetrated with the most ordinary mallet and anti-aircraft machine gun... aviation... a couple of pieces and that's it.

                        Popel didn't know about this...
                      11. 0
                        8 June 2026 15: 43
                        Popel attacked the flank. The Germans, of course, relaxed then and did not expect it, but they rallied quickly. The main objective was to stop the enemy and occupy Dubno was not accomplished... BUT the most important thing was to delay and not get surrounded by units of the southwestern front at that time... again... slow infantry, the outskirts of Dubno were occupied by tanks, and to consolidate it, infantry was needed, and it was still raising dust on the roads... under bombing... They maneuvered as best they could, and here is another nuance... Ahead of the Germans, tanks were also racing with a small lead, even having stopped or struck from the flanks or having gone to the rear, practically after a short period of time, the German infantry rolled in with artillery, assault guns, and the icing on the cake, the Takh Takh 88... and that's it... We were still learning, I repeat, maneuver warfare back then, and it's good that many commanders of mechanized units came from the cavalry
                      12. 0
                        8 June 2026 15: 16
                        Quote: Andrey VOV
                        I disagree, but if you throw BTs and T-26s at them like that... well, they could be penetrated with a regular hammer and anti-aircraft gun... aviation... a couple of grand and that's it...

                        Brigade Commissar Popel did not know about this...
                      13. 0
                        8 June 2026 13: 48
                        Again, the mobility of our troops compared to the Germans was on a completely different level. Yes, tanks could move forward, but what about artillery? What about infantry? The newly formed mechanized corps were catastrophically short of transport and tractors for large-caliber guns, and those that were available, the so-called "tadpoles," hauled their guns at a snail's pace. As a result, tank counterattacks, unsupported by artillery, and infantry decimated the Germans, but they couldn't effectively counter them. And given the German mechanized units' connections with aviation and artillery, their refined coordination, that's the result. We learned to fight back then, through our own bloodshed. It was hard, it was difficult, but the outcome is known to all.
                      14. 0
                        8 June 2026 13: 54
                        Quote: Andrey VOV
                        and taking into account the connection of German mechanized units with aviation

                        That's more accurate...our ground generals didn't understand the role of aviation in modern warfare and simply ignored the importance of the Air Force in their memoirs, although Konev wrote about his defeat on the Reserve Front, casually mentioning German aviation as one of the main reasons for his defeat...
                      15. +1
                        8 June 2026 14: 06
                        If you mean, the Reserve Front was commanded by Semyon Mikhailovich Budyonny, and Konev commanded the Western Front from October 2 to 10, 1941. Besides the air force, there was also a mistake in the direction of the Germans' main attacks. It was assumed that they would attack along the main Minsk-Moscow highway, but they didn't go along it, and the main attacks fell on poorly covered areas. Well, this has long been known.
                      16. +1
                        8 June 2026 14: 25
                        Confused, of course, Western
                4. -2
                  8 June 2026 10: 47
                  On June 16, Soviet intelligence agents from various countries, “Ramsay,” Sandor Rado, “Dora,” Ilsa Stebe (“Alta”), “Arnold,” and “Costa,” reported by radiograms that the Germans would attack on June 22–25.
                  And before that there were many reports that the Germans would start the war in May.
                  And what do you think you should have done in this situation?
                  Give the command to Timoshenko to start a war with Germany?

                  I'm tired of these armchair strategists and politicians.
                  1. 0
                    8 June 2026 11: 06
                    I'm tired of these armchair strategists and politicians.

                    here's something else: "in hindsight" - we are all strong...
                    But some don't jump above their heads - taking on responsibilities for which they don't want to answer, while others jump - and then look for those "to blame" for this...
                5. +1
                  8 June 2026 17: 07
                  Quote: The same LYOKHA
                  On June 16, Soviet intelligence agents from various countries, “Ramsay,” Sandor Rado, “Dora,” Ilsa Stebe (“Alta”), “Arnold,” and “Costa,” reported by radiograms that the Germans would attack on June 22–25.

                  And this was already, if I remember correctly, the fourth absolutely precise date of the invasion in the spring-summer of 1941. The three previous dates were disavowed by the same intelligence.

                  But what the intelligence service never refuted were its reports that before the war began, the Reich would make claims against the USSR through diplomatic channels. They also claimed that the Reich would not attack until the war in the West was over—Germany would not wage a war on two fronts.
            2. +3
              8 June 2026 10: 26
              Quote: The same LYOKHA
              Stalin had copies of Wehrmacht headquarters documents...there were reports from various sources.

              You're underestimating the skillful disinformation tactics of German intelligence. There was too much information, it was contradictory, and it was later unconfirmed. Sorge's famous report on the attack contained a postscript, after the British decision, that fundamentally changed the nature of the matter. It's worth remembering that German attack dates were regularly added starting in early May and were never confirmed.
          2. +4
            8 June 2026 07: 21
            Even with a date, he would have been wrong. The attack would have happened earlier if Italy hadn't gotten involved in the Greek adventure. The Führer was forced to drop everything and rush to the rescue, postponing the attack for almost a month. Which, in fact, wasn't enough.
            1. -1
              8 June 2026 07: 29
              Quote: anclevalico
              Which, in fact, was not enough later.

              These are all just stories from the "if only we'd started a month earlier, we would have..." series. The result would have been the same. Lack of reserves, overconfidence, and Admiral Canaris...
              1. +2
                8 June 2026 08: 59
                Quote: Puncher
                and Admiral Canaris...

                Yes, his report on the state of the army and defense industry of the USSR... received an assessment in the form of a piano noose from Hitler in April 45... only
            2. 0
              8 June 2026 07: 37
              Quote: anclevalico
              postponing the attack for almost a month

              For 34 days...
          3. +1
            8 June 2026 13: 56
            Quote: Puncher
            You're repeating other people's stupidities. It's impossible to determine the date of the attack without access to the enemy's headquarters documents.
            That wouldn't have worked either: the date for the attack on the USSR was pushed back every week. Intelligence, by the way, was working on this, so people stopped trusting their reports. They had firmly decided to attack in April, but then Greece and Yugoslavia appeared... The Germans settled on the final attack date a week before June 22.
            1. -1
              8 June 2026 16: 20
              Quote: bk0010
              Yes, that wouldn't have done any good either.

              Exactly.
              Quote: bk0010
              The Germans decided on the final date for the attack a week before June 22.

              What would this accomplish? It's unrealistic to withdraw four mechanized corps from the Lviv salient in a week.
          4. +1
            8 June 2026 18: 11
            The Red Army in 1939 and 1941 were two different armies. The former had grown exponentially, was under-armed and under-trained, had little combat experience, and was poorly supplied with transport. Its officer corps had virtually no combat experience. The German army, however, was well-equipped, had combat experience, and an experienced officer corps. For this reason, Stalin tried to delay the start of the war, but he failed.
            1. -1
              8 June 2026 19: 36
              Quote: Alexey Lantukh
              Stalin tried to delay the start of the war

              The sect of witnesses of the delay...
              Open the map
              "Scheme for the strategic deployment of the armed forces of the USSR in the event of war with Germany and its allies (appendix to the note of the People's Commissar of Defense of the USSR S.K. Timoshenko and the Chief of the General Staff of the Red Army G.K. Zhukov to I.V. Stalin dated May 15, 1941)"
              Which shows what Stalin was delaying and in which direction.
          5. AMG
            0
            9 June 2026 08: 59
            How many kilometers is a buffer zone? And should the border guards be slaughtered? And the three mechanized corps, are they just whipping boys? If they're properly organized and supplied, a flank attack could cut off the encircling forces' "pincer." Simply put, the beginning was like this because the armies were different.
        2. +6
          8 June 2026 06: 03
          Quote: The same LYOKHA
          Stalin made a mistake in the timing of the start of the Great Patriotic War...this mistake cost the people dearly.

          Stalin received various reports about the date of the attack, that the war would be started by Hitler on May 1, then on May 20. Ten days before the start of the war, our intelligence once She informed the Soviet leadership of the expected Wehrmacht attack. While there was still a lot of disinformation, the British were the ones who wanted the war first and foremost, for obvious reasons. It's hard to figure out the exact dates of the attack. But measures were taken, from A. Sharipov's book "Chernyakhovskiy," 1978.
          On June 18 at 13:00 a.m., following a directive from the Military Council of the Baltic Special Military District, Major General Shestopalov, commander of the 12th Mechanized Corps, issued the following order: "...upon receipt of this order, Colonel Chernyakhovsky is to bring all units to combat readiness in accordance with the combat alert plans, but not to declare the alert itself. All work is to be carried out quickly, but quietly, without panic or chatter, and the required rations of portable and transportable supplies necessary for life and combat are to be maintained."
          Here is what Marshal M.V. Zakharov recalls; during the period in question he was the Chief of Staff of the Odessa Military District: “A few days before the war, work was being carried out in the Odessa Military District to equip the fortified areas of the front line… "in accordance with the directive of the General Staff." So the country's leadership understood that war could break out at any moment, and a directive was sent to the troops. How the commanders executed it is another matter. Here's how Air Marshal Golovanov describes Pavlov's conversation with Stalin.
          "No, Comrade Stalin, that's not true! I just returned from the defensive lines. There is no concentration of German troops on the border, and my intelligence is working well. I'll check again, but I consider this simply a provocation. Very well, Comrade Stalin... And what about Golovanov? Okay. [51]

          He hung up.

          - Not in the spirit of the owner. Some bastard is trying to prove to him that the Germans are concentrating troops on our border.
          So it's easy to blame everything on Stalin, and the generals seem to be unaffected. "Caesar's wife must be above suspicion."
        3. man
          +7
          8 June 2026 09: 29
          Quote: The same LYOKHA
          Stalin made a mistake in the timing of the start of the Great Patriotic War...this mistake cost the people dearly.

          Read a book Felix Chuev "Molotov. Semi-powerful ruler"This is essentially an interview with Molotov, easily found online. It pays special attention to the pre-war situation, and Molotov laid it out brilliantly. I hope you'll change your mind after reading it...
        4. +1
          9 June 2026 11: 08
          The invasion dates weren't determined by the IVS, but by the possessed man and his General Staff. The Red Army was equipped and trained systematically, as best its rather meager resources allowed, especially in terms of personnel. How long ago did they get off the peasant horse? Industrializing a benighted peasant country in 10 years is a phenomenal achievement. What they managed to do, they accomplished.
      2. 0
        8 June 2026 04: 18
        Under Peter the Great, testimony was extracted on the rack and with a whip, so what?

        Under Peter the Great, testimony was usually not taken before suspects were arrested. But even then, innocent people were sent to the next world.
      3. +2
        8 June 2026 04: 29
        Quote: The same LYOKHA
        So the fight for all this will be big and bloody.

        Aren't we ready for this?
        1. 0
          8 June 2026 04: 37
          Quote from Uncle Lee
          Aren't we ready for this?

          We are not ready for a local war with Europe...this must be admitted frankly.
          Judging by the way European-made missiles and UAVs are penetrating deep into Russia...they are not ready.
      4. -1
        9 June 2026 01: 46
        Well, since you mentioned the inquisitors yourself, you might have noticed that, in addition to torture itself, they also conducted meticulous studies of its effectiveness, and found that torture is one of the worst sources of information in terms of both time and reliability. Data collection and cross-reference comparisons using several voluntary informants are orders of magnitude more effective. And "quick" torture, which emphasizes pain rather than prolonged psychological torment, occasionally punctuated by torture sessions, results in such "reliability" of information that it's the stuff of fairy tales. The only thing torture is even remotely good for is the preventative threat of punishment; it offers no other practical benefit. So yes, whether it was Yezhov in the NKVD dungeons, Peter on the rack, or the Gestapo, the actual role of torture was simply to force the captured person to admit to a version of events previously formed by the investigators; there was no trace of any search for the truth there.
      5. 0
        9 June 2026 09: 08
        So the fight for all this will be big and bloody. The weak will be beaten, the tolerant will be devoured.
        That's how terrible the "bloody Bolsheviks" were, that for 45 years the entire "civilized world" was afraid to open its mouth to say that it was they who defeated Hitler.
      6. 0
        15 June 2026 19: 17
        Quote: The same LYOKHA
        Under Peter the Great, testimony was extracted on the rack and with a whip, so what?

