Nonaggression pact. National shame or legitimate victory?
September 1 is the anniversary of the start of the Second World War. Russia has become the undoubted and main winner in it. It was she who knew that unattainable height, to which no state of the world had ever risen, having defeated the evil of the world - fascism. This victory was so visible and daunting that it does not fit into the ideological schemes of the instigators of the Russian catastrophe.
Substitution of values
The thesis about the fault of the Soviet Union in starting the Second World War, which trumps modern Europe, is an accusation inconsistent in its absurdity. And it is embedded in the general context of destruction historical Of Russia. Today, traditional interpretations and historical assessments of the events of that period are being ignored, which essentially boil down to the following: World War II is the struggle of one totalitarianism - fascism with another - communism, as a result of which the third force - democracy triumphed. In the eyes of the world community, the winners with the help of political technologies and falsification of history are becoming invaders.
But the main thing is that the same discrediting Russian history approach to key events of the past was consolidated almost at the official level in Russia itself. Despite the fact that the tone of the statements of the first persons of the state is gradually shifting to a more objective direction, there is no need to speak about cardinal changes.
“As long as the official Russia does not recognize that the agreement with Germany concluded by Stalin in August with Germany did not go beyond the generally accepted international political norms, it will always be the object of claims and humiliation”
On the eve of his visit to Poland, scheduled for 1 in September 2009 of the year and timed to coincide with the 70 anniversary of the outbreak of the Second World War, at that time Prime Minister Vladimir Putin published an article in the Polish press Gazeta Wyborcza, which was often quoted by Russian MASS MEDIA. We give excerpts from it: “... Without any doubt, we can rightly condemn the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, concluded in August 1939 of the year. But after all, the year before, France and England signed a famous treaty with Hitler in Munich, destroying all hopes of creating a united front of struggle against fascism. ” And further: "Today we understand that any form of collusion with the Nazi regime was unacceptable from a moral point of view and had no prospects from the point of view of practical implementation." All other reservations addressed to the European powers about their incorrect behavior are drowning amid these unequivocal statements. It all comes down to the fact that we, they say, and you were disgraced equally. In that case, what can be expected from the geopolitical enemies of Russia with such reasoning by so high representatives of its political elite? Naturally, therefore, the aggregate West (the EU and the USA) puts forward its theses, unconditionally ignoring the facts and putting up a story under the accusation thrown by the world community against Russia - the occupiers.
Thus, the Great Victory and the feat of the veterans who lived to this deceitful time are being devalued. This was unthinkable in relation to the USSR. And this is its significant difference from the new Russia. In recent years, the Russian Federation has been acting as a whipping boy in European international organizations, for the membership in which she pays a lot of money. Within the framework of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), concerned about nostalgia for socialism in the countries of Central and Southeastern Europe, it was difficult at the end of 2006, but it was possible to adopt a resolution condemning “totalitarian communist regimes”. The Russian delegation unanimously opposed the adoption of such a resolution. The exception was Vladimir Zhirinovsky. A new provocation on the same topic took place in Vilnius in July 2009. The Parliamentary Assembly of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) adopted a document with a long and unintelligible title “The reunification of a divided Europe: the promotion of human rights and civil liberties in the OSCE region in the 21st century”. It argues that in the twentieth century, European countries suffered from two totalitarian regimes - the Nazi and Stalinist regimes.
At the end of March 2007, under pressure from United Russia and the Liberal Democratic Party that joined it, the State Duma adopted the blasphemous law “On the Banner of Victory”, according to which the heroic banner should be replaced by a certain non-historical symbol - a white (tribute to America?) Five-pointed star on a red background. Veterans-front-line soldiers rose in defense of the victorious banner and did not allow them to defile the shrine. The immoral law was abolished by presidential veto. How long? Given this attitude of the majority of the deputies of state power in Russia to national shrines, is it any wonder that the governments of tiny countries in the anti-Russian fanabia encroach on the monuments to the liberators?
The European laments about the historical guilt of the Soviet Union over the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact leave out the key events of the pre-war history - the Munich Agreement, which became the defining stage of German aggression. Who in the West called for repentance "for Munich" and the division of Czechoslovakia?
