Military Review

Nonaggression pact. National shame or legitimate victory?

423
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.

Nonaggression pact. National shame or legitimate victory?

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.
Author:
Originator:
http://vpk-news.ru/
423 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. poccinin
    poccinin 5 October 2013 08: 09
    +37
    Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. was a logical victory of Soviet diplomacy. everyone understood that war was inevitable. And it was necessary to take time to rearm the army and navy.
    1. Drummer
      Drummer 5 October 2013 09: 26
      -49%
      And what is the victory of diplomacy? The fact that the USSR entered the war without a single ally? Prevention of war would be a victory, a good result would be a quick defeat of Germany, delaying a war can only be called a success with big reservations.
      By itself, gaining time would make sense if the Soviet military-industrial complex developed faster than the German one (one could catch up), but in reality it was the other way around - Germany for 1939-41 completely updated the range of main types of weapons, while in the USSR rearmament was only it began.
      The Red Army was also unable to take advantage of it - as a result of contradictory reforms, growth diseases and personnel starvation, its combat effectiveness even decreased by 1941. The regrouping of troops from traditional places of deployment to the freshly joined western regions of Ukraine, Belarus and the Baltic states added problems - everyone was busy settling out, living conditions sharply worsened (even former Polish prisons adapted to barracks, but many lived in the field), and finally the prepared line of fortifications was abandoned, they didn’t have time to build a new one.
      These are only the simplest, immediate consequences of the PMR, not to mention the decline in the international image, spoiled relations with probable allies, and so on.
      1. Ulan
        Ulan 5 October 2013 10: 27
        +29
        Greatly laid out everything on the shelves. Indeed, there are some disadvantages, it was necessary to surrender to Hitler in the 39th, you look even then they drank Bavarian beer. Here are our fathers and grandfathers, how "stupid" they were, they took them but did not kneel down.
        1. cooper
          cooper 5 October 2013 10: 59
          -30%
          At 39 Hitler would have been erased to powder.
          1. Drummer
            Drummer 5 October 2013 11: 29
            -27%
            Maybe not in powder, but they would have handled much faster.
            And if you had turned a little differently, then Hitler would have been able to avoid war, having lost popularity under the weight of economic problems, would have remained in history as a flashy misunderstanding like Misha Saakashvili.
            1. smile
              smile 5 October 2013 12: 21
              +41
              Drummer
              When the 6 battalions of Hitler entered the demilitarized zone, they were opposed by several French divisions. Wouldn’t Hitler move his finger? When the Germans entered Austria, the German General Staff planned to arrest Aloizievich at the slightest movement of parts of France. which could suffocate Germany with a wave of a finger. But if we climbed, their main goal, which they did not hide, we would all be attacked in droves. and Hitler would be let in first - the Germans were not sorry for them.
              Let me remind you a quote.
              Neville Henderson. British Ambassador to Germany. 37 year
              "To put it bluntly, Eastern Europe ... is of no vital interest to England. It could even be argued that it is unfair to prevent Germany from completing its unity and preparing for war against the Slavs, provided that these preparations do not harm the British Empire, that they are not simultaneously directed against us."
              Not for nothing that some members of the royal family were ardent Nazis. It is necessary to recall the story of the failed king due to the morganatic marriage of the King of England, the former ardent Nazi?
              So. that your good tales have nothing for themselves for one simple reason - the Anglo-Saxons were no less cannibals and they simply nurtured Hitler for their own purposes. And that goal was we.
              1. Altona
                Altona 5 October 2013 15: 26
                +8
                I read that German soldiers arrived at great places there ... And the brave French army, seeing the German caps, did nothing ...
                1. VARCHUN
                  VARCHUN 19 October 2013 14: 09
                  0
                  The French fought, but not as fiercely as the Slavic peoples, France had excellent tanks at that time, the Germans couldn’t get them. But then a corrupt general appeared and they just stayed at the train stations and hangars. And do not forget the blitz krieg.
              2. predator.3
                predator.3 6 October 2013 12: 06
                +1
                В 39-40th years, all issues in the east were resolved, drew the border - this is yours, this is ours. And instead of forcing the English Channel, Hitler is heading for Vostoktem, thereby bringing his death closer.
                1. VARCHUN
                  VARCHUN 19 October 2013 14: 15
                  0
                  Yes, the senile Adolf was very foolish that he opened a second front, but the Allies cowardly waited, I mean when there was an opportunity to attack France and England immediately after Czechoslovakia, Hitler simply laid the net on Europe and captured it.
              3. peter_shchurov
                peter_shchurov 6 October 2013 21: 09
                -9
                Quote: smile
                The Anglo-Saxons were no less cannibals and they simply nurtured Hitler for their own purposes. And that goal was we.


                ah-ah-ah, bloodthirsty creatures .. could you name a couple of reasons why Great Britain should have at least some positive attitude towards the USSR?
                1. Ulan
                  Ulan 7 October 2013 09: 21
                  +5
                  I will name the reason why I was negative.
                  Russia has always been an obstacle to all aspirants for world domination.
                  If I am not mistaken, Lord Palmerston said about Russia, we cannot put up with the existence of such a large state in the North of Europe.
                  Is it enough?
            2. Rakti-kali
              Rakti-kali 5 October 2013 22: 50
              +8
              Quote: Drummer
              Maybe not in powder, but they would have handled much faster.