        The real question isn't how confessions were extracted under Peter the Great and the Gestapo, but whether confessions extracted under torture can be trusted. It's hard to believe that the old Bolsheviks and participants in the civil war turned out to be spies for foreign countries.
    2. +2
      8 June 2026 04: 17
      A rather superficial article with elements 

      Perhaps. I'm not against the Pact, but its arguments are weak. Delaying a war with Germany by establishing a common border? By defending Poland, the USSR would have "delayed" a lot more.
      1. -2
        8 June 2026 04: 23
        There was no need to defend Poland. Especially since the Poles weren't eager (to put it mildly) to cooperate with us militarily. But we had to clearly and unequivocally convey to Hitler that we would consider an attack on Poland a hostile encroachment on the USSR and would declare mobilization.
        1. +1
          8 June 2026 09: 07
          But it was necessary to clearly and unambiguously convey to Hitler that we would consider an attack on Poland a hostile encroachment towards the USSR and would declare mobilization.

          Yes, just the threat of a war on two fronts and Hitler would quickly deflate like a soap bubble - he would sit quietly, like a mouse behind a broom, without making a mark.
          1. 0
            9 June 2026 14: 12
            Nonsense. Hitler wasn't afraid of a "second front" from England and France, so why would he be afraid of the USSR? After he managed to pocket Czechoslovakia, which had a military alliance with France and the USSR?
            In such a situation, Hitler could have quickly offered Poland peace and a military alliance against the USSR. The Poles themselves had dreamed of such an alliance since the time of Pilsudski and would have agreed. And then, to all "civilized nations," the USSR would have appeared as an aggressor, intervening in the conflict without any legal basis.
            And most importantly, it was the PMR and the "Friendship Treaty..." that drove a wedge between the Reich and Japan. The Japanese viewed these agreements as a direct betrayal of Hitler's interests. It was thanks to the PMR that the USSR avoided a two-front war. After the PMR, Japan quickly concluded its own treaty with the USSR and generally complied with it until August 1945.
            1. +1
              10 June 2026 03: 52
              Hitler was not afraid of a "second front" from England and France,

              England and France were the first front, the second front was the USSR, and not small Poland, which the main character didn’t take into account.

              In such a situation, Hitler could quickly offer peace to Poland.

              So he offered Poland peace, on quite honorable terms—a corridor and a few other minor details. The Poles wouldn't even agree to this triviality.
              The USSR would look like an aggressor that intervened in the conflict,

              There was no need to intervene; the threat of a second front would have been enough, and the GG would have found itself blockaded, as in WWI, with the well-known outcome that the German generals and Hitler wanted to avoid. Stalin gave them that opportunity, and hello—World War II.
              It was thanks to the PMR that the USSR avoided a war on two fronts; after the PMR, Japan quickly concluded its treaty with the USSR.

              Japan had nothing to gain from the USSR before Baku; it needed oil. Besides, its forces were bogged down in China, and it couldn't sustain a war even against the weak but numerous Chinese army. Yes, the Japanese Navy was strong, but battleships, destroyers, and submarines couldn't fight on land.
        2. -1
          8 June 2026 12: 49
          It was necessary to clearly and unambiguously convey to Hitler that we would consider an attack on Poland a hostile attempt

          This is protection.
        3. AMG
          +1
          9 June 2026 09: 23
          What could the Soviet leadership possibly know about the threat of a German attack? Would it have announced mobilization? And how would Western countries have reacted to yet another so-called "threat from the East"? Perhaps they would have even promised them all possible assistance. After all, their entire goal was to direct them to war with Soviet Russia.
        4. 0
          9 June 2026 10: 25
          Quote from invisible_man
          But it was necessary to clearly and unambiguously convey to Hitler that we would consider an attack on Poland a hostile encroachment towards the USSR and would declare mobilization.

          But there was nowhere to mobilize. In the Red Army, a major reform began precisely in the summer of 1939, changing the deployment principle. And the entire mobilization component of the army ("troychatka") was reorganized into regular and cadre units, with a planned completion date of 1940.
      2. -1
        8 June 2026 04: 41
        Quote from Ponimatel
        but the arguments are weak.

        Standard. Stupidity must be presented as wisdom. After all, without a common border, a "surprise attack" is impossible.
        1. 0
          8 June 2026 14: 15
          Quote: Puncher
          After all, without a common border, a “surprise attack” is impossible.


          Did the US and Germany share a border? What about Operation Overlord?
          What prevents us from conducting a strategic offensive operation from the territory of our closest ally?
          If the PMR had not existed, Hitler would have turned a weakened Poland into his ally, with the condition of stationing his army on Polish territory. And the USSR would have been forced to fight both the Wehrmacht and the Polish army. Especially since many Poles dreamed (and still dream) of a military alliance with Germany against our country. The situation for the USSR would have been even worse.
          1. -2
            8 June 2026 16: 25
            Quote: Illanatol
            Did the US and Germany share a border? What about Operation Overlord?

            What surprise was there? Or do you think Hitler didn't believe in the landing?
            Quote: Illanatol
            Hitler would have turned a weakened Poland into his ally on the condition that he would station his army on Polish territory.

            What prevented Stalin from creating the Polish People's Republic in his part of Poland as a buffer between Germany and the USSR?
            1. +1
              9 June 2026 14: 20
              Whether he believed it or not, he had poorly prepared his "Atlantic Wall." And the Germans were seriously mistaken about the landing site and its scale. So yes, there was surprise.

              And how would such a "buffer" help? The Wehrmacht would pass through it without even noticing...
              Incidentally, where would Stalin have gotten his "part of Poland" if the PMR hadn't existed? Without the Pact, all of Poland would have become German, there's no doubt about it.
              If in 1938 Hitler swallowed up all of Czechoslovakia despite the objections of the USSR, then in 1939 he could well have gobbled up all of Poland.
              There were pro-German sentiments and sympathies in pre-war Poland (who was the first to conclude a pact with Hitler after he came to power?), but there were not and are not pro-Soviet and pro-Russian sentiments now.
              So your fantasies go far and for a long time...
            2. 0
              9 June 2026 16: 06
              Quote: Puncher
              What prevented Stalin from creating the Polish People's Republic in his part of Poland as a buffer between Germany and the USSR?


              The Reich could well have pulled off another option, occupying Romania. A very convenient foothold. Incidentally, the Poles were counting on this option, too.
              Poland and Romania had a defensive alliance directly aimed against the USSR. The Soviet leadership approached Poland with a proposal to expand the treaty to include Germany. The Poles refused, and even informed Hitler of this refusal. "Come on, friend Adolf, act, and then we'll attack the USSR together."
              Truly, the hyena of Europe...
      3. -1
        8 June 2026 09: 23
        Nonsense. In fact, a different scenario was more likely. Poland, weakened by the conflict, becomes a German satellite. The Germans station troops on Polish territory, as well as Romanian territory. Then comes the attack on the USSR, with the Poles, like the Romanians, participating.

        The USSR offered military aid to Poland after Germany's attack. The Poles refused. They hated the Russians even more than the Germans. It was impossible to protect them under such circumstances.
        In fact, the "division of spheres of influence" in itself was a measure of protection for Poland, but the Poles themselves did not want to use such a measure of their own protection.
      4. AMG
        +1
        9 June 2026 09: 12
        How could Poland have been defended? I wonder if this is anything new? In 1938, Poland refused to allow the Red Army to pass through its territory to defend Czechoslovakia.
        1. 0
          9 June 2026 14: 25
          It would have been possible to say that we would defend the territory of Poland as our own. This alone could have sobered up Schilkgruber.
        2. 0
          9 June 2026 16: 27
          Quote from AMG
          How could Poland have been defended?


          Very simple. Germany and the USSR divided Poland into spheres of influence. In other words, they blocked each other's ability to occupy all of Poland's territory in the event of war. If one of the parties (Germany or the USSR) were to introduce its troops into the other's sphere of influence, then, according to the terms of the Pact, the other party would have a formal pretext for war.
          That is, in the event of German aggression, Hitler would not have been able to introduce his divisions into the Soviet sphere, and half of Poland would have become inaccessible to the Germans.
          And if the Polish leadership had truly cared about its nation and army, events would have unfolded like this. The Wehrmacht invades Poland, the Polish army fights its way west into the Soviet sphere (the border between the spheres ran along rivers—the best line of defense), and that's it... the Germans weren't even allowed to bomb the Soviet sphere. Wait for help from the Allies, England and France...
          Hitler understood this too. That's why he urged Stalin to send troops into eastern Poland. But Stalin only gave the order on September 17, when it became clear the plan had failed. September 17 was the deadline for Britain and France to provide direct military aid to Poland.
          Stalin "underestimated" the Polish leadership and the Polish army, as well as Poland's allies. Instead of retreating east, the Polish leadership and generals rushed south to Romania, abandoning both the country and the army to their fate.
          It is impossible to save and help those who are not ready to save themselves.
    3. -8
      8 June 2026 09: 00
      This agreement allowed Russia to delay the start of the war with Germany.

      Yes, the great geostrategist of that time “delayed” the war by 30 million dead and billions of rubles in damage to the national economy.
    4. +2
      8 June 2026 15: 09
      Starting in 1934, with Poland, all the countries of Gayropoe signed agreements with Hitler; Stalin, in August 1939, was the last one, and that was after it was not possible to reach an agreement with the British and the French.
    5. 0
      9 June 2026 12: 00
      A stupid myth and complete nonsense. Just because a lie is repeated thousands of times doesn't make it true.
    6. 0
      18 June 2026 07: 30
      Quote from invisible_man (Konstantin)
      A rather superficial article with elements of conspiracy theories.

      A well-written, concise overview article, which is essential for our textbooks, especially those on the history of our country, to foster patriotism without succumbing to the "discreet charm of the bourgeoisie" (note: the title of a 1972 Luis Buñuel film satirizing the hypocrisy of modern Western society). The article vividly exposes the falsity of Anglo-Saxon "democracy," which has always tried to destroy Russia through proxy means, as is now clearly demonstrated by the actions of the European Union and NATO, which is once again pushing Germany toward a clash with our country. This article can encourage schoolchildren, and others, to a more in-depth study of the history of the Great Patriotic War, without the deception of "Western values."
  2. +3
    8 June 2026 04: 27
    But for me, everything is brief and to the point (not without nuances, of course), the intricacies of the geopolitics of that period of time are immediately visible.
    A rather superficial article...

    I disagree; to engage zoomers and the alpha generation, a classic academic text needs to be transformed into a dynamic, structured, and understandable narrative.
    All of this is present here...
    1. -3
      8 June 2026 06: 06
      Unfortunately, I don't see any signs of academicism.
  3. +4
    8 June 2026 04: 51
    A picture of the Munich Agreement (How the West surrendered Czechoslovakia to Hitler), when Britain and France surrendered the Sudetenland region of Czechoslovakia to Hitler, effectively merging the allied Czechs

    More of this propaganda nonsense. What do you mean, "ditch"? Did they disarm Czechoslovakia's army or something? The Allies aren't helping, so what do you need an army for? Czechoslovakia had a far stronger army than Germany, especially in terms of technology, and, what's more, a highly developed industry. Of course, it's easier to cowardly surrender and then blame everyone but yourself.
    1. 0
      8 June 2026 05: 26
      The Czechs were deprived of the Sudetenland, a key production area for modern weapons and ammunition. How much war could you wage without replenishing your equipment and ammunition? And then there was the Polish attack, with its claims to Tesin (and elsewhere), coupled with a rebellion by Slovak nationalists in the rear. The only available option was to appeal to the USSR for help, but the Czechs refused direct military assistance (anti-communism prevented it). If the French were defeated in 40 days, how long could the isolated Czech Republic have held out alone, without food or ammunition?
      1. +4
        8 June 2026 05: 41
        Quote: Yuras_Belarus
        The Czechs were deprived of the Sudetenland, the main area for the production of modern weapons and ammunition.

