Why did Germany start World War II?

17 252 253
Why did Germany start World War II?
German soldiers cross the USSR state border. Border marker No. IV/95 was located in the Sokal district of the Lviv region of the Ukrainian SSR in 1941. June 22, 1941


Project Hitler


It's clear that the Versailles system, from the very beginning, anticipated a new major war. It failed to resolve the fundamental contradictions in Europe and the world; indeed, it laid new mines. Germany, in particular, was the most aggrieved country. It was robbed, dismembered, and deliberately humiliated. The psychological complex that permeated the entire nation allowed the Nazis to seize power, as the Germans desired revenge.



The same forces that organized the First World War, and the goal of all world wars was absolute domination of the planet, also prepared the Second World War (The war of the USA and England against Europe and Russia for absolute power on the planet; USA and World War I). To this end, hotbeds of war were created: in Asia, militaristic Japan; in Europe, fascist Italy and Nazi Germany. Nationalist regimes that dreamed of Greater Poland, Greater Hungary, Greater Romania, Greater Finland, and other "cannon fodder" played a secondary role.

Many people helped Hitler and the National Socialist Workers' Party (NSDAP, Nazis) come to power. Liberal pro-Western publicists, in order to slander the USSR and hide the true historyThey blamed Stalin for everything. They claimed that Moscow helped the Nazis seize power, collaborated with them (even though literally everyone was collaborating and negotiating with them at the time, with Hitler being Germany's legitimate leader), and, together with Berlin, unleashed a world war by attacking "unfortunate" Poland.

In fact, this is an exemplary attempt to distort and rewrite history. When darkness is called light, and black turns into white, and vice versa. The most striking example is the current Trump regime in the United States: the Americans unleash a dozen wars, but impose on the entire world the image of "forces of light," peacekeepers, saviors, defenders of freedom and democracy.

Moscow didn't need a major war. Stalin was doing his best to maneuver, tackling, and trying to avoid a scenario like the First World War, where the Russians would be pitted against the Germans."He managed to bring the country back from the brink of disaster."). To prevent Russians from being used as "cannon fodder" by Britain, the United States, and financial capital (the so-called "global backstage"). Soviet Russia benefited from cooperation with Germany. However, Moscow was too poor to finance the Nazis. It could not direct a network of agents of influence within Germany itself, nor influence its industrial, financial, and military elites, nor the old aristocracy.

The Nazi Party's main financial sources came from the United States and Britain, including through German banks. Roosevelt's cabinet was preparing for a world war to avoid further waves of the Great Depression in the United States and the threat of the country sliding into civil war. America was attempting to destroy and weaken the main global players as much as possible and achieve global hegemony.Roosevelt and the idea of ​​global domination in the world).

Hitler was supported by the British elite, whose empire, "on which the sun never set," was already bursting at the seams. The British wanted to use the German Reich against a rising Russia, which they had failed to destroy in 1914–1920. They were also playing against a rising America. The British once again wanted to drown continental Europe in blood and reap their profits.

Therefore, England and its junior partner, France, allowed Hitler to break all the shackles of the Versailles Treaty and create a powerful military-industrial complex and armed forces. For France itself, this was suicidal. It was obvious that the German Nazis would seek revenge and, above all, the defeat of France.

England and France destroyed the existing collective security system. They pursued a policy of "appeasement" of Hitler, handing him Austria and Czechoslovakia. They allowed Hitler to resolve the "Spanish question" in his favor. Ultimately, Hitler was given almost all of Europe, only to force him to go east and organize a "crusade" against Russia.

European society chose to ignore the Nazis' anti-Semitic actions. Remarkably, Zionist leaders negotiated with the Führer, seeking to organize the deportation of Jews from Austria, Germany, and other European countries where they enjoyed more or less favorable living conditions. Their goal was to resettle them in the desert lands of Palestine. Ultimately, the Zionists effectively supported the Nazis' rise to power, thereby betraying ordinary Jews.

Catholic Rome played its own game. The Vatican advocated "appeasing" Hitler in order to direct him against the "godless" USSR. The Vatican even persuaded Poland to hand over Danzig to Germany to avoid a Polish-German war. Germany and Poland were to fight together against the "Russian communists." Later, gold and other valuables plundered by the Nazis were funneled through Catholic channels.

Through the "ratlines" created by the Catholic clergy, through Switzerland, Italy, and Spain, Nazi criminals were rescued, fleeing to the Middle East, Latin America, etc. The Vatican and its orders helped create the so-called "Black International," which inherited the idea of ​​creating the "Eternal (Fourth) Reich."

Germany's suicide


The "global conspiracy" and German capital, including Hitler's financial genius Hjalmar Schacht, drove the Third Reich into enormous debt. The economy was militarized, and billions of marks were invested in weaponUltimately, the country was driven into a dead end: a severe economic crisis or a major war that would write off debts, allow the use of accumulated weapons, further militarization, and the plunder of conquered countries, using their resources and accumulated wealth.

Interestingly, the American Empire is now following this same path: the US military budget is rapidly and steadily growing. 2000 – over $300 billion; 2005 – over $500 billion; 2010 – over $720 billion; 2020 – over $770 billion; 2026 – over $900 billion. A record budget of $1,5 trillion is planned for 2027. The American military budget exceeds the top ten military budgets of other countries. This is a war budget. Hence the constant wars on the planet. Devastated Syria, Libya, Lebanon, the Ukrainian front, the war against Iran, etc.

The problem was that economically, in terms of resources, the Third Reich was weaker than the Second Reich. Germany did not have the oil to wage a "war of engines" (fuel for air and sea power). fleetFor tanks and motor transport). Germany lacked metal and coal, provisions and timber, and a host of strategic resources.

Germany was caught between the democracies of the West and the East, which doomed it to defeat. It could not wage a prolonged war on two fronts, like the Kaiser's Germany, which ultimately lost the war. The Third Reich had no colonies, and its navy was still in its infancy. This meant that its enemies could blockade the German Reich from the sea. Germany was inferior to the United States and the British Empire (with its colonies and dominions) in terms of material and human resources. In a protracted war, Germany was doomed to defeat.

This is well illustrated in Richard Overy's monograph, "Goering: The Iron Man." The book is dedicated to Hermann Goering, "Nazi number two," Hitler's successor, and the economy of the Third Reich. Goering was not only the speaker of the Reichstag, commander of the Air Force, and the creator of the secret police (the Gestapo), but also the director of the war effort (the Four Year Plan).

The German Reich was forced to import up to 75% of its high-quality iron ore from France and Norway. Its own was catastrophically short. Oil was in dire shortage, hence the Führer's focus on the oil fields of Hungary and Romania. Enormous sums had to be spent to establish synthetic fuel production, which barely covered a third of the country's needs and was economically unviable. Göring planned to completely solve the fuel problem with synthetic fuel only by the mid-40s.

In mid-1941, Germany required 36 million tons of iron and steel per year. But it was receiving only 24 million tons. Even coal was in short supply. Aluminum was in short supply: 480 tons were needed per year, while Europe as a whole produced 370. There were also huge shortages of non-ferrous metals, timber, food, and other raw materials.

From a purely resource point of view, a major war would have been suicide for the German Reich.

Germany lacked not only resources, but even The Reich's military-industrial complex was not ready for total war. German armament programs were expected to be completed in 1943–1945. aviation, naval, land weapons, missile and nuclear. By that time, the Third Reich could have become a superpower, transforming Western Europe into a third global power center – the USA, the USSR, and Hitler's European Union.

The Third Reich had not completed any of its major military programs by 1939. After the USSR failed to be defeated during the 1941 campaign, Hitler and his top brass were forced to improvise, literally running on the edge.
Tossing and turning, choosing between the needs of the armed forces at the front, industry, which needed resources and trained workers, and the need to supply the people. Germany was only switched to the path of total war in 1943, but it was already too late. This only prolonged the Reich's death throes.

The Wehrmacht had used up all the ammunition prepared for the war with the Russians by August 1, 1941. The Third Reich used all captured equipment and weapons, as its own were in short supply. The Germans also made extensive use of Soviet equipment and weapons. The Reich was desperately short of explosives: it needed a million tons per year, while in 1942 the Nazis produced around 600 tons.

Germany and its allies were inferior to the anti-Hitler coalition in the production of all key weapons and equipment. In particular, even Britain alone produced more combat aircraft than Germany, not to mention such economic giants as the United States and the USSR.

Germany's war economy was prepared for small, quick conflicts. Hitler's only hope was a blitzkrieg. Lightning-fast operations, daring and brazen. Defeating the enemy before they began fighting for real. Before a protracted war of attrition began, for which Germany was unprepared.

From the perspective of the US masters, Germany, like Japan (it was in roughly the same position), was ideal "cannon fodder." A battering ram, a kamikaze state. To unleash global carnage and lose.


Hitler with his successor Goering, 1940
253 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +2
    23 June 2026 03: 41
    Why did Germany start World War II?

    On the head of cabbage...
    This can justify any violence, any aggression... It's a temptation, and that's it... And what is Trump doing today? It's disgusting to realize that in these difficult times of trial, not a single group of people has proposed effective measures to counter it: some due to economic weakness, others due to a lack of will and strategy.
    And the desire to preserve sovereignty is evident in the actions of the leadership of the DPRK, Iran, and...
    1. +2
      23 June 2026 07: 56
      Any authoritarian regime is characterized by the dictator's self-admiration, recognition of his own exclusivity, and fear of the people. It's easier to send the people to war than to share his power with them and lose part of his ego. This breeds aggression, tales of enemy intrigue, and inevitably leads to war, especially against the backdrop of economic and domestic political failure. There are countless examples: Hitler, Mussolini, Pilsudski, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein... Meanwhile, the dictators themselves and their henchmen live in unimaginable luxury with complete disdain for ordinary citizens. Goering, for example, would simply take any artwork he liked from museums and take it home.
      1. + 11
        23 June 2026 08: 53
        The same Goering simply took the works of art he liked from museums to his home.

        It doesn't always work that way. Goering was an exception in Germany. Hitler, for example, lived very modestly; power was more important to him than luxury. When Hitler was in power, he was served caviar, which he had never tried before, and he really liked it. But when he learned how much it cost, he forbade it from being served at his table.
        A similar situation with Stalin - after his death, a couple of jackets were left in the closet, and that's all.
        1. -6
          23 June 2026 09: 05
          Quote from solar
          The same Goering simply took the works of art he liked from museums to his home.

          It doesn't always work that way. Goering was an exception in Germany. Hitler, for example, lived very modestly; power was more important to him than luxury. When Hitler was in power, he was served caviar, which he had never tried before, and he really liked it. But when he learned how much it cost, he forbade it from being served at his table.
          A similar situation with Stalin - after his death, a couple of jackets were left in the closet, and that's all.

          1. There is no need to feed people with fairy tales about good kings.
          2. When you have the ENTIRE state with all its wealth in your pocket, why do you need Armani socks or a bowl of caviar (which is valuable only to those who cannot afford it).
          3. We haven't been able to eradicate the servile mentality of a "strong hand" that will cut off and protect the poor peasant since 1917. I'm constantly tempted to lick my master's boot, hoping not to get hit with it.

          Hitler was a vegetarian and did not eat animal products. A passion for luxury was common among the Nazi elite—for example, Leonardo da Vinci's famous painting "Lady with an Ermine" was found in the home of Hans Frank, the Governor-General of occupied Poland. Such "trophies" flattered their vanity and signaled their membership in the elite. The opportunity to build expensive mansions and decorate them with magnificent paintings appealed to influential Nazis far more than the modest lifestyles portrayed in the propaganda myth of selfless civil servants.
          Any dictator is a story about corruption.
          1. +9
            23 June 2026 09: 27
            A passion for luxury was inherent in the entire Nazi elite—for example, Leonardo da Vinci's famous painting "Lady with an Ermine" was found in the home of Hans Frank, the Governor-General of occupied Poland. Such “trophies” flattered one’s vanity and signaled one’s belonging to the elite..

            Yes, I remember the video report from the search of Timur Ivanov's properties.
            1. +3
              24 June 2026 16: 46
              Well...and the militant General Popov is sitting in prison...
              Abdulov was right when he said something about the country in the film "Genius"...
          2. +5
            23 June 2026 09: 28
            1. There is no need to feed people with fairy tales about good kings.

            Where did you see me talking about the "good king"?
            PS Hitler was a vegetarian and did not eat animal products.

            This is one of Goebbels' myths. Hitler merely aspired to vegetarianism; he was obsessed with the idea that eating meat could lead to cancer (he loved to tell his interlocutors horror stories about "eating corpses"), but he was not a maniacal vegetarian. Hitler's diet consisted primarily of porridge, potatoes, vegetable soups, beans, fruits, and salads. He ate pasta, lentils, peas, eggs, fish (and caviar, as we know), cottage cheese, nuts, and cheese, and drank milk, coffee, and mint tea.
            The turning point when Hitler began giving up meat was the suicide of his niece, Geli Raubal. Some also believe he was imitating the composer Wagner, while another, more realistic theory is that he had stomach problems (which has been repeatedly confirmed). However, there are known instances of him eating sausages with beer, for example. Hitler rarely drank alcohol.
            2. When you have the ENTIRE state with all its wealth in your pocket, why do you need Armani socks or a bowl of caviar (which is valuable only to those who cannot afford it).

            Contradict yourself.
            3. We haven't been able to eradicate the servile mentality of a "strong hand" that will cut off and protect the poor peasant since 1917. I'm constantly tempted to lick my master's boot, hoping not to get hit with it.

            I don't understand at all what this means.
          3. +8
            23 June 2026 09: 33
            Any dictator is a story about corruption.

            What nonsense you've just spouted... Every state is about corruption. Well, you can certainly tell me that there was no corruption in developed democracies or, say, the USSR. We'll have a laugh together.
            1. +4
              23 June 2026 10: 12
              Quote: alovrov
              Any dictator is a story about corruption.

              What nonsense you've just spouted... Every state is about corruption. Well, you can certainly tell me that there was no corruption in developed democracies or, say, the USSR. We'll have a laugh together.

              It's a question of size, and don't rehash the bureaucratic manual here, saying that everyone steals, so we can too. Regarding corruption in the USSR, you can compare... there, the first secretary of the district party committee dressed in imported clothes from the regional warehouse, and it was cheap consumer goods like Indian jeans. Regarding yours, you can simply cite the example: "Sergey Les, head of the Krymsk district of the Krasnodar Territory, has been detained. He is suspected of embezzling more than a hundred land plots worth two billion rubles for himself and his family." In the USSR, land couldn't be stolen. You don't have to answer that; I don't argue with bots.
            2. 0
              30 June 2026 11: 14
              Well, yes, in the most "democratic" country in the world - the USA - corruption is generally regulated by law - who, how, how much, and for what can and should be paid...
          4. +5
            23 June 2026 10: 35
            Quote: Civil
            Leonardo da Vinci's famous painting "Lady with an Ermine" was found in the cell of Hans Frank, Governor-General of occupied Poland.

            You can tell right away that he's a man of taste, not like Zhukov's "7 Carriages of Accordions"... it's some kind of gypsy thing, because the keys of good accordions of that time were mother-of-pearl :))
            P.S. Yes, I forgot about the 4 km of different fabrics, I apologize... I couldn't resist... Wow, sir, you really hit the truth, and you really hit it!
          5. The comment was deleted.
        2. +3
          24 June 2026 01: 17
          Quote from solar
          Hitler lived very modestly

          He modestly bought the Berghof estate, modestly furnished it with expensive furniture, hung beautiful paintings, a marble fireplace, a crowd of servants, and brand new Mercedes. But he gave up caviar—it was so expensive! And he told the whole country about it, that he was such a regular guy, and in times of economic hardship he wanted to be closer to the workers and the poor. laughing
          1. 0
            24 June 2026 08: 33
            He rented it from 1928, then bought it, paid for its maintenance at his own expense, and actually used it for official purposes.
            1. +1
              24 June 2026 10: 33
              Apparently, everything was fine with his accounts; Mein Kampf was selling in huge numbers. laughing
              1. 0
                24 June 2026 11: 30
                He rented this "estate" back in 1928, when he was a nobody, and bought it in 1933, when he had just come to power and his book was just beginning to be published in large print runs.
                1. +1
                  24 June 2026 11: 47
                  I understand you've decided to boil it all down to just the ownership of the estate? How was it furnished, how many servants did it have, and what did your selfless lord ride in? wink
                  1. 0
                    24 June 2026 11: 59
                    He paid for the estate's upkeep out of his own pocket, as far as I know. As for driving, it was probably a domestically produced car.
                    1. +1
                      24 June 2026 12: 33
                      He had deep pockets. He could rent a house of over 300 square meters even before 1933, drove from Mercedes to Mercedes, and had thousands of paintings, as his haters write. And they say he was exempt from paying taxes.
                      1. 0
                        24 June 2026 13: 00
                        The rent cost him a hundred marks a month. The average German worker at the time earned 200 marks. Not much money.
                      2. 0
                        24 June 2026 13: 22
                        How rich everyone was in Germany and how cheap real estate was in the resort areas laughing
                      3. +2
                        24 June 2026 17: 51
                        Does this apply to all leaders, or only to the particularly hated ones?