              This is what a magical way ??? (the question is asked purely with a Jewish and Odessa accent at the same time)
              And yet, could the Red Army do this in 1939, which it could not do in 1941? By the way, wasn’t it a little darling whether Polska declared in 1938 that she would not tolerate a single Soviet soldier on her territory, and refused to let the Soviet troops through her territory to act against Germany, if they wanted to fulfill their allied duty under an agreement with Czechoslovakia note the trilateral - there is still France a little bit noted).
              Quote: Drummer
              And if you turn a little differently, then you could have avoided war

              AS??? How did you turn to avoid war? You still tell me about it - I'm absolutely curious.
            3. Revolver
              Revolver 6 October 2013 07: 50
              +5
              Quote: Drummer
              And if you had turned a little differently, then Hitler would have been able to avoid war, having lost popularity under the weight of economic problems, would have remained in history as a flashy misunderstanding like Misha Saakashvili.

              Don't you remember what Hitler did right after the burning of the Reichstag (building)? I can recall: the Reichstag (legislative body) dissolved, all opposition deputies (in particular, the communists headed by Thälmann) were jailed, the elections were canceled until further notice, and assumed dictatorial powers. What news was greeted by the "popular masses" with enthusiastic cries of "Heil Hitler!", And those who showed insufficient enthusiasm were taken into account in the Gestapo, with all that it implies. So how could Hitler "lose popularity" after that?
              So learn the materiel. Well, the story too.
              1. Drummer
                Drummer 11 October 2013 05: 54
                0
                Quote: Nagan
                Well, how could Hitler "lose popularity" after that?

                Trite, from a lack of grub in stores.
          2. smile
            smile 5 October 2013 12: 07
            +17
            cooper
            Who would be a stur? England and France? These are yes. If they wanted, they would be erased. But they didn’t want to — they had other plans for Hitler — to set him on us. And we simply could not erase it, in the event of our attack on Hitler. The British and French would have united with him and is unknown. how would it all end. With the Cabinet that was in Britain then it was almost inevitable, they treated us an order of magnitude worse. than to his own fosterling, who was thought to be held in his hands.
            1. Drummer
              Drummer 5 October 2013 12: 17
              -29%
              These are your fantasies, in reality England and France declared war on Germany two days after the invasion of Poland.
              1. smile
                smile 5 October 2013 12: 43
                +14
                Drummer
                In September 39, Hitler had only a few incomplete reserve, training and second line divisions, not a single tank in the absence of defensive structures on Hitler’s western borders, but they were opposed by pre-mobilized tanks that reached the original, numerically many times and even more times in the main battle tanks French people. It was enough for them to capture, or rather occupy the Ruhr that was not covered by anything - I’m all. krants to Hitler. Canaris plotted, when the Allies entered the war, the arrest of Hitler and the Arctic fox to Nazism .... but they just had to enter the war. Are these my fantasies? No. is it a harsh reality?
                And do not make them French and English brainless moron degenerates. They were never like that, which is why they gave Hitler to strengthen Czechoslovakia, the leading exporter of European arms and military equipment. That is why they, declaring war, did not even think of starting it.
                Compared to their armed forces, which at that time were considered the most modern and powerful, we, with the industry that had just appeared, were lower-class players. And this is also reality
                Do not soar in the clouds, please, and do not live perestroika mythology - that’s unreasonable. Or are you trying out of Russophobia?
                1. Drummer
                  Drummer 5 October 2013 14: 25
                  -6
                  Quote: smile
                  In September 39, Hitler had only a few incomplete reserve, training, and second line divisions left on Hitler’s western borders, not a single tank in the absence of defensive structures, but they were opposed by pre-mobilized tanks that reached the original, numerically many times more and many times more in the PIT French people

