Military Review

What gave Russia the Moscow treaty 1939 of the year?

62
The boundaries established by the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact still apply in full


Over the past quarter of a century, negative materials about the Moscow Treaty appeared in the domestic and foreign media much more than about any other issue. history of humanity. He even came up with a new name: the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. This was done contrary to the world tradition to name the treaties at the place of their signing: Tilsit Peace, Nishtadt Peace, Munich Treaty (1938), etc. Although the same Brest Peace 1918, is called “the most fabled one”, no one is going to rename it yet.

We look at the 1939 treaty of the year through the prism of the 1941 – 1945 war. But then no one could even imagine the death of 30 by millions of Soviet citizens and the massacres of people in the German death camps. By this time, in the Polish concentration camps since 1919, several times more people died than in Hitler's. And the French and the British in the colonial wars also many times more killed civilians in Asia and Africa. I keep mum about the gulag.

Prophecies of politicians

We all have forgotten that the beginning of the Second World War was predicted by dozens of the most far-sighted politicians, including Lenin, in April 1919, immediately after the conclusion of the Versailles Peace.

In the Russian and German empires, by the end of 1919, the rulers guilty of starting a war were executed or fled the country. People came to power who in the fall of 1914 were opposing the war. So why would the Entente not accept the peace plan "without annexations and indemnities" put forward by Lenin in 1917? Alas, the rulers of England, France and the United States felt like the unlimited lords of the world and committed savage reprisals against Germany and Russia. Moreover, if Russia was dealt with “according to the rules”, as with some African country, then a very representative Versailles Conference was convened to enslave and dismember Germany.

About a third of the territory was taken away from Russia and Germany, almost the entire military fleet of both countries was sunk by the allies, and the entire trade fleet was assigned. Germany Versailles Treaty allowed to have 100-thousandth army, or rather the police force.

England and France decided to create a sanitary cordon against Soviet Russia and Germany — Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, and Czechoslovakia — on the torn away Russian and German territories. I note that modern Poland should not be confused with the 30-s of Poland under the dictatorship of Marshal Pilsudski. Now Poland is a national state in which the vast majority of citizens are Poles. But this was achieved through the destruction or deportation of many millions of Germans, Jews, Russians, Ukrainians and Belarusians. Well, the rest forcibly polonizirovat.

And in the 1922 year in the Republic of Poland, ethnic Poles made up about 60 percent of the population. Moreover, Slavic ethnic groups — Lemki, Kashubians, Pomeranians, and others who had more linguistic and cultural differences with the Poles than the Russians with the Ukrainians — were forcibly recorded in the Poles.

In Czechoslovakia, there were 14 million from the 6,6 million population of the Czechs, Germans - 3,5 million, Slovaks - 3 million, Hungarians, Romanians, Ruthenians, Poles and others - 400 thousand people. Its authorities made the Czechs (45 percent of the population) the titular nation. The rest of the nation did not want to live in this artificial state, which was held on French bayonets before the 1938 year and on the Soviet ones - until the 1991 year.

Immediately after the Versailles Conference, the French Marshal Foch said: “Versailles is not a peace, but a truce for 20 years”. And at the conference itself, British Prime Minister Lloyd George told the French Prime Minister Clemenceau, who wanted to include the lands inhabited by the Germans in Poland: “Do not create a new Alsace-Lorraine.”

Thus, the French Marshal and the British Prime Minister accurately predicted the time (1939 year) and the cause (Poland) of the outbreak of World War II.

Other scenarios

Exactly five years after the end of World War I, 9 November 1923, Hitler, who was marching at the head of the Nazi column in Munich, came under fire from the police. Max Scheibner-Richter, a former officer of the royal army, covered the Fuhrer with his body. Hitler was under the corpse of Richter, and then took refuge in the apartment of General Vasily Biskupskogo. Well, the Russian mark on the rise of Nazism is a special topic, and for a second we imagine that Richter would be half a meter to the right or left of Adolf and the Fuhrer would get a police bullet. So, in this case, the Second World War would not have taken place, and in Europe would the Versailles treaty system still operate?

What gave Russia the Moscow treaty 1939 of the year?In Soviet times, our historians enthusiastically wrote about Ernst Telman - the leader of the German Communists, an implacable fighter against fascism. But apparently, these authors did not read the speech of Telman. I was not lazy and read with a pencil. No doubt, the programs of the Communists and the Nazis in internal politics radically diverged. But I could not find a difference between Hitler and Telman in relation to the Western powers and the Versailles Treaty.

Telman officially declared: “Soviet Germany will not pay any pfennig for reparations ... We Communists do not recognize any forcible joining of a people or a part of a people to another national state, we do not recognize any borders drawn without the consent of the real majority of the population ... We Communists are against territorial division and plunder of Germany, carried out on the basis of the Versailles Treaty forcibly imposed on us. "

As we see, the Second World War would have begun under the Reichskanzler Ernst Telman. The only question is when England and France would declare war on Soviet Germany. In 1934, 1938, or 3 September 1939? It is not difficult to guess which side Russia would be on and what the final of this war would be.

I am sure that the liberals will get it wrong. The author, they say, correctly shows that the Communists and the Nazis are inveterate instigators of war. Well, let's remove them from the political scene, and in 1933, the Hohenzollern monarchy will be restored in Germany and the Romanovs in Russia.

But, alas, none of the Hohenzollerns and the Romanovs would have ever recognized the Versailles world and its brainchild - the state-limitrofy. Fortunately, the “Coburg Emperor” Kirill Vladimirovich intermarried with the Hohenzollerns, and his wife Victoria met in the 20-ies with Hitler and supported the “movement” financially. Or maybe General Anton Denikin would have kissed with Pan Pilsudski?

The Grand Duke Alexander Mikhailovich, the Bolsheviks killed two siblings, confiscated palaces in the Crimea and St. Petersburg. At the beginning of 1933, the grand duke slowly died in poverty on the Cote d'Azur. Before his death, he wrote in his memoirs: “Now I’m sure that my sons will see the day when not only the ridiculous independence of the Baltic republics will end, but Bessarabia and Poland will be recaptured by Poland, and cartographers will have to work hard to redraw the borders in the Far East.

Each has its own benefit

By 1938, Poland turned out to be the only state in the world that has territorial claims to all countries along the perimeter of the borders: to Danzig, bourgeois Lithuania, the USSR (Minsk, Kiev, Odessa), Czechoslovakia and Germany. Polish politicians frankly stated: “Since the First World War gave Poland independence and returned part of the original Polish lands, it is to be hoped that another big war will give Poland the rest of its territories.”

During the Sudeten crisis of 1938, Poland, together with Germany, demanded the partition of Czechoslovakia.

In Munich, the Western powers capitulated to Hitler, with the result that Germany received the Sudetenland, and Poland - the Cieszyn region of Czechoslovakia.

5 January 1939 th in Berchtesgaden, Hitler met with the Polish Foreign Minister Beck. On it, as before, the question of the annexation of Soviet Ukraine was considered. Alas, the Poles demanded a lot, but they themselves didn’t even want the German city of the free city of Danzig to be annexed to Germany.

In 1939, the conflict of Poland and Germany was for us not a struggle of good and evil, but something of a type of "arrow" of Solntsevo and Lyubertsy brotherhood. Both sides not only hated the USSR, but also dreamed of making the Russian people their slaves.

An interesting aspect: by August 1939, both Germany and the USSR were not ready for a major war. In both countries, the rearmament of the ground forces has just begun. And if the Wehrmacht could be rearmament in a year and a half, then the Red Army - not earlier than 1942. Again, in both countries, huge funds were spent on the construction of a large fleet. In 1939, in Germany and in the USSR, dozens of battleships and huge battlecruisers were laid down. All these superdreadnoughts could be put into operation not earlier than 1943-1944.

Thus, Hitler risked relying on a local war with Poland, and Stalin tried to delay the war at any cost. Therefore, the Soviet government went to negotiations with Britain and France, trying to stop Hitler by threatening to create a large coalition. However, neither England nor France were going to enter into a military alliance with Russia. Their negotiations were only a bluff in bargaining with Germany. The Poles did not want to talk to the Russians at all. Polish generals were eager to fight, planning to take Berlin for a month, for which a powerful central group was created.