                        I'm certainly not comparing Stalin and Hitler, but the Leader of the Peoples also had state-owned dachas and a fleet of cars. Or is all this not inherited, and therefore doesn't count?
                      4. +1
                        25 June 2026 21: 26
                        Of course, everyone. The leader had a ton of dachas, and everything there was beautiful, too. And dear Leonid Ilyich lived like an American millionaire – tons of cars, hunting, beautiful vacations, all the rest. bully
                  2. 0
                    25 June 2026 19: 55
                    Quote from alexoff
                    And how was it furnished, and how many servants were there in it, and what did your selfless man ride on?

                    Your message is clear, but you must admit, it would have been strange if the head of state at that time rode a bicycle and cooked his own porridge on an alcohol stove.
                    1. 0
                      25 June 2026 21: 24
                      A couple of aunts and a gardener are one thing, but Hitler had a horde of servants, paintings, furniture, and a brand new Mercedes, not an ordinary Beetle. Sure, he didn't have golden toilets, but he was certainly no Spartan, and his bills were considerable.
            2. 0
              30 June 2026 11: 16
              solar
              bought it out and paid for its maintenance at his own expense
              Well, yes, well... I didn't even know what his salary was, but with a snap of his fingers he could have anything...
              I wonder how much they pay you for rezunshchina?
        3. -2
          30 June 2026 11: 06
          solar
          Another Nazi has appeared... The difference is that Stalin worked for his people, and Hitler USED HIS PEOPLE FOR HIS POLITICAL GAMES and the implementation of his anti-human ideas.
      2. +6
        23 June 2026 10: 15
        Any "non-authoritarian" regime is a group of people, often wealthy, who seize power and change hands on the throne—the same dictatorship, only garnished with the appearance of democracy. It is precisely these "non-authoritarian" regimes that typically unleash major wars, or fuel them, creating the conditions for their emergence, because they are driven by power, money, and profit. Only instead of individuals, one could refer to an entire country or group: the United States, France, the United Kingdom, NATO, or the EU.
        Libya was authoritarian, people lived well, but it was the “non-authoritarians” who destroyed it. The same with Syria and Iraq, and now Iran.
        Self-admiration is nonsense, the leader always lives better and in any country the majority are poor, this is the norm.
      3. The comment was deleted.
        1. The comment was deleted.
          1. +4
            23 June 2026 20: 13
            Quote: Civil
            Lukashenko himself hasn't yet reached the proud title, he doesn't oppress the population enough,

            Yeltsin oppressed the Russian people much more than Kim Il Sung did the Korean people.
      4. 0
        30 June 2026 11: 04
        Don't get confused! Behind Hitler loomed an ideology he didn't even invent... He simply led the anti-humanity of his time, an anti-civilization of gigantic Evil...
    2. -1
      23 June 2026 10: 08
      Not to justify, but to understand. The entire history of humanity is one big war, never ending, escalating from a sluggish to an acute phase. And yes, war is usually caused by economics. If you back a country into a corner, like Germany after WW1 or Japan in 1941, you'll get war.
      1. 0
        30 June 2026 11: 21
        Let me remind you that the fascist movement swept across Europe in the 30s, and in Finland, the fascist regime existed before the word "fascism" was even coined. Many European countries had their own "Führers," but Hitler was simply "elected." Economics has nothing to do with it. The economy was "created" in Germany.
        "Understanding" doesn't mean justifying! It's possible not to understand, but to explain and avoid repeating the mistakes of the past!
  2. +5
    23 June 2026 05: 12
    The author either forgot or deliberately concealed the activities of the Comintern in financing pro-communist forces around the world, which cost the "poor" USSR a pretty penny.
    With zero results, by the way. That's why anti-fascist forces in Germany couldn't consolidate.
    1. +5
      23 June 2026 06: 01
      I disagree. The Comintern was able to create an intelligence network across Europe. The Red Orchestra is a derivative of the Comintern. The effectiveness of investments in the Comintern was weak, but it existed.
      1. 0
        30 June 2026 11: 26
        I can't agree with you either. The Soviet intelligence network is the result of Soviet intelligence work before the war. However, they ONLY used Comintern members loyal to the USSR, and there was a strong Trotskyist component that was a major hindrance and had to be combated.
    2. +8
      23 June 2026 06: 49
      Quote: andrewkor
      which cost the "poor" USSR a pretty penny.

      Financing of foreign communist parties was officially stopped by the USSR in 1935.
      1. +1
        23 June 2026 08: 46
        Financing of foreign communist parties in 1935 was officially terminated by the USSR

        This didn't stop British communists from opposing England's entry into the war on Poland's side, or American communists from protesting the United States' support for England. Everything miraculously changed on June 22, 1941—they immediately began pushing for the exact opposite.
      2. +2
        23 June 2026 20: 14
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Financing of foreign communist parties was officially stopped by the USSR in 1935.

        It only ceased, both officially and in reality, after the State Emergency Committee. Putin awarded medals to several people openly financed by foreign intelligence, information that even reached me. The CIA is probably funding some of the Communist Party's leaders. In Afghanistan, when recruiting agents, CIA agents bragged about Nemtsov's fees from CIA-affiliated organizations.
        1. +3
          24 June 2026 09: 58
          Quote: gsev
          Unofficially and in reality it stopped only after the State Emergency Committee

          Don't confuse the financing of the Comintern with the financing of agents or agents of influence abroad. They are different things.
          1. 0
            25 June 2026 05: 13
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            These are still different things.

            The only difference is that the Comintern operated more effectively, and its funding of foreign groups benefited the USSR. The current government, for example, funds Russian schools in Kyrgyzstan, while South Korea, through these schools, is sucking talented youth not only from Kyrgyzstan but also from Russia itself.
            1. +2
              25 June 2026 08: 48
              Quote: gsev
              The only difference is that the Comintern acted more effectively.

              We are now talking about financing, not about efficiency.
              Quote: gsev
              Current power

              She has nothing to do with it at all, especially since she does very little effectively and nothing in foreign policy.
              1. -1
                25 June 2026 13: 48
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                We are now talking about financing, not about efficiency.

                What's the difference? One payment order has Comintern details, and the other has FSB-KGB details, although in reality, payments were made in cash through trade union structures during the USSR or through the "Horns and Hooves" agency under Putin.
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                and nothing in foreign policy

                I was assured that the US failure in Iraq and Afghanistan was the result of the FSB's actions. The agency can effectively defeat the State Department and the CIA when it doesn't try to play the arrogant boss and simply aids forces hostile to the US, which, like Russia, are fighting for their independence.
                1. +2
                  25 June 2026 14: 07
                  Quote: gsev
                  What's the difference?

                  The difference is that the comrade was pushing for the USSR's exorbitant pre-war spending on the Comintern - that is, a completely different issue was being discussed.
                  Quote: gsev
                  I was assured that the US failure in Iraq and Afghanistan was the result of the actions of the FSB.

                  Did you believe me? By the way, the FSB operates within the country, not abroad.
                  It reminds me of Carroll.
                  "He commanded 100 times
                  Saved from danger,
                  But he stubbornly remained silent,
                  From what..."
                  1. -2
                    25 June 2026 14: 19
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    By the way, the FSB works within the country, not outside.

                    In my presence, the Afghans discussed how the FSB was trying to recruit the Basharovs for work in Afghanistan. Russia's open press identifies the recruiters mentioned in these conversations as belonging to FSB structures.
                    1. +3
                      25 June 2026 15: 02
                      Quote: gsev
                      In my presence, the Afghans discussed how the FSB tried to recruit the Basharovs to work in Afghanistan.

                      First, did they show them their IDs? However, if this was on Russian territory, then yes, that could have happened, I suppose.
                      1. -1
                        25 June 2026 21: 34
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        First of all, did they show them their IDs?

                        For example, I was asked to find out what people thought about Litvinenko's murder. The man whose disappearance from Moscow coincided with the exile of Raduyev, Masashadov, Gelayev, and other separatists to prison or the afterlife had learned from me earlier that his Afghan acquaintances believed Litvinenko had been poisoned with some kind of radioactive substance before the BBC reported on the existence of polonium-based poisons. Moreover, the favors were reciprocated. The Afghans asked for much less and, apparently, were refused less often. Moreover, as I understand it, Russia knew that the US would fall into the Afghan trap and lose the war there long before bin Laden's attacks on New York and Washington.
                    2. 0
                      30 June 2026 11: 30
                      Open press of Russia
                      Bugaga! laughing Representatives of the "second oldest profession" are aware of the intelligence services' special operations! And what's more, bear-like oligarchs in fur hats with earflaps roam the streets of Russian cities, drinking vodka straight from the bottle and playing balalaikas. am
    3. +6
      23 June 2026 07: 48
      The author initially (as always) reduces everything to a conspiracy theory. The reason for the outbreak of war was, in fact, only one: the desire of the German leadership to be the sole dominant power in Europe. In fact, in my humble opinion, war in Europe (and in the world as a whole) was inevitable, and not at all because of an "unfair peace" or a "Jew-Maosson conspiracy," but purely because of the economic base. Labor efficiency, thanks to the technological revolution, already allowed for massive wars, but birth rates were still at pre-industrial levels. As a result, the countries' leaders had vast pools of young men with the ability to quickly and cheaply arm them for mutual slaughter and showdowns. Without Germany, others would have been willing to "shoot" (although this in no way justifies the actions of the Nazis). Today, a large and protracted war with hundreds of thousands or millions of dead is essentially suicide for the state due to the cost of human life (just raising a child in Russia to 18 costs our economy more than 30 million rubles, not including his training and equipment as a fighter), but back then it was simpler.
      1. 0
        23 June 2026 10: 12
        Quote: parma
        Simply raising a child in Russia until they reach 18 costs our economy more than 30 million rubles.

        Well, that's the maximum, after all. Not everyone gets a good education and support.
        1. +1
          23 June 2026 11: 28
          No, this is the average “hospital” indicator for 11th grade, according to recent research.
          1. 0
            23 June 2026 11: 32
            Quote: parma
            No, this is the average “hospital” indicator for 11th grade, according to recent research.

            My son is taking his Unified State Exam now. I don't think more than 6-7 million has been invested in it so far. And there were training sessions, clubs, and tutors... Well, even 10 is a stretch, but definitely not 30...
            1. 0
              23 June 2026 13: 13
              I sympathize. You should keep an eye on him, please...
            2. 0
              25 June 2026 05: 19
              Quote: Level 2 Advisor
              That more than 6-7 million has been invested in it to date... and there were training sessions, clubs, and tutors...

              You should essentially calculate your entire salary and your wife's salary from marriage and divide it by the number of children. You should also add government spending on education, healthcare, and other social services. If you convert this into money using Western methods, your family's salary could double.
              1. 0
                25 June 2026 05: 34
                Quote: gsev
                You actually have to calculate your entire salary and your wife's salary from the marriage and divide it by the number of children.

                We didn't just spend our salaries on the children, but I already took into account the children's food and vacations in my calculations.
                Quote: gsev
                We need to add government spending on education, healthcare and other social services.

                How many will there be? School/kindergarten for 14 years—even if you calculate it almost as high as a university—is way overkill: 50 rubles per year on average—700, doctors—a bit, well, plus 100 if they charged for free... that's all—plus another 800, tops. 30 million just doesn't add up. hi
                1. -1
                  25 June 2026 06: 04
                  Quote: Level 2 Advisor
                  doctors - a little,

                  Worldwide, healthcare costs exceed military expenditures. It was only after 1917 that healthcare in Russia began to be considered inexpensive.
                  1. -1
                    25 June 2026 07: 10
                    Quote: gsev
                    Worldwide, healthcare costs exceed military expenditures. It was only after 1917 that healthcare in Russia began to be considered inexpensive.

                    It makes sense, but we only had to stay in the hospital once for 10 days with sinusitis (injections + tests)... and several visits to the pediatrician for consultations... it doesn't cost a lot of money, even "out of pocket"...
                    1. 0
                      25 June 2026 13: 17
                      Quote: Level 2 Advisor
                      It doesn't cost a lot of money, even "for your own money".

                      A friend of mine had appendicitis in the US. He immediately became destitute. Putin simply grossly underpays doctors and nurses and overpays some other categories of citizens. In reality, by low wages in this field, the state is squandering its medical potential. It's important to understand that many medical infrastructure facilities were created back in the USSR. The modern Russian state is incapable of creating a university like a medical school, Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology, or Stankin University from scratch. What emerges is a Synergy-like organization that monetizes connections for simulating the educational process.
                      1. 0
                        25 June 2026 13: 32
                        Quote: gsev
                        A friend of mine had appendicitis in the US. He immediately became penniless.

                        What does that have to do with it? We're talking about Russia and the cost of raising children there. As for the US, if your friend didn't have insurance—well, it's your own fault. In the US, it's stupid, you'd be stuck with 20-30 thousand dollars, but with standard insurance it's an order of magnitude less—2-3 thousand (about half the average US salary).
                        Quote: gsev
                        The modern Russian state is not capable of creating from scratch

                        After this phrase, you can insert any words you like, excluding those related to the extraction and sale of resources...
                      2. 0
                        25 June 2026 14: 16
                        Quote: Level 2 Advisor
                        any words, except those related to the extraction and sale of resources...

                        Coal export is probably the most unprofitable industry in Russia right now. It only survives because the state heavily subsidizes it. Coal transportation by rail is subsidized by approximately 60%. This means transporting a ton of Chinese consumer goods costs three times more than transporting coal.
                    2. 0
                      30 June 2026 11: 37
                      2 Level Advisor
                      Have you ever had treatment "at your own expense"? Is it really that cheap? Or is Mr. "working as an oligarch"?
                      1. 0
                        30 June 2026 13: 49
                        Quote: futurohunter
                        Have you ever been treated "at your own expense"?

                        Always, sir... I pay for my own treatment... and no, I'm not an oligarch... I've ALWAYS paid for my son's treatment... well, except for his time in the army... And as for my son, do you think injections cost a lot of money? And I emphasize - this was once in 18 years - a huge expense for the state budget? I would easily pay for those 10 days if I had to...
                      2. 0
                        1 July 2026 01: 39
                        But in the Soviet era, they didn't pay... And if it's a serious illness, the bill runs into tens and hundreds of thousands... A relatively simple knee operation cost a friend around 250 thousand rubles - and that was in an ordinary hospital, not an elite one.
                      3. 0
                        1 July 2026 05: 18
                        Quote: futurohunter
                        And during the Soviet era they didn't pay...

                        Well, there were drinks, lines, and connections... but overall, yes, they didn't pay... but we live in a different country now, so that's how it is...
                        Quote: futurohunter
                        A relatively simple knee operation cost a friend around 250 rubles – and that was in a regular hospital, not an elite one.

                        Despite the fact that every employee pays for insurance from their salary, contributions to the Social Insurance Fund are made every month, even though the employer pays them, but it is a salary.
                      4. 0
                        2 July 2026 10: 28
                        2 Level Advisor
                        bribes, queues, and connections
                        Corruption, nepotism, and "personal initiative" have not yet been overcome in any country in the world...

                        every worker pays from his salary
                        I'll tell you more. Something similar happened in the Soviet era. The company paid, essentially, part of the workers' salaries. The money was just redistributed slightly differently in the accounting department. Similarly, the company paid into the Pension Fund (I don't remember what it was called back then). So, even back then, everyone was secretly paying for their own treatment and future pensions. Another issue is that in the Soviet era, ALL treatment was free, while now only a small portion is. And yet, people haven't gotten healthier; rather, they're getting sick more often.

                        we live in a different country
                        That's understandable, but you're claiming that healthcare is no worse now than it was in the USSR, and that private treatment is cheap? If you say that, you're either never seriously ill or very rich. "Being sick" is expensive these days! And our healthcare system is pretty much "crumpled." They're doing fancy renovations, implementing very expensive "digitalization," yet even free clinics are short of doctors, and their level of professionalism has plummeted. And even a private doctor isn't necessarily competent. Physical therapy, a highly effective treatment method, has been eradicated in city clinics. For some conditions, there's no substitute. And a course of physical therapy costs at least 25 rubles, just for a single series of treatments. Specialized doctors are scattered across various clinics, while in the USSR, every clinic had doctors of all specialties, physical therapy, and X-rays. Although, yes, clinics could be downright ugly. But does that really matter?

                        During the Soviet era, my mother organized a network of dental offices in every school in her city. Every child received a checkup at least once every six months, and if necessary, their teeth were treated. In difficult cases, they were referred to the city clinic with their parents. Where have you seen anything like this today?
                  2. 0
                    30 June 2026 11: 35
                    Worldwide, healthcare costs are higher than military spending.
                    Well, yes, well... For example, in the USA, India, or Thailand, where there is no free medicine at all...
                    1. -1
                      30 June 2026 13: 30
                      Quote: futurohunter
                      Worldwide, healthcare costs are higher than military spending.
                      Well, yes, well... For example, in the USA, India, or Thailand, where there is no free medicine at all...

                      Here's the opinion of Yandex's AI Alice: in 2022, government spending on healthcare in the US amounted to 24,74% of all federal budget expenditures.
                      statbase.ru

                      For context, this figure was lower in 2021—21,37%—and around 16,2% in 2000. This means the share has grown significantly over the past two decades.