Here is the opinion of Professor Lennoir Olsztynsky, a well-known specialist in military history: “An example of primitive falsification of history is the often repeated thesis that the Non-Aggression Pact of Germany and the USSR 1939 of the year caused the outbreak of the Second World War ... The signing of the treaty breaks out of the general chain ... of cause and effect relationships, mixed and multi-scale events. At the same time, the strategic plans of the parties that reveal the true intentions of politicians are completely ignored ... "And further:" The non-aggression pact of 1939 of the year is historically justified. It meant the collapse of the most dangerous variant for the development of the Second World War for the USSR - the “sewage” of the aggression of the fascist bloc against the USSR with its international isolation ... ”
With the connivance of the national elite (and the European Union) in the post-Soviet Baltic, the SS legionnaires are known to be elevated to the rank of national heroes, and the crimes of collaborators and “forest brothers” against the civilian population are modestly hushed up or are defined by modern experts as “forced actions”. Nevertheless, undoubtedly, the majority of the population of the Baltic countries fought worthily against fascism. The monument to the Liberator Soldier, which has become famous, is a monument to the Estonian soldier. And there are descendants of these soldiers who keep a grateful memory.
In the framework of international law
The events of the prewar history are described and well known, but since they are now turned upside down, it seems that we should briefly touch upon the key points of the outbreak of the war, which are subjected to a biased revision. We note here that the leadership of the USSR was aware of the aspirations of the Western powers to push Germany into war with the Soviet Union, as well as Hitler’s desire to expand the German “living space” at the expense of eastern lands. Under these conditions, it was necessary to think about security. The invasion of the Wehrmacht into Poland (September 1 1939) created an extremely dangerous situation for the USSR - if Germany seized Western Belorussia, its strategic lines were approaching the vital centers of the USSR. In addition, under the threat of German conquest, fraternal peoples found themselves in the territories torn away by the White Poles.
The actions of the USSR in that situation were dictated by the situation that arose in connection with the aggression of Germany against Poland and were justified not only from the military-political point of view, but also from the standpoint of international law. Suffice to say that by the time the USSR began the military operation, there was practically no state power system in Poland, the government fled to Romania from besieged Warsaw, and the population of the territories not yet occupied by German forces and the remnants of the Polish armed forces were left to the mercy of fate.
In an environment where German troops were rapidly moving eastward without encountering any effective resistance from the Poles, the Red Army on September 17 crossed the border and protected the population of Western Ukraine and Western Belarus with its broad support. Recall that in relation to ethnic Ukrainians and Belarusians, the Polish government of Pilsudski pursued a tough policy of colonization. As a result of the “liberation campaign” of the Red Army, as it was called in Soviet historiography, the reunification of artificially divided peoples took place.
By the way, neither Britain nor France declared war on the USSR, despite allied obligations to Poland. They even refrained from negative assessments, thereby giving additional legitimacy to the actions of the Soviet Union. Not being an aggressor, the Soviet Union did not claim the Polish lands proper. The ethnic border of Poland, the so-called Curzon Line, was not crossed by the Soviet troops, although nothing prevented them from doing so. Thus, the USSR acted within the framework necessary. And this was well understood by contemporaries who knew the situation.
Winston Churchill, who at that time held the post of first Lord of the Admiralty, was not burdened with sympathy for the USSR, in his speech on the radio 1 of October, 1939 of the year was forced to recognize the Soviet Union this right: “The fact that Russian armies were to be on this line, it was absolutely necessary for the security of Russia against the German threat ... When Mr. von Ribbentrop was summoned to Moscow last week, this was done in order for him to familiarize himself with this fact and admit that the Nazi designs for the Baltic states STV and Ukraine must be stopped. " Thus, at the beginning of the war, the USSR barred the way to the Third Reich, depriving the German command of the ability to use the territory of Western Ukraine and Western Belarus as a springboard for an attack on the USSR.