By the way, Russia at the end of the summer of 1939 was already waging one war. It was in August that a grand battle unfolded on the Khalkhin-Gol River. By August 23, the Red Army had made significant strides, but they were pinpricks for the huge Japanese army. The fighting continued, the Kwantung army tightened reserves. The Japanese stopped the war only a few days after the signing of the Moscow Treaty. Only then did the samurai understand that Stalin’s hands were untied and tens of thousands could appear in the east tanks and airplanes.

22 March 1939 in Poland announced the start of the first partial and covert mobilization (four infantry divisions and a cavalry brigade) in order to provide cover for the mobilization and concentration of the main forces of the Polish army. I repeat for those who consider Poland completely unprepared for the September catastrophe: 22 March, that is, 20 (!) Days before Hitler signed the Weiss plan - an attack on Poland.

Three scenarios

The Soviet government, having no other way out, signed an agreement with Germany. I note that in the well-known secret protocols, the delimitation of zones of influence was carried out only in the territories that had belonged to the Germans and Russians for centuries and were cut off from the Versailles Treaty. Looking ahead, I will say that the boundaries established by the Moscow Treaty of 1939 of the year and the subsequent agreements between the USSR and Germany are still in effect. And all detractors of these contracts and do not dare to utter a word about restoring the boundaries of the 1938 model of the year.

In the first days of September 1939, the Soviet government faced the question: what to do in the current situation? Theoretically, three options were possible: the first was to start a war with Germany, the second was to occupy a part of the territory of Poland inhabited by Belarusians and Ukrainians, the third was to do nothing at all.

To fight simultaneously with Germany and Japan, at best, with the hostile neutrality of England and France, would be madness.

Suppose that Stalin would not have reacted in any way to the German invasion of Poland. By the way, this is exactly the forecast Beck and Co. gave to Polish intelligence. The rhetorical question invariably arises: why Stalin could not have imagined that the war would end in November-December 1939 by an agreement between Germany and the Western allies?

Who in Paris and London could have admitted that Poland would be smashed to pieces in two or three weeks, and France with Belgium, Holland and even with the British army in four to five weeks? And if such an expert had been found, he would have been immediately placed in a psychiatric hospital.

It is curious that Ribbentrop, already in the first days of August 1939, began to frighten the Soviet People's Commissariat of Foreign Affairs with the possible creation of any third states on the territory of Poland if Soviet troops did not enter there. It was about the state of Ukrainian nationalists.

In the summer of 1939, between the leadership of the Wehrmacht and the leader of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN), Melnik underwent intensive negotiations on the creation of the OUN army, and the Germans gave advances on the creation of the Ukrainian state. In August, a Ukrainian legion was formed in Slovakia under the command of Colonel Sushko in Slovakia, consisting of about 1939 people.

The German command in early September, the beginning of the redeployment of legions from Slovakia in the direction of Lviv, however, the introduction of the USSR troops in Poland and the occupation of Lvov by Soviet troops forced the Wehrmacht to transfer legionnaires to the area of ​​the city of Sanok.

Regardless of the legion in the deep rear of the Poles, units of the OUN began to operate - about 7700 people, who in two weeks captured more than 3,6 thousands of Polish soldiers.

The rhetorical question: was Stalin interested in the creation of a state by the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) in Western Ukraine and Western Belarus? (This part of Belarus was considered by the UPA to be its own.) From September 1939 to June 1941, this state could well form a million-strong army and equip it with modern German equipment (of course, with the blessing of the Fuhrer). We must not lose the moral factor. It’s one thing when the Kiev Special and Odessa Military District troops are fighting the Wehrmacht, and it’s another with the professional Ukrainian army.

How would events develop in this variant in the summer-autumn 1941 of the year?

Let's not forget that in the territories annexed to the USSR in 1939 – 1940, the Germans lost more soldiers and equipment in 1941, than from September 1939 to June 1941 throughout Europe. And the fighting in these territories detained the Wehrmacht on the way to Moscow for at least two months.
Author:
62 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Dangerous
    Dangerous 3 October 2013 08: 35 New
    -23
    The article is full of assumptions about what would happen if .... I also wondered: what would happen if the author took up the business and benefits of the country, rather than inventing various development options already held of events
    1. Aryan
      Aryan 3 October 2013 11: 10 New
      +2
      It is not clear why the author calls Thälmann's alternative Germany "Soviet"
      and the UPA can hardly be called a "professional army"
      which frightened children of tippo THE EVIL BABY WILL COME AND THROUGH BULL-BUCK
      it was much harder
      listened to the stories of those residents of Bukovina ...
      and not so simple
      here and without an alternative story it’s hard
      Stalin, of course, decided that he could at that moment, and thanks for that
      should say the Soviet people
      but not more...
      1. StolzSS
        StolzSS 3 October 2013 22: 36 New
        +1
        Have you read the UPA charter training methods for fighters ??? do not throw their caps for 39-46; they were well organized and quite effective. If the OUN members had 2 years of training and resources, then they would have collected 5-6 divisions ....
      2. Alex
        Alex 25 January 2014 13: 58 New
        +2
        Quote: Aryan
        UPA can hardly be called a "professional army"
        It is believed that the UPA of the 1941-43 model, created under the conditions when the Germans needed them like a fifth wheel in a cart (except for the punitive actions - the highest race, however), can be called a professional army only after a good dose of strong grass ( or reading nationalist books, which is almost the same thing). But military units created on their own territory, in the absence of pressure, and even with external support ... Do not take this so lightly, out there, Tukhachevsky did not consider the Poles to be a force either, and there was even less time for their creation.
  2. erased
    erased 3 October 2013 08: 52 New
    22
    Good article, everything about the case. To consider Stalin and Molotov idiots and traitors (what?) Can either be a complete layman or a supporter of tolerant liberalism. In those conditions, the USSR made the only possible choice. And the benefits of this choice were visible. even Churchill acknowledged the fact, and this enemy, on his own initiative, never praised the Russians, only forcedly.
    I don’t understand another thing - why the Russian authorities still repent for this pact and do not want to return to Russia everything that figures like Khrushchev rejected. Crimea, northern parts of Kazakhstan. Although ... here it is a matter of big politics - that is, big shit. To rake, you must have steel willpower. Stalin's willpower - I would say so.
    1. avt
      avt 3 October 2013 10: 18 New
      +7
      Quote: erased
      To consider Stalin and Molotov idiots and traitors (what?) Can either be a complete layman or a supporter of tolerant liberalism. In those conditions, the USSR made the only possible choice. And the benefits of this choice were visible. even Churchill acknowledged the fact, and this enemy, on his own initiative, never praised the Russians, only forcedly.

      And the most interesting thing is that Western liberoids and their local mongrels do not talk about, the western border of the USSR in 1939 repeated the "Curzon Line" - the division border after World War I. Well, and absolutely the final chord - when they signed the Helsing Agreement on the inviolability of borders in particular, ALL European countries and the adjoining USA and Canada de jure recognized the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. So Alekseeva with her Helsing group should foaming at the mouth to demand the return of Russian territories within the borders of the USSR, as a legal successor.
      1. erased
        erased 3 October 2013 10: 55 New
        +2
        If so. And then we’ll give back to China.
        1. GDP
          GDP 3 October 2013 14: 21 New
          +2
          Are you referring to the territories that Yeltsin gave to China?
          In 69, our border guards courageously repelled the attacks of the superior Chinese army in these territories, died and won ...
          1991 - we donated these territories to China ...
          And in 2005, Putin gave China another 350 km of the strategically important territory of the Russian Federation on the island at the confluence of two large rivers.
          In the 2009 year, Medvedev transferred to Norway 175 000 km of disputed territory in the Barents Sea and the entire 200 mile zone around Svalbard, the richest fish place in this sea.
          In part of the transferred territory, oil reserves worth about 30 billion euros were discovered.
          In addition, part of the territory of Dagestan was transferred to Azerbaijan along with the population, who forgot to ask about which country they want to live in ...
          1. washi
            washi 3 October 2013 15: 20 New
            0
            Quote: GDP
            Are you referring to the territories that Yeltsin gave to China?
            In 69, our border guards courageously repelled the attacks of the superior Chinese army in these territories, died and won ...
            1991 - we donated these territories to China ...
            And in 2005, Putin gave China another 350 km of the strategically important territory of the Russian Federation on the island at the confluence of two large rivers.
            In the 2009 year, Medvedev transferred to Norway 175 000 km of disputed territory in the Barents Sea and the entire 200 mile zone around Svalbard, the richest fish place in this sea.
            In part of the transferred territory, oil reserves worth about 30 billion euros were discovered.
            In addition, part of the territory of Dagestan was transferred to Azerbaijan along with the population, who forgot to ask about which country they want to live in ...