                      In Russia (this is the Internet, not Alice), by 2025, the share of expenditures on social policy will be 16% of the total federal budget, on healthcare – 4,5%, on education – 3,7%, according to the draft law “On the federal budget for 2025 and for the planning period 2025 and 2026,” introduced to the State Duma on September 30.

                      Read more: https://www.vedomosti.ru/society/articles/2024/10/01/1065617-rashodi-na-sotsialnuyu-politiku?from=copy_text
                      1. 0
                        2 July 2026 10: 41
                        AI Alice's opinion from Yandex
                        A neural network can give you anything... - the output of a neural network can in no way be an argument, especially if the prompt is incorrect.

                        Here are some other data:
                        - payment of interest on the public debt - 682 billion US dollars;
                        - spending on medicine - 670 billion dollars;
                        - defense spending - 644 billion dollars.

                        Both your figure and mine are just a "spherical horse in a vacuum." They mean absolutely nothing.

                        No more than 20-25% of the US population receives free health care. And the criteria for qualifying for this number are strictly limited. In Russia, at least 69% of the population uses compulsory health insurance, and there are no restrictions on compulsory health insurance!

                        So your numbers are just numbers. They don't tell you anything at all. Specifically, they don't tell you what the money is being spent on.
                        With the help of hand-picked "numbers," you can prove anything... for example, that "two plus two equals five." There is truth, there is falsehood, and then there are "statistics."
                      2. -1
                        2 July 2026 11: 14
                        Quote: futurohunter
                        - spending on medicine - 670 billion dollars;
                        - defense spending - 644 billion dollars.

                        In the US, the government spends a smaller share of its budget than the average American spends than the Russian government spends compared to its citizens. In any case, defense spending in Russia, as a percentage of the state budget, is much higher than healthcare spending in the US. Mathematics, when applied incorrectly, can also produce incorrect results. We simply shouldn't ban mathematics or genetics; we shouldn't allow idiots into lawmaking or even teaching.
                      3. 0
                        2 July 2026 12: 59
                        It's hard to understand the text without commas. Learn Russian.
                        What are all these percentages of yours about? Nothing!
                        Military spending in the United States is higher than in any other country in the world. Russia ranks only fifth among countries! Free healthcare in Russia is much more accessible to the population than in the United States, despite all the shortcomings of Russian healthcare.
                        Mathematics is simply an explanation of a point of view using mathematical apparatus. For example, one could devise a mathematical apparatus for a flat Earth or an Earth standing on three whales. Mathematics is certainly not a criterion of truth, but merely one of the languages ​​spoken by humanity. And everyone speaks languages, including maniacs and criminals.

                        We just need to not ban mathematics or genetics, but not allow fools into lawmakers or even teachers.
                        This sentence demonstrates an example of not only a lack of commas, but also of logic. It's an attempt to construct a logical relationship of consequence where there is no connection. Anything written after the conjunction "and" doesn't follow from the first part of the sentence. Likewise, your final sentence in this message doesn't follow from what you wrote earlier. There's no logical connection.
                    2. 0
                      1 July 2026 05: 19
                      Quote: futurohunter
                      Well, yes, well... For example, in the USA, India, or Thailand, where there is no free medicine at all...

                      It's not free here either... in the Social Insurance Fund, everyone pays from their salary every month...
                      1. 0
                        2 July 2026 10: 42
                        Not everyone. Self-employed individuals, individual entrepreneurs on the simplified tax system, the unemployed, pensioners, and children do not pay.
                      2. 0
                        2 July 2026 11: 16
                        Quote: Level 2 Advisor
                        In the Social Insurance Fund, everyone pays from their salary every month.

                        In the US, the budget is also financed by taxes. Producers pay for everything.
      2. 0
        24 June 2026 01: 07
        By the way, yes, Germany would almost inevitably become the catalyst for this simply due to the unique combination of a very powerful industrial base and a population that has not yet gone through a demographic transition (unlike France, which has had zero growth since the mid-19th century and because of which it would never have become an aggressor).
        1. 0
          25 June 2026 05: 23
          Quote: shocktrooper
          I would never become an aggressor in my life).

          In the 19th century, France carried out extensive conquests in Africa and Asia. Germany simply began its expansion when all the weaker nations had been subjugated by Great Britain, Spain, France, Portugal, and Turkey. In the 20th century, expansion was possible at the expense of lagging countries like Spain, Portugal, and Turkey.
          1. -1
            26 June 2026 21: 42
            Obviously, this means being an aggressor in a full-scale war, and not shooting blacks and Asians; this can be done almost always.
            1. 0
              27 June 2026 02: 11
              Quote: shocktrooper
              Obviously this means the aggressor in a full-scale war,

              German politicians committed a grave error by choosing the wrong direction of aggression and the wrong methods. In the early 20th century, they should have supported the Boers, Muslims, Hindus, and Moroccans, not attacked Serbia. In the 1930s, they should have simply developed industry and negotiated. It was more profitable for Germany to sell arms to China for the war against Japan and to the USSR to provoke Stalin into reclaiming southern Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands, rather than to conclude the Anti-Commintern Pact with Japan.
            2. 0
              30 June 2026 11: 40
              shocktrooper
              in a full scale war
              So, no one is shot there?
        2. 0
          30 June 2026 11: 39
          shocktrooper
          Unlike France, for example... it would never become an aggressor.
          Well, yes, well... Wars in Algeria and other African countries... France still hasn't been kicked out of Africa... But yeah, it's not an aggressor...
      3. 0
        30 June 2026 11: 34
        parma
        Either you fell from the moon or you are working for anti-Russian propaganda.
        Hitler and Germany were simply chosen by Western financial and industrial magnates to crush the USSR and remake the world. And, of course, to finally destroy socialist and communist ideas in the world. This has long been known, and there's no need to invent anything else.
        1. 0
          30 June 2026 13: 01
          This has long been a fabrication. If the "damned West" wanted to destroy communist and socialist ideas (Nazism, by the way, is short for National Socialism), then why did it help the USSR? Why did a delegation from London arrive in Moscow on the fifth day of WWII? (Even though it was still unclear who was winning). Why was a loan from London allocated two weeks after the start of WWII? Incidentally, there was also aid to Mao in China, also from Western countries. And yes, why did they fight Japan? Why weren't the "samurai" unleashed on the USSR?
          P.S.: Maybe you fell from the moon and believe in fairy tales and conspiracies?
    4. 0
      30 June 2026 11: 23
      andrewkor
      You forgot about "Comrade Trotsky," whose agents made up almost the entire Comintern, hence the "result"... And Stalin cut off his funding already in the 30s...
  3. 0
    23 June 2026 05: 22
    Like any aggressor, Germany expected a quick war. To be fair, Britain's role should be divided into the period before Churchill's arrival and after. After all, we had a joint operation against Iran. This shouldn't be forgotten. Hitler managed to assemble a 5-million-strong army on the USSR's border. We are all prone to error about that time, because it was a time of global change.
  4. +1
    23 June 2026 07: 12
    It's clear that the Versailles system, from the very beginning, anticipated a new major war. It failed to resolve the fundamental contradictions in Europe and the world; moreover, it laid new mines.
    .
    How, by and large, was it any different from the UN? The same decisions about Germany were made after WWII, yes. It contributed 20 million to WWI and 50 million to WWII. Should it have been given a prize for that?

    Moreover, the most wronged country was Germany. It was robbed, dismembered, and deliberately humiliated.

    The same thing happened after WWII - the aggressor was held accountable.

    The psychological complex that was spread throughout the nation allowed the Nazis to take power because the Germans wanted revenge.

    And before WWI, why did they want revenge, that they attacked everyone around them?

    They have one complex - invaders
    1. +1
      23 June 2026 10: 17
      Quote: Olgovich
      And before WWI, why did they want revenge, that they attacked everyone around them?

      WWI is highly controversial in its causes. I wouldn't say Germany was solely to blame for the beginning... England and France were there too - there were some "victims"... and the "starting up" of armies began 10 years before the start... France wanted to reclaim Alsace and Eastern Lorraine, while England wanted to expand its colonies and weaken its competitors, preferably with the help of others... The only one who didn't particularly need it was the Russian Empire...
      1. +1
        24 June 2026 09: 12
        Quote: Level 2 Advisor
        WWI is quite controversial in its causes. I wouldn't say that Germany was solely to blame for the beginning.

        It is obvious that without Germany it would not have existed and would not have existed.
        Quote: Level 2 Advisor
        and the "starting up" of armies began 10 years before the start... France wanted to return Alsace and Eastern Lorraine, and England wanted to expand its colonies and weaken its competitors,

        France wanted to return, but not to fight, Germany had been preparing since the 1890s
        Quote: Level 2 Advisor
        The only one who didn't really need it was RI...

        Except for Germany and Hungary, no one needs it.
        1. +1
          24 June 2026 09: 21
          It is obvious that without Germany it would not have existed and would not have existed.

          So the Germans couldn't help but participate in the crisis. Suppose Austria-Hungary issues an ultimatum and attacks Serbia, and the Russian Empire responds by attacking Austria-Hungary. What awaits the Triple Alliance if Germany remains neutral?
          1. +1
            25 June 2026 05: 29
            Quote: strannik1985
            What awaits the Triple Alliance in the event of Germany's neutrality?

            The alliance was intended to be defensive. Germany, in its own interests, was supposed to dissuade Austria-Hungary from abandoning its aggression against Serbia. Moreover, by 1939, Germany had managed to recapture the Saarland, force the French to end their occupation of the Rhineland, and reduce indemnity payments. Germany even had the chance to regain its African colonies through diplomatic means.
            1. 0
              25 June 2026 10: 27
              Germany, in its own interests, had to dissuade Austria-Hungary from abandoning its aggression against Serbia.

              What do you mean, let the murder investigation slide? Why?
              1. 0
                25 June 2026 14: 11
                Quote: strannik1985
                What do you mean, let the murder investigation slide? Why?

                The USSR and Russia regularly assassinated undesirables in Europe and Asia. No one started a war over this. Austria's attempt to violate Serbia's sovereignty cost it the collapse of its empire. Perhaps it should have limited itself to condemning the individual perpetrators. Russian Narodnaya Volya terrorists lived openly in Europe, and Russia didn't start a war with Great Britain over Stepnyak-Kravchinsky, or with Switzerland over Bakunin and Kropotkin.
                1. 0
                  25 June 2026 14: 59
                  The USSR and Russia regularly killed those they disliked in Europe and Asia. No one started a war over this.

                  What do you mean, the murder of the heir to the throne and the refusal to conduct a joint investigation aren't sufficient grounds for declaring war? There were no Nostradamuses in Vienna, so they couldn't judge after the fact.
                  1. 0
                    25 June 2026 21: 18
                    Quote: strannik1985
                    In what sense is the murder of the heir to the throne and the refusal to conduct a joint investigation not sufficient reason to declare war?

                    Serbia was forced to surrender its sovereignty. Russia was simultaneously forced to surrender its fortresses and weapons reserves. Moreover, both the Serbs and the Russians knew in advance that surrendering sovereignty would only provoke Turkey, Japan, Romania, Italy, and Bulgaria to enter the war against Serbia and Russia. Russia should have declared mobilization immediately after the Austro-Hungarian ultimatum.
                    1. 0
                      26 June 2026 06: 17
                      Serbia was required to lose its sovereignty.

                      Does allowing Austrian investigators into the investigation lead to a loss of sovereignty? In general, yes, when they discover that the head of the "Black Hand" is the head of military intelligence of the Serbian army. good It's no longer a fact that the Republic of Ingushetia will stand up for the Serbs🤷
                      1. +1
                        26 June 2026 08: 01
                        Quote: strannik1985
                        Does allowing Austrian investigators to participate in the investigation lead to a loss of sovereignty?

                        On the territory of a foreign country? Yes!
                      2. 0
                        26 June 2026 09: 54
                        territory of a foreign country? Yes!

                        Why the hell? The Serbs' desire to conduct their own investigation is understandable; they're interested in letting the whole thing slide.
                      3. +1
                        26 June 2026 09: 59
                        Quote: strannik1985
                        With a fright?

                        From this.
                        Can you give an example of a sovereign state allowing some left-wing investigators onto its territory?
                        Quote: strannik1985
                        They are interested in letting everything slide.

                        What were the Austrians interested in? Was it, by any chance, hiding their failure with sabre-rattling?
                      4. 0
                        26 June 2026 10: 03
                        Can you give an example of a sovereign state allowing some left-wing investigators onto its territory?

                        What do you mean? The CIS has the Agreement on the Procedure for the Establishment and Operation of Joint Investigative Teams (October 16, 2015), the EU has Article 13 of the EU Convention on Legal Issues, etc. So, the Serbian police are dragging the defendants in the case to Austrian and Serbian investigators for questioning.
                        Isn't it by any chance that the point is to hide your failure by rattling your weapons?

                        How can they hide it? Ferdinand is dead, and they have a vested interest in finding and punishing his killers.
                      5. +1
                        26 June 2026 10: 12
                        Quote: strannik1985
                        In the CIS

                        Are you kidding? The CIS and the EU are supranational entities that emerged much later than the events in question. Such practices didn't exist and couldn't have existed at the time. Therefore, we shouldn't judge those events by modern standards. Serbia was never part of either the HRE or the Austrian Empire, so the Austrians could have exercised their authority there.
                        Quote: strannik1985
                        but they have a vested interest in finding and punishing his killers.

                        So maybe they should have looked not to Belgrade, but to Vienna? For some reason, the Austrians didn't give a damn about the Archduke's safety...
                        Quote: strannik1985
                        How can I hide it?

                        That's right. It's not our fault that the Duke was poorly guarded and taken to some random street, but the Serbs are crap. And the one who killed us was ours, while the ones across the Danube are crap!
                      6. 0
                        26 June 2026 10: 43
                        Are you joking?

                        Not at all. Investigations are conducted on the territory of sovereign states, it's a routine matter. The killers carried out their work in Austria-Hungary, but the organizers were in Serbia.
                        So maybe we should have looked not at Belgrade, but at Vienna?

                        I don't know what country you live in, but in Russia there is a presumption of innocence. In this case, the Austrians are the injured party. Perfect logic: it's not the killers who are to blame for the Archduke's death, but poor security. good
                      7. +1
                        26 June 2026 12: 13
                        Quote: strannik1985
                        Not at all, investigations take place on the territory of sovereign states, it’s a routine matter.

                        Nothing of the kind.
                        Since there will apparently be no examples, I will give my own.
                        1) The capture and execution of the Duke of Enghien on the territory of a neighboring state in 1804.
                        Even the French considered it illegal. It caused the war.
                        2) the capture of Colonel Antoine Argoud by French intelligence services in 1963 in Germany.
                        caused an international scandal.
                        Quote: strannik1985
                        I don't know what country you live in, but in Russia there is a presumption of innocence.

                        The Serbs, when asked to hand over the criminals, naively asked for proof. However, the Austrians had already made up their minds...
                        Quote: strannik1985
                        It is not the assassins who are to blame for the death of the Archduke, but poor security

                        One does not interfere with the other at all.
                        The Austrians needed a pretext, and they got it. Legality was the last thing on their minds.
                        Quote: strannik1985
                        Ideal logic

                        You're an interesting person, too. When it suits you, you try to appeal to the law—not the law of the day, but the law of today. And when it doesn't, you're willing to lean on it. Like Austria in 1914...
                      8. 0
                        26 June 2026 14: 11
                        Since there will apparently be no examples, I will give my own.

                        Again laughing Serbian police should be bringing people in for questioning by Austrian and Serbian investigators. Where do you see any similarities between your examples?
                        So the Serbs, when they were asked to extradite the criminals, naively asked for evidence.

                        They didn’t ask for point 6, they refused immediately.
                        The Austrians needed a reason and they got it.

                        They weren't the ones who received it; the Serbian government handed it to them on a silver platter. They got all worked up and started posturing, apparently hoping for Russian support.
                        When it is to your advantage, you try to appeal to the law, and not to the law of that time, but to the law of the present.

                        From what perspective should I give you the layout? From my personal perspective or from the Russian Empire's?
                      9. +1
                        26 June 2026 18: 07
                        Quote: strannik1985
                        Serbian police should bring people to Austrian investigators for questioning.

                        Once again. Why on earth should foreign investigators be operating on the territory of a sovereign state just because a foreign citizen killed a foreign prince?
                        By the standards of the time, this was completely unthinkable, especially given the fact that there were plenty of terrorists.
                        Can you imagine the Austrians launching a similar attack on the British or the Americans, even though there were even bigger monsters hiding there? Neither can I.
                        Quote: strannik1985
                        Where do you see common ground in your examples?

                        The point is that even Napoleon, who never suffered from modesty, couldn't conceive of such impudence. Therefore, a secret operation was carried out, since no one had officially granted the French permission to investigate and capture Enghien.
                        Quote: strannik1985
                        the Serbian government provided it

                        Are we still talking about the government whose warning about the possibility of an assassination attempt the Austrians ignored?
                        Quote: strannik1985
                        From what position should I give you the layout?