The accession of the Baltic states to Soviet Russia is a complex, multi-pass combination. Recall that these countries represented themselves at the beginning of the Second World War. Tough nationalist regimes were established here, especially in Lithuania and somewhat later in Latvia, where coups took place. Representatives of the opposition movements, first of all the Communists, found themselves in a deep underground or in prison; trade unions and other workers' organizations were banned. Active dissatisfaction with low prices for products and high taxes was expressed by peasants. Estonia gradually drifted into politics in the direction of “tightening the screws”: by the beginning of 1938, a constitution was adopted here that sharply strengthens presidential power. News about the success of industrialization and undeniable social achievements in the USSR contributed to the spread of leftist and pro-Soviet sentiments in these countries.
The leadership of the USSR was aware of the desire of the Western powers to push Germany into war with the Soviet Union, as well as of Hitler’s desire to expand the German “living space” at the expense of the eastern lands. Under these conditions, it was necessary to think about security. The entry of Soviet troops into the Baltic States was strategically motivated and had a defensive character. It is known that the entry of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia into the USSR took place on legal grounds. The presence in the Baltic countries of the Red Army was stipulated in the framework of treaties on mutual assistance with all these republics. There were no real speeches against the introduction of troops. In addition, a distinctive feature of the occupation regime is inequality before the law of the occupiers and the occupied. In this case, the law was the same for all. A well-considered and balanced Soviet policy made it possible for the social forces of the Baltic states to prepare: the broad strata of the population considered joining the Soviet Union as an opportunity to avoid the fascist occupation. Political prisoners were released. Previously known newsreel footage of the meetings of the Red Army in the Baltic States are joyful faces, with flowers - today, at best, they seem to be gathering dust in the archives.
In July, the 40 of the Seimas of Lithuania and Latvia and the Estonian State Duma signed declarations on the entry of these countries into the USSR.
So, as a result, the non-aggression pact between Germany and the Soviet Union contributed to the fact that the Baltic states did not become a protectorate of the Third Reich and a springboard for an offensive against the USSR.
The Soviet Union regained the territories lost during the Civil War, strengthened the borders, established control over the strategically important region and won the time to prepare for war. In turn, the accession of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia to the Soviet Union allowed the local population to remain as nations.
There is a simple question: what would happen to the Baltics if it were not part of the Soviet Union? The answer is obvious - the seizure of Germany. According to the Ost plan, almost all of this territory was supposed to be liberated from the local population and settled by the Germans. The remaining population was to undergo germanization. A few words about Moldova, which never had its own statehood and during the civil war was rejected by Romania. In 1940, the king of Romania, Carol II, accepted the ultimatum of the Soviet side and conveyed Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina to the USSR. And the population greeted the Red Army with bread and salt.
The territories returned to Russia received a powerful impetus to development. The Soviet Union invested a lot of money in them. All this is well known, but carefully concealed by falsifiers of history.
From the perspective of national interests
All claims to the Russian Federation, the West seeks to coincide with the holy Russian dates. Thus, in the jubilee year of celebrating the 60 anniversary of the victory of the USSR in World War II, both houses of the US Congress passed a resolution demanding that the Russian government recognize and condemn the “illegal occupation and annexation” of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia by the Soviet Union. The head of the Russian Federation was forced to declare that the question of apologies to Russia was already closed in 1989 by a resolution of the Congress of People’s Deputies condemning the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. At this historical moment should dwell.
The decision of the II Congress of People's Deputies of the USSR on this issue is in fact the contribution of the new Russia to the matter of revising the outcome of the Second World War to the detriment of its national interests and the interests of compatriots who did not voluntarily find themselves abroad in Russia. A special commission on the political and legal assessment of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, headed by Alexander Yakovlev, was established at the First Congress under the leadership of Alexander Yakovlev, whose activities are described by researchers as biased. Based on the report of the commission, a special resolution of the II Congress of People's Deputies of the USSR of 24 December 1989, all secret Soviet-German agreements were found to be legally untenable and invalid from the date of their signing.
By their decision, the majority of the deputies tried to cancel the already held history. It should be noted that not historians in the mode of scientific discussion, but people's deputies, by simple vote, assessed the events of the pre-war history. The Russian Federation supported the claims of the Baltic countries, not caring about the historical consequences of such a step. The main thing for the new Russia at that moment was to dissociate itself from its "totalitarian past."
