Military Review

The Soviet threat was a myth ("The Guardian", UK)

42
Stalin was not going to attack the West. That we started the Cold War


During a long and not so desirable trip to Damascus, studying the diaries and memoirs of key political figures of that time, I realized that the orthodox view of the Cold War is like a deadly struggle between Good (Britain and America) and Evil (Soviet Union), which I stuck, was a serious delusion. In fact, as will almost certainly judge история, it was one of the most unnecessary conflicts of all times, and certainly the most dangerous of them.

The Cold War began months after the end of World War II, when the Soviet Union was branded as a born aggressor. He established communist governments in central and eastern Europe. The Triumphal Red Army was ready and capable of subjugating Western Europe on the first order of Stalin, who sought to triumph communism throughout the world. However, “we,” especially the United States and the United Kingdom, have learned one painful lesson well — it makes no sense to seek mutual understanding with expansionist dictators. We considered ourselves obliged to protest Stalin with an “iron fist” if we use the term of President Truman.

It was a Manichaean doctrine, the most attractive feature of which was its simplicity. However, the military threat implied in it was incredible. If the Russians, whose lands were devastated by war, invaded the west, they would have to fight desperately to reach the coast of the English Channel. In the UK would go an endless stream of military assistance from the United States, which would have made the invasion almost hopeless. Even if the Soviets, ignoring the fact that there was an atomic bomb, in spite of everything invaded Europe, they would have to face an implacable enemy in the face of the United States. It would be a war that is obviously impossible to win. In short, the Soviets posed no real danger of war. And Stalin was not mad.

He was also not a selfless supporter of the idea of ​​the triumph of communism throughout the world. More than anything, he sought to stay in power and rule Russia through mass terror. Stalin has long opposed the idea of ​​a world revolution. He broke with Trotsky and put forward the concept of building "socialism in a single country." The activity of foreign communist parties within their countries was encouraged. However, Stalin never said that they should establish competitive communist governments. Yugoslavia and China were good examples that demonstrated the dangers of rivalry between communist countries.

The cold war began because Russia did not want to allow Poland to be independent. Stalin was forced to violate the Yalta agreement. Roosevelt and Churchill demanded that Poland be allowed to have a "free" and "friendly Russia" government. It was a dishonest formulation. Indeed, more recently, in the 20-s, both countries were in a state of war. No freely elected Polish government could be friendly towards the USSR. In addition, as Stalin noted in Yalta, during 26 years, Germany twice attacked Russia through Poland. These attacks had disastrous consequences. The attack in 1941 took the lives of 20 to millions of Russians. Any postwar Russian government, communist, tsarist or social democratic, would insist on effective control, if not over vast territories in eastern Europe, then at least over the territory of Poland, which would be considered as a buffer zone to guarantee against new attacks.

Cold War Crusader Harry Truman became president in April 1945 of the year. His comrades-in-arms, among whom was the warlike admiral Leahy, convinced him that he must begin with aggressive steps. In May, Churchill told Foreign Minister Anthony Eden that Americans should move away from previously agreed positions. According to him, a test of strength should take place while the Allies are still strong militarily. Otherwise, there remains “very little chance” of preventing a third world war.

In Churchill's speech on the Iron Curtain, delivered in March 1946, in Fulton, Missouri, the phrase of Dr. Goebbels, warning of the same red danger, sounded. This phrase reflected the great warrior’s view of the Soviet threat. At the same time, it is not surprising that the Russians regarded it as a threat. Bearing in mind the new "tyranny", Churchill said: "At the present time, when difficulties are so numerous, it is our duty not to intervene by force in the internal affairs of other countries." At the same time, it inevitably suggested that the time would come when difficulties would not be so numerous.

Prior to that, in October, Truman took an aggressive stance towards Russia. He talked about 12 points, which, he said, would be guided by American policy, among other things, it was about the importance of opening free markets. This program was supposed to be based on "justice." She did not provide for "compromise with evil." Since half of these points were aimed at the Soviet presence in Eastern Europe, the enemy he had in mind was obvious. Truman added that no one will be allowed to intervene in US policy in Latin America.

Thus, the intervention of the USSR in the affairs of countries vital to its security was evil. However, the exceptional domination of the United States in their own sphere of influence was justified. In any case, a program based on an “uncompromising attitude towards evil” is a naive, naive foreign policy framework that condemns the country to permanent war. (Perhaps, as the war against terrorism shows, this is the capitalist version of Trotskyism). The Atlantic Charter 1941 of the Year was another example of nonsense. This charter proclaimed that countries are free to choose their own governments. Later, Churchill explained that this right is not applicable to the British Empire. Molotov asked what Britain intends to do with Spain. Spain is a different matter, Churchill insisted.