                        I understand your point. Austria is a great power and can do whatever it wants with its small neighbors. What's unclear is why you're passing off this political cuckoldry as a norm of international law.
                        Quote: strannik1985
                        What should it be with?

                        Well, you've got something in mind, haven't you? Go ahead...
                      10. 0
                        26 June 2026 18: 30
                        By the standards of that time, this was completely unthinkable.

                        Probably because Princip is a member of an organization whose leader is the chief of military intelligence for the Serbian army? Not British or German, but Serbian. So Princip is the executor, while the masterminds and organizers are based in Serbia.
                        That's the whole point, that even

                        That is, none at all; on the contrary, when they contacted the Serbian government, the Austrians behaved appropriately, and did not begin to conduct secret operations on the territory of a foreign state.
                        Are we still talking about the government whose warning about the possibility of an assassination attempt the Austrians ignored?

                        How did they ignore him? No one followed Ferdinand?
                        I understand yours.

                        What do you mean, the assassination of the Archduke isn't a sufficient reason for war? Are you serious? fool
                      11. 0
                        26 June 2026 20: 23
                        Quote: strannik1985
                        That is, none at all; on the contrary, when they contacted the Serbian government, the Austrians behaved appropriately.

                        Don't make things up. The very proposal was insulting.
                        Colleague, I am once again convinced that you have no idea about the legal norms of that time, and are trying to pass off your own conjectures as such.
                        In the late 1880s, the Russian government attempted to negotiate the mutual extradition of criminals with Western countries. In most cases, it was rebuffed, particularly by America and Great Britain. And, I repeat, these were criminals, not political prisoners. But a scandal erupted in the United States. Protests against the treaty erupted. What if the Russians demanded the extradition of some terrorist like Kravchinsky?
                        And here it’s not just an extradition, but the admission of investigators into the country’s territory.
                        Quote: strannik1985
                        Principle member of the organization

                        The principle is primarily a subject to Austria-Hungary. And the crime was committed on its territory.
                        Quote: strannik1985
                        How did they ignore it?

                        That's right! They could have cancelled the trip, they could have assigned extra security. They could have simply avoided that alley where the FF had no business being...
                        Quote: strannik1985
                        In what sense is the assassination of the Archduke not a sufficient reason for war?

                        Don't distort the facts. This was a violation of sovereignty. Austria had no right to demand such an investigation.
                        I remember you said something here
                        Quote: strannik1985
                        I don't know what country you live in, but it's Russia.

                        In Russia, for that matter, the constitution directly prohibits the extradition of its citizens to foreign states.
                      12. 0
                        27 June 2026 09: 02
                        Colleague, I am once again convinced that you have no idea about the legal norms of that time, and are trying to pass off your own conjectures as such.

                        The first international police congress was held in April 1914, with representatives from 24 countries participating, including the Russian Empire. As a result, the idea of ​​a permanent international commission was approved, but its implementation was prevented by the First World War. There were separate regional agreements, for example, between Russia and two dozen countries (Belgium (the convention was signed in 1872), Denmark (1866), Switzerland (1873), etc.).
                        The principle is primarily a subject to Austria-Hungary. And the crime was committed on its territory.

                        So what? There was already evidence that the perpetrators of the crime were in Serbia. Why are you ignoring it? wink
                        Yes, just like that!

                        You're distorting the truth, trying to shift the blame from the murderers to the Austrians themselves. There could have been at least a dozen such reports for each trip.
                        Do not distort.

                        Not at all. The organizers and perpetrators of the crime were located in Serbia. The Serbian government refused a joint investigation, obviously wanting to slow things down, because widespread publicity of its results would obviously have a negative impact on relations between Russia and Serbia.
                        In Russia, for that matter, the constitution directly prohibits the extradition of its citizens to foreign states.

                        And in the Russian Empire there were bilateral treaties on the extradition of criminals.
                      13. 0
                        27 June 2026 10: 24
                        Quote: strannik1985
                        First International Police Congress

                        Well, yes, we tried to reach an agreement on cooperation, at least on purely criminal matters. It didn't work out. But what makes you think that makes your position any more justified?
                        Quote: strannik1985
                        for example, Russia has two dozen countries (Belgium)

                        In this case, a similar agreement is needed between Austria and Serbia. And not for criminals, but for political offenders.
                        Do you have such data? Then what is the point of this stream of consciousness?
                        Quote: strannik1985
                        There was already information that the organizers of the crime were in Serbia.

                        We all know that individual Serbian officers (but not the government) were involved in this affair. Since much time has passed, documents have been made public and memoirs have been published.
                        At that time, the Austrians could only declare the guilt of the Serbs in two cases.
                        1) They knew about the assassination attempt from the very beginning and didn't lift a finger to prevent the crime, because their ruling circles were happy with it. (Yes, that happens.)
                        2) They didn't care who was really to blame. They needed a war and made demands that were patently unacceptable.
                        Which, by the way, all serious historians agree on.
                        Quote: strannik1985
                        Why are you ignoring this?

                        I don't ignore it. I just don't confuse warm with soft.
                        The fact that there were Serbs dissatisfied with the Anschluss of Bosnia and Herzegovina is hardly news. Nor is the fact that the immediate killer was an ethnic Serb (which is not the same as a subject of the Kingdom of Serbia).
                        But the fact is that this doesn't make the Austrian authorities' ultimatum any more legitimate. They had no such right.
                        It's as if someone committed a crime that could have killed you or your family. And in retaliation, you went to their house with an axe...

                        Quote: strannik1985
                        The Serbian government has refused to conduct a joint investigation.

                        And it proposed to refer the case to international authorities.
                        The Royal Government admits that it does not understand the meaning and scope of the demand of the Imperial-Royal Government, according to which the Serbian Royal Government is obliged to accept the cooperation of the organs of the Imperial-Royal Government on Serbian territory, but it declares that it is ready to accept any cooperation that does not contradict the norms of international and criminal law, as well as friendly and good-neighbourly relations.
                        But this no longer satisfied Austria. Apparently, the "investigation" itself no longer interested its authorities.
                        Quote: strannik1985
                        And in the Russian Empire there were bilateral treaties on the extradition of criminals.

                        OK. Tell me in all the chilling details how they handed over terrorists like Kravchinsky, Gots, and others like them to us.
                        It would also be desirable for foreign states to allow our investigators into their territory and bring suspects to them for questioning.
                      14. 0
                        27 June 2026 13: 27
                        But why do you think that this makes your position any more justified?

                        Probably because, contrary to your statements, such a practice did exist?
                        Then what is the point of this stream of consciousness?

                        The Austrians tried to resolve the matter relatively peacefully, through a joint investigation, rather than immediately declaring war on Serbia.
                        At that time, the Austrians could only declare the guilt of the Serbs in two cases.

                        You have a new injured party again. fool Terrorist organizations were being investigated. Princip, like the other participants, could have been on the radar. Information could have come from agents, and not just Austrian ones. There are many possibilities, and we know this information is true.
                        But the fact is that this doesn't make the Austrian authorities' ultimatum any more legitimate. They had no such right.

                        What right? To declare war? That's more than enough for a casus belli.
                        And it proposed to refer the case to international authorities.

                        This paragraph does not mention any international body.
                        6. The Royal Government, of course, considers it its duty to initiate an investigation into all persons involved in the plot of June 15/28 and who are within the territory of the Kingdom. As for the cooperation of specially dispatched officials of the Imperial-Royal Government in this investigation, the Royal Government cannot accept this, as it would violate the Constitution and criminal procedure laws. Nevertheless, in certain cases, the results of the investigation may be shared with Austro-Hungarian authorities.
                        There were no international bodies involved; the Serbs planned to investigate the case themselves and perhaps report the results to the opposing side. Naturally, the Austrians perceived this as an attempt to undermine the case and escalated the situation.
                      15. 0
                        27 June 2026 15: 25
                        Quote: strannik1985
                        Probably because, contrary to your statements, such a practice did exist?

                        I can't even imagine how such conclusions could be reached on this basis. Because such practice did not exist.
                        Here is an example of Russia, which no one has ever extradited her own subjects, absolutely certainly guilty of terrorist activities, not to mention the possibility of official investigations on the territory of foreign states.
                        Moreover, the prosecution of even ordinary criminals was made extremely difficult.
                        You are demanding that Serbia not only provide the opportunity to conduct an investigation on its territory, but also extradite their citizens to the massacre!
                        Do you really not understand that no country would agree to this?
                        Quote: strannik1985
                        You have a new injured party again.

                        And you again believe that the collective responsibility of all of Serbia should be borne by Princip.
                        Quote: strannik1985
                        What right?

                        The right to demand investigation and extradition of Serbian citizens.
                        This is more than enough for a casus belli.

                        Is the assassination of a prince by his own citizen sufficient to declare war on a third country?
                        What else will you please me with...
                        Quote: strannik1985
                        This paragraph does not mention any international body.
                        6.

                        In the sixth, no. But in the fifth, there certainly is.
                        The Serbs themselves planned to investigate the case and perhaps report the results to the opposing side

                        Indeed, what impudence, to conduct an investigation in full compliance with one’s own legislation and the law enforcement practice of that time!
                        You should have capitulated immediately!
                        so?
                      16. 0
                        27 June 2026 18: 35
                        You are demanding that Serbia not only allow an investigation to be conducted on its territory, but also hand over its citizens for reprisals!

                        It's not true; the ultimatum doesn't mention anything about handing over Serbian citizens to the Austrians. Verbatim.
                        Conduct an investigation against each of the participants in the Sarajevo assassination with the participation of the Austrian government in the investigation.
                        Neither in this nor in any other point July ultimatum not a word about extraditing Serbian citizens anywhere.
                        And you again believe that the collective responsibility of all of Serbia should be borne by Princip.

                        No, the responsibility should lie with the members of the terrorist organization who recruited and prepared Gavrilo Princip for the assassination of Franz Ferdinand. However, an official investigation could have led to a political crisis in Serbia.
                        Is the assassination of a prince by his own citizen sufficient to declare war on a third country?

                        No, but if the organizers of the murder are covered up by a neighboring state, then yes.
                        In the sixth, no. But in the fifth, there certainly is.

                        You're contradicting yourself now. You claimed that there was no custom of conducting joint investigations?
                      17. +1
                        28 June 2026 08: 05
                        Quote: strannik1985
                        Not true,

                        Well, well, well. They would have simply identified the culprits (or, more likely, appointed them) and let them go.
                        Do you believe it yourself? feel
                        recruited, prepared

                        Once again, we know this for sure now, for the reasons I listed above. At the time, it was completely unclear.
                        What were you talking about there, about the presumption of innocence?
                        Quote: strannik1985
                        You're contradicting yourself now. You claimed that there was no custom of conducting joint investigations?

                        I can't keep up with your imagination. belay
                        There were no laws, nor any custom, for foreign states to investigate cases in the territories of neighboring states they did not control. However, cases of international arbitration involving several great powers were not uncommon. But Austria refused to agree to this. request
                        Look, it's perfectly clear that Austria's demands grossly violated Serbian sovereignty and were completely inconsistent with the international law of the time. I accept that you sincerely believe that appeasing the aggressor could have prevented the Great War.
                        Well, who am I to question your religious feelings?
                        The only problem is that such concessions never produced the desired result. Today you'd make a small concession (and we're not talking about small things here), and tomorrow they'd demand more. The Austrian authorities were firmly committed to war, and the concessions Serbia had already shown wouldn't have stopped them.
                        And finally, to demonstrate the absurdity of your views, let's imagine a thought experiment. Suppose a former Russian citizen, say, Garry Kimovich Kasparov, accepted French citizenship and then committed some heinous crime there. Perhaps he vilely assaulted Madame Macron, thereby revealing her state secrets.
                        And now the question: Who do you think France should declare war on?
                        a) Russia (under previous citizenship)
                        b) Azerbaijan (based on the villain's place of birth)
                        c) Israel (due to its nationality)
                        He has connections in all three countries...
                        What's absurd? Well, your constructions are no less absurd.
                        P.S. Note: None of these three countries would allow a foreign state to conduct an investigation on their territory. And the third would not allow an international commission either.
                      18. 0
                        28 June 2026 08: 26
                        Do you believe it yourself?

                        I don't believe it, but the Serbs could have sent the Austrians to do this with Russia's full support. They could have punished their own citizens themselves, and that option wouldn't have been any worse for the conspirators themselves. Fighting the AVI implies retaliation, and here "their own" would imprison them, or maybe even execute them.
                        What were you talking about there, about the presumption of innocence?

                        So this information is true, why couldn’t it have been known at that time, at least from the words of Princip himself?
                        Cases of international arbitration involving several great powers have certainly occurred. But Austria hasn't agreed to this.

                        Why should she do this if the Serbian authorities are clearly interested in sweeping this whole matter under the carpet and not being held accountable for anything?
                        Today you will give in on a small thing (and we are not talking about a small thing here at all), tomorrow they will demand more from you.

                        What do you mean, you can kill the heir to the throne of a neighboring country with impunity? good Why should all of Serbia or Russia be held responsible for the actions of a secret organization?
                      19. +1
                        28 June 2026 08: 53
                        Quote: strannik1985
                        I don’t believe it, but the Serbs could have sent the Austrians to do this with the full support of Russia.

                        It's a little late. Having said "a," one must also say "b."
                        Quote: strannik1985
                        So this information is true, why couldn’t it have been known at that time, at least from the words of Princip himself?

                        Excuse me, have you read the transcript of his interrogation, or are you fantasizing again?
                        Again, even if that were the case, don't suspects ever lie during investigations?
                        Quote: strannik1985
                        Why should she do this if the Serbian authorities are clearly interested in sweeping this whole matter under the carpet and not being held accountable for anything?

                        Pardon me, but is the international arbitration of the great powers also interested in "covering their tracks"?
                        Here, Austria was more interested in accusing the Karadjordjevics of all mortal sins and obtaining a pretext for war, which it declared not against some abstract terrorists, but specifically against Serbia.
                        Quote: strannik1985
                        What do you mean, you can kill the heir to the throne of a neighboring country with impunity?

                        What do you mean, with impunity? It's like they caught him and hanged him...
                        Quote: strannik1985
                        Why should all of Serbia be held accountable for the actions of a secret organization?

                        Believe it or not, I have the same question...
                        P.S. So what's going on with France? Who should it declare war on?
                      20. 0
                        28 June 2026 11: 52
                        It's a little late. Having said "a," one must also say "b."

                        Speculation.
                        Excuse me, have you read the transcript of his interrogation, or are you fantasizing again?

                        Danila Ilić testified about his affiliation with Mlada Bosna, and relevant literature was found during the search. By the time of the ultimatum, the Austrians already had evidence: for example, Tankosić had trained the future assassins in marksmanship, provided them with weapons, and his men had helped them cross the border.
                        Here, Austria was more interested in blaming

                        In what they actually did? laughing
                        What do you mean, with impunity? It's like they caught him and hanged him...

                        The perpetrators were caught. What happened to Tankosich, Dmitrievich, and other members of the "Black Hand"?
                        P.S. So what's going on with France? Who should it declare war on?

                        I have no idea; this is a childish example, just for laughs. Let's imagine that Tsarevich Alexei or one of his sisters is a revolutionary—a Russian, the trail leads to the Turks, Denmark, or Sweden, and the organizers of the murder hold high positions in the government or army. The authorities of that country refuse to investigate and don't arrest the suspects. What next?
                      21. +1
                        28 June 2026 17: 56
                        Quote: strannik1985
                        Testimony of belonging to "Mlada Bosna"

                        Since when did "Mlada Bosna" become equal to Serbia?
                        Quote: strannik1985
                        In what they actually did?

                        Who are they, all Serbs at once or one subject of Austria-Hungary?
                        Quote: strannik1985
                        I have no idea, it's some kind of childish example,

                        Like all your arguments with the attempt to link the CIS with the EU to Serbia in 1914))
                        Quote: strannik1985
                        Let's imagine that Tsarevich Alexei or one of the sisters is a revolutionary - Russian, the trail leads to the Turks, Denmark or Sweden, the organizers of the murder sit in high positions in the government or army.

                        Replace Turkey and Denmark with Great Britain, and the prince with the tsar, and it will be almost real)))
                        Quote: strannik1985
                        What's next?

                        I believe the governments of these countries will tell the Russian ambassador that they are not responsible for the actions of Russian citizens. And, characteristically, they will be right.
                      22. 0
                        28 June 2026 19: 52
                        Since when did "Mlada Bosna" become equal to Serbia?

                        Once the Serbian government began to cover up for the organizers of Ferdinand's assassination, the country became responsible for the actions of its citizens.
                        Who are they, all Serbs at once or one subject of Austria-Hungary?

                        They are the organizers of the assassination of the Archduke, those who prepared it, provided the weapons, and transported the killers across the border.
                        I believe the governments of these countries will tell the Russian ambassador that they are not responsible for the actions of Russian citizens.