Even before the adoption of this document by the congress, in July 1989, the newspaper Sovetskaya Russia warned: “Recognizing the 1939 agreement as illegal makes it possible to cast doubt on the legality of staying on the lands of the Baltic States and other western territories of millions of Soviet citizens who migrated there after 1939.” So it happened. The overwhelming majority of the non-indigenous population in the "civilized" Baltic countries turned into powerless "stateless persons", "second-class citizens", and "occupiers".
A biased official evaluation of the secret protocol to the 1939 treaty of the year requires a review from the perspective of national interests. In addition, one should move away from the stereotypes given by the wrong time. Currently, there is a serious documentary and historiographic base on the problem under consideration. Biased assessments of the period when the collapse of a powerful power was being prepared were naturally tendentious and today they are working against Russian statehood. In 2008, scientists of the country took the initiative of revising the decision of the II Congress of People's Deputies of the USSR. Such a proposal was voiced by Oleg Rzheshevsky, head of the Department of Historians of the Second World War, Head of the Department of the History of Wars and Geopolitics of the Institute of General History of the Russian Academy of Sciences. A similar initiative from the leaders of the relevant committees of the State Duma of the Russian Federation did not receive support.
Since the time of perestroika, there has been a process of devaluation of victory in the Russian Federation itself. In post-Soviet Russia, which has lost its statist instinct, the so-called historical journalism, discrediting the Soviet past, is constantly republished. The echoes of Viktor Rezun’s books (signing his libels in the glorious Russian name Suvorov), where he questions the history of the Second World War, breaks the methodology in the approaches to its study, firmly entered the public consciousness of Russian citizens. The author of these books is an unprofessional intelligence officer who has become a professional traitor who has stepped over his homeland and military oath. According to professionals, "... the pinnacle of Rezun's research genius is a repetition of the propaganda of Nazi criminals who tried to justify the perfidious attack on the USSR."
For a number of years in the Russian Federation, the process of liquidation of military academies has been going on - the glory and pride of the country. Sometimes it was done under the guise of reorganization. The price of this word is well known. The traditions that still exist at the famous General Staff Academy break down the traditions that are decisive for the Armed Forces. It is symptomatic that the most important department of the history of wars and military art is closed here. It is not surprising that in a state that purposefully destroys, despite public protests, expert and professional opinions, a system of not only civil, but also military education, there is a considerable part of young people who perceive the myths about the invaders as a given. It should be noted, however, that with the advent of the new leadership, some hope for the best remains in the place of the infamous gentleman.
Today, there is an urgent task of restoring Russia's authority in the world and strengthening Russian statehood. With a powerful liberal lobby in the country's political establishment, this is not easy, but necessary. Public requests should be formulated below. And one of the most important tasks is to reject the demonization of the Soviet era. In this sense, first of all, one should not use a term such as “totalitarianism” in relation to our past. There was no total state control over the life of society in the Soviet Union. This is a propaganda, ideological term, which entered the scientific revolution in the West. It is used in Western sociology and political science, developed by opponents of the USSR in the Cold War. And besides the Soviet dissidents, he was not used in the Soviet Union. This term came into our life at the end of 80, when the destruction of the country was being prepared. There is a lot of speculation and absurdity. And the main thing is that only within the framework of this integral term, “communism” and “fascism” can be equated. In this case, why grind this term into the consciousness of the younger generations? It is necessary to build a rehabilitation system for slandered pages of the history of the Soviet period, which means that it is necessary to agree on terms.
USSR foreign policy in 1939 – 1940 is not only a page in national history. These are modern realities. There is a gospel: "Yes - yes, no - no, the rest is from the evil one." Need a clear and clear position. Russian society, especially its young part, should know: consider the non-aggression treaty between Germany and the USSR as a national shame or as a legitimate victory of the country's leadership and Soviet diplomacy under conditions of connivance of the aggressor from the Western powers. As long as the official Russia does not recognize that the treaty with Germany concluded by Stalin in August with Germany did not go beyond the generally accepted international political norms, it will always be the object of complaints and humiliation. And if we do not publicly reject the equality sign between communism and fascism, moreover, we almost do not recognize the occupation of the Baltic states, then in this case, to be consistent, we really have to take its content. Criminal regimes, if we recognize our past as such, should bear their share of responsibility. Until we ourselves rehabilitate the Soviet period, all these disastrous consequences for Russia will finally finish our statehood. The prestige of the new Russia in the world is largely determined by whether it will be able to defend its past and not exchange the Great Victory for short-term market interests.