                  So many times?
                  By September 1, Army Group C (5,1,7 armies) was deployed on the western border of the Reich - a total of 31 divisions (i.e. 30% of the forces available on September 1 - 104 divisions), specifically the Franco-German sector was covered by 1 and 7 armies - 21 divisions.
                  From the French side, by September 3, in Alsace, on the border with Germany, the Second Army Group was deployed (3,4,5 armies - a total of 27 divisions and 1 brigade). Of course, these were not all French forces: the Belgian border was covered by the First Army Group (1,7,2 and the Ardennes armies - 23 divisions and 1 brigade), the Italian - the Third (6 and the Alpine armies - 12 divisions and 2 brigades), another 27 divisions were in the African colonies, but for an offensive against Germany they still had to be concentrated, and the Germans did not sit idly by and by September 10 strengthened Group "C" to 44 divisions.
                  Quote: smile
                  And do not make them French and English brainless moron degenerates. They were never like that, which is why they handed over to Hitler to strengthen Czechoslovakia, Europe’s leading exporter of arms and military equipment. That’s why they declared a war and didn’t think about starting it.

                  Again conspiracy theory.
                  Why declare war in which you are not going to participate? A tricky move to direct aggression against the USSR? You yourself are not funny?
                  The interests of England and France (as, indeed, the USSR) did not coincide in much - everyone pulled a blanket over himself. It is not surprising that playing on weaknesses and contradictions, Adik managed to achieve serious success. However, after Hitler occupying the Czech Republic in March 1939 publicly humiliated Chamberlain and Daladier, the position of the government of England and France was determined quite clearly - the policy of appeasement was forgotten.
                  1. chehywed
                    chehywed 5 October 2013 15: 00
                    +3
                    Quote: Drummer
                    However, after Hitler occupied the Czech Republic in March, 1939 publicly humiliated Chamberlain and Daladier, the position of the government of England and France was determined quite clearly - politics appeasement was forgotten

                    In November 1939, Mr. Chamberlain wrote to his sister:
                    “I have a hunch that the war will end in the spring ... It will not end with the defeat of the enemy on the battlefields, but the Germans will simply understand that they are not able to win and that it makes no sense to continue such a war, from which they become weaker and poorer.”
                    Unfortunately, his assessment of the situation in Europe did not change in the spring of 1940, when Germany’s preparations for the campaign against the Anglo-French coalition were nearing completion. On April 5, 4 days before the Wehrmacht invasion of Denmark and Norway, Chamberlain chuckled:
                    "Hitler was late for his bus."
                    The absurd reassessment of one’s forces with inaction on the front was based on the belief, or rather, the fallacy, that time itself works for the allies, and Germany should not be provoked to aggressive actions. No important measures were taken to increase the provision and combat readiness of the troops.

                    http://www.e-reading.biz/chapter.php/42942/9/Orlov_-_Za_kulisami_vtorogo_fronta.
                    html # note_5
                  2. smile
                    smile 5 October 2013 15: 23
                    +10
                    Drummer
                    No need to get out the number of divisions. Read even the same Halder. These were understaffed divisions of the second stage, consisting of older soldiers, and only formed from untrained youngsters, weakly and out of staff, equipped with officers, artillery, without a single tank. Combatability-landver.
                    That’s why it’s done many times - I don’t remember the numbers and I won’t get to search again, at least kill me — all of this has been repeatedly discussed on the same site — I am fed up with the resistanceists. The overall superiority of the French concentrated on the border and within walking distance to the theater was overwhelming.
                    I repeat, just the capture of the Ruhr or the destruction of enterprises from the air would instantly paralyze the Wehrmacht. He would have nothing to fight. ALL tanks after the Polish campaign went to capital, I hope you know why.