                        Are they also not responsible for the actions of their citizens who trained them, provided them with weapons, and transported them across the border?
                        As for the possible reaction of the Russian Empire

                        Once again, the organizer of the murder serves in the army of Denmark or the Ottoman Empire, has not been dismissed, has not even been detained.
                      23. 0
                        30 June 2026 10: 41
                        Quote: strannik1985
                        Once again, the organizer of the murder serves in the army of Denmark or the Ottoman Empire, has not been dismissed, has not even been detained.

                        So, the example from real history with England doesn’t suit you because it doesn’t fit into the fictional world? request
                        Or do you think that great powers can do any kind of crazy thing?
                        The Austrians, apparently, thought so... with the well-known result.
                      24. 0
                        30 June 2026 11: 11
                        So, the example from real history with England doesn’t suit you because it doesn’t fit into the fictional world?

                        So, citizen Romanov and his family were murdered on the orders of the Ural Regional Council of Workers', Peasants', and Soldiers' Deputies, perhaps with Lenin's sanction, perhaps not. The British did not recruit/train/infiltrate the assassins into Russia.
                      25. 0
                        30 June 2026 12: 14
                        Quote: strannik1985
                        The British did not recruit/train/send killers to Russia.

                        Don't be silly. You knew perfectly well that we were talking about Pavel.
                        The only difference is that the British ambassador, who was certainly aware of the conspiracy, unlike the Serbian government, did not try to warn the Russian Tsar.
                      26. 0
                        30 June 2026 12: 36
                        Don't be silly.

                        Not at all, the conspiracy was "domestic." Declaring war on England because the ambassador was aware of the conspiracy? Seriously?
                      27. +1
                        30 June 2026 15: 12
                        Quote: strannik1985
                        declare war on England because the ambassador was aware of the conspiracy?

                        And I said from the very beginning that the claims that one’s own citizen killed the FF are somewhat excessive.
                      28. 0
                        30 June 2026 15: 58
                        And I said from the very beginning that the claims that one’s own citizen killed the FF are somewhat excessive.

                        Unlike your example, the involvement of Serbian citizens in the terrorist attack is known.
                      29. 0
                        1 July 2026 17: 46
                        Quote: strannik1985
                        Unlike your example, the involvement of Serbian citizens in the terrorist attack is known.

                        Yes, and no one denies the involvement of British citizens in Pavel's apoplectic attack with a snuffbox either))
                        Moreover, the ambassador is a much more important and significant figure than some shabby officer at headquarters, whom the Austrians demanded to be handed over.
                        No, the difference is not that, but that:
                        a) Russia did not intend to start a war, and therefore did not put forward obviously impossible conditions to justify future aggression.
                        b) Great Britain at the beginning of the 19th century was not, in principle, the kind of country to which such conditions could be put forward.
                        The rest is talk in favor of the poor.
                        And just in case. This isn't about excusing the Serbs (or rather, some of them), but rather that Austria's position isn't as flawless as you think.
                      30. 0
                        1 July 2026 19: 51
                        Yes, and no one denies the involvement of British citizens in Pavel's apoplectic attack with a snuffbox either.

                        Who knew what information at the time of the murder? In 1914, those arrested gave testimony; who gave it to whom then? What role did the British play?
                      31. 0
                        1 July 2026 20: 58
                        Read Ryzhov's articles on this site, he loves this topic.
                      32. 0
                        28 June 2026 19: 35
                        Quote: strannik1985
                        What's next?

                        As for the possible reaction of the Russian Empire, since it obviously did not want either war or an escalation of relations, it would under no circumstances put forward obviously unacceptable claims and provoke a conflict.
                      33. 0
                        27 June 2026 01: 58
                        Quote: strannik1985
                        It's no longer a fact that the Republic of Ingushetia will stand up for the Serbs🤷

                        American intelligence hired Afghans to suppress the South Korean economy, instructing them to kill a couple of Korean women and lock the rest in a dungeon until South Korea abandoned its independent efforts to establish direct capital exports to Afghanistan without American involvement. The kidnappers demonstrated the dungeon, its door, and the lock (similar to one of the cheapest and simplest ones from the Cheboksary plant) with which the Korean women were locked to Russian citizens. They explained that US special forces were also guarding the locked Korean women in an outer ring to prevent Kim Jong-un or Putin from attempting to free them to improve their countries' relations with South Korea, or to prevent the kidnappers from handing the Korean women over to the Russian embassy, ​​splitting the reward for their release from the South Korean government with Russian citizens. Did this cause South Korea to attack the United States or cease being its ally?
                      34. -1
                        27 June 2026 09: 05
                        Was this why South Korea attacked the United States or stopped being its ally?

                        Russia and Serbia were not allies; it was the United States that ensured the security of the Republic of Kazakhstan with a permanent military contingent, just as the Russian Empire ensured the security of Serbia with a military threat, only without a signed treaty or military bases on Serbian territory.
                      35. 0
                        27 June 2026 14: 22
                        Quote: strannik1985
                        Russia and Serbia were not allies,

                        Serbia constantly fought on Russia's side. Therefore, in Russian society, the Tsar's refusal to save Serbia would have cost him his throne. Austria's ambitions extended not only to Serbia, but also to Poland and Ukraine. Therefore, Russia saw Austria as its direct enemy. Germany effectively subjugated Russia with high-interest loans. When France offered Russia low-interest loans without stringent conditions, this gave Russia a chance to escape German bondage, but Germany accelerated military preparations against Russia and France in response to France's cheap loans to Russia. The primary goal of the United States is not to protect South Korea but to maintain hostility on the Korean Peninsula and hinder Korean economic expansion in Asia. Moreover, the United States is better at containing South Korea than North Korea. Although the US prefers to contain North Korea by bribing corrupt diplomats in Russia, who, like Dmitriev, are willing to waste half of Russia's budget on creating super-expensive infrastructure for dog and reindeer transport in the uninhabited Arctic for the sake of a good reception on a US assignment.
                      36. 0
                        27 June 2026 15: 36
                        Serbia has always fought on Russia's side.

                        So, did Serbia kill Franz Ferdinand or members of some organization, including members of the Serbian army?
                        And here the question is - for what reason did Dragutin Dmitrievich and everyone who serves under him become irreplaceable?
                      37. 0
                        27 June 2026 23: 26
                        Quote: strannik1985
                        So, did Serbia kill Franz Ferdinand or members of some organization, including members of the Serbian army?

                        Gavrilo Princip was a citizen of Austria-Hungary. Who knows who he associated with? History knows nothing about the shooters who struck the Archherzer and his wife, other than Gavrilo Princip. The question should not be whether Austria-Hungary could have justified its treacherous attack on Russia and Serbia by citing a dispute between the Bosnian student Gavrilo Princip and the heir to the throne. Instead, it should have been Austria-Hungary and its monarch who would have started a war, during which he would have been forced to abdicate, and the titular Hungarian and German nations would have lost their Slavic and Romanian slaves, who would have gained independence and themselves begun to oppress the Hungarians in Romania and Yugoslavia, and the Germans in the Sudetenland and Poland. German generals and rulers in 1914, 1939 and 1941 committed outright stupidity, primarily to the detriment of the German people.
                      38. 0
                        1 July 2026 01: 47
                        Apparently, I was mistaken about you working for the secret services. You simply have a mental disorder.
                        ...abdicate the throne and lose the titles of the Hungarian and German nations...
                        It is impossible to read such a meaningless set of words, and a normal person is not capable of writing such a thing.
                      39. 0
                        1 July 2026 01: 49
                        gsev
                        US special forces are also guarding the trapped Korean women with an outer ring
                        What is the name of the substance you are using?
                2. -1
                  30 June 2026 11: 47
                  The USSR and Russia regularly killed those they disliked in Europe and Asia.
                  Where did this rumor come from? Did they kill themselves? Or did they take some hallucinogenic drug?
                  And answer the question: how many people were killed “on orders” from the USA or Israel?
                  1. -1
                    30 June 2026 13: 44
                    Quote: futurohunter
                    Where does the gossip come from?

                    For example, Pavel Sudoplatov's book "Intelligence and the Kremlin" contains numerous memoirs by Alpha personnel about the murder of Hafizullah Amin's family. At the Vystrel course in the late 1980s, during a refresher course for officers from military departments at universities, participants in this operation recounted how a Soviet special forces officer had an affair with Amin's daughter before her execution.
                    Quote: futurohunter
                    How many people were killed "on orders" from the US or Israel?

                    How much their governments decided and how much their intelligence agencies were able to accomplish. The second figure is significantly smaller. But even the attempt by a North Korean special forces company to break into Seoul and assassinate the South Korean president did not lead to World War III. South Korea seized a hydrological research vessel 60 miles off its coast, after which North Korean special forces captured the American signals intelligence ship Pueblo 15 miles off the coast near the important North Korean military base of Wonsan.
                    1. 0
                      1 July 2026 01: 45
                      Soviet special forces officer
                      Do you like gossip and the yellow internet?
                      Why did you suddenly start writing about the USSR, North Korea, and other countries the West finds undesirable? Are you working for Western propaganda?
                      After all, if Soviet or North Korean intelligence services killed 5-10 people, then the number of murders by Western intelligence services (including Israel) runs into the tens of thousands...
                      1. 0
                        1 July 2026 15: 16
                        Quote: futurohunter
                        then the number of murders by Western intelligence agencies (including Israel) is in the tens of thousands...

                        That's what intelligence agencies are for: to conduct subversive operations using covert methods. I cited assassination operations in response to the remark that Austria-Hungary had the right to start World War I because of the assassination attempt on the Archduke. But my friend was actually shown the door and lock behind which the captured Korean women were sitting in Kabul at the time, and he and their captors discussed the consequences of successfully transporting the Korean women to the Russian embassy over a cup of tea from a teapot. South Korea didn't attack the United States or even sever its alliance with them, despite knowing that the US intelligence agencies and the State Department were behind the kidnapping of the Korean women.
                      2. 0
                        2 July 2026 10: 48
                        But to my friend
                        The topic of acquaintances is so fruitful! And you know what acquaintances I have! For example, in my youth, I knew some of the people who are now building drones in 404. Actually, I lost contact with them long ago, and I learned about their current "hobby" completely by chance, from "open sources."
                        Another friend of mine personally climbed into an open nuclear reactor, and is still running around alive and well...
                        Don't believe everything you hear...
                  2. 0
                    1 July 2026 15: 21
                    Quote: futurohunter
                    How many people were killed "on orders" from the US or Israel?

                    Just recently, almost the entire leadership of Hezbollah and Iran was killed.
                    1. 0
                      2 July 2026 10: 50
                      That's the point! Don't compare the murdered Bandera and Konovalets with the tens of thousands killed by Western intelligence agencies.
                      1. 0
                        2 July 2026 11: 34
                        Quote: futurohunter
                        That's the point! Don't compare the murdered Bandera and Konovalets with the tens of thousands killed by Western intelligence agencies.

                        I accept political assassinations as a common practice in the modern world order. There's no point in starting a major war over either the assassination of the Archduke or the murder of Litvinenko. I'd like the FSB to kill more, and for the CIA and Mossad to fail more often. I was also pleased with the deaths of Nemtsov and Politkovskaya.
                      2. 0
                        2 July 2026 14: 40
                        Your examples are extremely unfortunate. All these Litvi-Nemtse-Politkovskys—it's unknown who killed them—maybe their real masters.
                        a major war not because of the assassination of the Archduke
                        There is a pretext, and there is a reason. The reasons for WWI had long been ripe by the time it began. There was no pretext. Then it appeared.
                        But not every pretext starts a war. The invasion of Russian territory by Ukrainian troops two days before the start of the Second World War was not a pretext for the outbreak of hostilities. It was discussed rather sluggishly and is now barely remembered.
                        political assassinations as a common practice in the modern world order
                        Exclusively for the "global West," not for other countries. Although Indian intelligence has carried out a couple of political assassinations, this isn't "common practice" for them. And it's certainly not common practice for Russian intelligence services.
                        I would like the FSB to kill more, and the CIA and Mossad's attempts to fail more often.
                        This is a false belief. We shouldn't act like monsters. "Bad people" should be publicly judged and punished, not left to engage in dirty tricks. Otherwise, the entire world will become a dumping ground and a hotbed of all-out war.
                      3. 0
                        2 July 2026 23: 17
                        Quote: futurohunter
                        And even more so, it is not such for the Russian special services.
                        Around 1000 killed in October 1993? The murders of RNE members and National Bolsheviks? Or the murders in the Moscow shopping mall, which are of no interest to anyone except the intelligence agencies of Muslim countries...
                      4. 0
                        3 July 2026 08: 35
                        What are you talking about? What do Russian intelligence agencies have to do with this? 1993—it was military mercenaries hired by the Yeltsinites, plus American snipers, plus Israeli special forces under Yakov Kedmi, who are now dressing up in "pro-Russian garb."
                        Murders in a Moscow shopping mall
                        It has long become a place for showdowns between criminals from the Asian diaspora
                        intelligence services of Muslim countries
                        What the hell are they doing there? They have more important things to do than deal with criminals.
                      5. -1
                        3 July 2026 19: 03
                        Quote: futurohunter
                        hired by the Yeltsinites + American snipers + Israeli special forces under the command of Yakov Kedmi

                        I think it was Russian special forces that were shooting there. What you call Yakov Kedmi's or Israel's special forces were Jews with Russian citizenship who were involved in military-sports clubs, from orienteering to shooting clubs. After all, they were confronted by people from the Russian National Unity (RNE), sporting uniforms reminiscent of SS executioners from Soviet films. Back then, Russians were killing Russians for the sake of those who wanted to dismember Russia. Or Soviet and Russian citizens.
                      6. +1
                        4 July 2026 00: 02
                        There were no Russian secret services there! They weren't particularly fond of Yeltsin's regime back then. On the contrary, Alpha led the White House defenders out and prevented them from being arrested and fired upon. Don't make up stories about "Jews with Russian citizenship." They didn't gather in armed units here—that only happened in Israel. The RNE members are clowns who discredited the White House defenders in the eyes of the people.
                      7. -1
                        4 July 2026 17: 55
                        Quote: futurohunter
                        On the contrary, Alpha led the White House defenders out and prevented them from being arrested and shot at.

                        At Ostankino, the security services effectively targeted demonstrators. Moreover, the covert operation was professionally implemented and targeted at the naive demonstrators. For example, security agents spread rumors near Ostankino that Makashov had ordered parliament supporters to gather in a pen near the television center, where those who heeded these "instructions" were mowed down with automatic fire. Yeltsin effectively bribed the Alpha agents for his support. Moreover, Korzhakov urged Yeltsin to carry out bloody reprisals against parliament supporters, while liberals in Yeltsin's entourage, on the advice of the CIA, insisted against repression, as this would, in the long run, benefit Yeltsin, his family, and those who supported him from 1990 to 1993.
                      8. 0
                        5 July 2026 21: 22
                        You make such peremptory statements as if you yourself were shooting at the Makashovites. It's not known exactly who shot at them. What is known for certain is that American snipers and Israeli special forces fired at everyone involved in this senseless show.
                        So, once again, the question for you is: who do you work for?
          2. 0
            25 June 2026 20: 01
            Quote: strannik1985
            Let's assume AVI issues an ultimatum and attacks Serbia.

            A small detail. Gavrilo Princip is originally from Bosnia. That means he's effectively a subject of Austria-Hungary. This inevitably raises the question: why on earth did Austria-Hungary issue an ultimatum to Serbia? Why not China or Argentina?
            1. 0
              25 June 2026 20: 54
              Why exactly did Austria-Hungary issue an ultimatum to Serbia?

              They probably had information that he was a member of "Mlada Bosnia", and that part of the "Black Hand"?
              1. 0
                26 June 2026 08: 11
                Quote: strannik1985
                They probably had information that he was a member of "Mlada Bosnia", and that part of the "Black Hand"?

                So what? Bosnia is the responsibility of the Austro-Hungarian secret services, which acted extremely unprofessionally, despite being warned of possible incidents.
                And then it happened, like in Alla Surikova's film "Two Arrows." A murder has occurred, and someone must answer for it. Who will answer? The Scorpions!
                1. 0
                  26 June 2026 09: 57
                  so what?

                  That the traces of the crime led to Serbia.
                  1. 0
                    26 June 2026 10: 03
                    The Serbs accepted the Austrian ultimatum, with the exception of one clause, which no self-respecting power would have accepted. But since the Austrians were only concerned about war, they chose to ignore it.
                    And here the question arises - cui prodest?
                    Certainly not to the Serbs.
                    1. 0
                      26 June 2026 10: 39
                      one point that no self-respecting power would accept

                      Would it be difficult for you to quote this point? lol
                      1. 0
                        26 June 2026 12: 13
                        Haven't you read it?
                        And why am I not surprised... feel
                      2. 0
                        26 June 2026 14: 12
                        And why am I not surprised...

                        I read it and can't understand your train of thought. So, is there a quote? What's there that any self-respecting nation would disagree with?
                      3. +1
                        2 July 2026 11: 56
                        Quote: strannik1985
                        What would any self-respecting state disagree with there?

                        With the complete loss of national sovereignty and the admission of foreign security forces to its territory, Israel simply does not extradite its citizens to foreign countries for prosecution.
                      4. -1
                        2 July 2026 16: 17
                        Israel simply does not extradite its citizens to foreign countries for prosecution.