            In China, I explained everything above.
            And Medvedev just ...................
        2. washi
          washi 3 October 2013 15: 18 New
          +5
          Quote: erased
          If so. And then we’ll give back to China.

          These are not correctly drawn up contracts drawn up a long time ago: borders pass along the fairway of rivers.
          Under Soviet rule, this made sense.
          After 1991, the Chinese began mass dumping of their shores.
          The result is a change in the channel and conclusion (with GDP of new border agreements).
          Yes, the loss of territories, but no one, for some reason, says that the Chinese also gave us part of their territory, and if we kept the old treaty, we could lose much more (we do not have money to block rivers)
          1. Yarosvet
            Yarosvet 3 October 2013 19: 44 New
            0
            Quote: Vasya
            but no one, for some reason, says that the Chinese also gave us part of their territory

            Can you link?


    2. Ingvar 72
      Ingvar 72 3 October 2013 11: 30 New
      0
      Quote: erased
      maybe either a complete layman or a supporter of tolerant liberalism

      I will express myself shorter- Either, or the enemy.
    3. dmb
      dmb 3 October 2013 13: 04 New
      +7
      It seems that your comments are always meaningful. Why the current authorities repent is clear to everyone. The pact was concluded by "damned" commies, who do not like this government at all. The commies had "wrong" thoughts. Oligarchs and shopkeepers, these nice people, they did not like. And therefore. everything they did was bad. But here's the second part of your post I was slightly stunned. How are you going to return the northern parts of Kazakhstan or Crimea by air strikes or iron tanks? It can be returned only in its entirety, and only if we are supported by the majority of the population of those states. with whom we are going to team up. Otherwise, how will we differ from the donkeys listed in the article.
      1. erased
        erased 3 October 2013 13: 44 New
        0
        That's just what you need to return, right. No strength and pressure, only peacefully - evidence base, negotiations, proposals.
    4. Lindon
      Lindon 3 October 2013 16: 02 New
      0
      Do you want Alaska?
      Or maybe Finland?
      To dream is not harmful.
      1. Ingvar 72
        Ingvar 72 3 October 2013 18: 43 New
        +3
        Quote: Lindon
        Do you want Alaska?
        Or maybe Finland?
        To dream is not harmful.

        I WANT. Dreaming is not harmful, it is harmful not to dream.
    5. luka095
      luka095 4 October 2013 02: 56 New
      0
      And we are constantly urged to repent for everything that happened, mind you, only under Soviet rule. Otherwise, the "actions" of the current authorities look too odious.
    6. VARCHUN
      VARCHUN 23 October 2013 13: 33 New
      0
      And tell me the reasons why the figures of the Russian Federation should take Crimea, who are Putin and Medvedev. You are holding back your own food, and you still have Crimea. This is your Caucasus and something-Dagi spitting on you in your own cities, and the Crimean Tatars also do not stand on ceremony.
  3. aszzz888
    aszzz888 3 October 2013 08: 56 New
    +7
    Yes, and cunning England in this matter played not the last violin. To my advantage, of course. Until the complete collapse of the USSR, its main task was.
  4. svskor80
    svskor80 3 October 2013 09: 04 New
    11
    The Grand Duke Alexander Mikhailovich, the Bolsheviks killed two siblings, confiscated palaces in the Crimea and St. Petersburg. At the beginning of 1933, the grand duke slowly died in poverty on the Cote d'Azur. Before his death, he wrote in his memoirs: “Now I’m sure that my sons will see the day when not only the ridiculous independence of the Baltic republics will end, but Bessarabia and Poland will be recaptured by Poland, and cartographers will have to work hard to redraw the borders in the Far East.

    And in this situation, he remained a patriot of his country. Worth respect. I also hope to see the end of the absurd independence of the Baltic republics :). As for the pact, I am sure it was needed.
    1. Papakiko
      Papakiko 3 October 2013 15: 20 New
      0
      Quote: svskor80
      In early 1933, the Grand Duke slowly died in poverty on the Cote d'Azur.

      That is exactly how it was. There was no money for caviar.
      All the Romanovs living today are the children of the Grand Duke and they still swell with hunger.
      The article put a minus for a set of nonsense and golimy content.
      It was possible to overstop only in the last 2 paragraphs.
  5. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 3 October 2013 09: 12 New
    +9
    Shirokorad in his repertoire.
    In the Russian and German empires, by the end of the 1919 year, the rulers guilty of starting a war were executed or fled the country. People came to power who, in the fall of 1914, opposed the war. So why shouldn't the Entente accept the plan of peace “without annexations and indemnities” put forward by Lenin in 1917?

    Yeah. Those. to put so many years and so many millions of soldiers in the ground in order to then leave Germany within the same borders and with the same opportunities.
    About a third of the territory was taken from Russia and Germany, almost the entire fleet of both countries was sunk by the Allies

    I would like to know which ships of Russia were sunk by the Allies?
    Thus, the French Marshal and the British Prime Minister accurately predicted the time (1939 year) and the cause (Poland) of the outbreak of World War II.

    Shirokorad seriously believes that the cause of WWII was ... Poland ?! wassat
    Well, the Russian trace in the birth of Nazism is a special topic.

    Yes, the fascist sword was forged in the USSR and other dregs of the same damage. Swam, we know.
    An interesting aspect: by August 1939, both Germany and the USSR were not ready for a big war. In both countries, the rearmament of the ground forces has just begun.

    laughing M-dya. To reduce the problems of the Wehrmacht and the Red Army to rearmament is strength.
    Generally speaking, the problems of the Red Army and the Wehrmacht were that both Germany and the USSR
    1) carried out an explosive growth of armies - the Germans "jumped out of the pants" of their 100 thousandth contingent, the USSR tried to transform its 500 thousand army into something more. Both of them lacked literally EVERYTHING, but especially the competent command staff. True, it was easier for the Germans with personnel - they made much greater efforts to preserve them than the USSR
    2) Both countries did not have enough trained recruits. The Germans introduced general military service in 1935, the USSR in 1939.
    Again, in both countries, enormous funds were spent on the construction of a large fleet. In 1939, in Germany and in the USSR, dozens of battleships and huge battlecruisers were laid.

    In 1939, the USSR laid down the Soviet Belorussia and 2 battle cruisers of Project 69. In Germany, in July-September, 3 battleships of the H-39 type were laid down, but their construction was almost immediately stopped (in September-October) Dozens of battleships, say? What tens, thousands of them wassat And if you look under the bed ...
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 3 October 2013 09: 12 New
      10
      By the way, at the end of the summer of 1939, Russia was already waging one war. It was in August that a grand battle unfolded on the Khalkhin Gol River. By August 23, the Red Army had made significant strides, but they were pinpricks for the huge Japanese army.

      Eeee ... Before the start of the offensive, as of 20 of August 1939 of the year, the total number of Soviet and Mongolian troops was 35 infantry battalions, 20 cavalry squadrons, 216 field and 286 anti-tank guns, 40 mortars, 2255 machine guns and 498 machine guns and light 346 armored vehicles, 581 aircraft. The total number of Japanese troops was 25 infantry battalions, 17 cavalry squadrons, 135 field and 142 anti-tank guns, 60 mortars and bombers, 1238 easel and light machine guns, 120 tanks and armored vehicles, 450.
      MILITARY army wassat
      In general, that the Molotov Ribbentrop Pact for the USSR was uncontested - we already know. And he does not cast any shadow on the USSR. Even the "amateur" of the USSR Churchill frankly writes about this. But there is no need to try to prove this from the standpoint of militant ignorance of history.
      1. Dezzed
        Dezzed 3 October 2013 16: 16 New
        -4
        "In general, that the Molotov Ribbentrop Pact for the USSR was uncontested - we already know."

        dear, what would happen in 1941 if there were no Moscow treaty?
        Germany would "treacherously" and unexpectedly attack the USSR across the whole of Poland ?! azuhen wei don't tell me.