Despite cooperation during the war years, Churchill's hostility towards the Soviet Union was long-standing. In 1918, he proposed re-arming defeated Germany so that it could be used as part of a large alliance in the event of a campaign against Moscow. He also supported the intervention of the allied forces during the Civil War in Russia. Even more important was his position during the Great Patriotic War, which consisted in the fact that Germany should not be completely disarmed, since it may, on occasion, be useful against Russia. Moscow also suspected, and for good reason, that some British politicians hoped to appease Hitler in order to untie his hands to attack Russia.

Against this background, it is not surprising that the reaction of the Soviet side was nervous and suspicious. The West did not take practically any steps to allay these fears. On the contrary, he took a militant stance against an imaginary military and political threat from the economically destroyed and devastated war of Russia. The fact that the cold war continued after Stalin’s death does not prove, as some experts believe, the immutability of the USSR’s global ambitions. The invasion of Hungary in the 1956 year and in Czechoslovakia in the 1968 year was cruel, but it was carried out in order to protect the buffer zone of Moscow. The same can be said about the invasion of Soviet troops into Afghanistan in 1980 (as a result of which, with the help of the CIA, the Taliban regime was born). In none of these cases were we talking about territorial threats against the West.

In those days, even Eisenhower (Eisenhower), apparently, was inconsistent with the Cold War, warning about the legitimate interests of the "military-industrial complex." During his presidency, US foreign policy was fueled by obsessed crusaders like John Foster Dulles. Followers of Dulles's militant approach played a prominent role, especially under Reagan, right up until the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Revisionist views of the Cold War are periodically revived in the United States, although often the authors' socialist sympathies are the reason for this (in which I was always hard to suspect). In Britain, revisionist views did not find a large number of supporters.

Of course, one can understand why only a few in the West want to overthrow these orthodox views. If this had happened, then the whole majestic doctrine of post-war politics would collapse. Perhaps the heavy burden of post-war rearmament was superfluous, because the transatlantic alliance was more likely to endanger us than protect us from it? Perhaps the world was balancing on the brink of a catastrophe, because the Western leaders of the post-war period, especially in Washington, lacked imagination, intelligence and understanding? The answer will be grim, but it is.

Andrew Alexander, a Daily Mail columnist, is writing a book about the Cold War. A more detailed version of this article will be published in a new edition of the Spectator.
Originator:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/apr/19/russia.comment
42 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Ruslan67
    Ruslan67 27 June 2013 18: 59
    18
    At the heart of everything loot and laziness Over the years of the Second World Military-Industrial Complex, the West was dispersed to the limit and it was long and expensive to rebuild. Everything was decided easier, we found the enemy and it started request
    1. fisherman
      fisherman 27 June 2013 19: 11
      +6
      to become a superpower, you need to find a super enemy

      searches did not drag out for a long time :)
    2. 755962
      755962 27 June 2013 19: 43
      +6
      Quote: Ruslan67
      During the years of the Second World Military-Industrial Complex, the West was pushed to the limit and it was long and expensive to rebuild. Everything was decided easier, we found the enemy and it started

      Duc striped this never did not hide ..
      Here is what the American press wrote about Hitler’s attack on the USSR 72 years ago:
      1. Kushadasov
        Kushadasov 28 June 2013 11: 44
        0
        everything is clear with the translation. who would doubt their scum and vileness. But I would also like to see the original article ...
    3. smile
      smile 28 June 2013 13: 48
      +3
      Ruslan67
      Well, at least kill, but I doubt something, the USA, even before 1MB that had set their sights on dominating the planet, were too lazy to rebuild their economies in a peaceful way ... :))) In the end, their economy is now on two pillars- selling painted green paper with greens and, with the help of military force, taking control of the resources and economies of other countries. And they are not at all lazy in this field ... on the contrary, they are showing unprecedented efficiency ... So that no one was looking for the enemy, did not appoint us to this honorable position - we were and are and will be their natural enemies, and not because that they or we are not good, but because domination in Eurasia and on the planet in general without defeating us ... such as insignificant, is impossible in principle ... it so happened .... therefore it turns out that as the next ripens in Europe the shaker of the universe, dreaming of world domination, so in the end he comes to us .... and again to us I have to bury another horde of civilizers ... :))))