        The French? The British? The USSR? No. The Germans did it. What was the Czechoslovak army supposed to do? Probably resist and destroy those who laid claim to it. That's what an army is for, isn't it? Law-abiding citizens of Czechoslovakia paid taxes for the army, for its armament. For example, they bought 61 SB bombers and a production license from the USSR with foreign currency. By 1938, Czechoslovakia had 350 tanks, including cannons!
        Quote: Yuras_Belarus
        If the French lost in 40 days

        The Wehrmacht of 1938 and 1940 were very different forces.
        1. -3
          8 June 2026 06: 58
          The Czechs were stripped of their factories, warehouses, and fortifications. They faced not only Hitler, but also England, France, Poland, and the nationalists in the rear.
          1. +2
            8 June 2026 07: 26
            Quote: Yuras_Belarus
            The Czechs were deprived of factories, warehouses and fortifications.

            It was Benes who gave them away.
            Quote: Yuras_Belarus
            Against them was not only Hitler, but also England, France, Poland and the nationalists in the rear.

            Start writing fantasy novels.
        2. +1
          8 June 2026 09: 27
          Decisions are made not by generals, but by politicians. The Czechoslovak leadership, led by Beneš, agreed to the terms of the Munich Agreement under pressure from the "democracies." The generals could not act independently.
          The balance of power was still in favor of the Germans.
          1. 0
            8 June 2026 09: 39
            Quote: Illanatol
            The Czechoslovak leadership, led by Beneš, agreed to the terms of the Munich Agreement.

            This so-called deal didn't obligate Czechoslovakia to surrender to Adolf's mercy. Britain and France merely indicated that they would not participate in the event of war. Beneš could easily have given up and prepared for war. Instead, he cowardly vacillated between France and the USSR, hoping that someone would fight back against Germany for him, but not him.
            1. +2
              8 June 2026 14: 08
              Czechoslovakia was economically and financially dependent on these "democracies".
              Benes could not send anyone, and he could not count on success in the war alone.
              According to the Triple Entente (USSR-France-Czechoslovakia), the USSR could provide direct aid to the Czechs only if France also provided such aid. After France's refusal and the French deal with Hitler, the USSR's efforts were practically paralyzed. In short, it was too late to hesitate. Especially since the main credit for this outcome went to the British. They pointed out to France that if the French did provide aid to the Czechs, Britain would refuse further military assistance to France.

              And yes, let's not forget that Czechoslovakia itself suffered from a latent form of fascism at the time. After the collapse of Czechoslovakia, the now "independent" Slovakia simply became a fascist state and an ally of the Reich.
              And there were plenty of supporters of such ideas among the Czechs, too. Czechs not only worked conscientiously for the German army, but were also represented on the Eastern Front, in Waffen SS units.
              There was a guy named Nowotny among the Luftwaffe aces... it's unlikely he was from Prussia. laughing
              But maybe I'm wrong? I'd be interested to read about the Czech Resistance, the Czech anti-fascist partisans. But those were probably a rare breed...
              Now, however, it's the same story. The Czech Republic is not among the last in the Zelensky regime's supporters, diligently supplying weapons and ammunition... many Europeans are sick with Nazism; it's their very own, their very blood...
              1. 0
                8 June 2026 15: 59
                There was a guy named Nowotny among the Luftwaffe aces... it's unlikely he was from Prussia.

                From Austria, like Hitler.
                The youngest in the Novotny family, Walter was born in the city of Gmünd in Austria, into the family of a railway employee.

                Place of Birth
                Gmünd, Lower Austria, Austria[1]

                Coincidence.
                For example, Belov is a common Russian surname.
                And Nikolaus von Below, Hitler's adjutant, a German aristocrat from Pomerania
                1. 0
                  9 June 2026 15: 55
                  Are you aware that in times not so distant, Austrians and Czechs lived in the same state, in the same empire (Austria-Hungary)?
                  Did you know that there were ethnic Germans in the Czech Republic and Slavs living in Austria?

                  This is no coincidence. Slavic tribes once occupied a significant portion of Germany and Austria. The Germans exterminated most of the Slavs, but assimilated some. And some aristocratic families were originally of Slavic origin.
                  1. 0
                    9 June 2026 16: 33
                    And I don't know...

                    I know.
                    In Europe, a lot of things are mixed up.
                    Regardless of the origin of the surname, Novotny and Belov were Germans, not Slavs.
              2. -1
                8 June 2026 16: 22
                Quote: Illanatol
                Benesh couldn't send anyone

                Because he is a coward and a traitor to his country.
                1. +1
                  9 June 2026 15: 49
                  Quote: Puncher
                  Because he is a coward and a traitor to his country.


                  Democratically elected by the majority of the population.
                  And who among the Czechs was different back then? Names, passwords, addresses...
                  And what about the Polish leadership? Who "valiantly" abandoned their people and army when the possibilities for resistance were still untapped and fled to Romania?
                  The Polish army's combat losses were less than 5% of its personnel, and... "Hönde Hoch." The Red Army lost almost 200% of its pre-war strength—and entered Berlin!
                  And what about the French and their Marshal Petain? "Let others fight, and we'll sit in the bushes; others will free us from the Huns."
                  The trend, however. laughing Well, democracy....
    2. -3
      8 June 2026 09: 28
      At the time of Hitler's attack, the Czechoslovak army was incapable of combat. It included many Slovaks, but since Slovakia declared its secession from the Czech Republic on the day of the attack, the Slovaks quit their service and went home, unwilling to fight for the Czechs. In fact, the secession plan had been known for several days, and the Slovaks had already begun leaving. By the time the Germans attacked, there was no one left to fight—the army was disorganized.
      1. -1
        8 June 2026 09: 41
        Quote from solar
        By the time the Germans attacked, there was no one to fight - the army was disorganized.

        It all started when Beneš surrendered the Sudetenland to the Germans, which tore the country apart.
        1. -3
          8 June 2026 10: 36
          Into what parts? The Sudetenland is a small border region. The country and the army collapsed when Slovakia separated; the Czechs had nothing with which to fight the Germans; they no longer had an army. We usually write that the Germans attacked Czechoslovakia, but in fact, it was the Czech Republic that was attacked; Slovakia declared itself an ally of Germany.
          1. 0
            9 June 2026 15: 42
            This "small border region" contained vital defense plants and a powerful defensive line. Czechoslovakia without the Sudetenland was like a snail without a shell—it could be taken with bare hands.
            1. 0
              9 June 2026 18: 04
              No one was planning to take Czechoslovakia, only the Czech Republic. Whether there were fortifications or not was irrelevant; the Czech army had fallen apart by the time of the invasion.
              1. +1
                10 June 2026 07: 43
                And Slovakia simply became an ally of the Reich and was completely obedient to the Germans.

                So, in fact, there was no invasion; the Germans entered without a fight. And it wasn't "the army that fell apart," but rather the political leadership of Czechoslovakia (the democrats, no doubt) simply surrendered their country.
                Just whores...
                1. 0
                  10 June 2026 07: 59
                  At that point, Czechoslovakia no longer existed; Slovakia had seceded, leaving only the Czech Republic. The Slovaks, who made up the majority of the army, simply quit their jobs and went home (this had begun even before Slovakia declared its independence; rumors of it were circulating). Essentially, the Czech Republic had no army at all when Hitler invaded. There was no one to fight the Germans.
    3. -2
      8 June 2026 14: 20
      Would you care to prove that the Czechs were stronger than the Germans back then? On the contrary, the Germans were stronger and had real combat experience and superior command. They demonstrated this clearly in Spain. Where and when did the Czechs shine?
      After the Anschluss of Austria, Germany's industrial potential was many times greater than Czechoslovakia's.
      Besides, the Germans were well motivated. And as for Czechoslovakia, its best enterprises were owned by ethnic Germans, by the way. And there were probably Germans in the Czech army too... so the Czech army wasn't stronger, no need for fairy tales.
    4. +2
      8 June 2026 22: 11
      At Beneš's request, Plenipotentiary Representative Aleksandrovsky telegraphed to Moscow: "... Czechoslovakia is faced with a choice: either start a war with England and France against it, or capitulate...."
      Forty-five minutes later, Aleksandrovsky announced, "Benesh is not insisting on an answer; the government has decided to accept all conditions."
      "The government, after France refused to fulfill its allied obligations, did not want to accept assistance from the USSR" - L. Svoboda.
  4. +6
    8 June 2026 05: 03
    As I understand it, this unconvincing article (about Stalin's pact with Hitler) appeared against the backdrop of Abramovich being sent to Kyiv, and Putin negotiating with Zelensky? The implication is clear! Now the brainwashing of the people will begin, as if to say, look, even the great Stalin made deals with the Nazis.
    1. -5
      8 June 2026 05: 29
      First, prove that Abramovich is in Kyiv and that he's there on Putin's orders. No reprints from Ukrainian media.
      1. +4
        8 June 2026 10: 33
        Abramovich has already proven that he is an infidel with his trip to Turkey with the Azovites.
    2. +1
      8 June 2026 06: 09
      Quote: north 2
      The hint is clear!

      Samsonov wouldn't do such a thing. And how can you compare the incomparable? Germany at that time was a completely independent political entity. But today's Bandera-controlled Ukraine is an object of Western policy. It's not independent. It won't cope without massive Western supplies.
    3. man
      +2
      8 June 2026 10: 20
      Quote: north 2
      Putin should negotiate with Zelensky? The message is clear! Now the brainwashing of the people will begin, like, look, even the great Stalin negotiated with the Nazis.

      I understand that my concerns are not popular, I am disappointed with Trump myself, but I must admit that Democrats are even worse for us...much worse... For example, are we ready to supply Tomahawks to Ukraine?
  5. +2
    8 June 2026 05: 21
    Quote: Puncher
    After all, without a common border, a “surprise attack” is impossible.

    smile What about Pearl Harbol???
    Or is it another?
  6. -1
    8 June 2026 05: 43
    The author stopped at the most interesting point.
    Everyone knows Putin's article about finding no plans for war with Germany in the archives. In other words, the USSR had no intention of going to war with Germany. And on this point, he's plausible—the entire logic of relations between Germany and the USSR after September 1939 suggested Moscow was confident the USSR had found common ground with Hitler. Even the Foreign Ministry, for the convenience of the Germans, replaced the Jewish Litvinov (born Meer-Genoch Moiseevich Wallach) with the Russian Molotov (although this factor is exaggerated. Heinz Guderian and Semyon Moiseevich Kriveshein interacted quite normally during the parade in Brest. The intensification of anti-Semitic policies in Germany occurred later).
    As early as September 28, 1939, we signed a friendship treaty with Germany - the Soviet-German Treaty of Friendship and Border.
    https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Договор_о_дружбе_и_границе_между_СССР_и_Германией
    While many had non-aggression pacts with Germany, few had friendship treaties. War against Nazism was out of the question at that point. The USSR condemned England and France for declaring war on Hitler in response to the attack on Poland and branded them aggressors. Moreover, England and France had initially set the goal of the war precisely to destroy Nazism as a phenomenon, which caused particular irritation in Moscow.
    ...Recently, the ruling circles of England and France have been attempting to portray themselves as fighters for the democratic rights of peoples against Hitlerism, with the British government declaring that its goal in the war against Germany is, allegedly, nothing more and nothing less than "the destruction of Hitlerism." ... But such a war has no justification. The ideology of Hitlerism, like any other ideological system, can be accepted or rejected. This is a matter of political views. But anyone will understand that ideology cannot be destroyed by force; it cannot be ended by war. Therefore, it is not only senseless but also criminal to wage a war "for the destruction of Hitlerism."