                    Using the numbers of divisions can lead far - like in the fall of 41, some full-blooded German division crushed our three to smithereens. Like you, in such cases, they yell, they say that the Russians did not know how to fight, but the normal ones begin to understand ... it turns out that our divisions have 900-1500 bayonets with almost no artillery and means of amplification ... that’s the whole mystery. Judging by that. that you are smart, you are distorting intentionally, and this is even worse than stupidity ...
                    About the strange war.
                    I'm not laughing. Not even funny to Western historians. trying not to slide into a battle about the mental development of the leadership of their countries (and they can’t be called demented) and try to explain why the Wehrmacht in the fall. who didn’t even have ammunition, was not like trampled. And they declared war because, firstly, they cornered themselves in the corner, and secondly. to put pressure on Hitler. who bucked and began to get out of control. This is the only reasonable explanation. why are they declaring war. never started hostilities. Moreover, the troops were literally forbidden to open fire on visible targets. French people. invading the Reich 1 km. even took the troops back ... perhaps. that they didn’t apologize ...
                    That is why. the question to you is why, not opening hostilities and in every possible way "protecting" from that. to start them, they still declared war? precisely because. that the "Politics of Appeasement" was supposedly forgotten? France and England were the guarantors of the inviolability of the stub of the Czech Republic, why do you think they did not declare war on Aloisievich then? Or don't you think. you just repeat. what is written in Rezunov's books and the most honest writings of British Historians and politicians in the world? :))) At the same time, think about why the Anglo-French bombing should have been carried out in July 40 of the year - it was not me who came up with it, it was De Gaulle who blurted out in his memoirs ... :)))
                    Yes. you're right. I am laughing. Seeing how you are citing sources that, with a blue eye, call, following Chamberlain's pathetic excuses, the cultivation of the fascist beast "appeasement." Understand you. then Hitler was not a monster for them. he was his own, European, and not savage red Russia. And they didn't even care about the Jews, whom they did not even provide political asylum ...
                    1. Altona
                      Altona 5 October 2013 15: 49
                      +9
                      It makes no sense to constantly lay out causal relationships, all this has long been described by serious people ... The formula fascism = communism is simply applied in line with Western propaganda, which seeks to undermine national states ... So if we look from the point of propaganda, then this is formally normal thesis ... The ultimate goal is to erase national borders and replace states with supranational entities, from here comes the delegitimization of everything related to national identity and statehood ... All for the sake of globalization of the Western type ...
                      1. Misantrop
                        Misantrop 5 October 2013 15: 53
                        +3
                        Quote: Altona
                        replace states supranational entities
                        What an elegant neutral wording for private offices, preoccupied exclusively with their own superprofits and the destruction of competitors ... lol Maybe this "political correctness" is enough, isn't it time to call ghouls ghouls?
                      2. Altona
                        Altona 5 October 2013 16: 13
                        +4
                        It’s not a matter of political correctness, and not the ability to cut a home-telling truth ... I simply formulate this phenomenon as a propaganda thesis that has nothing to do with real history ...
                  3. Drummer
                    Drummer 5 October 2013 17: 31
                    -9
                    Quote: smile
                    No need to get out the number of divisions. Read even the same Halder. These were understaffed divisions of the second stage, consisting of older soldiers, and only formed from untrained youngsters, weakly and out of staff, equipped with officers, artillery, without a single tank. Combatability-landver.

                    Of the 44 divisions of group "C" on September 10 - 12 personnel (first wave), 10 second wave, 12 - third (landwehr), 9 - fourth (formed on the basis of training units). They really did not have tanks, but they relied on a prepared line of defense, and from the air they were covered by 2 and 3 air fleets (half of the German Air Force).
                    If it seems to you that this is not enough for the defense of a fortified line — look at the balance of forces on the Karelian Isthmus in December of the same 1939, the course of the offensive and the results achieved.
                    Quote: smile
                    I'm not laughing. Not even funny to Western historians. trying not to slide into a battle about the mental development of the leadership of their countries (and they can’t be called demented) and try to explain why the Wehrmacht in the fall. who didn’t even have ammunition, was not like trampled. And they declared war because, firstly, they cornered themselves in the corner, and secondly. to put pressure on Hitler. who bucked and began to get out of control. This is the only reasonable explanation. why are they declaring war. never started hostilities. Moreover, the troops were literally forbidden to open fire on visible targets. French people. invading the Reich 1 km. even took the troops back ... perhaps. that they didn’t apologize ...

                    Firstly, one must understand that England and France of the 1939 model were militarily little. England at the beginning of the war already had six divisions, four of which were sent to continent in September-October.
                    The French had their own problems. The militia nature of the French army did not contribute to either high-quality training of troops or their quick mobilization - as a result, of the 91 divisions available as of September 3, more than half were under formation and were considered low-combat (and not in vain).
                    Secondly, the military leadership of England and France was convinced that time worked for them. In terms of industrial and mobilization potential, AiF surpassed Germany, in 1940 the results of the general military service introduced in England should have affected, the overwhelming superiority of the Entente at sea threatened Germany with an economic blockade.
                    Thirdly, the Entente strategists considered the north-east a priority and the main forces were deployed not on the Franco-German border, but on the border with Belgium (did you hear about the Dil-Bred maneuver?).
                    Quote: smile
                    That is why. the question to you is why, not opening hostilities and in every possible way "protecting" from that. to start them, they still declared war? precisely because. that the "Politics of Appeasement" was supposedly forgotten? France and England were the guarantors of the inviolability of the stub of the Czech Republic, why do you think they did not declare war on Aloizievich then?