                        You're confusing the issue here; the ultimatum doesn't mention the extradition of Serbian citizens. How is sovereignty being wasted by allowing Austrian investigators into Serbian territory?
                      5. +1
                        2 July 2026 23: 26
                        Quote: strannik1985
                        How is sovereignty being spent when Austrian investigators are allowed into Serbian territory?

                        A request for the extradition of a criminal would not affect sovereignty if Serbia retained the right to reject it. But allowing foreign security forces to conduct searches without proper oversight by the Serbs themselves is effectively an admission of a willingness to capitulate. But most importantly, Austria-Hungary initiated the war, which resulted in its defeat and disintegration.
                      6. 0
                        4 July 2026 18: 55
                        The request for extradition of a criminal does not affect sovereignty

                        Once again, the July ultimatum does not mention anyone’s extradition.
                        But to allow search actions by other security agencies without proper control

                        The ultimatum does not contain any demands for independent investigative actions, only for access to Austrian investigators.
                      7. 0
                        4 July 2026 19: 31
                        Quote: strannik1985
                        only about the admission of Austrian investigators.

                        Austria-Hungary's diplomacy should not have threatened Serbia or demanded permission to conduct search operations on Serbian territory. Instead, it should have granted either broad autonomy to the Serbs in Bosnia, or allowed Bosnia to float freely as a new independent state, or allowed it to become part of Serbia. Similarly, Ukraine could have prevented conflict with Russia in 2014 by abandoning Russophobia and Ukrainization in Russian-speaking regions, in 2015 by recognizing the return of Crimea to Russia and broad autonomy for the LPR and DPR, and in 2023 by transferring the Azov region and Donbas to Russia. Now, Ukraine's only option is to end the war as soon as possible, preventing the critical extermination of Ukraine's male population. Germany and Austria-Hungary did not have the resources for a "Drang nach Osten" in 1914, nor do they have them now. The German people paid for the ineptly drafted ultimatum with the loss of Alsace, Czechoslovania, Lorraine, Tyrol, Transylvania, Pomerania and Silesia.
                      8. 0
                        4 July 2026 19: 58
                        Austria-Hungary's diplomacy was not meant to threaten Serbia.

                        What do you mean, encourage the Archduke's killers? In response to the murder?🤦 Seriously?
                      9. 0
                        4 July 2026 20: 18
                        Quote: strannik1985
                        What do you mean, encourage the Archduke's killers?

                        Are you calling on the Serbs to agree to the annexation of Bosnia? The assassination of Archduke Ferdinand is the same kind of guerrilla warfare as the assassination attempt on Ukraine's Gauleiter Koch, the assassination of Belarus' Gauleiter Kube, or the bombing of the German Zeppelin Hindenburg by a Soviet saboteur and German anti-fascist. Following your logic, N. Kuznetsov, the most flamboyant legend of the Soviet and Russian special forces, should be stripped of his award.
                      10. 0
                        5 July 2026 14: 10
                        Are you calling on Serbs to agree to the annexation of Bosnia?

                        I'm all for Serbia being held responsible for the actions of its citizens. Why on earth should some Russian Ivan be held responsible for wanting to kill someone?
                      11. 0
                        6 July 2026 12: 45
                        Quote: strannik1985
                        I am in favor of Serbia being held responsible for the actions of its citizens,

                        Thanks to the inadequate intervention of Austria-Hungary against Serbia and Germany against Belgium and Russia, the Serbs reclaimed their lands in Bosnia and Croatia from the German yoke. In response to Ferdinand's assassination, Austria was supposed to grant the Slavs in Bosnia, Croatia, and Herzegovina broad local autonomy and, by exploiting the differences between Catholics, Muslims, and Orthodox among the Slavs, successfully maintain the annexed Slavic colonies under Hungarian and German rule.
                      12. 0
                        6 July 2026 13: 21
                        In response to the assassination of Ferdinand, Austria was supposed to provide the Slavs in Bosnia

                        She owes nothing; in this particular case, AVI is the aggrieved party, and she suffered from the belief that the Serbs would not have to answer for their actions. It was Nicholas who dragged Russia into a completely unnecessary war by covering up for the organizers of Ferdinand's assassination.
                      13. 0
                        6 July 2026 14: 08
                        Quote: strannik1985
                        It was Nicholas who dragged Russia into a war it absolutely did not need by covering up for the organizers of Ferdinand's murder.

                        Thanks to these actions, Germany did not conquer Russia. If Serbia had been conquered, either France or Russia would have followed suit. Expansion into Russia was a key question for European historians in the 19th century. The "Russian question" posited that the conquest of China was problematic without access to China's northern and western regions through Russia. The decision to enter the war in defense of Serbia was absolutely correct and met Russia's national and state interests. Ferdinand's assassination was an act of guerrilla warfare, like the assassination attempts on McNamara (failed in Vietnam—the perpetrator died), Cuba (successful—the perpetrator was blown up in Cuba and taken to Moscow), or Koch (Kuznetsov abandoned the attempt, realizing that his guards would not let him leave or simply prevent him from drawing his pistol).
                      14. 0
                        6 July 2026 15: 08
                        Thanks to these actions, Germany did not capture Russia.

                        Oh yes, this greatly consoled Nicholas Romanov in the basement of the Ipatiev House.
                        If Serbia had been captured, either France or Russia would have been captured later.

                        How so? What's the logical connection between Russia and the possible occupation of Serbia? Has the Franco-Russian military alliance collapsed?
                      15. 0
                        6 July 2026 19: 19
                        Quote: strannik1985
                        Has the Franco-Russian military alliance collapsed?

                        After World War I, there was a Little Entente—effectively an alliance of Italy, Yugoslavia, Poland, Romania, and Czechoslovakia against Germany, Bulgaria, and Poland. It collapsed after the annexation of Austria. The country most fearful of Germany's attempts to reclaim historical German lands subsequently attacked its ally Czechoslovakia, along with its eternal enemy, Germany. And when Germany attacked Poland in 1939, it had no need to fear a blow from the south and avoided a French attack during the critical days of September 1939. Italy avoided entering World War II until it was certain that Great Britain stood alone after France's military defeat on its home soil. Perhaps Hitler was unable to seize Moscow and the Caucasus in 1941 because he needed to delay his attack on the USSR due to Yugoslav resistance. The Germans simply did not have time to capture Moscow before the German air force, due to bad weather and short winter days, was forced to reduce the intensity of attacks on the Soviet troops defending Moscow in October-November 1941 and launching a counteroffensive in December-January 1941.
                        Quote: strannik1985
                        consoled Nicholas Romanov in the basement of the Ipatiev House.

                        The Romanov dynasty was destined to end due to his marriage to a sick bride. His son would inevitably die upon reaching adulthood, and his daughters would pass on a hereditary disease to their children. From the perspective of the fate of the Russian people, the fate of the Romanov family is insignificant. His overthrow and murder is yet another argument in favor of the correctness of the union of Russia and Serbia in 1914.
                      16. 0
                        7 July 2026 09: 05
                        After World War I

                        What difference does it make to us what happened after WWI if we have a situation before WWI?
                        The Romanov dynasty must

                        Why all this abstract reasoning? Romanov mobilized the army to help Serbia, not out of fatalism.
                      17. 0
                        7 July 2026 15: 09
                        Quote: strannik1985
                        What difference does it make to us what happened after WWI if we have a situation before WWI?

                        One must be able to think a little further. If Austria-Hungary prepared to attack Serbia in alliance with Germany, then tomorrow it will attack Russia in alliance with Turkey, Japan, and Germany. The USSR intervened on behalf of the Mongolian People's Republic at Khalkhin Gol, and the military alliance between Japan and Germany against the USSR collapsed. This was certainly not only due to the heavy losses suffered by Soviet tanks, but also because of the historical memory of the Germans' failed campaign in Serbia.
      2. 0
        30 June 2026 11: 44
        WWI was a typical gang fight. "Fuck, it's my car!" - "No, it's mine!"
        WWII is fundamentally different - it was a war against the establishment of the World Empire of Evil
        1. -1
          30 June 2026 13: 51
          Quote: futurohunter
          WWII is fundamentally different - it was a war against the establishment of the World Empire of Evil

          Well, at least you don't deny that wars start under false pretexts...
          1. 0
            1 July 2026 01: 41
            What pretexts?! Do you even understand what you wrote? Are you even from Russia?
            And you didn’t refute my words with your “imitative”...
            1. 0
              1 July 2026 05: 22
              Quote: futurohunter
              What pretexts?! Do you even understand what you wrote? Are you even from Russia?
              And you didn’t refute my words with your “imitative”...

              So, in your opinion, was the reason for starting WWI worthy? I'm talking about wars in general, not WWII specifically.
              1. 0
                2 July 2026 10: 44
                The reasons for wars are varied... There can also be just wars – to defend against an aggressor, or colonial enslavement, for example...
        2. 0
          2 July 2026 11: 59
          Quote: futurohunter
          WWII is fundamentally different - it was a war against the establishment of the World Empire of Evil

          Germany's expansion always means the spread of global evil. Whether it was during the Namibian genocide, World War I or World War II, or even now with the support of the Ukrainian Armed Forces. Putin made a tragic mistake in seeking to develop scientific and technical cooperation with France and Germany. This cooperation has swept Russia clean of talented engineering and technical personnel.
          1. 0
            2 July 2026 14: 53
            Germany's expansion is always the spread of global evil.
            That's not true. Germany's colonial expansion is no different from that of Spain, Great Britain, and France. And Belgium turned its only colony into a concentration camp! So it's a big question who is the global evil here. And Germany, Japan, the Americans, and the British were all bombed absolutely savagely, not to mention the atomic bombings—the US was the most successful here.
            Germany became the representative of the World Evil only when it adopted the Nazi ideology, developed, by the way, by the British.
            right now
            Look wider! How many countries are currently supplying weapons and mercenaries to 404?
            Putin made a tragic mistake...with France and Germany
            It's not quite like that, and it's much more complicated. First, with the global West in general. Second, who was there to cooperate with back then? China hadn't yet risen and was itself subservient to the West. The Global South didn't exist either – it rose later. You haven't even mentioned our "sworn enemy," the United States – a country with which we've always cooperated, even when threatening each other with truncheons. And now, our cooperation with the United States is much closer than with the EU countries, despite all the "sanctions."
            swept out of Russia
            Yes, but when these "cadres" simply had nothing to eat... where were they supposed to go? I remember those times...
      3. 0
        2 July 2026 11: 23
        Quote: Level 2 Advisor
        Germany was to blame at the beginning... and England and France were also "victims"...

        Great Britain entered the war in response to the German occupation of Belgium. France had no common border with Austria-Hungary and could not come to Serbia's aid given Germany's neutrality. But Germany attacked Russia and France first. It must be understood that Austria-Hungary, Turkey, Bulgaria, and Germany committed a foolish act by entering a hopeless war.
        1. 0
          2 July 2026 15: 01
          Austria-Hungary, Türkiye, Bulgaria and Germany committed stupidity
          Well, first of all, minor skirmishes—the "prelude" to a major war—began as early as the late 19th century. Just look at the Balkan Wars. It was clear that a global conflagration would ensue, but the question remained: "Who, with whom, and against whom?" Austria-Hungary was a country in the "German world," and it bordered Germany, to boot. But they had gobbled up a ton of territory with other peoples and mentalities—Hungarians, Slavs, and so on. So, its collapse was inevitable. Turkey, in general, was torn, trying to be friends with everyone. But even in the 19th century, it was called the "sick man of Europe." So, the collapse of these two patchwork empires was inevitable. Bulgaria was initially a German puppet, having placed a German tsar on the throne. And the Turks were nearby, who would not have minded seeing Bulgaria return "to its native land." The only choice was the Ottoman Empire. But apparently the Germans "gave her more." And Britain and France had long wanted to tear pieces off her. And the Turks didn't even have a border with Germany. But the Turks and the Austrians also had their differences.
          The war, incidentally, was far from hopeless. The warring parties' resources were comparable. Russia simply shed blood for the Entente, while nationalist, national liberation, and revolutionary movements erupted in the countries of the German camp, bringing down their regimes. Not without the help of the Entente countries' intelligence services, of course.
  5. +1
    23 June 2026 07: 20
    Enough of these tales about Hitler and Nazism in Germany supposedly emerging in response to Germany being offended and humiliated by the Treaty of Versailles. There was no "complex of the aggrieved Germans" and why, supposedly, they chose Hitler as their ruler! Europe's thinking and its secret desires "delegated" Hitler to rule Germany because Hitler and the Nazis were fully compliant and "contracted" to accomplish what Europe had long wanted to do itself, but hadn't dared. And Hitler tried to dare. All of this is said and summarized in Hitler's monologue at the end of the film "White Tiger." Here's roughly Hitler's "confession" from memory; maybe not verbatim, but that's the gist of it...
    "I did what all of Europe secretly wished for. I freed them from the chimera called conscience. I did what they wanted to do themselves, but did not dare. Yes, we were cruel. And Germany and I are now considered monsters. But did we not take the sin upon ourselves? Did we not do what they silently wanted, secretly dreamed of, but were afraid even to tell their wives about it in the kitchens? But we were not afraid to tell everyone and make their dreams come true. Europe is hypocritical. When we are gone, they will sigh with relief. But they will always secretly envy us that we dared to do this."
    It follows from this that the geopolitical tensions after the Versailles Peace only fed the essence of German Nazism with these hidden desires of Europe, and did not cause any kind of inferiority complexes among the Germans.
    Incidentally, if, after Ukraine's defeat by Russia, what remains of Ukraine is to "offend" it just as Germany was after the Treaty of Versailles, then Europe's secret desires will once again "delegate" to that Ukraine a new Hitler and a new kind of modern Nazism called Russophobia, only their "program" will focus on the "final solution to the Jewish question" instead of a "final solution to the Russian question." Just as Hitler considered all people in the USSR to be Russian, so too, Zelensky considers all people in the Russian Federation to be Russian.
    After WWII, the Jewish people were able to prove that there was a Holocaust—the systematic, state-sponsored persecution and mass extermination of 6 million Jews by Nazi Germany and its collaborators. But the Soviet people (read: the Russian people) were never allowed to prove that the Germans' extermination of 15 million Soviet civilians was not mass genocide, the same as the Holocaust for the Jews.
    1. -3
      23 June 2026 11: 15
      Quote: North 2
      Enough of these tales about Hitler and Nazism in Germany supposedly emerging in response to Germany being offended and humiliated by the Treaty of Versailles. There was no "complex of the aggrieved Germans" and why, supposedly, they chose Hitler as their ruler! Europe's thinking and its secret desires "delegated" Hitler to rule Germany because Hitler and the Nazis were fully compliant and "contracted" to accomplish what Europe had long wanted to do itself, but hadn't dared. And Hitler tried to dare. All of this is said and summarized in Hitler's monologue at the end of the film "White Tiger." Here's roughly Hitler's "confession" from memory; maybe not verbatim, but that's the gist of it...
      "I did what all of Europe secretly wished for. I freed them from the chimera called conscience. I did what they wanted to do themselves, but did not dare. Yes, we were cruel. And Germany and I are now considered monsters. But did we not take the sin upon ourselves? Did we not do what they silently wanted, secretly dreamed of, but were afraid even to tell their wives about it in the kitchens? But we were not afraid to tell everyone and make their dreams come true. Europe is hypocritical. When we are gone, they will sigh with relief. But they will always secretly envy us that we dared to do this."
      It follows from this that the geopolitical tensions after the Versailles Peace only fed the essence of German Nazism with these hidden desires of Europe, and did not cause any kind of inferiority complexes among the Germans.
      Incidentally, if, after Ukraine's defeat by Russia, what remains of Ukraine is to "offend" it just as Germany was after the Treaty of Versailles, then Europe's secret desires will once again "delegate" to that Ukraine a new Hitler and a new kind of modern Nazism called Russophobia, only their "program" will focus on the "final solution to the Jewish question" instead of a "final solution to the Russian question." Just as Hitler considered all people in the USSR to be Russian, so too, Zelensky considers all people in the Russian Federation to be Russian.
      After WWII, the Jewish people were able to prove that there was a Holocaust—the systematic, state-sponsored persecution and mass extermination of 6 million Jews by Nazi Germany and its collaborators. But the Soviet people (read: the Russian people) were never allowed to prove that the Germans' extermination of 15 million Soviet civilians was not mass genocide, the same as the Holocaust for the Jews.