    This is from Molotov’s speech in 1939 (Speech by V.M. Molotov // Extraordinary fifth session of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, October 31 – November 2, 1939. Verbatim report. Publication of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, 1939, pp. 7–24.
    http://doc20vek.ru/node/1397 ).
    In other words, the country was being prepared for peaceful coexistence with Hitler and his Nazi ideology. There was no talk of any war with them, and certainly no talk of eradicating Nazism (National Socialism) as a phenomenon; on the contrary, it was condemned. Sometimes you read that we wanted Germany and England to fight each other and then come to them weakened, or that the USSR did not accept Nazism as such, but Molotov's speech makes it clear that we had no such intentions. Just two years later, the transcript of Molotov's speech would be removed from all publications and would remain taboo for a long time, even though it explains much about the USSR's pre-war policy.
    Further more.
    In September 1940, the Axis powers signed the Tripartite Pact, under which Germany, Italy, and Japan pledged to assist each other in establishing a "new world order." In late September 1940, Hitler sent a message to Stalin informing him of the signing of the Tripartite Pact and later invited the Soviet Union to finally join the Axis powers and participate in the division of the "English inheritance" in Iran and India.

    On November 12, 1940, Hitler proposed to Vyacheslav Molotov, who was visiting Berlin, that the USSR join the Axis powers as a full fourth member.[2] The draft Treaty was developed by Joachim von Ribbentrop and was read to Molotov on November 13, 1940, in a bomb shelter.[3] During the bombing of Berlin by the British Air Force.[4]

    https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Пакт_четырёх_держав
    For years, we've been debating why Germany's attack came as such a surprise to the Kremlin. Tons of papers have been written about it, dissertations have been written, Stalin has been accused of being unprepared for war with Germany, and the debate continues to this day. But in reality, the answer is simple: it was unexpected because it didn't fit into the logic of all pre-war relations with Germany. We had excellent relations and were preparing to deepen them and expand them from friendly to allied. There was no point in Hitler attacking the USSR at that moment. Especially since Hitler himself warned against a war on two fronts—in the West and the East. And Stalin knew this perfectly well. That's why he wrote resolutions against the agents' reports, sending them to hell, accusing them of not being agents, but provocateurs. And although negotiations dragged on due to the position of other allies (Italy, for example, was unsatisfied with the USSR's claims to the Bosphorus), we had no fundamental disagreements with Germany itself. As with Japan, by the way, our pre-war problems with them were resolved, the Japanese extracted oil on Sakhalin under an agreement with us, and no conflicts with them were planned.
    How did the war actually start? It was entirely due to Hitler's stupidity. Seeing that England wasn't going to sign the peace agreement he sought, and seeing that alliance negotiations with the USSR were dragging on, he decided England wasn't making peace because it was hoping to secure the USSR as an ally. He concluded that if the USSR were sidelined, England would back down. And when Hitler saw that negotiations with the Kremlin were dragging on, he couldn't think of anything more clever than to attack the USSR. It was hard to imagine a greater stupidity on his part at that moment. The German ambassador in Moscow, who understood the situation, was simply shocked by this decision. Nevertheless, Hitler was so eager to end the war with England that he made such a decision. Hitler's reports showed the USSR to be a weak adversary, and he couldn't imagine that it wouldn't end in two or three weeks, but would drag on for many years. Clearly, the Kremlin couldn't bet on Hitler committing such a foolish act. Sometimes there's no point in looking for complex explanations for something that can be explained by simple human stupidity. :((...
    1. +5
      8 June 2026 07: 00
      Putin worked for a long time in Germany, as did many of our intelligence officers in various countries. And many, whether consciously or unconsciously, begin to sympathize with these countries, especially if these countries are clean and well-maintained, and their people are living well. That's why Putin threw away his party card and became involved in building capitalism in Russia. That's why we are actively destroying everything created by the Soviet people, hoping to build a new capitalist Russia on the ruins. But with such destruction, we could lose Russia altogether. How much territory we have already lost, both from the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union. Some are trying to build cultural capitalism there, others are falling into feudalism, leaving the Soviet Union. All but Belarus find themselves in enemy blocs or on the way to them. It's surprising that both the Russian Empire and the USSR didn't plunder the republics, but developed them in every sense. And after that, of course, Russians resent them. But as the saying goes, "Do no good, and you will not receive evil."
      As capitalists, we will negotiate with global capitalists, thinking that we will be accepted into the capitalist elite. If we were communists, we would fight until victory, without begging the world policeman to stop the Banderites. He has other goals, which are to destroy Russia completely. hi soldier bully
    2. +1
      9 June 2026 10: 37
      Quote from solar
      Everyone knows Putin's article about how no plans for war with Germany were found in the archives. In other words, the USSR had no intention of going to war with Germany.

      This simply means that the General Staff of the Red Army was unable to come up with a new plan and approve it within a year. Because as of May 7, 1940, there were no active plans due to significant changes in the state border.
      1. By the time of the acceptance and surrender of the People’s Commissariat of Defense, there was no operational plan of war, operational plans, both general and private, were not developed and lacked.
      The General Staff has no data on the state of covering the borders. The decisions of the military councils of the districts, armies and the front on this issue are unknown to the General Staff.
      © Act of acceptance of the USSR People's Commissariat of Defense Timoshenko S.K. from Voroshilov K.E.
      Quote from solar
      For years, we've been debating why the German attack came as such a surprise to the Kremlin. Tons of papers have been written about it, dissertations have been written, Stalin has been accused of being unprepared for war with Germany, and the debate continues to this day. But in reality, the answer is simple: it was unexpected because it didn't fit into the logic of all pre-war relations with Germany. We had excellent relations and were preparing to deepen them and expand them from friendship to alliance.

      The Reich also had good relations with Poland. They even shared Czechoslovakia. smile
      The attack was unexpected because it didn't fit into established practice: first diplomatic claims, then war. With Poland, for example, the diplomatic phase dragged on for six months—the Poles even managed to partially mobilize.
      1. -1
        9 June 2026 11: 00
        This only means that the General Staff of the Red Army was unable to come up with a new plan and approve it within a year.

        This means that there was no political will for the plan.
        The Reich also had good relations with Poland.

        They didn't have a friendship treaty or negotiations on joining the alliance with Germany, Italy, and Japan. They had a non-aggression pact, like many others.
        They even managed to carry out a partial mobilization

        We also had a hidden mobilization. "Training camps" (in May 1941, about half a million people received draft notices), they kept people on for extended service, and lowered the age of conscription. And mobilization for the war with Finland had just happened.
    3. 0
      17 June 2026 06: 58
      What a balancer you are! laughing Why are you omitting entire paragraphs from the text? After all, based on your quote:
      Quote from solar
      The aim of the war against Germany is nothing more and nothing less than the "destruction of Hitlerism". ... But such a war has no justification for itself.

      One might think that Molotov meant that the destruction of Hitlerism has no justification for itself. wassat But if you put back what you threw out, replacing it with an ellipsis:
      ...nothing more and nothing less than the "destruction of Hitlerism." It turns out that the British, and along with them the French, supporters of the war declared something like an "ideological war" against Germany, reminiscent of the old religious wars. Indeed, religious wars against heretics and infidels were once in vogue. They, as is well known, led to the most dire consequences for the masses, to economic ruin and the cultural savagery of the peoples. These wars could have achieved nothing else. But these wars took place during the Middle Ages.
      Isn't it back to those medieval times, to those times of religious wars, superstition, and cultural savagery, that the ruling classes of England and France are dragging us? In any case, under the "ideological" banner, a war of even greater scale and even greater dangers for the peoples of Europe and the entire world has now been waged. But such a war has no justification whatsoever.

      Then a completely different meaning emerges! I didn't bother reading any further of your praising, as your cheap, narrow-minded propaganda techniques were already clear enough... wink
  7. +5
    8 June 2026 06: 16
    It's easy to judge ancestors, having both sides' plans in hand. Data on military and economic strength. Gentlemen critics, maybe then you could suggest to Gerasimov and Lavrov what's needed.
  8. -2
    8 June 2026 08: 15
    [quote]This agreement allowed Return to Russia their historical lands, /quote]
    The author should at least look at the map - Russia has not been returned not a patch of land, lands received Ukraine, and Russia received huge expenses for the development of these territories FOR the Ukrainians.

    [quote] delay the start of the war with Germany[/quote]

    not for a single hour It didn't delay the start of the war - and Hitler had no intention of fighting the USSR in 39 - he absolutely didn't have the strength for that and there are no documents about such plans.
    .
    Hitler needed the pact more than the USSR did - he secured a reliable rear and supplies from the USSR for the war with France, tying Stalin's hands and feet.

    He attacked us exactly when he considered himself ready - in 41, having strengthened the army many times over and completed tasks in the west and south, while Stalin quietly waited his turn.
    [Quote]
    1939, Stalin:

    — The war is between two groups of capitalist countries
    (poor and rich in terms of colonies, raw materials, etc.).

    for the redivision of the world, for domination over the world!

    We wouldn't mind if they had a good fight and weakened us.
    each other
    .

    It would be nice if the situation were destabilized by Germany's hands.
    the richest capitalist countries (especially
    England).

    Hitler, without understanding it and without wanting it, is shaking things up,
    undermines the capitalist system


    [/quote].The idea that he would be left alone with Hitler never occurred to him.

    .
    [quote]Don't fall into the trap that Tsar Nicholas II fell into. Do what Imperial Petersburg failed to do. Reach an agreement with Germany.
    [/ Quote] lol The author calls Russia's greatest achievement a "trap," namely, the fact that the main front was in the west, which suffered the main losses, unlike in WWII.

    The author considers the fact that the USSR in..... alone remained against all over Europe- belay ...
    1. man
      +3
      8 June 2026 10: 31
      Quote: Olgovich
      The author should at least look at the map - Russia didn't get back a single piece of land, the land was given to Ukraine.

      And what about the Kaliningrad region? Thank the drunkard in charge for the rest.
    2. man
      +6
      8 June 2026 10: 41
      Quote: Olgovich
      The author considers the achievement to be that the USSR stood alone against all of Europe.

      Such trifles as England and the USA really can be ignored.
      And in general, you What time do you mean?
      Your bias has exceeded all conceivable limits!
      1. +3
        8 June 2026 11: 30
        Quote: mann
        Such trifles as England and the USA really can be ignored.

        Since late 1939, England had viewed the USSR as a rather hostile state. When Germany was waging the "Battle of Britain," the USSR offered no assistance to the British. What if Britain had fallen? What assistance, and from whom, might the Union have received in that case?
        1. -1
          8 June 2026 13: 51
          Why help those who view you as an enemy and recently threatened war? There was one, Lord Curzon...
          Why would Britain have fallen? The Reich couldn't have won with air raids alone, and the strong British navy made Operation Sea Lion virtually impossible.
          From whom? From the same source England itself received its supplies from. From the United States, of course. It's just that the logistics would have been slightly different, with military supplies being delivered via different routes.
        2. 0
          8 June 2026 14: 04
          Quote: Trapper7
          What kind of assistance and from whom could the Union receive in such a case?
          From the Americans. Much more than in reality: the bulk of Lend-Lease went to England.
          1. +1
            8 June 2026 15: 08
            Quote: bk0010
            From the Americans. Much more than in reality: the bulk of Lend-Lease went to England.