                    Because the pro-German Gakh himself asked for the entry of German troops into the Czech Republic. Of course, he did this under pressure from Hitler, but the formalities were followed.
                    1. kripto
                      kripto 5 October 2013 19: 39
                      +4
                      The ability to quickly find pseudo-scientific articles on the network and bring excerpts from them to the place, and not to the place you showed. Where are your own thoughts? It’s time to already learn to think.
                    2. Drummer
                      Drummer 5 October 2013 19: 52
                      -2
                      You will be surprised, but I think exactly what I am writing.
                  4. vladkavkaz
                    vladkavkaz 5 October 2013 19: 40
                    +7
                    Drummer
                    I don’t know why, but the level of your nonsense is off scale.
                    The army of France, even without taking into account the English, Belgian, Dutch and others, was in every way stronger than the army of Germany, however, France suffered a terrifying defeat in two weeks — the SPIRIT of the nation was lower than ZERO, so they could not organize any sensible resistance.
                    The only example of the more or less successful actions of the French troops, the actions of the particles under the command of De Gaulle, was that they did not decide anything, since the nation itself refused the right to itself to resist the invasion.
                    You Udurnik see you at school taught poorly, since you so many comments nuklyaly and all smack of FALSE.
                  5. Drummer
                    Drummer 5 October 2013 19: 55
                    -9
                    Will there be numbers, links, quotes, or did you just drop by the TRUTH?
                  6. anip
                    anip 5 October 2013 22: 28
                    +1
                    Quote: Drummer
                    Figures, links, quotes will be

                    Google is everything.
                  7. Misantrop
                    Misantrop 5 October 2013 22: 32
                    +3
                    Quote: anip
                    Google is everything.
                    If there is no banned for trollism laughing
          3. vladkavkaz
            vladkavkaz 5 October 2013 19: 36
            +4
            smile (
            Bravo!
            Despite the fact that sometimes I disagree with your thoughts, in this case you rolled this "Drummer" in the amount of LIES under the asphalt.
            The inexorable logic of History dictated the Union’s policy as it happened in real history, and not in virtual attempts by liars to pervert it in favor of the current company to discredit Victory in general and the role of the Union (Russia) in that war.
    2. Drummer
      Drummer 5 October 2013 12: 46
      -24%
      Minusters advise reading a book on the history of WWII.
      1. Rider
        Rider 5 October 2013 12: 56
        +12
        Quote: Drummer
        Minusters advise reading a book on the history of WWII.

        I advise you to do the same.
        well, at least N. Starikov-who made Hitler attack the USSR.
        or A. Isaev - 10 myths of the 2nd world.

        and you got the cons quite deservedly.
        1. Drummer
          Drummer 5 October 2013 14: 29
          -10%
          Do not agree - argue reasonably.
          1. Rider
            Rider 5 October 2013 15: 01
            +16
            Quote: Drummer
            Do not agree - argue reasonably.


            what do you tell me "reasonably"?
            that England and France in every way delayed the creation of the anti-Hitler alliance in 38?
            or the fact that Poland (which you advised to take as allies) opposed this even more, and hoped to enter the war with the USSR on the side of Germany?
            maybe you don’t know about the intentions of England and France to launch the bombing of the USSR in 39 / 40g, (and subsequently in 42g) what prevented only the REAL start of the war in Europe in May 40g?
            or are you unfamiliar with the term "strange war"

            what other arguments are boring to you?
            1. Shogun23
              Shogun23 5 October 2013 15: 30
              +2
              Quote: Rider
              that England and France in every way delayed the creation of the anti-Hitler alliance in 38?

              Moreover, this union was also spoken about in the summer of 1939.

              Quote: Rider
              maybe you don’t know about the intentions of England and France to launch the bombing of the USSR in 39 / 40g, (and subsequently in 42g) what prevented only the REAL start of the war in Europe in May 40g?

              As far as I remember, they planned their operations only in the case of the USSR-Germany alliance, although I don’t know for sure.
            2. Rider
              Rider 5 October 2013 15: 44
              +9
              Quote: Shogun23
              Moreover, this union was also spoken about in the summer of 1939.

              the most interesting thing is that in every possible way tightening the negotiations with us, the British SIMULTANEOUSLY conducted secret negotiations with Germany
              google London talks (1939)
              True, they justify them with ECONOMIC reasons, but the fact is that there is no concrete information on these negotiations anywhere, that raises the question of what kind of secret it is. ECONOMIC CONVERSATION.

              Quote: Shogun23
              As far as I remember, they planned their operations only in the case of the USSR-Germany alliance

              these plans began with the Sovetsko / Finnish War, where they clearly took a non-pro-Soviet position.

              hence the conclusion.
              THERE WAS NOT THEN THE USSR ALLIES.
              and therefore the Soviet / German peace treaty of 39g, is not only justified, but, in those conditions, is simply necessary.
            3. Shogun23
              Shogun23 5 October 2013 16: 13
              0
              Quote: Rider
              google the London talks (1939)

              Yes, I know about all this, as well as about the fact that France and Britain were considering the option of concluding a truce with Germany, after the fall of Poland
              Quote: Rider
              these plans began with the Sovetsko / Finnish War, where they clearly took a non-pro-Soviet position.