Substitution of values
The thesis about the fault of the Soviet Union in starting the Second World War, which trumps modern Europe, is an accusation inconsistent in its absurdity. And it is embedded in the general context of destruction historical Of Russia. Today, traditional interpretations and historical assessments of the events of that period are being ignored, which essentially boil down to the following: World War II is the struggle of one totalitarianism - fascism with another - communism, as a result of which the third force - democracy triumphed. In the eyes of the world community, the winners with the help of political technologies and falsification of history are becoming invaders.
But the main thing is that the same discrediting Russian history approach to key events of the past was consolidated almost at the official level in Russia itself. Despite the fact that the tone of the statements of the first persons of the state is gradually shifting to a more objective direction, there is no need to speak about cardinal changes.
“As long as the official Russia does not recognize that the agreement with Germany concluded by Stalin in August with Germany did not go beyond the generally accepted international political norms, it will always be the object of claims and humiliation”
On the eve of his visit to Poland, scheduled for 1 in September 2009 of the year and timed to coincide with the 70 anniversary of the outbreak of the Second World War, at that time Prime Minister Vladimir Putin published an article in the Polish press Gazeta Wyborcza, which was often quoted by Russian MASS MEDIA. We give excerpts from it: “... Without any doubt, we can rightly condemn the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, concluded in August 1939 of the year. But after all, the year before, France and England signed a famous treaty with Hitler in Munich, destroying all hopes of creating a united front of struggle against fascism. ” And further: "Today we understand that any form of collusion with the Nazi regime was unacceptable from a moral point of view and had no prospects from the point of view of practical implementation." All other reservations addressed to the European powers about their incorrect behavior are drowning amid these unequivocal statements. It all comes down to the fact that we, they say, and you were disgraced equally. In that case, what can be expected from the geopolitical enemies of Russia with such reasoning by so high representatives of its political elite? Naturally, therefore, the aggregate West (the EU and the USA) puts forward its theses, unconditionally ignoring the facts and putting up a story under the accusation thrown by the world community against Russia - the occupiers.
Thus, the Great Victory and the feat of the veterans who lived to this deceitful time are being devalued. This was unthinkable in relation to the USSR. And this is its significant difference from the new Russia. In recent years, the Russian Federation has been acting as a whipping boy in European international organizations, for the membership in which she pays a lot of money. Within the framework of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), concerned about nostalgia for socialism in the countries of Central and Southeastern Europe, it was difficult at the end of 2006, but it was possible to adopt a resolution condemning “totalitarian communist regimes”. The Russian delegation unanimously opposed the adoption of such a resolution. The exception was Vladimir Zhirinovsky. A new provocation on the same topic took place in Vilnius in July 2009. The Parliamentary Assembly of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) adopted a document with a long and unintelligible title “The reunification of a divided Europe: the promotion of human rights and civil liberties in the OSCE region in the 21st century”. It argues that in the twentieth century, European countries suffered from two totalitarian regimes - the Nazi and Stalinist regimes.
At the end of March 2007, under pressure from United Russia and the Liberal Democratic Party that joined it, the State Duma adopted the blasphemous law “On the Banner of Victory”, according to which the heroic banner should be replaced by a certain non-historical symbol - a white (tribute to America?) Five-pointed star on a red background. Veterans-front-line soldiers rose in defense of the victorious banner and did not allow them to defile the shrine. The immoral law was abolished by presidential veto. How long? Given this attitude of the majority of the deputies of state power in Russia to national shrines, is it any wonder that the governments of tiny countries in the anti-Russian fanabia encroach on the monuments to the liberators?
The European laments about the historical guilt of the Soviet Union over the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact leave out the key events of the pre-war history - the Munich Agreement, which became the defining stage of German aggression. Who in the West called for repentance "for Munich" and the division of Czechoslovakia?