            And which route? Let me just remind you that Britain was the main logistics hub. If it left the war, there would be no way to accumulate supplies, and the convoy itself would be forced to march non-stop from the US to Murmansk under constant attack from the Kriegsmarine and Luftwaffe.
            1. 0
              8 June 2026 19: 30
              Quote: Trapper7
              And which route?
              Even if the north and Iran fall away, the Far East remains, there would be something to transport.
              1. +1
                9 June 2026 01: 52
                Strictly limited by the Trans-Siberian Railway—see the example of the Russian Empire during the Japanese War. The loss of Britain as the US's largest logistics hub would have been catastrophic, fortunately, Hitler had little chance of taking it.
                1. 0
                  9 June 2026 15: 33
                  The example doesn't work. Why?
                  1. During the times of the Russian Revolution, the Trans-Siberian Railway was a single-track railway, in 1941 it became a double-track railway, and its capacity doubled.
                  2. The Russian Yamal had to transport not only weapons and ammunition, but also personnel. Kuropatkin had 350 bayonets. The Yankees didn't supply us with soldiers.
                  3. Some Lend-Lease supplies didn't arrive by rail, but flew in... literally. This refers to aviation. Some modest-sized cargo (like medications) also arrived by air.

                  Well, since there was no chance, there's no point in wasting time on fantasies. England would have had to fight anyway. The English had appropriated too much for themselves before, while Italy and Japan had their own interests...
            2. +1
              9 June 2026 10: 39
              Quote: Trapper7
              If it withdraws from the war, it will not be possible to accumulate supplies, and the convoy itself will be forced to march from the USA to Murmansk without stopping under constant attacks from the Kriegsmarine and Luftwaffe.

              Convoys were already trudging from the US to Murmansk past Britain, via Iceland, which had been controlled by the "neutral" US since 1941, replacing Britain.
              1. 0
                9 June 2026 11: 56
                Quote: Alexey RA
                Convoys were already trudging from the US to Murmansk past Britain, via Iceland, which had been controlled by the "neutral" US since 1941, replacing Britain.

                Greetings Alexey hi
                But some of the convoys were formed directly in British ports and were accompanied by the British fleet... It seems to me that this is a very important component of convoy safety.
                1. +1
                  10 June 2026 16: 28
                  Quote: Trapper7
                  But some of the convoys were formed directly in British ports and were accompanied by the British fleet...

                  So this is from the portion of the LL that was transiting to us through Britain. If Britain is the end, then it will be removed from the LL program; there's nothing left to export, so the LL will go to the USSR without intermediaries. This shouldn't affect the quantity—after all, the portion of LL that went before Britain will become "nobody's."
                  As for the escort... one can only hope that John Tovey and other British admirals will not follow Darlan's path and instead lead the fleet to Canada and the USA.
        3. man
          0
          8 June 2026 14: 14
          Quote: Trapper7
          What if Britain had fallen?

          As we know, "history knows no subjunctive mood."
          And then, after Chamberlain was replaced by Churchill, it became clear that the British would fight to the last and, even having lost their homeland, would continue the war.
          "In 1940, public opinion in Great Britain began to prepare for a possible invasion of the island by the Wehrmacht. The Prime Minister addressed the House of Commons Winston Churchill. He promised that the British would fight on the beaches, the hills, the streets—wherever the enemy appeared. And if the Germans captured the island ("which I don't believe for a moment"), the empire's colonies and the New World would sooner or later save Europe.."
          Those British were very stubborn...
    3. -1
      8 June 2026 13: 45
      Quote: Olgovich
      The start of the war was not delayed for a single hour, and Hitler had no intention of fighting the USSR in 39 – he had absolutely no strength for this and there are no documents about such plans.

      Of course he didn't intend to. Hitler was a great humanist, and the idea of ​​living space in the east was pure fiction. And France, Great Britain, and Poland were very friendly countries, downright passionate.
      Snake and toad level, what should we choose?
      And if possible, it's better to see how they deal with each other. The best outcome.
      It was impossible to foresee that two superpowers (Great Britain and France) would screw up so badly with Poland (which had supposedly been able to deal with Germany alone). And then, the Franks and Brits weren't in a hurry to help the Poles. To hell with such allies. Stalin understood the situation correctly.
      And after June 21, Britain itself asked to become an ally, so how did it help the USSR?
      Before the Battle of Kursk, the Allies fought against 4,5 Wehrmacht divisions. (Crete, Dieppe, and Norway are not included.) Only Sicily was successful, and even then, three Wehrmacht divisions fled to the mainland.
      We defeated the Germans (and all of Europe) almost single-handedly as early as October 1942. True, neither we nor the Germans knew it, but they had already guessed. In just 1,5 days, the war was over.

      Quote: Olgovich
      He names Russia's greatest achievement, namely, that the main front was in the West, which suffered the main losses, unlike in WWII.

      The greatest achievement was the collapse of the empire, while fighting against the weakest forces of the pro-German coalition, and with minimal losses. It didn't even require talent; it required a "genius" to accomplish such a feat. This was the greatest achievement of imperial Russia.
      1. +1
        8 June 2026 17: 02
        Hitler was a great humanist, and the idea of ​​living space in the East was a fabrication.

        No, that's a distortion. Hitler wrote about Lebensraum in the early 20s, when many in the world were convinced that the USSR was unviable, wouldn't last long, and that anarchy and anarchy would reign throughout the former Russian Empire. The actual attack on the USSR was for an entirely different reason.
        Snake and toad level, what should we choose?

        They chose an alliance with the National Socialists. With the Nazis, as they were called in the world. It was an excellent choice :(( And only Hitler's stupidity saved us from such an alliance.
        (Crete, Dieppe, Norway are not included)

        Why would that be? We count everything. The Allies fought at sea and in the air, in case you weren't aware. Things we couldn't do.
        We defeated the Germans (and all of Europe) almost single-handedly already in October 1942.

        The Germans had no idea about this. Until 1943, they lived in peacetime. They worked single shifts, there were no military restrictions, vacations, resorts. Only in 1943, after Goebbels's famous speech at the Sports Palace, did the Germans begin to shift the German economy to a wartime footing. But it was too late; the Allies began strategic bombing, preventing them from fully converting the economy to military production. For example, the Armaments Directorate's order called for 1237 Tiger II tanks; in reality, only 492 were built, and of inferior quality at that. And so it was across the board. The bombing prevented the Germans from properly realizing the progress they had made, which they had deliberately held back. And then, when the Germans realized it, it was too late—the Allied bombing began.
        1. 0
          8 June 2026 21: 15
          Quote from solar
          The real attack on the USSR was for a completely different reason.

          Did Stalin steal Eva Braun from the Fuhrer?
          Quote from solar
          They chose an alliance with the National Socialists.

          Clearly, they decided to take India back from Britain. Sounds familiar.
          Quote from solar
          The Allies fought at sea and in the air, in case you weren't aware.

          In the know. And also in space and on other planets.
          And what is it like on earth?
          Quote from solar
          They lived in peacetime until 1943.

          So they declared total war. And six months later, they were completely routed—and the Germans weren't the same.
          And all the allies were hanging around at sea, in the air and in near-Earth space (and even higher).
          Quote from solar
          The Allies began strategic bombing and did not allow them to fully develop their economy for military production.

          And so, in 1944, the Germans' military production peaked. By the end of the war, they had plenty of equipment, even fuel, but no people.
          This is what it means to fight on the ground.
          1. +1
            8 June 2026 22: 56
            And that is why in 1944 the Germans had the maximum output of military industry.

            There was no maximum, the Allied bombings did not allow this to be done.
            And at the end of the war there was a lot of equipment

            Only in your imagination, perhaps. Not to mention that the equipment requires fuel, maintenance, and trained personnel, not the first Hitler Youth you meet.
            Stalin stole Eva Braun from the Führer?...I know. And also in space and on other planets... And all the allies were hanging around at sea, in the air, and in near-Earth space (and even higher).

            Don't take these pills anymore, they're not for you.
            So they declared total war. And six months later, they were completely routed—and the Germans weren't the same.

            They suffered complete defeat in 1945, and talk of total war began in early 1943. Which brings us back to the topic of your pills.
            hi
            1. -1
              9 June 2026 07: 12
              Quote from solar
              There was no maximum, the Allied bombings did not allow this to be done.

              Learn the material and you will be surprised.
              Quote from solar
              and not the first Hitler Youth you come across.

              The result of the war on earth. And who fought there?
              Quote from solar
              Don't take these pills anymore, they're not for you.

              I take it all the time (I'm 71), it helps. I recommend it to you too, you'll talk less nonsense.
              Quote from solar
              They suffered complete defeat in 1945,

              Then capitulation. And in 1943, our forces broke the Wehrmacht's back (more precisely, in November 1942).
              The Germans, in the conditions of total war (summer 1943), created a group that was supposed to encircle a significant part of two fronts and advance to the east 200-250 km.
              As a result of their "successful" actions, they flew beyond the Dnieper in four months (up to 600 km from some starting points; our forces even took Zhitomir at the tail end of the offensive). Voila.
            2. -1
              9 June 2026 15: 38
              Fairy tales. Learn the basics. In 1944, the Reich produced far more tanks and aircraft than in 1941. The effect of the massive bombing was negligible, and the Germans moved many factories underground.
              Off the top of my head... when did the Me262 go into production?
              1. +1
                9 June 2026 16: 06
                In 1944, the Reich produced far more tanks and aircraft than in 1941.

                In 1941, Germany was living in peacetime. Tanks were produced in small numbers, most of them obsolete and with poor performance. Naturally, more were produced in 1944. It's called the low-base effect. But nowhere near as many as planned.
                The effect of mass bombing was low

                What makes you think that? The Germans weren't allowed to ramp up production to full capacity.
                For example, the Armament Directorate's order called for 1237 Tiger II tanks to be manufactured, but only 492 were actually produced, and of inferior quality. And so it was across the board.

                The Germans moved many factories underground.

                This did not contribute to production growth; it was a necessary measure to ensure at least some production.
                When did the Me262 go into production?

                The first forty aircraft entered service in October 1944 under the command of Walter Nowotny. They first flew between March and July 1942. They attempted to begin production in 1942, but the Germans were unable to do so for two years due to bombing raids. The first small batch was delivered to the troops only by the end of 1944. A total of 1433 aircraft were produced across all modifications, which varied significantly in design—fighters, reconnaissance aircraft, trainers, attack aircraft, bombers, and interceptors—a paltry number by the standards of the time.
                1. 0
                  10 June 2026 07: 39
                  1. However, more is not so little. Were the T-3 and T-4 "obsolete tanks" in 1941? And who had more modern tanks back then? The US? England?
                  2. The Germans expanded as much as they could. Consider that they also utilized the industrial potential of France and the Czech Republic.
                  3. The Tigers were certainly not good enough because of the bombing of the Reich.
                  And the Reich didn't lose for lack of weapons, since even the Volkssturm was able to arm itself. There were plenty of weapons and ammunition—there weren't enough soldiers, so schoolchildren and old men had to be sent into battle. The German soldiers fertilized the Soviet soil with their carcasses.

                  1433 isn't that small. And even that number couldn't be fully staffed with pilots. The reason? It's already been stated.
                  1. 0
                    10 June 2026 08: 14
                    Were the T-3 and T-4 "obsolete tanks" in 1941?

                    Half of them were T1 and T2 tanks at the start of the war. The T3 wasn't the most modern tank either. The T4 was more or less a "butt," but it only became a proper tank in 1942 after the introduction of a long-barreled gun.
                    3. There were simply not enough of them.
                    And the Reich did not lose due to a lack of weapons, since even the Volkssturm was able to arm itself.

                    Yes, cheap, primitive Fauspatrones for suicide missions. Ersatz weapons. Tanks, aircraft, anti-tank guns—no, never heard of them.
                    1433 is not that little.