        By the way, in August and further on in 1939 the weather was not the one to attack, and then in 1940 they wrote a plan for France.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 3 October 2013 16: 36 New
          +4
          Quote: DezzeD
          dear, what would happen in 1941 if there were no Moscow treaty?

          Firstly, a lot of things would happen BEFORE the 1941 of the year. But in order to understand this you need to read a little bit of historical literature :)))
          Having done this, you would have learned with great interest how the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact influenced Soviet-Japanese relations and how the USSR ultimately escaped the war on the 2 front. You could also make interesting conclusions about how the USSR was in the black from trade with Germany (which provided loans to the USSR very widely, so the final balance of settlements of oh-wei is not in favor of the Führer) Perhaps you would pay attention to the territorial acquisitions of the USSR following this pact - the country returned many of the lands it lost after the revolution
          Quote: DezzeD
          Germany would "treacherously" and unexpectedly attack the USSR across the whole of Poland ?! azuhen wei don't tell me.

          If you believe that the absence of a pact would somehow affect Germany’s invasion of Poland - well ... I won’t laugh at you, that’s bad for the other person. Even if he does not know the story at all - but here's how you, for example.
          The only difference would be where the Soviet-German border would lie in 1941 - only business.
          1. Dezzed
            Dezzed 3 October 2013 19: 18 New
            -3
            Andrei, in no case do I laugh at you.

            1.

            "how influenced the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact on Soviet-Japanese relations and how the USSR eventually ran away from the war on 2 fronts"

            On September 15, 1939, a truce was concluded between the USSR and Japan. this happened after the defeat of the Japanese military. (commander of the Soviet military Zhukov)

            I think that this defeat influenced a little more on the decision of Japan not to attack the USSR than any paper
            signed in Moscow. (Explain how your pact made Japan choose America as its adversary?)

            2.

            “The only difference would be where the Soviet-German border would lie in 1941 - only business.

            the width of Poland is about 600 km. So in 1941 Netsky troops rushed to the USSR and would have walked 600 km, and then they suddenly attacked the sleeping Soviet Union. and you say that the place where the border lies is "just business"?


            if you thought that Germany started from the Bug River, then I recall that the division of Poland and the shift of borders occurred only after the consent of Stalin.
            1. Alex
              Alex 25 January 2014 14: 23 New
              +2
              Quote: DezzeD
              Explain how in your pact made Japan choose America as an adversary?
              My dear, stand upside down: it was not Japan that chose the United States as its opponents, but quite the opposite - America simply put the Mikado empire with a choice: either to fight the United States, or to stop its expansion to the south (and at the same time, to get out of China and do not prevent the Yankees from grabbing it). But the choice "north or south" (in the Japanese General Staff, with the poetry characteristic of the Japanese, this dilemma was called "north wind" and "south wind") was precisely the result of the sad reality of the results of the battles in Mongolia.

              the width of Poland is approximately 600 km. it means that in 1941 the German troops rushed to the Soviet Union and marched on the 600 km march and then suddenly attacked the sleeping Soviet Union.
              Do you seriously think that Hitler would not risk attacking Poland without the Moscow Treaty ??? Yes, for him it was not a living condition. Another thing is that to protect oneself from the need to get involved in a war with the USSR (he was not afraid of England and France and, as history has shown, quite reasonably) - this is already state wisdom. But even in the event of failure, there was no reason for the tragedy either: Poland would prefer to die, but to bow to the USSR. Which ultimately happened. Now, think for yourself how much business is and what is the difference: the border in Brest or in 60 kilometers from Minsk? Give a map or look at a geography textbook?
          2. VARCHUN
            VARCHUN 23 October 2013 13: 38 New
            -1
            Firstly, the USSR delivered resources, including ore, to the last hour before the attack, they took territories, but this only added more enemies, the resettlement of peoples was also harmful.
        2. tverskoi77
          tverskoi77 3 October 2013 17: 17 New
          0
          .
          INTO
          .
          do not trash Russian!
          1. Dezzed
            Dezzed 3 October 2013 19: 21 New
            -2
            this is ukrainian mova comrade
        3. avt
          avt 3 October 2013 19: 06 New
          +2
          Quote: DezzeD
          azuhan vey don't make me laugh.

          By the way, in August and further on in 1939 the weather was not the one to attack, and then in 1940 they wrote a plan for France.

          Well, make people funny, tell us about the "terrible tyrant" Stalin who did not sign an agreement with the "democracies" whose representatives in third-rate persons sat in Moscow at the negotiations and pulled the cat by its tail - they were killing time, and the English ambassador did not have authority to sign something, so he came, to devour caviar. Well, when the "stupid horseman" Voroshilov suggested that he still provide credentials, this stately husband replied that he would certainly be brought up with the next merchant steamer. So the pact with Germany and the peace treaty with Japan, Stalin in general Matsu oku came to the station to see off, a great victory of Soviet diplomacy and personally comrade Stalin, and did nothing out of the ordinary for the USSR. Poland had a similar agreement with the Fuhrer and jerked Czechoslovakia worse than her then the USSR in the percentage of territories .Likewise, Lithuania took a bite from Poland before becoming the Lithuanian USSR. Something I have not heard about Europe The aforementioned Lithuanians wept and gave Vilnius, which from time immemorial was Vilna, not only to the Old Man in Belarus, but also to the Panamas in Poland.
    2. rexby63
      rexby63 3 October 2013 11: 49 New
      0
      Both countries did not have enough trained recruits.


      Which almost destroyed the USSR in the 41st and killed Germany in the 44th
  6. anip
    anip 3 October 2013 09: 52 New
    10
    I’m keeping quiet about the Gulag.

    Precisely, it’s better to shut up, you’ll be a smart guy.
    There are so many statistics about the Gulag brought, but everything is numb.

    Russia and Germany have been taken away about a third of the territory

    Is it that Russia has chopped off territory almost to the Volga?

    As we see, the Second World War would have begun under the Reichskanzler Ernst Telman. The only question is when England and France would declare war on Soviet Germany. In 1934, 1938, or 3 September 1939? It is not difficult to guess which side Russia would be on and what the final of this war would be.

    It seems that Tryndets would have come to France and England and all of Europe would have become socialist, and History would have taken a different path of development.

    In early 1933, the Grand Duke slowly died in poverty on the Cote d'Azur.

    Well, yes, it was more familiar to him when millions of workers and peasants died in poverty in the Republic of Ingushetia, and here it turned out.
    1. smiths xnumx
      smiths xnumx 3 October 2013 10: 08 New
      +7
      Yeah. Those. to put so many years and so many millions of soldiers in the ground in order to then leave Germany within the same borders and with the same opportunities.
      And what did they get in return. Germany, longing for revenge and if there had been no Hitler, then someone else would have appeared, but with a similar program. And the possibilities of Germany quickly recovered. Recall the same France. Where were the German troops in 1918 ?, and where in 1940-144, huh?
      I would like to know which ships of Russia were sunk by the Allies?
      Please, Baltic: the cruisers Pamyat Azov, Oleg, were sunk by British torpedo boats, the destroyers Gabriel, Konstantin, Svoboda died in an English minefield in 1919, the destroyers Avtoil and Spartak were captured by the British and handed over Estonians, subsequently sold to the last in 1933 in Peru.
      North: cruisers "Varyag" and "Askold" were taken to England, dismantled for scrap; battleship "Chesma"
      Black Sea: ships taken to Bizerta are dismantled and sold by the French. I can continue the list ...
      Shirokorad seriously believes that the cause of WWII was ... Poland ?!
      Well, of course not only Poland. Poland became just a "casus belli" - the cause of the war, and the true cause of the Second World War was the Treaty of Versailles, which England, France and the United States dictated to defeated Germany in 1919, which resulted in "ambitious" Poland with its claims to all neighbors. in the apt expression of the same Churchill "The Hyena of Europe".
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 3 October 2013 10: 43 New
        +3
        Quote: smiths xnumx
        And what did they get in return. Germany, longing for revenge, and if there had been no Hitler, then someone else would have appeared