      And the article jarred the statement. that Stalin more than anything else wanted to remain in power to rule the USSR with the help of mass terror .... yeah ... all the same, some stereotypes, like some diseases, even quite good people are not treated at all.
  2. krez-74
    krez-74 27 June 2013 19: 00
    12
    Unfortunately, in the power of the USSR, after Stalin, there were many who were a pillar for the West, and those who systematically pulled the country into an arms race, and pursued a policy of denigrating their history, and at the same time a pernicious policy both in the economy and social sphere!
  3. Nevsky
    Nevsky 27 June 2013 19: 01
    +4
    Perhaps the heavy burden of post-war rearmament was unnecessary, because the transatlantic alliance rather endangered us than protected us from it? Perhaps the world was balancing on the brink of disaster, because the Western leaders of the post-war period, especially in Washington, lacked imagination, intelligence and understanding? The answer will be grim, but it is.


    The insight of the Western journalist elite or the opinion of a loner ?! what
    1. Severok
      Severok 27 June 2013 19: 08
      +7
      Most likely the opinion of a loner, because in the West they do not know how to think and compare! What, however, they are doing with today's youth - they are absolutely not taught to think with their own heads and to compare information found independently with what is presented.
      1. fisherman
        fisherman 27 June 2013 19: 13
        +4
        of course loners

        the author himself understands this

        therefore, over the coming years we will be strongly advised to repent ... of their sins :)
    2. Rus2012
      Rus2012 27 June 2013 19: 28
      +3
      Quote: Nevsky
      The insight of the Western journalist elite or the opinion of a loner ?!

      IMHO neither one nor the other ...
      They are well aware of the actual state of things, just the corporate spirit or the requirement of the employer prevails. Although there are oak mines. In this case, something authorized by management happened ...
      1. Volkhov
        Volkhov 27 June 2013 21: 18
        0
        Soon they will show the real enemy, so the false conflict in propaganda is being minimized.
    3. Very old
      Very old 27 June 2013 22: 32
      +1
      With vision, the minke guys are all right. Honesty and courage, not everyone carries, and it can be dangerous, without tight work
  4. Bokdan1700
    Bokdan1700 27 June 2013 19: 06
    +3
    Since the time of the German knights' attack on Russia, the West has pursued a policy of military expansion to the East. It was, is and will be as long as Russia exists, or as long as the West is godless and satanic at all times.
  5. Jin
    Jin 27 June 2013 19: 19
    +2
    Uh-huh, the author, well done, "has seen the light" ... However, the rewriting of history is gaining momentum and this insight is more likely a loner than the masses. But! If the seeds of "insight" take place, it is very, very, you know. Remember the opinion of "their world community" a couple of years ago, in relation to Russia. One negative and pressure at all levels ... Slowly breaking off.
  6. Mikhail3
    Mikhail3 27 June 2013 19: 27
    +2
    Yes, if you think about it, this whole cold war does not stand up to any scrutiny. After all, nonsense, stupid chatter, no logic, no sense ... But trillions have been spent. Lives were ruined, millions of people died. We didn't even reach the moon ... Which can lead to only one conclusion. The Cold War against "communist ideology" has nothing to do with either communism or ideology. The reasons lie deeper and it is impossible to declare them openly. Means what? This means that these reasons are very vile, low, even ugly Western people will not approve of them and will not tolerate them. Or are these reasons that we should not chew snot and attack ourselves before it's too late ...
    1. JIaIIoTb
      JIaIIoTb 27 June 2013 19: 53
      0
      There is only one reason - money.
      1. folds
        folds 28 June 2013 11: 05
        0
        there is only one reason - power, and money, war, politics and ideology are only means to achieve it
    2. Yura
      Yura 27 June 2013 21: 39
      0
      Quote: Mikhail3
      Which can only lead to one conclusion. The Cold War against "communist ideology" has nothing to do with either communism or ideology. The reasons lie deeper and it is impossible to declare them openly. Means what? This means that these reasons are very vile, low, even ugly Western people will not approve of them and will not tolerate them. Or are these reasons that we should not chew snot and attack ourselves before it's too late ...