Here is the opinion of Professor Lennoir Olsztynsky, a well-known specialist in military history: “An example of primitive falsification of history is the often repeated thesis that the Non-Aggression Pact of Germany and the USSR 1939 of the year caused the outbreak of the Second World War ... The signing of the treaty breaks out of the general chain ... of cause and effect relationships, mixed and multi-scale events. At the same time, the strategic plans of the parties that reveal the true intentions of politicians are completely ignored ... "And further:" The non-aggression pact of 1939 of the year is historically justified. It meant the collapse of the most dangerous variant for the development of the Second World War for the USSR - the “sewage” of the aggression of the fascist bloc against the USSR with its international isolation ... ”
With the connivance of the national elite (and the European Union) in the post-Soviet Baltic, the SS legionnaires are known to be elevated to the rank of national heroes, and the crimes of collaborators and “forest brothers” against the civilian population are modestly hushed up or are defined by modern experts as “forced actions”. Nevertheless, undoubtedly, the majority of the population of the Baltic countries fought worthily against fascism. The monument to the Liberator Soldier, which has become famous, is a monument to the Estonian soldier. And there are descendants of these soldiers who keep a grateful memory.
In the framework of international law
The events of the prewar history are described and well known, but since they are now turned upside down, it seems that we should briefly touch upon the key points of the outbreak of the war, which are subjected to a biased revision. We note here that the leadership of the USSR was aware of the aspirations of the Western powers to push Germany into war with the Soviet Union, as well as Hitler’s desire to expand the German “living space” at the expense of eastern lands. Under these conditions, it was necessary to think about security. The invasion of the Wehrmacht into Poland (September 1 1939) created an extremely dangerous situation for the USSR - if Germany seized Western Belorussia, its strategic lines were approaching the vital centers of the USSR. In addition, under the threat of German conquest, fraternal peoples found themselves in the territories torn away by the White Poles.
The actions of the USSR in that situation were dictated by the situation that arose in connection with the aggression of Germany against Poland and were justified not only from the military-political point of view, but also from the standpoint of international law. Suffice to say that by the time the USSR began the military operation, there was practically no state power system in Poland, the government fled to Romania from besieged Warsaw, and the population of the territories not yet occupied by German forces and the remnants of the Polish armed forces were left to the mercy of fate.
In an environment where German troops were rapidly moving eastward without encountering any effective resistance from the Poles, the Red Army on September 17 crossed the border and protected the population of Western Ukraine and Western Belarus with its broad support. Recall that in relation to ethnic Ukrainians and Belarusians, the Polish government of Pilsudski pursued a tough policy of colonization. As a result of the “liberation campaign” of the Red Army, as it was called in Soviet historiography, the reunification of artificially divided peoples took place.
By the way, neither Britain nor France declared war on the USSR, despite allied obligations to Poland. They even refrained from negative assessments, thereby giving additional legitimacy to the actions of the Soviet Union. Not being an aggressor, the Soviet Union did not claim the Polish lands proper. The ethnic border of Poland, the so-called Curzon Line, was not crossed by the Soviet troops, although nothing prevented them from doing so. Thus, the USSR acted within the framework necessary. And this was well understood by contemporaries who knew the situation.
Winston Churchill, who at that time held the post of first Lord of the Admiralty, was not burdened with sympathy for the USSR, in his speech on the radio 1 of October, 1939 of the year was forced to recognize the Soviet Union this right: “The fact that Russian armies were to be on this line, it was absolutely necessary for the security of Russia against the German threat ... When Mr. von Ribbentrop was summoned to Moscow last week, this was done in order for him to familiarize himself with this fact and admit that the Nazi designs for the Baltic states STV and Ukraine must be stopped. " Thus, at the beginning of the war, the USSR barred the way to the Third Reich, depriving the German command of the ability to use the territory of Western Ukraine and Western Belarus as a springboard for an attack on the USSR.
The accession of the Baltic states to Soviet Russia is a complex, multi-pass combination. Recall that these countries represented themselves at the beginning of the Second World War. Tough nationalist regimes were established here, especially in Lithuania and somewhat later in Latvia, where coups took place. Representatives of the opposition movements, first of all the Communists, found themselves in a deep underground or in prison; trade unions and other workers' organizations were banned. Active dissatisfaction with low prices for products and high taxes was expressed by peasants. Estonia gradually drifted into politics in the direction of “tightening the screws”: by the beginning of 1938, a constitution was adopted here that sharply strengthens presidential power. News about the success of industrialization and undeniable social achievements in the USSR contributed to the spread of leftist and pro-Soviet sentiments in these countries.