              And I also know this, I’m talking about them, (for example, the bombing of Baku - the MA-6 and RIP plans), I just don’t know for sure whether they were planned to be realized, only in the case of the Germany-USSR union. Plus, Finland was seen as one of the bridgeheads for the offensive. And from the south, through Iran, the offensive on Baku and beyond, both wedges closed behind Moscow. I understand that the plan was not feasible, but the Poles also planned to defeat Germany in a few days reaching Berlin.

              Quote: Rider
              Nafih to classify ECONOMIC NEGOTIATIONS.

              In our archives even the data on the agricultural success of certain regions were classified.
        2. Drummer
          Drummer 5 October 2013 17: 42
          -9
          Quote: Rider
          maybe you don’t know about the intentions of England and France to launch the bombing of the USSR in 39 / 40g, (and subsequently in 42g) what prevented only the REAL start of the war in Europe in May 40g?

          First, the goal of the operation was to reduce the supply of Soviet oil to Germany. Secondly, all these plans have not gone beyond the framework of draft projects (there were no bases from where to get to Baku or Poti, nor the required number of aircraft). To say that only the May German offensive prevented the bombing of Baku is at least stupid.
          Quote: Rider
          Or that Poland (which you advised to take as allies) opposed this even more, and she hoped to enter the war with the USSR on the side of Germany?

          In 1939, no one asked Poland for an opinion. This is not about friendship, but about how to survive.
        3. Rider
          Rider 5 October 2013 18: 37
          +4
          Quote: Drummer
          First, the goal of the operation was to reduce the supply of Soviet oil to Germany

          does it change anything ?
          or bomb all who trade with the enemy?
          then why not start with Romania, from which 75% of the oil went to the Reich?
          Quote: Drummer
          Secondly, all these plans have not gone beyond the framework of draft projects (there were no bases from where to get to Baku or Poti, nor the required number of aircraft). To say that only the May German offensive prevented the bombing of Baku is at least stupid.

          secondly, I advise you to read this article http://www.xliby.ru/istorija/velikii_antrakt/p27.php in it you will learn that the preparation was nevertheless carried out.
          reconnaissance sorties with photographing of oil fields were made, and the necessary materials were collected at airfields.
          and the action itself is scheduled for May 15.
          irony of fate, do not start the Germans strike in France 5 days earlier, it is possible that the USSR entered the war on the side of Germany.

          Well
          Quote: Drummer
          In 1939 no one asked Poland for an opinion
          it matters not that her opinion was taken into account or not (but the fact that Poland ALL sabotaged the proposals means that they were still taken into account) but the fact that the USSR still proposed an alliance of England with France, in which the fate of Poland and Romania was implied.

          and actually why this opinion of Poland did not interest anyone?
        4. Drummer
          Drummer 5 October 2013 19: 10
          -4
          Quote: Drummer
          Does this change something? Or bomb all those who trade with the enemy? Then why not start with Romania, from which 75% of the oil went to the Reich?

          Bombs and Romania, when they were able to reach it.
          Quote: Rider
          secondly, I advise you to read this article here http://www.xliby.ru/istorija/velikii_antrakt/p27.php in it you will find out that the preparation was nevertheless carried out. There were reconnaissance sorties with photographing of oil fields, and the necessary materials were collected at airfields. and the action itself is scheduled for May 15. Irony of fate, do not start the Germans strike in France 5 days earlier, it is possible that the USSR entered the war on the side of Germany.

          Shirokorad source is the same. There is no reason to argue that the bombing plans of Soviet oil fields were close to implementation.
          The reasons for this are very simple:
          1. British bombers could get to Baku only from airfields in Iraq, but even here refueling was required on the territory of Turkey or Iran. Neither Turkey nor Iran (pro-German, by the way) gave permission to land and especially refueling.
          2. In Iraq, there was neither a sufficient number of bombers, nor the required quantity of ammunition for such a large-scale operation.
          Classical debriefing from Kurtukov: http://journal.kurtukov.name/?p=26
          Isaev also spoke out: http://dr-guillotin.livejournal.com/99833.html
        5. Rider
          Rider 5 October 2013 19: 26
          +3
          Quote: Drummer
          Bombs and Romania, when they were able to reach it.


          yes, when they realized who would soon get the romanian oil.
          Well, and the bombing of Baku.

          The very statement of the question already suggests that England and France, at that time, were NOT USSR allies, and together with the protracted Moscow talks, it was clear that they would not help us.
          so who else should we have made an agreement with?

          hence the agreement with Germany.
          and by the way, Shirokorad is not an authority for you, but the data from LJ is a fact.
        6. Drummer
          Drummer 5 October 2013 19: 38
          -1
          Quote: Rider
          The very statement of the question already suggests that England and France, at that time, were NOT USSR allies, and together with the protracted Moscow negotiations, it was clear that they would not help us. So who else should we conclude an agreement with?