      There is nothing to add, everything is correctly said, but I think it’s not necessary to attack, it’s necessary to keep them at a distance, that is, not to give them the opportunity to even think that they can win if they attack, and then they will gobble up themselves as they ate their resources . The West is that snake that already eats its tail, and I think even in our lifetime, and soon, the jaws of this snake will begin to chew their tongue from the side of their throats.
  7. Net
    Net 27 June 2013 19: 52
    +5
    So much nonsense has been written about this mythical "red threat" that one can endlessly refute it. And here is how the main "democratizers" behaved in 1945.
    The split in Germany was contrary to our interests - it led to the US monopoly on the world market. And in Potsdam, Stalin proposed: there will be a united democratic Germany. All-German parties and trade unions, the all-German press, the all-German church - both Catholic and Protestant. Answer: Americans are against political unity, Americans, British and French are against all-German parties, trade unions, and the media. In 1946, we proposed holding free elections in Germany, creating a national government, concluding a peace treaty with it, and withdrawing all the occupation forces in a year or two. Against - everything. Marshall, the US secretary of state, said: "We have no reason to trust the democratic will of the German people. A peace treaty will be negotiated without the Germans and dictated to them when Washington deems it necessary. We will prescribe to them the conditions that we see fit."

    from an interview with Valentin Falin, head of the international department of the CPSU Central Committee
    http://izvestia.ru/news/353706
  8. Smersh
    Smersh 27 June 2013 20: 08
    0
    well, at least I got their nerves cool ...
  9. Yarosvet
    Yarosvet 27 June 2013 20: 23
    +5
    "The Soviet threat was a myth"
    Well this is how to say:

    The myth was the Soviet military threat - about which the West yelled.
    But the ideological threat, the threat of translating into practice the example of a just society with equal rights and opportunities for every citizen, which the West still prefers to keep quiet about, was very real.
    1. fisherman
      fisherman 27 June 2013 20: 30
      0
      societies with equal rights and opportunities for every citizen,


      such a society on earth did not exist yet

      do not tell tales :)
      1. Yarosvet
        Yarosvet 27 June 2013 20: 37
        +2
        Quote: fisherman
        such a society on earth did not exist yet

        do not tell tales :)
        Why didn't you finish? Continue - "... such a society cannot exist in principle, so relax and have fun" - you mean that, right?

        And this, I suppose, is your spiritual mentor?
  10. Yuri Y.
    Yuri Y. 27 June 2013 20: 30
    +1
    Quote: krez-74
    Unfortunately, in the power of the USSR, after Stalin, there were many who were a pillar for the West, and those who systematically pulled the country into an arms race, and pursued a policy of denigrating their history, and at the same time a pernicious policy both in the economy and social sphere!

    I don’t know who you had in mind. But to be involved in an arms race under the SSHA policy then, and by the way today for an independent country with strength, this is the norm. Politics then is described in the article.

    Quote: Nevsky
    The insight of the Western journalist elite or the opinion of a loner ?!

    The opinion expressed out loud is appreciated here. Judging by the actions of the United States with respect to Russia, most likely the opinion of a loner.
  11. knn54
    knn54 27 June 2013 20: 31
    +4
    XIX century - the myth of the "communist danger".
    XX century - the myth of the "Soviet military threat".
    XXl Century-RUSSIAN THREAT.
    PS ... "those who shout about red militarism ... are political swindlers who pretend they believe in this stupidity ..." V. I. Lenin
    PPS We ALWAYS knew this, but for them, a revelation.
    1. Rattenfanger
      Rattenfanger 27 June 2013 22: 51
      -1
      Quote: knn54
      XIX century - the myth of the "communist danger".

      Oh how! Can I learn more? belay
      1. knn54
        knn54 28 June 2013 11: 47
        +2
        Rattenfanger: Read, for starters, “Manifesto of the Communist Party,” 1848
        And the history of the 19th century, at least: http://krotov.info/history/00/eger/vsem_098.htm
        PS “Our enemy is not a village priest, but a socialist school teacher!” Thiers, Prime Minister and President of France, 1848
        1. Rattenfanger
          Rattenfanger 28 June 2013 18: 17
          0
          Quote: knn54
          Rattenfanger: Read, for starters, the “Manifesto of the Communist Party”, 1848. And the history of the 19th century, at least: http://krotov.info/history/00/eger/vsem_098.htmP.S “Our enemy is not a village priest, and a socialist school teacher! ” Thiers, Prime Minister and President of France, 1848

          Yeah. Where are you ... growing them?
          1) In the "Manifesto" of Marx and Engels there is not a hint of a threat. There is an attempt to use various methodological methods to substantiate the inevitability of the onset of the final formation of the development of mankind - communism. We have heard the proformational approach.
          2) I read it. For starters. Under the editorship of Tarle. Years like 10. Next, what advise you to read?
          Question: Do you have any idea what you meant by the word "socialist" during the Second Republic, with the creation of which this phrase is connected? And in what context was it uttered by Louis Adolphe Thiers?