        And Germany would be at least as thirsty for revenge. Together with such an interesting power as Austria-Hungary. If the world is "without annexations and indemnities," then why is Austria worse?
        The only question was how quickly Germany could recover from defeat and rebuild its war machine. They would have left her within the former borders and would not have tied her hands to the Versailles - they would have received the restored Kaiser army for years through 7-8.
        Quote: smiths xnumx
        Please

        Thank. I don’t even know whether to cry or laugh.
        Quote: smiths xnumx
        cruiser "Memory of Azov", Oleg, sunk by British torpedo boats

        Total - 2 cruisers from 14 available at that time (Rurik 2, Stormbreaker, Russia, Admiral Makarov, Bayan, Bogatyr, Oleg, Memory of Mercury, Cahul, Diana, Aurora, Varyag, Askold, Memory of Azov)
        Quote: smiths xnumx
        destroyers "Gabriel", "Konstantin", Svoboda "were killed in an English minefield in 1919, the destroyers" Avtroil "and" Spartak "were captured by the British and handed over to the Estonians

        Total - 5 destroyers out of 31 laid down destroyers of the "novik" type (not all were built, but too lazy to count), not counting a few dozen older destroyers. And where is "practically the entire fleet sunk by the allies"?
        Quote: smiths xnumx
        North: cruisers "Varyag" and "Askold" taken to England, dismantled for scrap

        The Varyag stayed with the British, because in February 1917 he left for England for repairs, for which the Soviet government refused to pay. In 1921, England offered the Soviet government to return "Askold" on condition of payment for its maintenance. As a result, the ship was bought out (the British asked for a penny) but, due to its obsolescence, it was immediately sold for scrap. How you managed to record these cruisers as "sunk" is a mystery to me. Even more mysterious is the "drowning" of the "Chesma", which stood the entire war in the North (the British did not take this old battleship) and which was later enlisted in the White Sea naval flotilla, but due to complete wear and tear in 1924 it transferred the Department of Stock Property for dismantling on metal.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 3 October 2013 10: 43 New
          +3
          Quote: smiths xnumx
          ships taken to Bizerta dismantled and sold by the French

          The ships in Bizerta were launched by the RUSSIANS, and what does the French have to do with it - it is completely incomprehensible to me. Subsequently, the French recognized that the ships of the Russian squadron belong to the USSR and the ships were sold for metal by the Soviet government.
          Quote: smiths xnumx
          I can continue the list ...

          Well, try it:)))
          Quote: smiths xnumx
          Poland became just a "casus belli" - the cause of the war, and the Versailles Treaty became the real cause of the Second World War

          You can consider the case and so. This is an order of magnitude deeper answer than what Shirokorad gives in his article
        2. smiths xnumx
          smiths xnumx 3 October 2013 11: 35 New
          +2
          And Germany would be at least as thirsty for revenge. Together with such an interesting power as Austria-Hungary. If the world is "without annexations and indemnities," then why is Austria worse?
          The only question was how quickly Germany could recover from defeat and rebuild its war machine. They would have left her within the former borders and would not have tied her hands to the Versailles - they would have received the restored Kaiser army for years through 7-8.
          Germany just wanted revenge, For reparations were imposed on it, troops were introduced (the same French, together with the Belgians in 1923. And in Germany itself events were very far from stability (Spartak, the Bavarian Soviet Republic, the uprising in Hamburg in 1923 year, the Kapp putsch and other outrages.) Austria-Hungary ceased to exist as a state altogether, and funny events took place there too (the Hungarian Soviet Republic, the Heimver uprising in Vienna in 1934). Moreover, both Austria and Hungary were sanctions were imposed (for example, according to the Trianon Treaty, Hungary was forbidden to have tanks, combat aircraft, large-caliber artillery.) So, the restoration of combat power is still a big question.
          Thank. I don’t even know whether to cry or laugh.
          Do what you want, it is your right.
          Total - 2 cruisers from 14 available at that time (Rurik 2, Stormbreaker, Russia, Admiral Makarov, Bayan, Bogatyr, Oleg, Memory of Mercury, Cahul, Diana, Aurora, Varyag, Askold, Memory of Azov)

          2 (Oleg, Memory of Azov) sunk by the British. "Askold" in 1918 was captured by the British in the Kola Bay. The cruiser took part in the operations of the interventionists, and later became part of the British fleet under the name "Glory IV". In 1922 it was bought out by Soviet Russia, but due to its poor technical condition, it was sold for scrap and towed to Hamburg, where it was dismantled, and besides, it must be borne in mind that the bulk of the ships were in the Baltic, where the hands of the British simply did not reach.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 3 October 2013 11: 56 New
            +2
            Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
            Moreover, sanctions were imposed on both Austria and Hungary (for example, Hungary was forbidden to have tanks, combat aircraft, and heavy artillery under the Trianon Treaty). So, the restoration of combat power is still a big question.

            You already somehow decide if restoring military power due to sanctions is a big question, can sanctions not be so bad?
            Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
            2 (Oleg, Memory of Azov) sunk by the British.

            Well, I’m saying - from 6 dreadnought, 3 Baltic and 7 Black Sea armadillos (if Catherine is not counted) and 14 cruisers, the 2 cruiser was drowned. It's on
            almost the entire fleet of both countries sunk by the allies

            pulls, what do you think?
            Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
            The cruiser participated in the operations of the interventionists

            WHAT operations? :))) Askold was used as a blockchain, if that :))) Floating ship.
            Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
            and besides, it should be borne in mind that the bulk of the ships were in the Baltic, where the British simply did not reach.

            It is necessary. If the British got to the Baltic Fleet - indeed, it is not known what would have happened. But what should not be done is to write outright heresy (I mean Shirokorad) about the "drowned" fleets.
            1. smiths xnumx
              smiths xnumx 3 October 2013 12: 41 New
              +1
              You already somehow decide if restoring military power due to sanctions is a big question, can sanctions not be so bad?
              This did not prevent the Germans from developing projects for new aircraft, tanks, submarines in other countries (including the USSR), and with the coming to power of Hitler, spit on sanctions and quickly recreate a powerful Armed Forces. similarly with regards to Hungary, spitting on Trianon, they quickly recreated their military industry, began to produce aircraft, both under license and of their own designs; tanks ("Toldi", "Turan"), ZSU (40M "Nimrod"), self-propelled guns ("Zrinyi")., So. that the sanctions were rather ineffective. The Bulgarians are more difficult, and their industrial base was weaker, which, however, did not prevent them from creating their own aircraft models.
              Well, I’m saying - out of 6 dreadnoughts, 3 Baltic and 7 Black Sea armadillos (if Catherine is not counted) and 14 cruisers, 2 cruisers were drowned. This is almost the entire navy of both countries sunk by the Allies pulls, do you think?
              As G. Nelson said: "Learn to count!" In fact, by 1921, Russia did not have a fleet, everyone tried here: both the British and the whites, and most of all the anarchist sailors - "brothers", together with Trotsky and Lenin and his comrades. The same "Rurik 2", I heard, was dismantled for metal at the personal insistence of Lenin, despite Stalin's attempts to save him.
              WHAT operations? :))) Askold was used as a blockchain, if that :))) Floating ship.
              After the surrender of Arkhangelsk to the English, “Askold” under the Andreevsky flag, but with the English team, moved there. A few days later, the English naval flag was hoisted on it. For some time, the cruiser, renamed Glory IV, served as a floating barracks for part of the Slavic-British Legion. Evacuating their troops from the north, the invaders took Askold to England, where it was used as a blockade in Greloch (Scotland).
              The military command of the White movement in the north of Russia tried to return the cruiser. On November 5, 1919, Volkov, a naval attaché in London, told General Miller in a secret telegram: “The Admiralty is agreed to return the Askold, but it cannot be equipped with shells, since this type of guns is not manufactured in England. The Admiralty refuses to give the crew to deliver Askold to the north. "
              In preparation for the 1920 campaign, Rear Admiral Ivanov, the commander of the naval forces, planned to get at least Askold, Varyag, and destroyers guns from England in order to install five 6-inch guns on barges and four on an island on Lake Onega . But the White movement in the North crashed faster than these plans could be implemented.

              http://rosworld.ru/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=34

              It is necessary. If the British got to the Baltic Fleet - indeed, it is not known what would have happened. But what should not be done is to write outright heresy (I mean Shirokorad) about the "drowned" fleets.
              Shirokorad "checked out". he copies and pastes the same book from one book to another. Only books are called differently. He would remain an expert in the field of military equipment, there would be no price, and he does not know much about history.
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 3 October 2013 13: 51 New
                +2
                Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
                This did not prevent the Germans from developing projects for new aircraft, tanks, and submarines in other countries.