                    There weren't just a few of them, but a negligible number. That's the total number of aircraft of all types, and they were all different. Even if Nowotny had been an ace three times over, he couldn't do anything with 40 planes.
                    1. 0
                      10 June 2026 09: 47
                      Quote from solar
                      Half of them were T1 and T2 tanks at the start of the war. The T3 wasn't the most modern tank either. The T4 was more or less a "butt," but it only became a proper tank in 1942 after the introduction of a long-barreled gun.

                      The T-4 was a tank for close infantry support, while the T-3 was, in 1941, the most modern tank for breakthroughs and exploitation. And in terms of tanks, we were roughly equal in 1941. But we "successfully" destroyed them in the MK (and a significant number of them on the march).
                      The T-26 is a tankette, and the BT series is just that—a tankette with a powerful engine crammed into the back. It's not suitable for front-line use; it's also weak as a support tank. It's fine for reconnaissance and raiding missions, but they're not breakthrough tanks or tanks for exploiting success. But we destroyed them in attacks.
                      After all, both the T-26 and BT are excellent mobile anti-tank weapons. And if we had used them this way from the very beginning of the war (Katukov spotted this trend near Moscow and repeated it at the Kursk Bulge), we would have knocked out all the Wehrmacht tanks as far as Smolensk and Kyiv.
                      1. 0
                        10 June 2026 10: 16
                        T-3 in 1941 was the most modern tank for breakthrough and development of success.

                        By World War II standards, this was a small-caliber gun. The main weapon at the start of the war was the 37mm gun; even tanks with 50mm guns weren't even produced until just before the war. Production ceased in 1943.
                        And if we had used them in this way from the very beginning of the war (Katukov had already caught this trend near Moscow and repeated it at the Kursk Bulge), then we would have knocked out all the Wehrmacht tanks up to Smolensk and Kyiv.

                        It's quite possible that history would have turned out differently. :((
                      2. 0
                        10 June 2026 11: 25
                        Quote from solar
                        By World War II standards, this was a small-caliber gun. The majority of the guns at the start of the war were 37mm caliber; even tanks with 50mm guns only began to be produced just before the war began.

                        The anti-tank defense was weak. Our guys did figure out that for anti-tank defense, it was better to organize anti-tank defense zones (5-6 batteries), and not from two battalions taken from anti-tank brigades or regiments. But from anti-tank regiments of 5-6 batteries, with sapper units. And it worked as a unified whole.
                        But we didn't have any mobile tank destroyer reserves. They tried to use the aforementioned tanks (which were tankettes) as tanks, and unfortunately, they were mercilessly destroyed (for example, the 58th TD near Moscow was wiped out in a few days of fighting, the divisional commander shot himself). Instead, create mobile detachments (five tanks, a platoon of engineers, and a platoon of 82mm mortars), all on wheels, and set up ambushes for brazenly advancing tank columns. They struck the main forces (leaving reconnaissance and the gas protection zone open), stopped them, and retreated to the next line. And while they deployed and figured out who they were dealing with, having knocked out and blown up several vehicles, they retreated to the next line. And this should have been started earlier, in the support zone (the forward field), and not launched a blind attack with several MK tanks.
                        And the creation of the 30th MK (with the most stupid OSHS in tank regiments) in the spring of 1941, is essentially the exclusion of the BT component from the Red Army.
                        Then and
                        Quote from solar
                        It is quite possible that history would have turned out differently.
                    2. +1
                      13 June 2026 09: 16
                      Less than half of those involved in "Barbarossa." And let's not forget that the Germans made extensive use of captured tanks, French and Czech, which are often forgotten.

                      And most importantly, the tank comparison is completely out of place. Firstly, German tactics didn't involve using tanks against tanks. The Germans typically introduced tanks into battle after the enemy's tanks had been largely destroyed by dive bombers or artillery. Artillery was part of the German tank divisions, as were the Luftwaffe personnel responsible for combat coordination between the air force and the Panzerwaffe.
                      Secondly, tanks are effective when they fight in combination with artillery, motorized infantry, and, again, aviation. So how much motorized infantry (not on paper, but in reality) did the Red Army have overall, and in tank divisions and corps in particular? And how much towed or self-propelled artillery did it have in the initial period of WWII? What about dive bombers or attack aircraft, and what was the level of combat coordination?
                      What was the situation with cargo vehicles in the Wehrmacht and the Red Army? What kind of trucks were they, and were their characteristics comparable? How were supplies, command, and communications handled? Are they comparable? Even the best tank, without the lack of fuel and ammunition or the support of other branches of the armed forces, won't last very long.
                      The Germans initially had the OK. Enemy tanks were destroyed by other weapons, and German tanks were quite effective against Soviet infantry, fortunately for the latter, which lacked standard anti-tank weapons.

                      Faust rounds and cumulative grenades are anti-tank weapons. Cheap, but quite effective when used en masse. Certainly better than Molotov cocktails.

                      Whatever, 1433 isn't that small for a fighter. The types are different, but their purpose is similar: a fighter is a fighter. And piston-engine fighters continued to be developed in the Reich until the very end of the war. The Me-109s of early WWII and the end of the war were practically different aircraft, with performance characteristics no less different than those of the I-16 and La-7.
                      1. 0
                        13 June 2026 09: 34
                        Faust cartridges and cumulative grenades are anti-tank weapons. Inexpensive, but quite effective when used en masse.

                        Suicide weapons.
                        Never mind, 1433 isn't that little for a fighter.

                        You don't read me.
                        A total of 1433 units of all modifications were produced, which differed significantly in design - fighters, reconnaissance, training, attack aircraft, bombers, interceptors
                      2. +1
                        13 June 2026 13: 16
                        Those who used Faust cartridges (essentially grenade launchers), especially in urban combat conditions (and that's how they were usually used), had a much better chance of survival than those who used Molotov cocktails.

                        Fighters and interceptors – are they really that different? Interceptors are also fighters. And fighters were the most numerous. And besides the Me 262, there were other jet aircraft as well. The fact remains that the Reich was at the forefront of jet aviation development at the end of the war. All the Allied bombing raids couldn't slow down the Reich's military-technical development. The best and most advanced submarines with snorkels, airborne radars on night interceptors, electronic warfare systems ("screen"), etc.

                        Technology developed and there was plenty of it... but the "true Aryans" for the most part became a vanishing breed. The Reich lost the war of attrition (which, in essence, is what WWII was) to the USSR. When the Allies opened a second front in Normandy, Germany's best forces were already close to exhaustion.
                      3. 0
                        13 June 2026 20: 40
                        Those who used Faust cartridges (essentially grenade launchers), especially in urban combat conditions (and that's how they were usually used), had a much better chance of survival than those who used Molotov cocktails.

                        By 1945, no one was using bottles anymore. The Faust-Patro is not a modern rocket launcher, despite its outward resemblance. Its grenade flew slightly further than a hand grenade.
                        When the Allies opened a second front in Normandy

                        They discovered Lend-Lease and strategic bombing of Germany much earlier.
                      4. 0
                        14 June 2026 08: 51
                        Quote from solar
                        They discovered Lend-Lease and strategic bombing of Germany much earlier.

                        At the time of the Battle of Stalingrad, we had received 4% of the LL (we'll get 26%). And this is a radical change (which we didn't know about yet). And then Anders stole half of the LL from 1942. And if you're basing our success on the LL, then why did the British, who received about 30% of the LL at that time (they'll get 2/3), fight four Wehrmacht divisions? Or is this the wrong LL—ineffective?
                        Strategic bombing, this was at the end of 1943. And judging by the results of German industry, they didn't help much. The Germans didn't have enough technology; they didn't have enough people.
      2. -3
        9 June 2026 08: 22
        Quote: chenia
        To foresee that two superpowers (Great Britain and France) with Poland (which generally assumed it could cope with Germany alone) would screw up like this it was not possible.

        I didn't even have enough brains to learn the lessons of WWI
        Quote: chenia
        The greatest achievement is the collapse of the empire

        collapse after the VORs
        Quote: chenia
        This was the great achievement of imperial Russia.

        rotten, decayed, disappeared communist system - WITHOUT any world war = This was the great achievement of the communist regime
        1. 0
          9 June 2026 13: 29
          Quote: Olgovich
          I didn't even have enough brains to learn the lessons of WWI

          The British, that's for sure. They did everything to get the Germans to rise up, and they were a problem for the French, the Poles, and the USSR. And the USSR also had problems with the Brits, the Poles, and the Franks (they knew the islanders' nature and were more loyal to us). And then they imposed the Germans on us.
          Quote: Olgovich
          collapse after the VORs

          YES, after the Great Patriotic War, we had to repair the collapse left by the THIEVES. These THIEVES robbed and raped Rus' for centuries. And the further they went, the more they degenerated, confidently turning Russia into a semi-colony. These high-society THIEVES nearly dragged slavery into the 20th century. At the same time as the Black people of the United States, the titular nation gained freedom (others, like Poles and Finns, had no problem with this). This is how the elite hated their own people.
          And then all the Olgovichs are surprised why such a cruel response came.
          Quote: Olgovich
          rotten, decomposed, disappeared, communal building

          The law of degeneration of the elites, Stalin knew how to deal with it.
          1. -1
            10 June 2026 09: 58
            Quote: chenia
            The British have

            among the Stalinists, naively rejoicing at the war in the West
            Quote: chenia
            YES after the VOSR and had to restore the collapse after the VORs

            Look out the window - WHAT "THIVES" - 15 states have been restored
            Quote: chenia
            These high society THIEVES almost dragged slavery into the 20th century

            Thieves dragged us into the 20th century—collective farms and the ban on quitting
            Quote: chenia
            And then all the Olgovichs are surprised why such a cruel response came.
            Quote: Olgovich

            Who did you fly from?
            In the first Council of People's Commissars, there was one worker from the Hatters - and he was condemned as a traitor.
            Quote: chenia
            The law of elite degeneration, Stalin knew how to deal with it

            belay lol laughing So after Stalin there remained... a super elite?! Which...unanimously condemned his cult?
            1. 0
              10 June 2026 14: 00
              Quote: Olgovich
              among the Stalinists, naively rejoicing at the war in the West

              Eccentric, the experience of WWI shows:
              1. long-term positional warfare.
              2. The Germans would have to fight on two fronts—Poland and France, with Britain. And if they had struck the Germans from the west while Poland was still holding out, or even later (the Germans had nothing to cover their backs with), everything could have been different.
              3. He also suggests that the USA will also intervene against the Germans.
              4. Also, the theory of deep penetrations was just a theory (and in practice, German columns in Austria were stuck on the roads, without any resistance, but with greetings). There were tanks, and WWI, but the pace of the offensive didn't really increase.
              But why the hell would Stalin get involved in these showdowns?
            2. -1
              10 June 2026 14: 24
              Quote: Olgovich
              Look out the window - WHAT "THIVES" - 15 states have been restored

              Yes, the thieves who came after the communists—and those same thieves (if they had won the Civil War)—would have also gained the Ural, Siberian, and Far Eastern republics. Poland and Finland would have seceded immediately, the Baltics and Ukraine gradually. But before the thieves who came after the communists, the country was united.
              A country that had complete influence in Europe up to the Elbe.
              Quote: Olgovich
              They dragged us into the 20th century—collective farms and a ban on quitting

              They dragged it out so long that the urban population doubled from 17% to 34%. The city simply took as much as it could digest, provide jobs, train, and employ in newly built and newly opened enterprises. There was no need to breed prostitutes, thieves, and lumpen in the cities, as had been the case under the tsar.
              Quote: Olgovich
              in the first Council of People's Commissars - one worker of the hat makers

              You see, he's completely tired. The Council of People's Commissars wasn't directly involved in this. He was even quite liberal (up until a certain point) and would sometimes let people go on parole. But the common people were slaughtering the former lords and their excellencies. Why would that be?
              Quote: Olgovich
              Which...unanimously condemned his cult?