The leadership of the USSR was aware of the desire of the Western powers to push Germany into war with the Soviet Union, as well as of Hitler’s desire to expand the German “living space” at the expense of the eastern lands. Under these conditions, it was necessary to think about security. The entry of Soviet troops into the Baltic States was strategically motivated and had a defensive character. It is known that the entry of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia into the USSR took place on legal grounds. The presence in the Baltic countries of the Red Army was stipulated in the framework of treaties on mutual assistance with all these republics. There were no real speeches against the introduction of troops. In addition, a distinctive feature of the occupation regime is inequality before the law of the occupiers and the occupied. In this case, the law was the same for all. A well-considered and balanced Soviet policy made it possible for the social forces of the Baltic states to prepare: the broad strata of the population considered joining the Soviet Union as an opportunity to avoid the fascist occupation. Political prisoners were released. Previously known newsreel footage of the meetings of the Red Army in the Baltic States are joyful faces, with flowers - today, at best, they seem to be gathering dust in the archives.
In July, the 40 of the Seimas of Lithuania and Latvia and the Estonian State Duma signed declarations on the entry of these countries into the USSR.
So, as a result, the non-aggression pact between Germany and the Soviet Union contributed to the fact that the Baltic states did not become a protectorate of the Third Reich and a springboard for an offensive against the USSR.
The Soviet Union regained the territories lost during the Civil War, strengthened the borders, established control over the strategically important region and won the time to prepare for war. In turn, the accession of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia to the Soviet Union allowed the local population to remain as nations.
There is a simple question: what would happen to the Baltics if it were not part of the Soviet Union? The answer is obvious - the seizure of Germany. According to the Ost plan, almost all of this territory was supposed to be liberated from the local population and settled by the Germans. The remaining population was to undergo germanization. A few words about Moldova, which never had its own statehood and during the civil war was rejected by Romania. In 1940, the king of Romania, Carol II, accepted the ultimatum of the Soviet side and conveyed Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina to the USSR. And the population greeted the Red Army with bread and salt.
The territories returned to Russia received a powerful impetus to development. The Soviet Union invested a lot of money in them. All this is well known, but carefully concealed by falsifiers of history.
From the perspective of national interests
All claims to the Russian Federation, the West seeks to coincide with the holy Russian dates. Thus, in the jubilee year of celebrating the 60 anniversary of the victory of the USSR in World War II, both houses of the US Congress passed a resolution demanding that the Russian government recognize and condemn the “illegal occupation and annexation” of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia by the Soviet Union. The head of the Russian Federation was forced to declare that the question of apologies to Russia was already closed in 1989 by a resolution of the Congress of People’s Deputies condemning the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. At this historical moment should dwell.
The decision of the II Congress of People's Deputies of the USSR on this issue is in fact the contribution of the new Russia to the matter of revising the outcome of the Second World War to the detriment of its national interests and the interests of compatriots who did not voluntarily find themselves abroad in Russia. A special commission on the political and legal assessment of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, headed by Alexander Yakovlev, was established at the First Congress under the leadership of Alexander Yakovlev, whose activities are described by researchers as biased. Based on the report of the commission, a special resolution of the II Congress of People's Deputies of the USSR of 24 December 1989, all secret Soviet-German agreements were found to be legally untenable and invalid from the date of their signing.
By their decision, the majority of the deputies tried to cancel the already held history. It should be noted that not historians in the mode of scientific discussion, but people's deputies, by simple vote, assessed the events of the pre-war history. The Russian Federation supported the claims of the Baltic countries, not caring about the historical consequences of such a step. The main thing for the new Russia at that moment was to dissociate itself from its "totalitarian past."
Even before the adoption of this document by the congress, in July 1989, the newspaper Sovetskaya Russia warned: “Recognizing the 1939 agreement as illegal makes it possible to cast doubt on the legality of staying on the lands of the Baltic States and other western territories of millions of Soviet citizens who migrated there after 1939.” So it happened. The overwhelming majority of the non-indigenous population in the "civilized" Baltic countries turned into powerless "stateless persons", "second-class citizens", and "occupiers".