                Don't take the conversation away from the original topic. I wrote that the Versailles sanctions greatly slowed down the revival of the German Armed Forces, if there was a world "without annexations and indemnities," then they would revive much faster. There was no sane argument against it.
                Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
                So. that the sanctions were quite ineffective

                An attempt to reduce the revival of the German Armed Forces to the fact that "they could also develop weapons" is very naive. Read at least the same Müller Gillebrand for a start, and in general - at least someone about how the Wehrmacht was created.
                Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
                In fact, by the 1921 year, Russia had no fleet,

                I have listed those ships that WERE.
                Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
                The same "Rurik 2", I heard,

                It was disassembled for metal during 1923-1925.
                What does the British have to do with it?
                Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
                For some time, the cruiser, renamed Glory IV, served as a floating barracks for part of the Slavic-British Legion. Evacuating their troops from the north, the invaders took Askold to England, where it was used as a blockade in Greloch (Scotland).

                Those. performed the functions of a floating ship and blockchain. So I repeat the question - in what INTERVENT OPERATIONS Askold participated?
                Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
                Shirokorad "checked out". he copies and pastes the same book from one book to another. Only books are called differently. Would remain a specialist in the field of military equipment, there would be no price

                Honestly, I don’t know. Those who are seriously engaged in weapons (the same artillery, I do not consider myself to be such) say that in the field of the history of armaments, widespread spawned a lot of myths
                1. smiths xnumx
                  smiths xnumx 3 October 2013 14: 09 New
                  +2
                  Don't take the conversation away from the original topic. I wrote that the Versailles sanctions greatly slowed down the revival of the German Armed Forces, if there was a world "without annexations and indemnities," then they would revive much faster. There was no sane argument against it.
                  And I do not take away. Do you seriously believe that a defeated Germany, even without sanctions, reparations, annexations, could easily recreate the army and industry. Given the revolution of 1918, the putsch, separatism, all economic crises, especially the 1930s. How many years did it take the USSR to get closer to the level of even the tsar’s army.
                  An attempt to reduce the revival of the German Armed Forces to the fact that "they could also develop weapons" is very naive. Read at least the same Müller Gillebrand for a start, and in general - at least someone about how the Wehrmacht was created.
                  The same Germans bypassed the Treaty of Versailles in all possible ways, the development of training aircraft, which later became fighters, transport aircraft, which became bombers (the same "Heinkel-111"), the training of glider pilots, was carried out openly in Germany. And this is not counting the same training of soldiers in the Reichswehr, from which sergeants were subsequently trained.
                  I have listed those ships that WERE.
                  how many of them could go to sea and take part in a naval battle? I think their number was close to ZERO.
                  It was disassembled for metal during 1923-1925.
                  What does the British have to do with it?
                  And the British had nothing to do with it, except that they did not reach to sink it.
                  Those. performed the functions of a floating ship and blockchain. So I repeat the question - in what INTERVENT OPERATIONS Askold participated?
                  Well, he somehow and for some reason reached Arkhangelsk from Murmansk. Maybe he fired somewhere. To be honest, I did not find data about this, although the phrase wanders from source to source, and it’s very neutral.
                  Honestly, I don’t know. Those who are seriously engaged in weapons (the same artillery, I do not consider myself to be such) say that in the field of the history of armaments, widespread spawned a lot of myths
                  I read his books quite a lot. Many are in the library. Therefore, I have some opportunity to compare. And I don’t know about myths, I won’t say so.
                  1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 3 October 2013 14: 36 New
                    +1
                    Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
                    Do you seriously believe that a defeated Germany, even without sanctions, reparations, annexations, could easily recreate the army and industry. Given the revolution of the 1918 year, the putsch, separatism, all economic crises, especially the 1930 year

                    Of course it would not work "easily". But Germany would not have to rely on the genius of von Sextus, would not have to destroy infrastructure, heavy weapons, destroy the remnants of the fleet, etc. etc. how it happened in history. Germany faced enormous difficulties - she could develop weapons, but could not at least produce them in limited quantities for her army. Creating a new weapon, she was deprived of the opportunity to test, run it in the army. But the most important thing, of course, is the personnel, i.e. conscription, which was not in Germany. All these antics, in an attempt to give at least some kind of military training to the masses ... did not help much. And when the time came to expand the army, the Germans had enough of this ... You will remember what happened during the Anschluss - the Germans filled up the road with equipment. Is this an army? :))) I'm not talking about an anecdotal case, when the troops entered the Rhine region when the Germans lost several regiments (!!!) that got lost, and to find them I had to turn to the help of the local police ...
                    Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
                    how many of them could go to sea and take part in a naval battle? I think their number was close to ZERO.

                    And the evil English are to blame for this, right? :))))
                    Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
                    Well, he somehow and for some reason reached Arkhangelsk from Murmansk. Maybe he fired somewhere. To be honest, I did not find data about this, although the phrase wanders from source to source, and it’s very neutral.

                    He didn’t shoot at anyone :))) I assure you :)))) The British in the north were not at all too eager to conduct military operations, in fact, they saw the freedom task rather as preserving the mass of goods that they had delivered to tsarist Russia - for quite obvious reasons, the Englishmen did not want the Germans to get these goods. By the way - the British were invited by none other than the interim government :)))
                    1. smiths xnumx
                      smiths xnumx 3 October 2013 15: 57 New
                      +1
                      Of course it would not work "easily". But Germany would not have to rely on the genius of von Sextus, would not have to destroy infrastructure, heavy weapons, destroy the remnants of the fleet, etc. etc. how it happened in history. Germany faced enormous difficulties - she could develop weapons, but could not at least produce them in limited quantities for her army. Creating a new weapon, she was deprived of the opportunity to test, run it in the army. But the most important thing, of course, is the personnel, i.e. conscription, which was not in Germany. All these antics, in an attempt to give at least some kind of military training to the masses ... did not help much. And when the time came to expand the army, the Germans had enough of this ... You will remember what happened during the Anschluss - the Germans filled up the road with equipment. Is this an army? :))) I'm not talking about an anecdotal case, when the troops entered the Rhine region when the Germans lost several regiments (!!!) that got lost, and to find them I had to turn to the help of the local police ...
                      The question here is that the Germans had to spend maybe a little less effort, but again in what? The Kaiser's fleet practically did not go out to sea, like the Russian imperial one, of course we can say that the Germans won Jutland on points, but this was probably the ONLY case when the "High Seas Fleet" went to sea in full force. the rest of the time the German fleet stood at the base, and when they tried to take it out to sea, the sailors simply revolted (the uprising in Kiel), a similar situation was in the Austro-Hungarian fleet (the uprising in Cattaro). Tanks, for example, the Germans built only 18 of them during the First World War. The Air Force, but the pilots remained, the material and technical base remained, and the aircraft, as they say, is a profitable business, which the Germans proved by developing excellent machines that fought the entire war. As for the facts you cited, poor command and control, there was a lot of "fun" in the spacecraft (the same Khasan, the campaign in September 1939, and the initial period of the Soviet-Finnish war was generally a bloody "anecdote"). Moreover, the neighbors of Germany, the same France and England, peacefully rested on the laurels of their victory on points in the First World War and clearly did not particularly want to fight, and the Poles could only threaten with their grandfather's Uhlan sabers.
                      1. smiths xnumx
                        smiths xnumx 3 October 2013 16: 09 New
                        +1
                        And the evil English are to blame for this, right? :))))
                        I already wrote above who is to blame. But the same English with pleasure put their hand to this. What can you do6
                        England has no eternal allies and constant enemies - her interests are eternal and constant.