              The key word is AFTER.
              AFTER that, the elite became less and less responsible for their actions.
              The An-2 is beyond our capabilities. The money was squandered, and there's no result.
              1. -2
                11 June 2026 08: 08
                Quote: chenia
                Yes, the thieves who came after the communists

                It was the communists who created the 16 Ussrs with the right to secede, and they seceded. That's what "united" means.
                Quote: chenia
                And there was no need to breed prostitutes, thieves and lumpen in the cities, as was the case under the tsar.

                It's better to breed bugs and comedians in thousands of district and regional committees, and there would be more thieves and prostitutes under them - remember this
                Quote: chenia
                You see I'm very tired.

                You're completely out of your mind - SNK is the one who's taken up this.
                Quote: chenia
                The key word is AFTER.
                AFTERWARDS, the elite became less and less responsible for their actions

                fool lol So WHERE is your Stalinist elite, created by him and unanimously condemned... cult?!
                Quote: chenia
                unable to build

                They still haven't been able to feed the country - and this is despite having the largest arable land in the world - a disgrace...
                1. 0
                  11 June 2026 16: 57
                  Quote: Olgovich
                  these were the communists,

                  These were members of...
                  Quote: Olgovich
                  who created 16 Ussrs

                  The tsars started this, and it continued vigorously under the Revolutionary War. But the unified state that had been created fell apart when the communists left. All blame goes to the liberals.
                  Quote: Olgovich
                  in thousands of regional regions and other regions

                  Under Stalin they answered with their heads, and they succeeded.

                  Quote: Olgovich
                  , and there were more thieves and prostitutes under them - remember this

                  So, thieves were constantly getting their foreheads smeared with brilliant green and the Gulag. And high society drones were incompetent, just chewing their guts out. And who knows about prostitutes? They were held accountable. Well, the Kshesinskys were always hanging around in power, but under the communists they weren't showered with diamonds or taken to Paris. In short, they were much cheaper for the treasury.
                  Quote: Olgovich
                  SNK took care of this

                  Yes, when it was necessary to answer.
                  Quote: Olgovich
                  your Stalinist elite created by him

                  Scientists, designers, teachers, doctors, skilled workers, who created the superpower.
                  This is not enough for you.
                  Quote: Olgovich
                  They still haven't been able to feed the country, despite having the largest arable land

                  I'm over 70 years old, and I don't remember anyone going hungry in my time. And everything was available, if not always in stores, then certainly at the markets.
                  It was you (we were about the same age) who constantly insisted that we weren't getting enough to eat. Complaints to your parents.
                  Socialism - from each according to his ability, to each according to his work (and this is the realization of abilities).
                  That's where your complexes and hatred towards that country come from.
                  1. -1
                    12 June 2026 06: 27
                    Quote: chenia
                    These were members

                    KPSS, you haven't created any others.
                    Quote: chenia
                    The tsars started this, and it continued vigorously under the Revolutionary War. But the unified state that had been created fell apart when the communists left. All blame goes to the liberals.

                    It's a lie—it was the communists who created it. Read history and the Ukrainian constitution.
                    Quote: chenia
                    So the thieves had the GULAG and their foreheads were constantly smeared with green paint

                    Why are there 10 times more of them than in Russia?
                    Quote: chenia
                    Yes, when it was necessary to answer.

                    Before the Thieves there was nothing, with the Thieves it all started
                    Quote: chenia
                    Scientists, designers, teachers, doctors, skilled workers, who created the superpower.
                    This is not enough for you.

                    The 22nd Congress of the elite UNANIMOUSLY condemned the cult.

                    And scientists, designers, teachers, doctors, skilled workers - were before you, were without you and will be without you
                    Quote: chenia
                    I'm over 70 years old, and I don't remember anyone going hungry in my time. And everything was available, if not always in stores, then certainly in the markets.

                    shameful food stamps are the pinnacle of your "achievements"
                    Quote: chenia
                    Socialism - from each according to his ability, to each according to his work (and this is the realization of abilities)

                    a particularly huge army of party parasites and other nomenkaturists
                    Quote: chenia
                    That's where your complexes and hatred towards that country come from.

                    the country is beautiful, as are the people, but the alien regime has nothing to do with it and has disappeared
                    1. +1
                      13 June 2026 08: 00
                      Quote: Olgovich
                      It was the communists who created it - read history and the constitutions of the Ussrs

                      But the liberals destroyed the country.
                      Quote: Olgovich
                      Why are there 10 times more of them than in Russia?

                      HA HA HA
                      Not just anyone can pull this off, only those with unique AI. You weirdo, in the USSR, they'd smear your forehead with green paint for stealing 10 rubles.
                      Before the USSR, in the Russian Empire, and after in the Russian Federation, they stole and continue to steal two orders of magnitude more.
                      Your AI is simply too toxic, and its programs are tuned to the Ogonyok magazine of the late 80s. It's too late to change anything, so keep on playing the fool.
                      Quote: Olgovich
                      Before the Thieves there was nothing, with the Thieves it all started

                      Before the Great Patriotic War, the Russian Empire was a shabby, unwashed place. It was no longer capable of anything. They were getting kicked from all sides.
                      And after the USSR. Well, here you need to turn off your toxic AI and open your eyes.
                      Quote: Olgovich
                      shameful food stamps are the pinnacle of your "achievements"

                      Well, that was probably in your backwater village. But you were unlucky. You were just unlucky, that's why there's so much bitterness. I remember there were coupons for tires, batteries (I had a VAZ 2103), and even then, they weren't coupons, but a queue, then they sent a postcard. And for prestigious goods like furniture and appliances (although I remember seeing a cool Romanian set for 5 rubles on open sale).


                      Quote: Olgovich
                      a particularly huge army of party parasites and other nomenkaturists

                      Again, there are two orders of magnitude more of these before the Great Patriotic War and after the USSR. To understand this, see above.

                      Quote: Olgovich
                      but the alien regime has nothing to do with it and has disappeared

                      Yes, the shitty autocracy has perished, and the autocratic one will perish too democracy.
                      1. -2
                        14 June 2026 08: 01
                        Quote: chenia
                        But the liberals destroyed the country.

                        The communists created 16 sovereign states- they are here today
                        Quote: chenia
                        You weirdo, in the USSR, if you stole 10 rubles, you'd have to smear your forehead with green paint.

                        There are 10 times more thieves in the USSR than in Russia - see statistics
                        Quote: chenia
                        Before the Revolution of 1917, there was a bast-shoe, unwashed Russian Empire.

                        After the VOR, there was the unwashed, lousy RSFSR, which only washed itself out decades later to the Russian level.
                        Quote: chenia
                        Well, it was probably in your shabby village.

                        Quarterly coupons for women's panties and butter, etc., have arrived in cities everywhere.
                        Quote: chenia
                        Again, BEFORE the Great Patriotic War and after the USSR there are two orders of magnitude more of these.

                        don't talk nonsense
                        Quote: chenia
                        Yes, the shitty autocracy has perished, and it will perish too autocratic democracy.

                        has already disappeared in the form of a big regime
                      2. -2
                        14 June 2026 08: 35
                        Quote: Olgovich
                        the communists created

                        Great united state.
                        Quote: Olgovich
                        6 sovereign states - that's what they are today

                        I'll add hostile ones. Achieving democracy.
                        Quote: Olgovich
                        There are 10 times more thieves in the USSR than in Russia.

                        They were in prison, and now they're free, and even in good positions. Wake up and open your eyes (although, with you, things are hopeless).
                        Quote: Olgovich
                        in decades

                        Decades later, the USSR put all of Europe in trouble, not just Germany.
                        Quote: Olgovich
                        coupons for women's panties once a quarter

                        You're unlucky with the village. But then again, being without panties isn't so bad. I went out into the field, and there were bent-over girls in the garden beds. I knocked back some moonshine, like I'd been to a strip club.
                      3. -3
                        15 June 2026 07: 09
                        Quote: chenia
                        Great United State

                        where is it? there are 15 states created in 1917-1940
                        Quote: chenia
                        sat in prisons

                        The Soviet system was such that people were forced to steal 10 times more.
                        Quote: chenia
                        Within decades, the USSR had put all of Europe in trouble, not just Germany.

                        The price of 27 million corpses
                        Quote: chenia
                        You're unlucky with your village.

                        The country is unlucky with you, coupon-getters
                    2. 0
                      15 June 2026 09: 39
                      Quote: Olgovich
                      It's a lie—it was the communists who created it. Read history and the Ukrainian constitution.

                      Poland and Finland had their own constitutions and parliaments. The latter, in fact, had its own currency, tax system, and judicial system. And in the territories of the Emirate of Bukhara and the Khanate of Khiva, infidels (non-Muslims) were completely banned from entering, with the exception of tsarist officials, merchants, and military personnel.
                      What a normal, united state! good Which awaited the fate of Austria-Hungary...
            3. +2
              15 June 2026 09: 18
              Quote: Olgovich
              Look out the window - WHAT "THIVES" - 15 states have been restored

              If it hadn't been for the Bolsheviks, the state would have collapsed back in 1917-18, like Austria-Hungary. And not into 15 states, but into many more!
              1. -1
                15 June 2026 12: 50
                Quote from: AllX_VahhaB
                If it weren't for the Bolsheviks, the state would have collapsed back in 1917-18.

                Apart from the outskirts, nothing fell apart - Novorossiya, Slobozhanshchina, Bessarabia, the north of Central Asia, Belarus, Siberia, Russian territories, the Far East. They themselves declared themselves Russia.

                If Georgia and Armenia left, Azerbaijani, South Asia is not scary.
  9. 0
    8 June 2026 08: 34
    Damn, without a spicy one, How, I even read a couple of paragraphs before I realized who the author was
  10. +1
    8 June 2026 08: 45
    In short, why and for what reason did the USSR suddenly have to fight Germany over Poland, especially after the elves lifted the Versailles restrictions on Germany, allowed Germany to annex Austria, and gave Czechoslovakia to Germany?
  11. 0
    8 June 2026 09: 09
    As I usually say, the entire history of mankind is wars, wars, and more wars.
    Peaceful periods are little remembered and are lost in the centuries
    If we were to throw out all these wars, attacks, repelling attacks and other things related to this from all the chronicles that have survived to this day, there would basically be nothing left
    man is a warlike creature
    1. -2
      8 June 2026 11: 02
      As I usually say, the entire history of mankind is wars, wars, and more wars.
      It was in one of Lenin's works that the idea was thrown out that, given the existence of capitalist states, wars are inevitable, because capitalists are constantly fighting for colonies, territories, and trying to squeeze profitable businesses out of each other.
      Dialectics
    2. +4
      8 June 2026 12: 40
      Quote from sdivt
      man is a warlike creature

      However, there's an important nuance: those who truly want to fight are mostly those who aren't actually fighting—primarily politicians. Committed volunteers are becoming increasingly rare in the modern world. If you look at real armed conflicts, where real fighting begins, half the population tends to flee to other countries. People don't want to end up on the battlefield en masse—and this is a persistent global trend that will only grow.

      Even the United States, arguably the most belligerent country in modern times, avoids large-scale ground operations involving infantry at all costs. And there's a pragmatic reason for this: there might not be enough volunteers to serve. Even now, in times of relative peace, the American army is experiencing serious recruitment problems. And this is despite the fact that soldiers there are paid more than our frontline fighters.
      1. 0
        8 June 2026 14: 59
        Quote: Stas157
        Those who really want to fight are mostly those who don't participate in battles themselves - primarily politicians

        then I'll add to my comment
        - Man is not only a warlike creature, but also a herd animal
        As soon as politicians declare someone an enemy, some characters immediately appear who, it turns out, have always hated this “someone,” always suspected of dirty tricks and intrigues, and not only themselves, but their entire family, down to the seventh generation, and they even have examples of how these “someone” are bad
        Moreover, just yesterday these characters lived peacefully, worked, rested - and today they can’t even eat, they hate so much
        What is this if not a herd mentality?