A biased official evaluation of the secret protocol to the 1939 treaty of the year requires a review from the perspective of national interests. In addition, one should move away from the stereotypes given by the wrong time. Currently, there is a serious documentary and historiographic base on the problem under consideration. Biased assessments of the period when the collapse of a powerful power was being prepared were naturally tendentious and today they are working against Russian statehood. In 2008, scientists of the country took the initiative of revising the decision of the II Congress of People's Deputies of the USSR. Such a proposal was voiced by Oleg Rzheshevsky, head of the Department of Historians of the Second World War, Head of the Department of the History of Wars and Geopolitics of the Institute of General History of the Russian Academy of Sciences. A similar initiative from the leaders of the relevant committees of the State Duma of the Russian Federation did not receive support.
Since the time of perestroika, there has been a process of devaluation of victory in the Russian Federation itself. In post-Soviet Russia, which has lost its statist instinct, the so-called historical journalism, discrediting the Soviet past, is constantly republished. The echoes of Viktor Rezun’s books (signing his libels in the glorious Russian name Suvorov), where he questions the history of the Second World War, breaks the methodology in the approaches to its study, firmly entered the public consciousness of Russian citizens. The author of these books is an unprofessional intelligence officer who has become a professional traitor who has stepped over his homeland and military oath. According to professionals, "... the pinnacle of Rezun's research genius is a repetition of the propaganda of Nazi criminals who tried to justify the perfidious attack on the USSR."
For a number of years in the Russian Federation, the process of liquidation of military academies has been going on - the glory and pride of the country. Sometimes it was done under the guise of reorganization. The price of this word is well known. The traditions that still exist at the famous General Staff Academy break down the traditions that are decisive for the Armed Forces. It is symptomatic that the most important department of the history of wars and military art is closed here. It is not surprising that in a state that purposefully destroys, despite public protests, expert and professional opinions, a system of not only civil, but also military education, there is a considerable part of young people who perceive the myths about the invaders as a given. It should be noted, however, that with the advent of the new leadership, some hope for the best remains in the place of the infamous gentleman.
Today, there is an urgent task of restoring Russia's authority in the world and strengthening Russian statehood. With a powerful liberal lobby in the country's political establishment, this is not easy, but necessary. Public requests should be formulated below. And one of the most important tasks is to reject the demonization of the Soviet era. In this sense, first of all, one should not use a term such as “totalitarianism” in relation to our past. There was no total state control over the life of society in the Soviet Union. This is a propaganda, ideological term, which entered the scientific revolution in the West. It is used in Western sociology and political science, developed by opponents of the USSR in the Cold War. And besides the Soviet dissidents, he was not used in the Soviet Union. This term came into our life at the end of 80, when the destruction of the country was being prepared. There is a lot of speculation and absurdity. And the main thing is that only within the framework of this integral term, “communism” and “fascism” can be equated. In this case, why grind this term into the consciousness of the younger generations? It is necessary to build a rehabilitation system for slandered pages of the history of the Soviet period, which means that it is necessary to agree on terms.
USSR foreign policy in 1939 – 1940 is not only a page in national history. These are modern realities. There is a gospel: "Yes - yes, no - no, the rest is from the evil one." Need a clear and clear position. Russian society, especially its young part, should know: consider the non-aggression treaty between Germany and the USSR as a national shame or as a legitimate victory of the country's leadership and Soviet diplomacy under conditions of connivance of the aggressor from the Western powers. As long as the official Russia does not recognize that the treaty with Germany concluded by Stalin in August with Germany did not go beyond the generally accepted international political norms, it will always be the object of complaints and humiliation. And if we do not publicly reject the equality sign between communism and fascism, moreover, we almost do not recognize the occupation of the Baltic states, then in this case, to be consistent, we really have to take its content. Criminal regimes, if we recognize our past as such, should bear their share of responsibility. Until we ourselves rehabilitate the Soviet period, all these disastrous consequences for Russia will finally finish our statehood. The prestige of the new Russia in the world is largely determined by whether it will be able to defend its past and not exchange the Great Victory for short-term market interests.
Information