          The statement of the question suggests that after the conclusion of the PMR, England and France began to consider the USSR as a non-combatant ally of Germany.
          Quote: Rider
          hence the agreement with Germany. And by the way, Shirokorad is not your authority for you, but the data from LJ is a fact.

          You recently referred to Isaevskie 10 Myths? Why are you not satisfied with his LiveJournal or his interview?
        7. Rider
          Rider 5 October 2013 19: 53
          +2
          Quote: Drummer
          The statement of the question suggests that after the conclusion of the PMR, England and France began to consider the USSR as a non-combatant ally of Germany.

          Finally, they regarded him (the USSR) as an ENEMY. hence the sluggish negotiations in Moscow and the backroom in London.
          hence, every push of Hitler to the east.
          is this not enough for you?
          what other evidence do you need?
          but vaabsche this is a very interesting "logic" to refuse the USSR in the alliance, and "take offense" when he signed an agreement with the Germans (I hope you do not need to remind you that England and France themselves have already concluded such agreements with Germany)

          and this brings us back to the conclusions of the article (which I support) that the treaty of the USSR and Germany at that time was not only justified, but necessary.

          Well, according to Isaev. LiveJournal content does not open from Kazakhstan, and it is one thing to publish in a book, and quite another in a blog.
        8. Drummer
          Drummer 5 October 2013 20: 15
          -3
          Quote: Rider
          but vaabsche this is a very interesting "logic" to refuse the USSR in the alliance, and "take offense" when he signed an agreement with the Germans (I hope you do not need to remind you that England and France themselves have already concluded such agreements with Germany)

          Negotiations between England, France and the USSR have been going on since the spring of 1939 (immediately after Germany presented ultimatums to Poland and Lithuania) and in fact came up against the desire of the USSR to include the Baltic countries and Finland into its sphere of influence. The Germans promised Stalin much more.
          Quote: Rider
          Well, according to Isaev. LiveJournal content does not open from Kazakhstan, and it is one thing to publish in a book, and quite another in a blog.

          Our anonymizers are everything you know. As for the blog, yes - there is a difference, but there is a link to a video interview. Here is a thread on the Golitsyn forum devoted to plans for the bombing of Soviet oil fields: http://russiainwar.forum24.ru/?1-5-0-00000050-000-0-0-1310108071
          short and clear, involving schemes and documents.
        9. Rider
          Rider 5 October 2013 20: 25
          +5
          Quote: Drummer
          and in fact they came up against the desire of the USSR to include the Baltic countries and Finland into their sphere of influence.

          that is, you blame the breakdown of negotiations on the USSR?
          original.
          and nicho that the "allies" wanted only unilateral guarantees from our side?
          and I’ll read the answer in Baku, but even if so, even the DESIRE to bomb Baku has already pushed Stalin to Hitler.
          and you're all about the Baltic states and the Finns.

          and the fact that they were included in the sphere of influence of the USSR is a great success.
          where would the Germans be if they launched an offensive from the Baltic? And should not they be made victims of the Finns, since their claim to Karelia was almost up to the Urals, has not been canceled, or do you not know about it?
        10. Drummer
          Drummer 5 October 2013 20: 46
          -3
          Quote: Rider
          that is, you blame the breakdown of negotiations on the USSR?

          Basically, Stalin and Chamberlain tried. In general, the mission of Drax and Dumenka has a long history, the negotiations were considered hopelessly failed even before the City of Exeter left the port.
          Quote: Rider
          Where would the Germans be starting an offensive from the Baltic states?
          And you should not make victims out of the Finns, since their claim to Karelia was almost up to the Urals, no one has canceled, or do you not know about it?

          I know that until 1939, in Soviet military planning, Finland was not seen as a hostile state.
        11. Shogun23
          Shogun23 5 October 2013 20: 54
          +1
          But in Finland, the USSR was considered as a hostile state.
        12. Rider
          Rider 5 October 2013 21: 01
          +1
          Quote: Drummer
          the negotiations were considered hopelessly failed even before the City of Exeter left the port.

          in fact, this confirms that no one wanted to sign an agreement with the USSR, and there was nothing to blame everything on Stalin, he played with the cards that were.
          Quote: Drummer
          I know that until 1939

          As you rightly answered above - the Finns considered.
      2. Rider
        Rider 5 October 2013 20: 56
        +2
        Quote: Rider
        Here is a thread on the Golitsyn forum dedicated to plans for the bombing of Soviet oil fields

        well, I read it, but FOR THE FIRST TIME, it doesn’t matter that the idea itself was utopian and unrealizable, the very fact of its existence was pushing the USSR away from England and France.
        and the reaction to its implementation was to build up air defense in the Caucasus.

        and the second necessary steps to carry out this action were nevertheless taken, such as flying around scouts of oil-bearing regions, striking plans developed at French headquarters, and the arrival of the French military in Turkey to conclude an aerodrome agreement.
        as you can see this is more than enough to consider the English / French NOT allies of the USSR.