                        He didn’t shoot at anyone :))) I assure you :)))) The British in the north were not at all too eager to conduct military operations, in fact, they saw the freedom task rather as preserving the mass of goods that they had delivered to tsarist Russia - for quite obvious reasons, the Englishmen did not want the Germans to get these goods. By the way - the British were invited by none other than the interim government :)))
                        As for the British in our North, yes I agree with you. they were invited by the Provisional Government, and the Bolsheviks at first, after the seizure of power, looked at them through their fingers (the same Yuryev, friend of Trotsky). I just think that they didn’t come there to guard the goods delivered to the tsarist government, but to rob and take out everything that could be and stake out for England as much land as possible during the subsequent division of Russia. When they realized that the matter would not burn out, they packed up and left, taking with them all they could reach. Yours faithfully! hi
                      2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 3 October 2013 16: 55 New
                        +3
                        Well, okay, we exchanged opinions, if we didn’t reach a consensus somewhere, then at least we understood the opponent’s position, it was nice to talk! I hope not the last time :)))
                        Yours!
                        hi drinks
                      3. smiths xnumx
                        smiths xnumx 3 October 2013 17: 01 New
                        +3
                        Similarly, Andrei is always happy to chat with a smart person. Also very, not the last time. Yours faithfully! hi
  • Standard Oil
    Standard Oil 3 October 2013 10: 13 New
    +3
    How long can this pact be remembered? What is it about it that fundamentally distinguishes it from the Munich agreements? Let all these liberals, Englishmen, Frenchmen, sshastas and the main "ugly brainchild of the Versailles treaty" roll their opinions into a tube and shove them into .... purse, they love it in the west now.
  • Glory333
    Glory333 3 October 2013 10: 21 New
    +1
    "Who in Paris and London could have admitted that Poland would be smashed to smithereens in two or three weeks, and France with Belgium, Holland, and even the British army in four or five weeks? And if such an expert could be found, he would be immediately killed to the psychiatric hospital. "

    Well, Poland did not have a strong army, no one except the Poles themselves doubted that the Germans would easily defeat Poland, and about France it was enough to recall the First World War - when the Germans almost reached Paris in a month, only a Russian attack on East Prussia saved France.
    1. cyberandr
      cyberandr 3 October 2013 10: 42 New
      +1
      Nevertheless, France at that time was a superpower victorious in World War I.
  • vahatak
    vahatak 3 October 2013 10: 29 New
    0
    No one doubts that the Pact was beneficial to the USSR, it just looked like a conspiracy of the great powers (USSR and Germany) against Poland, Romania and the Baltic states, but if we consider the latter as a misunderstanding and the RUSSIAN AND GERMAN TERRITORY, then it is clear that they need it It was. After all, they are not worthy to be independent states.
    1. Alex
      Alex 25 January 2014 14: 51 New
      +2
      Quote: vahatak
      No one doubts that the Pact was beneficial to the USSR, it just looked like a conspiracy of the great powers (USSR and Germany) against Poland
      Be more careful with the wording. Poland was as much a participant in the quadripartite negotiations in Moscow as all the others (I remember exactly, but it seems that even the level of representation was higher than that of England). And it was her position — Poland, under no circumstances, that Soviet troops would pass through its territory — that drove the last nail into the coffin of these negotiations. So what kind of conspiracies after this may be discussed, I personally do not understand.
  • bistrov.
    bistrov. 3 October 2013 10: 50 New
    +3
    Article +. Stalin acted very far-sightedly by concluding the "Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact". He was mistaken in only one thing, not having evicted all the Galicians somewhere in the region of Verkhoyansk. There is not only Galicia, a dozen "Ukrainians" can be hidden and no one will find it.
  • apro
    apro 3 October 2013 11: 10 New
    +1
    The Moscow treaty gave the USSR justice by canceling all the losses of World War I, and the Yalta decisions cemented the status of a world power. The USSR, unlike the tsarist empire, had geopolitical interests and the Soviet Union's opinion became key in world politics. It’s a pity, of course, that we squandered the legacy of IV Stalin but God forbid we’ll collect the lost. And for us in this matter, one opinion is that our will is correct and someone else’s wrong.
  • OPTR
    OPTR 3 October 2013 11: 54 New
    0
    Strange article title for historian.
    If the author proposes to name the contract according to the place of conclusion, then why, in contrast to the above examples, does he write the name with a small letter - "Moscow" (or is it a typo)?
    Yet, even from the comments, the treaty served not only Russia (or does the author mean a modern state?), But the USSR.
    Is part recaptured from Poland departed to Russia?
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 3 October 2013 11: 57 New
      +1
      Quote: OPTR
      Strange article title for historian.

      Nuuu, you great flattered Shirokorada :)))
    2. Babon
      Babon 3 October 2013 13: 32 New
      +1
      Yes, this is called an alternative story, from the category if. It’s just that the interests of the parties are considered, one can relate differently, this kind of articles is full, about different eras. What can not be taken away from the article is that now Europe is very actively imposing the idea that the unleashing of the Second World War began with the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, supposedly before that there was nothing from the Western powers, and this is very beneficial for all of Europe, it whitens everyone in the first place France and England, Poland is a poor victim, and Germany is not alone to blame. Although, if there weren’t the Munich Treaty, the annexation of Austria, and they didn’t look at the increase in the whole of Germany, which violated the conditions of the Versailles Peace Treaty, then there would be no war at all.
  • GDP
    GDP 3 October 2013 14: 44 New
    0
    Molotov’s libentrop pac is undoubtedly the success of German and Russian (USSR) diplomacy and, at the same time, defeat - British (extremely rare). Therefore, probably he does not give them rest. Russia regained its territory from a state hostile to it and a little delayed the start of the Great Patriotic War of 41.
  • Gomunkul
    Gomunkul 3 October 2013 14: 45 New
    +3
    The signing of the Molotov-Ribbentorop Pact was a logical response to the Munich Agreement. hi
    Thanks to the author for the article (+), but the topic is interesting and as they say: dig and dig.
  • Standard Oil
    Standard Oil 3 October 2013 15: 30 New
    +5
    Maybe not quite in the subject, but as a whole about the participants of the Second World War:
  • Igor39
    Igor39 3 October 2013 15: 36 New
    +2
    Polish generals were eager for battle, planning to take Berlin in a couple of weeks. Pinned up laughing
    1. Babon
      Babon 3 October 2013 16: 53 New
      +1
      Honestly, if you look at the headlines of Polish newspapers after September 1, 1939, then the first days the Poles were going to give a serious fight to Germany. They did not have any panic, and on paper their army was far from the weakest. If we recall the belligerent statements of the Poles, for possible assistance under agreements on mutual assistance between the USSR and Czechoslovakia, then maybe they were ready and not only to take Berlin?
  • chenia
    chenia 3 October 2013 15: 42 New
    +3
    Quote: Dangerous
    I also wondered: what would happen if the author took up the business and benefits of the country, and not inventing various options for the development of already held events


    Any research begins with the words "if." And IF you find it difficult to analyze, you should avoid such sites and continue to do something useful for the country.
    Understanding the causes of an event allows avoiding mistakes and achievements in the future, or vice versa.

    It is not only worth it to justify the treaty, on the contrary, offensive tactics are needed that accuse the West of preparing for the war and unleashing it.

    As for Poland, the USSR took (after the collapse of the Commonwealth) all its ethnic territories, recall Curzon). But the Volyn tragedy showed (in a different, terrible way) that these are not Polish lands. And we have nothing to make excuses for.

    Versailles laid down the war, (England tried), and this was necessary for the future, and then the West should direct the vector of aggression to the USSR (and stay tsar-father, then to Russia).

    The fact that things went a little differently was that Hitler showed self-activity.
  • msv
    msv 3 October 2013 16: 25 New
    0
    Quote: Lindon
    Do you want Alaska?
    Or maybe Finland?
    To dream is not harmful.