        Well, I got distracted)
        and so - yes, you are absolutely right, wars are started by those who themselves will never appear on the battlefield
        but they know how to whip up hysteria, that's for sure
  12. 0
    8 June 2026 09: 31
    "...Western powers have done everything to abandon their alliance with Moscow" - Operation Pike, that's what the "partners" had in mind.
  13. 0
    8 June 2026 09: 31
    "...Western powers have done everything to abandon their alliance with Moscow" - Operation Pike, that's what the "partners" had in mind.
  14. +5
    8 June 2026 10: 02
    Why did Stalin reach an agreement with Hitler?

    The answer is extremely simple. The treaty was in the fundamental interests of the USSR and... Germany. Stalin, a very intelligent man, assumed that Hitler understood this too. The Nazi leadership included people who understood Germany's existential need to maintain friendly relations with the USSR (for example, Ribbentrop). Mussolini in Italy understood this too. But Hitler and most of his military and political entourage, intoxicated by their successes in the West, grossly overestimated their strength and made the fatal mistake of attacking the USSR. In doing so, they destroyed not only themselves but also their "Reich." I have no doubt that if Hitler had been able to look to the future and see the Red Banner over Berlin in 1945, he would never have made such a mistake.
    1. +2
      8 June 2026 10: 16
      Quote: Kostadinov
      There is no doubt in my mind that if Hitler could look into the future and see the Red Flag over Berlin in 1945, he would never have made such a mistake.

      Only Klitschko can do this... but Klitschko doesn't tell anyone, and he himself will go to Germany, he has a house and money there.
  15. +4
    8 June 2026 10: 23
    The author considers the achievement to be that the USSR stood alone against all of Europe.

    The USSR was guaranteed to stand alone against the entire world if the pact hadn't been signed. The pact guaranteed that the USSR wouldn't be alone. If the West began to win, the threat to the USSR would come from within (Poland, France, and England) and be no less dire, and this scenario was more plausible in 1939. Then the USSR would have an ally in Germany, an ally that needed Soviet assistance. Another scenario, which no one foresaw in 1939 and considered unlikely (everyone is very smart about that now), would be if Germany quickly won, and especially made the suicidal mistake of attacking the USSR, then the West would be guaranteed to become an ally. In other words, the pact guaranteed that not the USSR, but its enemy, would be alone, even in the worst-case scenario. This was a diplomatic victory for the ruling class, which, to a very large extent, guaranteed the USSR's victory in the war.
    1. +2
      8 June 2026 11: 38
      Quote: Kostadinov
      In other words, the pact guaranteed that not the USSR, but its enemy would be alone and in the worst-case scenario.

      Really? But let's assume that after the fall of France, the British hadn't dug in their heels and instead signed a tolerable peace agreement with Germany. How would events have unfolded on the Eastern Front in that case?
  16. +1
    8 June 2026 10: 58
    On the internet, I believe on the "Memory of the People" website, there are scans of encrypted telegrams sent by our ambassadors from London and Paris. They met with real elites, and in their conversations, it was clear that the main goal of England and France was to preserve their colonial empires.
  17. 0
    8 June 2026 11: 03
    As I usually say, the entire history of mankind is wars, wars, and more wars.
    It was in another work by Lenin that the idea was expressed that, given the existence of capitalist states, wars are inevitable, because capitalists are constantly fighting for colonies, territories, and trying to squeeze profitable businesses out of each other.
    Dialectics is the same Yes
    1. -3
      8 June 2026 12: 37
      because capitalists are constantly fighting for colonies and territories

      Lenin did not know about Damansky....
      1. -1
        8 June 2026 16: 02
        Do you prefer to argue with hints? angry
        1. -1
          8 June 2026 16: 09
          What hints? You don't know about situations where socialist states fight among themselves? China-USSR, China-Vietnam. Lenin, of course, didn't know about them.
          1. 0
            9 June 2026 10: 10
            Was this when the USSR declared war on China?
            Maybe I was sleeping at that time, that's why I don't know?
            I know of only one case: the Soviet-Finnish War, when the USSR government offered Finland to move the border further away from Leningrad in exchange for offering its own territories.
            Months of negotiations reached a dead end, and the USSR declared war on Finland.
            I don't know anymore
  18. -2
    8 June 2026 15: 07
    On March 31, 1939, England, and then France, provided guarantees of military assistance to Poland, Romania, and Greece in the event of an attack. The Soviet Union had not threatened these countries, so it was assumed that Germany was threatening them. The West had raised "red flags," suggesting that the USSR could be attacked.

    Who is "allowed to attack"?
    Poland, Romania, and Greece, perhaps? It seemed like there wasn't the slightest precondition for such a development at that point. Well, except for the abundant newspaper rhetoric of the boastful Polish lords, perhaps.
    Germany? So what's the logic behind providing guarantees to Poland, which had to be traversed first to reach the USSR's borders?
    Some kind of boring pile of conspiracy theories, just to squeeze real history into the author’s original ideas about it.
    It seems to me that the author, in his latest attempts to stretch an owl onto a globe about the centuries-old mythical friendship with the Germans and the nasty Anglo-Saxons, who can't eat, and hate all of us and, in particular, Samonov personally, has already become completely confused himself.
  19. +1
    8 June 2026 19: 25
    It's perfectly understandable why the West hates the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact so much. They forget about their deals with Adolf Aloisych and blame Stalin for it. Joseph Vissarionovich outmaneuvered them. And instead of yet another plunder of a foreign country, Britain was in for a real blow. Had Hitler not been so stubborn about his racial theories, he could easily have finished off Britain first and become master of all Europe. Instead, he entered into a war with the USSR, leaving an enemy still undefeated in his rear.
  20. +1
    8 June 2026 21: 43
    On August 23, a non-aggression pact was signed, which is known as the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.
  21. 0
    8 June 2026 22: 44
    Versailles fell in 1935, effectively during the entry of troops into the Russian Democratic Republic, formally with the signing of the Anglo-German Naval Treaty. Czechoslovakia was still a long way off. By that point, the long game had been underway for three years, with the pieces being placed on the board.
  22. 0
    9 June 2026 00: 25
    I read it with pleasure!🤝
  23. +1
    9 June 2026 12: 51
    Quote from solar
    What hints? You don't know about situations where socialist states fight among themselves? China-USSR, China-Vietnam. Lenin, of course, didn't know about them.

    China and the USSR and China and Vietnam never fought at war. They had border skirmishes that were orders of magnitude smaller than the Soviet Union, and they died down quite quickly.
    1. +1
      9 June 2026 16: 18
      Contradict yourself.
      The PRC and the USSR and the PRC and the SRV have never been at war.

      They had borderline stitches

      https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Vietnamese War
      https://bg.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Vietnamese_war
      1. 0
        18 June 2026 10: 21
        solar (Sergey) June 9, 2026, 16:18 PM
        https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Китайско-вьетнамская_война

        It was simply an armed conflict between Vietnam and China that occurred in February-March 1979. And Wikipedia should be treated with caution; it is controlled by the Anglo-Saxons and constantly manipulates facts, especially in politics, to suit their own interests – "divide and conquer."
  24. 0
    9 June 2026 13: 35
    First of all, Stalin was mistaken in claiming that socialism is built in a single country, just as the dream of a multipolar world as a path to social justice is false today. It's merely a lure for the most oppressed, for example, in Africa, while in practice it's a traditional struggle of nationalisms. The very terms "socialism with Chinese characteristics" and "socialism with Kenyan characteristics" indicate that national politicians and national capitalists are in power, but workers have no influence over their actions. Consequently, the only path is revolutionary parties and world revolution!
  25. +2
    9 June 2026 13: 40
    This pact gave us a lot:
    1. The war was delayed for a year. If there had been no pact, Hitler might well have come to us in the spring of 1940, not to the West. We were unprepared—even in the summer of 1941, we hadn't yet had time to prepare.
    2. Territories are very important acquisitions.
    3. Trade has picked up - we received some useful things from Germany.
    But the main thing is, of course, the year in time and the fact that in the spring of 1940 Hitler was crushing the Western European armies, and not us.
  26. 0
    9 June 2026 14: 34
    Quote: Trapper7
    Really? But let's assume that after the fall of France, the British hadn't dug in their heels and instead signed a tolerable peace agreement with Germany. How would events have unfolded on the Eastern Front in that case?

    One can assume anything, but the British could not and did not sign any "tolerable" agreement with Germany without the existence of the USSR, not because they were so stubborn. As long as the USSR existed, there was no need to free Germany to single-handedly deal with the USSR and then finish them off completely. No "tolerable" armistice could have prevented the British from intervening and left the USSR alone against Germany. A British defeat and capitulation would also have been extremely dangerous for the USSR, and it could have intervened if the Germans had landed on the island. Hitler, the British, and Stalin understood this then, and they spoke and wrote about it, but 80 years later, they missed this elementary logic. Your "tolerable" agreement between Britain and Germany, without winners or losers, would have been the best development for the USSR, and it again guaranteed that it would not have been left alone under any scenario.
  27. 0
    10 June 2026 00: 39
    Plutocracy (from the Greek πλοῦτος - wealth and κράτος - power) is a form of government in which real political power is concentrated in the hands of a narrow group of financial oligarchy, and government decisions are made in the interests of big capital.

    The line between democracy and plutocracy is very blurry.
  28. 0
    10 June 2026 00: 40
    Quote: Glagol1
    This pact gave us a lot:
    1. The war was delayed for a year. If there had been no pact, Hitler might well have come to us in the spring of 1940, not to the West. We were unprepared—even in the summer of 1941, we hadn't yet had time to prepare.
    2. Territories are very important acquisitions.
    3. Trade has picked up - we received some useful things from Germany.
    But the main thing is, of course, the year in time and the fact that in the spring of 1940 Hitler was crushing the Western European armies, and not us.

    There is also a 4th point: the threat of war with Japan has been removed.
  29. 0
    10 June 2026 13: 43
    Quote from solar
    Contradict yourself.
    The PRC and the USSR and the PRC and the SRV have never been at war.

    They had borderline stitches

    https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Vietnamese War
    https://bg.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Vietnamese_war

    1. It’s good that you understood that Damansky didn’t fight with war.
    2. Regarding the Sino-Vietnamese conflict, Wikipedia contradicts itself. For example, the Battle of Khalkhin Gol was no less large-scale, but Wikipedia calls it a battle, a fighting, a border conflict, and so on.
    3. The Vietnamese missed the real socialist war - the treacherous attack of Vietnam on Kampuchea and the occupation of Kampuchea by the Vietnamese in 1979.
  30. 0
    10 June 2026 14: 06
    Just as the dream of a multipolar world as a path to social justice is false today, it's merely a lure for the most oppressed, for example in Africa, while in practice it's a traditional struggle of nationalisms.

    A multipolar world is not a path to social justice, but only a path to the defeat of the next candidate for global hegemony—and today, that candidate is US imperialism. This struggle is not a bait and switch, nor is it a traditional struggle of nationalisms. Just as World War II was not a traditional struggle of nationalisms, but a fight to defeat the most militarily powerful and aggressive imperialist state at the time, Germany, which was fighting to establish its global hegemony. For the oppressed peoples of Africa, the defeat of the imperialist candidate for global hegemony is extremely important. The defeat of the most powerful imperialist state is a severe blow to the entire global system of imperialism and a stage in their struggle for social justice. Just as it was after Germany's defeat.