          For the monarchies of the 19th century, the main threat was separatist and people's liberation movements. Talking about the "communist threat in the XNUMXth century" is the delusion of a typhoid patient, sorry.Accordingly, they could not mythologize what was not physically.
  12. Avenger711
    Avenger711 27 June 2013 20: 32
    +4
    The cold war began because Russia did not want Poland to be independent


    The authors themselves are not funny? Although, perhaps, they are Poles themselves.
    1. folds
      folds 28 June 2013 11: 13
      0
      The Cold War began when England and the United States in July 45th planned an attack on the USSR immediately after the defeat of Germany.
      http://www.repin.info/xfiles/Operation_Unthinkable-a_plan_of_attack_on_the_USSR_
      England
  13. KG_patriot_last
    KG_patriot_last 27 June 2013 20: 55
    +2
    If so let NATO dissolve. Why would 25 years after the victory, this organization, especially if there were no threats ... Russia and Germany would have had new projects about the world order without these French-English ...

    On the other hand, of course, the journalist is right in that the catalyst for the Cold War came up with the West, and the USSR only answered them ...
  14. nikkon09
    nikkon09 27 June 2013 21: 08
    0
    Well, now there is no USSR, and what has become easier for them?
  15. Bezarius
    Bezarius 27 June 2013 21: 17
    +1
    It came over 50 years later that we are driven only by the desire to defend ourselves, and the war is not at all interesting to us?
  16. Bosk
    Bosk 27 June 2013 21: 31
    +3
    A test of strength was ... in Korea, and the results greatly upset the American hawks. I think thanks to the Korean War ... the threat of a third world war has moved into a new phase ... into armed confrontation.
  17. 0255
    0255 27 June 2013 22: 02
    +5
    The British and Americans have always been and will be against Russia. Why then did they finance the Chechen fighters, because in 1994 the USSR collapsed? And why in 1905 did they support Japan, because then there was no communism in Russia yet?
    Even in an advertisement for the American F-35, they shoot down Russian Su-35s with red stars. Even in films and computer games, either the aliens, or Russia or the USSR attack the USA and NATO. They hate us even today, and we call them Western partners.
  18. GEO
    GEO 27 June 2013 22: 11
    0
    Quote: Nevsky
    Perhaps the heavy burden of post-war rearmament was unnecessary, because the transatlantic alliance rather endangered us than protected us from it? Perhaps the world was balancing on the brink of disaster, because the Western leaders of the post-war period, especially in Washington, lacked imagination, intelligence and understanding? The answer will be grim, but it is.


    The insight of the Western journalist elite or the opinion of a loner ?! what

    As paradoxical as it sounds, I think that both are ...
  19. Rattenfanger
    Rattenfanger 27 June 2013 22: 50
    +6
    If the Russians, whose lands were devastated by the war, invaded the west, they would have to fight fiercely to reach the English Channel.

    Yes, yes, yes ... With the clowns who escaped from the bloodless Wehrmacht in front of their own screech, would the Red Army guards have to fight fiercely?
    The author, it seems, only recently returned from Holland, because this nonsense cannot be explained otherwise than by narcotic effects.
    In a matter of weeks they would have approached the Canal. And stood up. Because the fleets could not compete with the Naglosaks in our forces.
    1. b-612
      b-612 27 June 2013 23: 15
      +1
      "I would have to fight desperately" ... as with the Japanese, for example, a little later, long and painfully ... nonsense
    2. Zopuhhh
      Zopuhhh 28 June 2013 15: 25
      0
      But if they could cross over to the islet, would they stand at the other shore ... eh ...
  20. Shadowcat
    Shadowcat 28 June 2013 00: 13
    0
    I disagree with the article 90%. But on the other hand, all these moments indicated are the moments of the USSR's presentation of the Western point of view.
  21. Ruslandeth
    Ruslandeth 28 June 2013 02: 18
    +1
    among other things, it was also about the importance of opening free markets


    the author said in four words the essence of the Cold War))
    his gaze is blindfolded, of course, but to expect more from a Westerner is to demand an aimed shot from a grenade from a macaque.

    and thanks for that.