      No one has proven that these 15 million were civilians. There are versions that military losses reached 10-15 million.
    2. 0
      24 June 2026 06: 53
      Quote: north 2
      By the way, if after Ukraine's defeat against Russia

      The key word is if.
    3. 0
      2 July 2026 15: 11
      north 2
      You're both right and wrong. All of Europe was "pregnant with fascism" after the World War. It appeared in Finland and the Baltics immediately, even before Mussolini coined the word. Fascist parties existed in every European country, even in Britain and France, and some established fascist or semi-fascist dictatorships. Hitler, in fact, realized the dreams of Europeans.
      The Separatist Outskirts of Russia isn't a state, but a concentration camp on territory temporarily occupied by NATO. And there can't be a new Hitler there. They can only send one.
      After WWII, the Jewish people managed to prove that there was a Holocaust.
      The precursor of Israel emerged long before WWII, as did the fascist Zionist organizations that successfully collaborated with the Nazis and actively participated in the Holocaust. The Zionists simply successfully promoted the idea of ​​the Holocaust, portraying themselves as the greatest victim of WWII—which was not the case. The Zionists were among the instigators of that war, for its most important outcome was the emergence of Israel. Following exactly the same principle, but less successfully, the idea of ​​the Holodomor was promoted on the outskirts of the Russian state, but with little success.
      6 million Jews
      The figure is inflated, has long been refuted, and is not comparable to more than 20 million
  6. +1
    23 June 2026 07: 26
    There were, of course, many reasons for the attack, one of them was the complete destruction of our state.
    Hitler's directives, instructions and memos clearly stated that the war was to be waged with unheard-of cruelty, and that every Russian, old people, women and children, were to be killed.
    In the German instructions - Military training in the troops - there is a requirement for everyone to kill 100 Russians and a promise to secure the future of their family with these murders.
    And, after all, this instruction is for ordinary rank-and-file soldiers, not for SS men.
    1. +3
      23 June 2026 10: 25
      Quote: bober1982
      In the German instructions - Military training in the troops - there is a requirement for everyone to kill 100 Russians and a promise to secure the future of their family with these murders.

      The existence of this instruction is not a proven fact. There's no point in spreading theories that are quite possibly bogus. Or how is its existence definitively proven? Besides, why exterminate "future servants"? How did the population of the occupied territories even survive? So it's a bogus fact. It's clear the Germans behaved like brutal invaders, but no one killed hundreds of civilians.
      1. +1
        23 June 2026 10: 50
        Quote: Level 2 Advisor
        which are quite possibly a sham... or what definitively proves its existence? Besides, why destroy "future servants"?

        Interesting comment.
        1. +4
          23 June 2026 14: 00
          "Interesting comment"
          About seven years ago, I wrote a comment. My interlocutor wrote that there were no Jewish officers in the Wehrmacht. He replied that there was a Jewish field marshal, Milch, on Goering's staff, and that Hitler had about 10 Jewish generals and about 100 colonels. They wrote back that I was an anti-Semite. I did some research and found Jürgen Graf's book, "The Greatest Lie of the 20th Century." What struck me was that the author used mathematical calculations to prove that there couldn't have been so many Jewish victims at Buchenwald. A court in Canada acquitted him. The book isn't propaganda; by the way, they write there that even Israel doesn't confirm that Jews were made into soap in the camps. He doesn't deny the atrocities; his goal was to establish what was true and what was fiction. I think it was much worse in Khatyn and other places of mass extermination.
          1. +2
            24 June 2026 06: 56
            Quote: Sergei Fonov
            I searched for literature and found Jurgen Graf's book "The Greatest Lie of the 20th Century."

            His book, "The Holocaust Myth," is banned from publication in Europe and the United States. I would include it in the school curriculum. Incidentally, he is one of the few authors in the West who has asked the valid question: why is the death of Jews more tragic than the death of millions of Soviet citizens in concentration camps?
      2. 0
        25 June 2026 05: 35
        Quote: Level 2 Advisor
        The existence of this instruction is not a proven fact, there is no point in creating theories

        Germany pursued similar policies in the occupied territories in 1813, 1870, 1914-1918, and 1939-1945. Barbara Tuchman's book presents numerous facts showing that the German military carried out mass murder of the unarmed population in the first months of 1914. Moreover, the German intelligentsia managed to publish a letter in support of these actions. Moreover, the arguments these German intellectuals made in defense of German cruelty simply discredited the German military in the eyes of the Russians and the British.
        1. 0
          25 June 2026 05: 44
          Quote: gsev
          Germany pursued such a policy in the occupied territories

          I never said anywhere that they were "white and fluffy" and treated the lives of civilians with reverence, but I only wrote that, according to some manual, each Wehrmacht soldier did not kill 100 civilians...
          1. 0
            25 June 2026 06: 27
            Quote: Level 2 Advisor
            but he only wrote that, according to some manual, each Wehrmacht soldier did not kill 100 civilians...

            It was common for the Germans to shoot between 5 and 50 hostages. At Oradour, the Germans killed 642 people. Initially, the Germans shot the men in the legs, then burned them. Women were burned. At least one child was crucified. In Lidice, all adult men were killed for the assassination of Heydrich, 52 women, and 85 children under 15 were tortured in concentration camps. So, 100 hostages executed by the Germans for every partisan killed doesn't even reach the average median number of hostages executed.
            1. 0
              25 June 2026 07: 14
              Quote: gsev
              It was common practice for the Germans to shoot between 5 and 50 hostages. At Oradour, the Germans killed 642 people.

              Remember how we were talking about the supposed manual that a Wehrmacht soldier should kill 100 civilians, and not about how the Germans were so good and didn't touch civilians at all? So, during World War II, approximately 10-12 million Nazi soldiers and officers served on the Eastern Front... Roughly speaking, if they were 100 per soldier, they would have killed 1-1,2 billion people in the USSR...
              1. -1
                25 June 2026 21: 48
                Quote: Level 2 Advisor
                You remember that we were talking about the supposedly existing manual that a Wehrmacht soldier must kill 100 civilians,

                The Germans killed 642 hostages for every one. German orders permitted this. Moreover, after the war, the German population staged riots in Alsace and Lorraine when the French government attempted to punish the survivors of the battles with the Americans, those who participated in the shootings and burnings alive in Oradour.
                Quote: Level 2 Advisor
                Roughly speaking, if there were 100 per person, they would have killed 1-1,2 billion people in the USSR...

                The partisans didn't kill very many Germans. The Germans used repression to force the population into submission. They also managed to capture numerous intelligence officers and underground fighters in the rear, and from interrogations, they knew that Stalin was provoking the Germans to carry out repressions against the population in the hopes that the repressions would force Russians to join the partisans. If Russia were to wage war against a coalition that included Germany, the war would immediately take the form of either the complete extermination of Russians or Germans by thermonuclear weapons.
                1. 0
                  2 July 2026 15: 20
                  Stalin provoked the Germans to repress
                  Did you make this up yourself?
                  repressions will force Russians to join the partisans
                  Let me remind you that among the partisans there were many military personnel, and even separate military units specifically deployed to the rear. Moreover, the partisan movement was organized and controlled from Moscow, and its leaders fought against spontaneous partisan activity, attempting to coordinate the actions of all the people's avengers, sometimes destroying "rogue" units that were committing crimes and interfering with the war behind enemy lines.
                  against a coalition that will include Germany
                  At the moment, Germany is under foreign control. And how are the Germans "better" than the British or the French? The result will be the same. Incidentally, the Germans don't have their own nuclear weapons, but the French do!
      3. -1
        2 July 2026 15: 15
        Your opponent may be exaggerating somewhat, but documents documenting the deliberate destruction of the USSR as a state and its citizens did exist. They were presented at the Nuremberg Tribunal. And German soldiers were implementing their state's policy, according to which they, as the "superior race," were free and obliged to commit any crimes against "subhumans."
  7. +5
    23 June 2026 07: 53
    "War always starts SUDDENLY." (C)

    There are no "reasons" for either revolutions or wars. People, like in that fairy tale, live happily ever after, eating to their heart's content from a magic tablecloth. And sooner or later, once a generation or more often, they are tempted to taste "roasted human flesh."

    We can toast "so that there will be no war." We can spend 25 hours on TV showing the horrors and heroism of the LAST war. It's pointless! A new war, one way or another, WILL HAPPEN! With or without reason.

    The best thing is to believe in a "bright future" and at the same time be "always ready" for war right NOW.
    1. +1
      23 June 2026 11: 07
      Quote: Bayun
      "War always starts SUDDENLY." (C)

      There are no "reasons" for either revolutions or wars. People, like in that fairy tale, live happily ever after, eating to their heart's content from a magic tablecloth. And sooner or later, once a generation or more often, they are tempted to taste "roasted human flesh."

      We can toast "so that there will be no war." We can spend 25 hours on TV showing the horrors and heroism of the LAST war. It's pointless! A new war, one way or another, WILL HAPPEN! With or without reason.

      The best thing is to believe in a "bright future" and at the same time be "always ready" for war right NOW.

      That's not it. Nothing starts suddenly. There are contradictions, they accumulate and reach a critical mass.
      1. +1
        23 June 2026 22: 24
        Blessed are those who believe in the wisdom of men, for theirs is a happy life.

        Those who reflect on themselves come to "I know that I know nothing", "everything will repeat itself in the vanity of vanities" etc.

        The hypothetical Ivan Ivanovich had a quarrel with Ivan Nikiforovich - that's all "critical mass of reasons".
  8. +3
    23 June 2026 07: 55
    Regarding the mass use of captured Russian weapons, tanks, planes... the author is certainly exaggerating.
  9. -1
    23 June 2026 07: 58
    It's simpler. In 1925, Hitler wrote a famous book outlining his intentions for war with Russia. Germany's high birth rate condemned the country to poverty. "Lebensraum" was needed, which could only be won in the east. Therefore, Hitler began preparing for war with the USSR immediately after coming to power. Eliminating the Red Army's command staff was the first stage of preparation for war. The second stage was blitzkrieg. The third, if the Soviet air force was destroyed, would be to gas the USSR.
    1. +1
      23 June 2026 08: 28
      Quote: pavel.tipin
      In 1925, Hitler wrote a famous book in which he described why he was going to war with Russia.

      So that's why they gave him money for this, a lot of it... and if he had written that he wanted to fight with France, he would have just sat on the economy destroyed by the first war and wouldn't have made a move :)
      but, in fact, even if he hadn't come to power, they would have found someone else... suitable candidates (for the task at hand) are noticed somewhat in advance, then supported and brought to power; Kuchma himself was already taken to the US for a "viewing" before the elections; recent micro-examples are Hungary and Britain
    2. +4
      23 June 2026 08: 42
      In 1925, Hitler wrote a famous book in which he described why he was going to fight Russia.

      Read this book. He had no intention of fighting Russia (especially on two fronts, as the book specifically states). He believed that Soviet Russia had an unviable government (a common occurrence in those years) and was about to collapse, and then it would be possible to enter that territory without war.
      1. -1
        23 June 2026 10: 42
        Quote from solar
        Read this book

        It's actually very useful... there's a lot there besides the "Soviets and Jews" thing that would be useful to many people even now :)
        But the fact that he was raised against the USSR is still undeniable.
        1. 0
          23 June 2026 14: 15
          "Read this book"
          I tried reading it, initially about the hard life of German workers and the need for change. Once I got to racial theory, it became difficult to read, so I didn't finish it. But it does talk about the need to conquer Lebensraum in the East. Mein Kampf was written by Hitler in prison with Hess's help. I think it's impossible to separate out what was Hess's idea and what was Hitler's. But clearly, neither were supporters of the USSR.
      2. 0
        23 June 2026 16: 03
        Quote from solar
        He had no intention of fighting Russia (especially on two fronts, as the book specifically states).

        He didn't initially fight the USSR, even though he had a second front. Hess made a deal. He had no intention of fighting on two fronts, and so he declared war on the United States. And without the United States, Britain is Honduras.
        1. 0
          23 June 2026 18: 03
          Are you kidding me? I beg you. Wake up, you're delirious.

          hi
        2. 0
          25 June 2026 05: 39
          Quote: chenia
          Without the US, Britain is Honduras.

          Intelligence informed Hitler of the United States' intention to enter the war against Germany in 1943 or 1944. Therefore, Hitler decided to enter the war with the United States along with Japan.
    3. +3
      23 June 2026 10: 28
      Quote: pavel.tipin
      In 1925, Hitler wrote a famous book in which he described why he was going to fight Russia.

      There he also wrote that first France and England, and then Russia and China, there is no point in taking one thing out of context...
    4. +1
      23 June 2026 23: 55
      Brad and harm!
      In 1925, Hitler wrote a famous book in which he described why he was going to fight Russia.

      What was needed was "living space," which could only be conquered in the east.

      It took up so much space in the mild, fertile climate that it couldn't be digested in 600 years. BEFORE the war with the USSR. Want some lichen instead of grapes?
      The elimination of the Red Army command staff was the first stage of preparation for war.

      Hitler came to power in 1933. Who did he eliminate from our country?! Red cavalrymen and eloquent folklore? It was the command staff who became him during the Civil War. Most of them had some serious training. They blew on light bulbs and ran after a locomotive with a sabre.
      There was also this guy - "at 16 he commanded a regiment"...
      The second stage is blitzkrieg.

      And?! The Wehrmacht and the SS, the Cossacks and the Novgorod ushkuiniks? They plundered and, by autumn, came home singing. And what now? Staying for the winter?
      We're ready and we didn't plan it. So what should we do in October? What does the OKH plan say about this?
      flood the USSR with gases.

      Sure...that's true, but how much of that gas do you need? And the hedgehogs will die...
  10. +1
    23 June 2026 08: 09
    As always, the author achieved the main goal with his article: to attract the attention of as many commentators as possible.
    The reason for World War II was the same as World War I: the redivision of the world in order to capture new markets. As long as capitalism rules the world, wars will be inevitable, as V.I. Lenin wrote in his article:
    "Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism" (written in 1916). In it, the author analyzes how, at a certain stage of capitalism's development—imperialism—monopolies (cartels, syndicates, trusts) begin to divide up the world market.
    hi
    1. +2
      23 June 2026 10: 30
      Quote: Gomunkul
      As long as capitalism rules the world, wars will be inevitable.

      I would say that as long as there are people on the planet, wars will be inevitable... they have been happening throughout human history, starting from ancient times, regardless of the system...
      1. -1
        23 June 2026 11: 33
        As long as there are people on the planet, wars will be inevitable.
        It is entirely possible to avoid war, but only on one condition: if all people on the planet think alike, i.e. are like-minded.
        1. +2
          23 June 2026 11: 34
          Quote: Gomunkul
          It is entirely possible to avoid war, but only on one condition: if all people on the planet think alike, i.e. are like-minded.

          This is only if the land is filled with clones, and even then it’s not a fact laughing The theory is beautiful, but it's a utopia...
          1. 0
            23 June 2026 11: 53
            The system that now rules this world,
            "Divide and Conquer"
            It was built precisely for this purpose, to counteract the creation of the world order that I wrote about above. wink
            1. +1
              23 June 2026 12: 42
              Quote: Gomunkul
              It was built precisely for this purpose, to counteract the creation of the world order that I wrote about above.

              Honestly? Having interacted with a lot of people my whole life, I personally just don't believe in creating a society where everyone is happy and lives with lofty goals in mind, caring for the common good. Such a society won't exist, unless every newborn in the world is isolated from their families and raised separately, while preferably everyone else is sent somewhere so that they never meet each other. Then MAYBE something will work out, but it's not a given. hi
              1. -3
                23 June 2026 12: 52
                There will be no such society, only if all newborns in the world are isolated from their relatives and raised separately
                There's no need to isolate anyone; people must re-educate themselves voluntarily. An attempt to re-educate society toward an ideal was made in the USSR, but it failed only because society wasn't ready for it.
                The biggest misconception is that people, when they enter this world, think that they will live in this world forever. laughing hi
              2. +2
                24 June 2026 07: 00
                Quote: Level 2 Advisor
                There won't be such a society, unless all newborns in the world are isolated from their relatives and raised separately, while it's desirable to send everyone else somewhere

                Yes, that's why many science fiction writers, including Soviet ones, imagine a future in which the family is completely eliminated, and children are raised by specially selected individuals from society, like educators. There's a grain of truth in this.
              3. 0
                24 June 2026 08: 43
                Faith is an irrational concept, and arguing about it is simply stupid. The argument that you can't imagine such a thing is also weak; I'm sure you can't imagine many things (for example, the curvature of space in a strong gravitational field).
                And don't be too categorical, "never" is just your opinion and nothing more.
                Even if it's not soon, such a society will be created, because the only alternative is complete and utter ruin for everyone upon reaching a critical level of technological development. Or the creation of a society roughly equivalent to this one, built on artificial intelligence that will finally replace these "pale-faced mammalian losers." laughing
                1. +1
                  24 June 2026 11: 24
                  Quote: Illanatol
                  Or the construction of a society of approximately the same kind using artificial intelligence, which will finally replace these loser "pale-faced mammals".

                  That's true, but for some reason this option seems more realistic to me than people abandoning their vices. laughing
    2. +1
      23 June 2026 11: 04
      Quote: Gomunkul
      As always, the author achieved the main goal with his article: to attract the attention of as many commentators as possible.
      The reason for World War II was the same as World War I: the redivision of the world in order to capture new markets. As long as capitalism rules the world, wars will be inevitable, as V.I. Lenin wrote in his article:
      "Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism" (written in 1916). In it, the author analyzes how, at a certain stage of capitalism's development—imperialism—monopolies (cartels, syndicates, trusts) begin to divide up the world market.
      hi

      How did the communist USSR end up among them then? Isn't that something else? Like all the USSR's conquests were driven solely by the desire to secure its borders. Capitalists are bad, USSR is good.
      1. +3
        23 June 2026 11: 59
        Quote: Panin (Michman)
        How did the communist USSR end up among their ranks then? Isn't that something else?