    Not nice but to the point.
  • msv
    msv 3 October 2013 16: 29 New
    0
    An interesting article and presentation style of the author. The topic of how the Entente countries were dealt with by concepts after World War I was not disclosed. The interpretation of these events would dot all and. And then the political color of the author of the article is incomprehensible
  • Glory333
    Glory333 3 October 2013 20: 16 New
    +1
    "By 23 August, the Red Army had made significant gains, but they were pin pricks for the huge Japanese army. The fighting continued, the Kwantung Army pulling up reserves."

    The Japanese ground forces at that time were relatively small - only about 30 divisions and they had something to do, because the Japanese-Chinese war was in full swing, so the Japanese military was not able to devote significant forces to the Halkhingol adventure - only 2 divisions and auxiliary units, especially poorly the Japanese army was with tanks, it was the overwhelming advantage of the Red Army in armored vehicles that played a decisive role in the victory at Khalkhin Gol.
  • chehywed
    chehywed 3 October 2013 20: 22 New
    +1
    European hyena - such a nickname Poland "earned" in the 20-30-s of many respected Western historians.
    After 150 years of historical nonexistence, England, France and the United States (Entente), who emerged victorious in World War I, restored the Polish state on the ruins of three empires - German, Austrian and Russian.
    Bypassing the agreements with the Entente, Poland immediately expanded its borders at the expense of the agonizing Germany and the newly created Czechoslovakia and Lithuania. Western patrons, grumbling a little, recognized this initiative of the young state.
    In 1920, with the complicity of Petliura, Poland invaded Soviet Ukraine, torn apart by civil war. Without much resistance, the Poles occupied the Ukrainian right bank, including Kiev. Six months later, the Bolsheviks supplanted the annoying neighbor, but in turn suffered a crushing defeat on the territory of Poland itself.
    In the 20-30-s, the tactics of taking away lands from weakened neighbors, which brought the Poles success in creating the state, became the basis of Polish foreign activity and is known by the name of "traditional politics". For example, in January 1933, the Polish dictator Pilsudski invited France and England to attack then unarmed Germany. Undoubtedly, the Polish elite hoped to profit again at the expense of a defeated neighbor. This plan could not be implemented.
    http://www.gazeta-nd.com.ua/
    1. Babon
      Babon 3 October 2013 22: 19 New
      +1
      So the Poles won on their territory, thanks to the beginning of the most serious supply of their army with French weapons, and operations began to be carried out under the leadership of the French. Up to this point, something at the Poles was clearly worse with success.
  • goldfinger
    goldfinger 3 October 2013 22: 00 New
    +1
    Neighbor is a Belarusian, who does not like "hats." Let's not forget that in the territories annexed to the USSR in 1939 – 1940, the Germans lost more soldiers and equipment in 1941, than from September 1939 to June 1941 throughout Europe. And the fighting in these territories detained the Wehrmacht on the way to Moscow for at least two months. Quote.
    Lies, like so much more. Concentration camps, etc.
    Truth: In the first three weeks of the war on the Western Front (from May 10 to May 31, 1940), the irretrievable losses of the Luftwaffe (aircraft of all types) amounted to 978 vehicles. During the first three weeks of the war on the Eastern Front (from June 22 to July 12, 1941), the irretrievable losses of the Luftwaffe (aircraft of all types) amounted to: according to the so-called “updated data” - 550 aircraft, by a simple summation of the weekly reports of the headquarters of the Luftwaffe-473 aircraft . Those. two times less than in the sky of France. In general, during the entire campaign in the West (from May 10 to June 24), the Luftwaffe irretrievably lost 1401 aircraft on the Western Front. For a comparable period of time (from June 22 to August 2, 1941), irretrievable losses of German aviation on the Eastern Front amounted to 968 aircraft.
    .
    During the 14 days of the war in the West, German troops advanced 350 kilometers, and in the first 10 days in the East, 800 kilometers. The losses of the Wehrmacht in France in the course of what domestic historians to this day do not hesitate to call a “triumphal march” were 2,5 times greater than the losses on the Eastern Front by July 6, 1941. And this despite the fact that the entire French army was smaller in number of people, divisions, tanks and aircraft than the First Strategic Echelon of the Red Army, and the main events of the war with France took place on the “patch” of Normandy and Flanders, with maximum distances of 300 km along the front and 250 km in depth. This roughly corresponds to the size of Lithuania, which one of the three, the smallest, Army Group “North” occupied in one week in June 1941.
    .
    In a campaign in the West from May 10 to June 24, 1940, German troops lost 45 people killed, 074 wounded and 110 missing. The average number of deaths amounted to 043 people a day for 18 million soldiers and officers (384 people a day for 1001 million personnel).
    By December 1, 1941, German troops had seized Lithuania, Latvia, Belarus, Moldova, Estonia, a significant part of the RSFSR, Ukraine, advanced deeper to 850-1200 km, losing 740 thousand people (of which 230 thousand were killed). The average number of deaths was 1769 people per day per 4,3 million people. (411 people per day per 1 million personnel).
    Do not "hesitate" to open books, at least sometimes, "historian"
    The rest of the bloopers have no desire to refute. There are too many of them, almost all of the "historical opus".
    1. chehywed
      chehywed 3 October 2013 22: 48 New
      +1
      Quote: goldfinger
      Lies, like so much more. Concentration camps, etc.

      Hmm ... It seems like the day when golden finger he writes, well, it’s not that something good, even neutral about Russia or the USSR, will ever come.
      1. goldfinger
        goldfinger 4 October 2013 00: 13 New
        0
        Quote: chehywed
        Hmm ... It seems that the day when the golden finger will write, well, not that something good, even neutral about Russia or the USSR, will never come.

        Neighbor Belarusian. Dear chehywed. Well, why so. I'll reveal a secret. I can't stand, the mildest expression, your president since 2000. With his crooked grin about the death of the Kursk. Everything became clear who the Russian people were for him. All subsequent events only strengthened me in this. I know that Russians, the most long-suffering people in modern history, deserve a better life. But twenty years of manipulating the Russian people have done their job. Racism, xenophobia, historical ignorance - this is Putin's legacy. After all, he, Putin, does not have a single ally !!! I don't remember anything like that in history. CU (customs union), estimate yourself. I will keep my opinion to myself.
        But maybe you're right, in part. I’ll try not to forget about a spoonful of honey. Sincerely.
        1. chehywed
          chehywed 4 October 2013 00: 28 New
          0
          Quote: goldfinger
          I know that Russians, the most distressed people in modern history, deserve a better life.

          Neighbor Belarusian, thank you for your sympathy, it's a pity that you don't consider yourself a Russian. Putin was not created to be loved, there are other things for that. "He drowned" and I remember. But he was chosen by the people. And I, too. Write about Lukashenka. And in our shit, we somehow figure it out ourselves.
    2. Babon
      Babon 3 October 2013 23: 13 New
      +1
      Did you forget to calculate the losses of satellite countries? Germany alone attacked the USSR? And the German army of 1939 was already different from the army of 1941.
  • dixonis
    dixonis 3 October 2013 22: 08 New
    +1
    There was no alternative to this Molotov-Ribentrop agreement at that time. The USSR preempted the strike by two years.
  • Guterjunge
    Guterjunge 4 October 2013 02: 55 New
    0
    I also think that there was no alternative to the pact at that time ... by the way, an interesting fact: Varyag didn’t give up to anyone. When towing, he broke and sank in the Irish Sea ... but Poland, like a corrupt girl, licks her ass in a row, then threatens with her claws in a hysterical fit ...
  • corn
    corn 4 October 2013 04: 20 New
    0
    "England and France decided to create a 'cordon sanitaire' against Soviet Russia and Germany - Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Czechoslovakia"
    Specially looked at the map:
    move Russia away from the Baltic YES (bad for Russia)
    -Divide Russia and Germany YES (good for the World, all too often the Germans and I did not get along).
    Already at the very beginning of the situa not a very good example for confirming the thesis about the creation of a "cordon sanitaire", which may lead to the idea of ​​a not very good selection of all other facts and the quality of the flock.