    I'll go to the comments in the original
  22. Ruslandeth
    Ruslandeth 28 June 2013 02: 20
    +1
    Damn, please author - give a link to the original! In general, when fasting translations it is usually considered good form to indicate the source.

    Thank you
  23. dmitrich
    dmitrich 28 June 2013 05: 12
    0
    In vain Stalin at 45 did not finish off these freaks.
  24. Uncle lee
    Uncle lee 28 June 2013 05: 14
    +7
    Soyuznichki they were still those! What kind of Jesuit logic did Churchill use, holding combat-ready German captive divisions almost under arms !?
    Ready to receive weapons, orders, and Dranh on Austen !!! He hated Russia and the USSR with every fiber. And the USSR was like an eyesore to them - a counterbalance to their cannibalistic doctrines.
  25. individual
    individual 28 June 2013 09: 32
    +2
    Quote:
    "If the Russians, whose lands were devastated by the war, invaded the west, they would have to fight desperately to reach the coast of the English Channel."

    Soviet politics did not need campaigns for the English Channel.
    The USSR winner of Germany himself determined the boundaries of his influence in Europe.
    Stalin’s diplomacy had a political weight equal to American and English combined, which infuriated arrogant Anglo-Saxons.
    1. Jin
      Jin 28 June 2013 10: 14
      +3
      Quote: individ
      "If the Russians, whose lands were devastated by the war, invaded the west, they would have to fight desperately to reach the coast of the English Channel."


      Fight? With whom? With "allies"? Well, they made fun of ... the 20 millionth army, armed to the teeth with the latest weapons, the fired upon the USSR army, which had gone through the most fierce battles and had colossal experience and talented commanders, would have torn the "allies" in a maximum of a month ... All this allied gang of brothers in no hold of a candle to the Wehrmacht army, which the Union had brought to its knees! From Berlin to the English Channel "very far", yeah ... to fight desperately! They found a phrase, hilarious, damn it laughing
  26. xzWhiteWolf
    xzWhiteWolf 28 June 2013 09: 47
    0
    I always knew that in the West there are people who can think with their own heads.
    So there’s only 1 problem ... Vryatle Stalin exclusively wanted power. Perhaps he knew that he could help his country, and by the way he did it like no other, yes, at a great price, but ... we exist ... Not one ruler was complete without errors, they were also with Stalin. Why? We are all humans. But to say that Stalin is a tyrant and evil ... Vryatlya. Perhaps he is the lesser evil of those available in the USSR at that time - but necessary.
  27. Lone wolf
    Lone wolf 28 June 2013 10: 12
    0
    Hmm .. England and the United States have always been so calm and calm!
  28. Lone wolf
    Lone wolf 28 June 2013 10: 14
    +1
    "If the Russians, whose lands were devastated by the war, invaded the west, they would have to fight desperately to reach the coast of the English Channel." I read that after the capture of Berlin in 45, it was enough just to walk the Red Army across Europe!
  29. uhu189
    uhu189 28 June 2013 11: 33
    0
    Understanding comes with experience ...
  30. Black
    Black 28 June 2013 13: 11
    +1
    The Cold War with the West will continue forever, periodically interspersed with hot. For Russia will never lie under the West, and the west will never cease to stare at the wealth of the motherland, and will always be afraid of our gain.
    Strength and Truth are scary.
  31. Homeless
    Homeless 28 June 2013 16: 42
    +1
    The potential that the Soviet Union possessed by April 45 was such that if there was such a need, the whole of Western Europe would be under the jurisdiction of the USSR, and that was what prompted the United States and Great Britain to land their troops in June 1944 in Normandy, since then Churchill Roosevelt understood that if they did not take part in the liberation of Western Europe, then all of Europe could become communist, which our allies could not allow in any way.
    1. Jin
      Jin 28 June 2013 17: 05
      +1
      Quote: Homeless
      this is precisely what prompted the USA and Great Britain to land their troops in Normandy in June 1944, since even then Churchill Roosevelt understood that if they did not take part in the liberation of Western Europe, then all of Europe could become communist, which our allies could not allow anyone way


      You see, colleague, their landing, if according to history, has a double role in the history of the Second World War. And their landing, in no way, would have been able to stop our divisions, had Stalin decided to bend them ... I could say that the "allies" are great, they will open the second front in the 42nd, otherwise they just cling to victory, the warriors are crappy. Most likely, if it were not for the bombing of Japan by nuclear weapons, your dacha could now be somewhere in Kentkukki, for example ... as an option.