        Everything is as usual:
      2. 0
        24 June 2026 08: 35
        Could you elaborate on how the "bad" USSR began to rob all sorts of Western Ukrainians, Poles, Balts, and others, and how much poorer and more backward all these "humiliated and insulted" became when they fell under the control of these cruel communists?
        Yes, that was something entirely different. Even liberal anti-Sovietists criticized the communists for spending too many resources on supporting their "brothers in the socialist camp" instead of spending them exclusively on their own needs.
        I've never heard or read anyone criticizing the British or American elite for spending too much on supporting blacks or Arabs. Because the "democracies" built their prosperity precisely on plundering these blacks and Arabs, and now they're deeply embarrassed that doing so has become increasingly difficult...
        Yes. Capitalists are bad, but the USSR is good.
        1. +2
          24 June 2026 11: 23
          Quote: Illanatol
          Could you elaborate on how the "bad" USSR began to rob all sorts of Western Ukrainians, Poles, Balts, and others, and how much poorer and more backward all these "humiliated and insulted" became when they fell under the control of these cruel communists?
          Yes, that was something entirely different. Even liberal anti-Sovietists criticized the communists for spending too many resources on supporting their "brothers in the socialist camp" instead of spending them exclusively on their own needs.
          I've never heard or read anyone criticizing the British or American elite for spending too much on supporting blacks or Arabs. Because the "democracies" built their prosperity precisely on plundering these blacks and Arabs, and now they're deeply embarrassed that doing so has become increasingly difficult...
          Yes. Capitalists are bad, but the USSR is good.

          The answer is simple. Ask a Pole, a Balt, or a Georgian. Or a dissident on Brighton Beach, whether they feel better off in the US or the USSR.
          Hundreds of people fled from the communist GDR to the West. I haven't heard of hundreds fleeing from the West.
  11. +3
    23 June 2026 08: 39
    A long, empty article, like everything else by Samsonov. :((
    The reasons for Hitler's attack on the USSR have long been known, and they are not very flattering for us.
    Hitler generally considered the Anglo-Saxon world his main enemy. When he began the war against Poland, he believed that no one would intervene on its behalf. The entry of France and England into the war was an extremely unpleasant surprise for him. This led to the entirety of Europe being drawn into the war. He had no problems with the USSR – a non-aggression pact and a friendship treaty had been concluded. But all attempts to persuade England to make peace with Germany completely failed; the British were unwilling to make peace with Hitler. And then the idea occurred to Hitler that England would not agree to peace as long as there was hope that the USSR would fall out with Germany. Initially, he tried to resolve the problem by fully aligning the USSR with the Axis powers – Italy, Japan, and Germany – which was the proposal made to Molotov, who had arrived in Berlin. Negotiations on accession began (pictured), but they were confronted with the fact that the USSR's high demands conflicted, primarily with Italy over the Turkish Straits.
    https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Пакт_четырёх_держав
    And then Hitler, rushing to make peace with stubborn England, and looking at our "successes" in the war with Finland, came to the completely idiotic conclusion that it was easier to defeat the USSR than to negotiate with them. And so preparations for Operation Barbarossa began. We simply couldn't believe that Hitler would be so stupid as to start a war. This explains all the oddities before the war, with our people not noticing the Germans' preparations for an attack—it was a completely illogical move. Many Germans, even those who knew what was happening, were also perplexed by this—for example, the German ambassador to the USSR was simply shocked when he realized that war had begun. And then we automatically became England's ally, and everything unfolded as it did. The key factor in Germany's attack was Hitler's attempt to wage a "small victorious war" with the USSR, seeking to put pressure on England.
    1. 0
      23 June 2026 16: 14
      Quote from solar
      Hitler generally considered the Anglo-Saxon world to be his main enemy.

      Quote from solar
      And then the thought came into Hitler’s head that England would not agree to peace as long as there was hope that the USSR would quarrel with Germany.

      Are you kidding me? I beg you. Wake up, you're delirious.
      Quote from solar
      He had no problems with the USSR - a non-aggression pact and a Treaty of Friendship were signed.

      And so, the USSR decided to build 30 MKs, increasing its army from 2 million to 5 million. Friendship is forever. Probably for a joint campaign with the Germans in India (there's no one left to fight in Europe, just buddies).
      OH,.
      1. 0
        23 June 2026 18: 02
        Are you kidding me? I beg you. Wake up, you're delirious.

        hi
      2. +1
        24 June 2026 01: 18
        Quote: chenia
        And so, the USSR decided to build 30 MKs, increasing its army from 2 million to 5 million. Friendship is forever. Probably for a joint campaign with the Germans in India (there's no one left to fight in Europe, just buddies).

        That after a victory between any two victorious members of the temporary coalition against a third (the Axis powers, the Comintern, and the Anglo-Saxon bloc) there would be another war for final global domination was obvious to everyone; the only question was in what order these wars would occur. Overall, the world was lucky: the first "hot" war was fought by two against the Axis, and then, instead of the next "hot" war, a "cold" one ensued, saving millions of lives. So don't dismiss Hitler, Stalin, Roosevelt, and Churchill as fools. Everyone understood that all these alliances were temporary, and that they would eventually disintegrate, leading to a war between the victors. That's why they prepared their armies and navies. Each of them wanted to sit on the sidelines as long as possible, calmly preparing, while the other two bled each other dry. Only the United States succeeded, and even then, only with partial success.
      3. 0
        24 June 2026 09: 23
        And therefore, the USSR decided to build 30 MK and increased the army from 2 million to 5.

        So what? Was there even one division in this army deployed according to wartime organization and strength?
        1. 0
          24 June 2026 15: 18
          Quote: strannik1985
          Was there even one division in this army that was deployed according to wartime regulations?

          So, in the USSR in the 70s-90s, individual divisions were deployed to full strength, or even to nothing at all. In groups of forces, this figure reached 95%. There, all civilian employees (they took the oath, even women) were assigned to military units and replenished them. They were sent to the Union (under appropriate circumstances, of course, only the families of military personnel). And in the Union, a deployed regiment (covering the state border) was 70-75% of its authorized strength. For example, my artillery battery had 40 people (it should have 66), two security officers and a special security unit (instead of 5). When an alarm sounds, we rush to the border, and within three days, military registration and enlistment offices (by bus) bring the rest. Well, maybe court units (Kantemirovskaya and Tamanskaya), but I'm not sure. My message is about the friendship that Solar chirps about. There, "friends" don't need enemies.
          1. 0
            24 June 2026 17: 32
            Thus, in the USSR in the 70-90s, individual divisions were deployed to full strength, or even to none.

            Absolutely right, because in the 70s the USSR had no intention of attacking anyone, just like in 1941.
    2. 0
      24 June 2026 12: 59
      When the military asked Hitler why he signed the treaties with Russia, he replied that it was just a piece of paper.
      1. 0
        24 June 2026 13: 39
        What should he have said when he was doing something so obviously stupid? He thought differently when he signed it.
  12. +1
    23 June 2026 08: 39
    The Vatican even urged Poland to hand over Danzig to Germany to avoid a Polish-German war. Germany and Poland were supposed to fight together against the "Russian communists."

    Yes, the Vatican was on Hitler's side here, since this was one of his demands for the anti-Soviet alliance with Poland following the Hitler-Pilsudski Pact... fortunately, the European hyena wanted to get too much (much more than after Munich) and give little :)
    the union did not take place
  13. -1
    23 June 2026 08: 58
    Hitler's only hope was a blitzkrieg.

    There was no such hope. The blitzkrieg in France was an accident. The Poles are not included in the calculations.
    1. +1
      23 June 2026 10: 56
      Quote from Aken
      Hitler's only hope was a blitzkrieg.

      There was no such hope. The blitzkrieg in France was an accident. The Poles are not included in the calculations.

      The USSR survived thanks to its allies. Had the US not come to its aid, who knows how things would have turned out.
      1. +1
        23 June 2026 11: 40
        It would have turned around. It would have been longer and more difficult.
      2. -1
        23 June 2026 15: 55
        Quote: Panin (Michman)
        The USSR survived thanks to its allies. If the US hadn't come to the rescue,

        The radical turning point in the war occurred in October 1942. But neither ours nor the Germans knew this.
        The Germans thought, "We're still going strong," ours thought, "The Germans are still going strong." Then Stalingrad, and the Germans being driven out of the Caucasus. At that point, we had 4% of the LL, and Anders stole half of that. And that's it! The British, meanwhile, had 32-35% of the LL. At the time of the Kursk Bulge, the Allies were fighting 4.5 Wehrmacht divisions, and on the very eve, 3 divisions in Sicily. (And in terms of LL, we had 5%, thanks to Anders). So, even without the Allies...
        Quote from Aken
        It would have turned around. It would have been longer and more difficult.

        The same thing, the USA would have finished off Japan without the USSR. BUT
        Quote from Aken
        It would have been longer and more difficult.
        1. 0
          24 June 2026 00: 18
          then Stalingrad and the expulsion of the Germans from the Caucasus.

          Wait a second! What were the Germans doing there? What was their plan? It was planned day by day, blitzkrieg and all that other Ordnung... Those Swedes at Poltava, you know...
          1. 0
            24 June 2026 16: 06
            Quote: Kerensky
            What was their plan?

            The Germans were completely screwed there in 1941. Besides Moscow, they also received a serious kick in the pants at Rostov. The Germans were already capable of attacking in one strategic direction by October. They marshaled three tank groups and received a kick in the pants. Had Zhukov been a little more cautious, the Rzhev salient would not have emerged. Otherwise, the threat to Moscow would have been less. Headquarters wouldn't have allowed Timoshenko to advance south to help Zhukov at Rzhev. Therefore, the resistance of the Southwestern Front would have been different, and Zhukov would have struck Army Group B's flank from Voronezh. A strike in the open, not like at Rzhev, where the Germans were neck-deep in preemptive defense. And Stalingrad would have been achieved six months earlier.
  14. 0
    23 June 2026 10: 05
    Germany, like Japan, had no choice but to go to war, otherwise the economy would collapse. Everything had to be changed internally, worsening the lives of people within the country, while turning Germany into a small regional state. But Hitler came to power on a wave of nationalism, and for him, this was fatal.
    1. +2
      23 June 2026 10: 31
      Quote: Victor Sergeev
      Hitler came on a wave of nationalism and it was like death to him.

      For him, it was death to climb on the USSR; if not, everything could have gone differently.
    2. +1
      23 June 2026 10: 56
      And Germany, like Japan, had no other choice but to go to war, otherwise the economy would have collapsed.

      At the outbreak of the war, Germany's economy was booming, the country was prospering, and the people were pleased with Hitler. This was especially true given the post-First World War.
    3. 0
      24 June 2026 00: 21
      And Germany, like Japan, had no other choice but to go to war, otherwise the economy would have collapsed.

      Why? Did the authorities say so?
      They could have calmly built their own Tirpitz ships and slapped the USSR on the back. Everyone would have something to do. And if anything happened, it would be like with the Mistrals...
  15. +3
    23 June 2026 10: 53
    This is Samsonov.
    Obvious facts are mixed with speculation and a global conspiracy.
    If England so wanted to turn Hitler against the USSR, why did it declare war? By conquering Poland, Hitler gained a common border with the USSR and the ability to attack. Instead, England and France went to war. Were they hoping to win? It's all true about the resources, but those resources could only be taken from the USSR, hence Barbarossa. Undoubtedly, England benefited from Germany's attack on the USSR; the TC relieved tensions on the British Isles. Just as the USSR benefited from Germany's war with England, and Japan's war with the United States, so there were many interests in world politics.
    1. -1
      23 June 2026 13: 14
      Ukr, but not that much... Shame
    2. 0
      23 June 2026 14: 30
      "Obvious facts are mixed with speculation and a global conspiracy.
      If England so wanted to direct Hitler against the USSR, why did it declare war?
      Thus, England declared war on Germany in response to its attack on Poland. But no actual fighting took place. Prior to this, Poland, along with Hitler, had divided Czechoslovakia, having snatched the Cieszyn region in the north. The war with Poland arose because of Poland's unwillingness to grant Germany a corridor to Danzig.
    3. -3
      23 June 2026 18: 08
      Quote: Panin (Michman)
      If England so wanted to direct Hitler against the USSR, why did it declare war?

      She announced it. And? Then it's clear WHY.
    4. 0
      24 June 2026 00: 26
      But resources could only be taken from the USSR, hence Barbarossa. Undoubtedly, England benefited from Germany's attack on the USSR,

      So where's the benefit? England already in the war. Now Germany will grab the USSR's resources and give it a good beating... what a profit!
      1. 0
        24 June 2026 06: 15
        Quote: Kerensky
        But resources could only be taken from the USSR, hence Barbarossa. Undoubtedly, England benefited from Germany's attack on the USSR,

        So where's the benefit? England already in the war. Now Germany will grab the USSR's resources and give it a good beating... what a profit!

        I said that England benefited from the USSR's entry into the war, not from Germany's victory.
  16. +1
    24 June 2026 14: 14
    Quote: Panin (Michman)
    The answer is simple. Ask a Pole, a Balt, or a Georgian. Or a dissident on Brighton Beach, whether they feel better off in the US or the USSR.
    Hundreds of people fled from the communist GDR to the West. I haven't heard of hundreds fleeing from the West.

    The answer is even simpler. Right now, everyone from the USSR and Eastern Europe has left for the West, and most of them left along with their cities and states. Ask them how life is now, for example, in Ukraine or Georgia, compared to the USSR, or former Yugoslavia. Or how they feel in East Germany, how they feel in impoverished Germany, or how former Soviets live in Israel. And this is just the beginning—there's more to come.
    1. 0
      25 June 2026 14: 30
      Quote: Kostadinov
      Quote: Panin (Michman)
      The answer is simple. Ask a Pole, a Balt, or a Georgian. Or a dissident on Brighton Beach, whether they feel better off in the US or the USSR.
      Hundreds of people fled from the communist GDR to the West. I haven't heard of hundreds fleeing from the West.

      The answer is even simpler. Right now, everyone from the USSR and Eastern Europe has left for the West, and most of them left along with their cities and states. Ask them how life is now, for example, in Ukraine or Georgia, compared to the USSR, or former Yugoslavia. Or how they feel in East Germany, how they feel in impoverished Germany, or how former Soviets live in Israel. And this is just the beginning—there's more to come.

      People in Ukraine live like this for obvious reasons. If Georgians were living poorly, they would vote for the communists, not for the Georgian Dream. Just compare the GDP of Poland and the GDR during the Soviet era with today.
  17. 0
    24 June 2026 17: 44
    "If I had known that the number of tanks the Soviets had, which you write about in your book, was true, I would never have started this war." © Hitler.
    Guderian, recalling a conversation with Hitler after 1943, when the former returned from retirement.
  18. 0
    30 June 2026 11: 02
    I don't understand why this "Rezunshchina" stuff is suddenly popping up again? Was it ordered or something?
    The author, in fact, also justifies the fascists. And quietly slings mud at the USSR, although, supposedly, he's "for Stalin and against the fascists."
    However, Moscow was too poor to finance the Nazis.
    No one intended to. The first book, "World Fascism," was published in Moscow back in 1923. A reprint is available for purchase. The Soviet leadership always viewed the fascists as enemies with whom only temporary alliances were possible. "World Fascism" explicitly states that fascist parties arose as a direct reaction of the bourgeoisie to the labor movement and the spread of communist ideas. Let me remind you that by 1941, fascist parties had emerged in ALL capitalist countries of Europe, including "liberal" France and Great Britain. The elite of Western countries, with a few exceptions (like Churchill and Roosevelt), were friends with the fascists and supported them. Let me remind you of the British royal family's ties to the German Nazis.
    As for Germany, it had a very strong communist movement, and in opposition to it, the capitalist elite promoted Hitler. In fact, any European country could have ended up in Germany's place—everywhere had its own "Hitlers," for example, in Poland. Some were simply luckier—from the puppeteers' perspective, Germany proved more "promising."
    I think that even if, hypothetically, Germany had "defeated everyone," Western power brokers would still have remained in power and successfully continued collaborating with the Nazis. You don't have to look far for examples. French businesses successfully worked for the Nazis. Moreover, so many Frenchmen were tainted by their "friendship" with the Nazis that, after 1945, France was on the brink of civil war between the former Resistance and former Nazi collaborators. The last military unit to fight on the ruins of the Reichstag in Berlin was the French SS Division "Charlemagne."
    So, there's no need to invent anything, to write petty and trivial articles—history has long since passed its verdict. Just don't forget its lessons...
  19. 0
    30 June 2026 11: 50
    The latest wave of Samsonovism has provoked yet another squabble between crypto-fascists and Western propagandists and sane people...
  20. 0
    1 July 2026 15: 19
    Quote: futurohunter
    Apparently, I was mistaken about you working for the secret services. You simply have a mental disorder.
    ...abdicate the throne and lose the titles of the Hungarian and German nations...
    It is impossible to read such a meaningless set of words, and a normal person is not capable of writing such a thing.

    I really do keep away from this, but engineering work brings me into contact with people who have been involved in key political moments.