        Well, here's what else I came across from your exile:Professor Overy spoke in Moscow a couple of weeks ago, showing on the figures that the damage from the Allied bombing ranged from 7 to 10% in various industries over the entire war.
        Realizing that it was not possible to "bomb" the factories, the allies proceeded to destroy the workers' quarters

        this is the question of "Dresden".
  2. Evgan
    Evgan 5 October 2013 18: 03
    -11%
    Regarding the plans of bombing by the British and French Baku. In 1940, it was not the plans of the two neutral powers to attack another neutral country. It was an attempt to protect oneself from the fact that a significant part of Caucasian oil would not fall into Hitler’s hands. In addition, we do not forget that England and France at that moment were at war with Germany, to which we supplied resources.
    In 1942, these plans were tied only to the capture of the Caucasus by Hitler and in no case were directed against the USSR.
    I do not justify the bombing plans, but just want to say that everyone has distinguished themselves. The Britons with the French - when they entered into a Munich agreement and when they purged the battle on the continent, although they could have decided everything in their favor relatively easily in September-October 1939. We, signing the non-aggression pact and cooperating in the economy with Hitler, also put ourselves in very good light.
    In general, the pact has two sides. Pragmatic - he was really justified in terms of ensuring the security of our state, and moral - after all, it was an agreement with Hitler. However, who then looked back at morality ...
  3. chehywed
    chehywed 5 October 2013 18: 29
    +4
    Quote: EvgAn
    after all, it was a contract with Hitler.

    Which we concluded last.
    see post below: Gordey. Today, 08: 34
  4. Evgan
    Evgan 5 October 2013 19: 05
    -3
    Of course. And this removes from us a significant part of moral responsibility for him. But, unfortunately, not all.
  5. Rider
    Rider 5 October 2013 18: 53
    +7
    Quote: EvgAn
    Regarding the plans of bombing by the British and French Baku. In 1940, it was not the plans of the two neutral powers to attack another neutral country. It was an attempt to protect oneself from a significant part of Caucasian oil not falling into Hitler’s hands.

    I advise you to pay attention to the fact that THREE QUARTERS Reich received oil supplies from Romania.
    however, no plans for the bombing of the Ploiesti oil fields were found at that time in England and France.
  6. Evgan
    Evgan 5 October 2013 19: 07
    0
    Now estimate - what were the possibilities of bomber aviation at that time and where the English and French had airfields. Just outline the range of the bombers - and you’ll understand.
  7. Shogun23
    Shogun23 5 October 2013 19: 35
    0
    Sterlings and Halifaxes, could for 3 thousand km. fly, and from Syria to Azerbaijan less than 1,5 km. Plus you can use Iranian territory.
  8. Evgan
    Evgan 5 October 2013 20: 44
    0
    We are talking about the fact that they could reach Baku from Iraq or Iran, and it was much more difficult to do this to Ploiesti.
  9. Shogun23
    Shogun23 5 October 2013 20: 54
    +1
    From Crimea, to Ploiesti a stone's throw.
  10. Shogun23
    Shogun23 5 October 2013 19: 16
    +2
    Quote: Rider
    however, no plans for the bombing of the Ploiesti oil fields were found at that time in England and France.

    The stump is clear, because they belonged to the American company "Standard-Oil", moreover, they did not want to bomb Ploiesti, even from the Crimean airfields in 1941, although such a proposal came from the USSR
  11. Drummer
    Drummer 5 October 2013 19: 22
    0
    Ploiesti was completely bombed by the Americans in the summer of the 44th (by shuttle raids with landing in the Poltava region).
  12. Shogun23
    Shogun23 5 October 2013 19: 30
    +3
    This is already the 44th year, a completely different time.
  13. Rider
    Rider 5 October 2013 19: 31
    +3
    Quote: Drummer
    the Americans completely bombarded their loies in the summer of the 44th (by shuttle raids with a landing in the Poltava region).

    Well, the stump is clear, because they could not allow the USSR to get these deposits.
  14. Drummer
    Drummer 5 October 2013 19: 57
    -4
    Killer logic. But Dresden was also bombed so that the USSR did not go to it?
  15. Rider
    Rider 5 October 2013 20: 17
    +6
    Quote: Drummer
    Killer logic. But Dresden was also bombed so that the USSR did not go to it?


    Dresden was leveled to break the spirit of the German population. and force him to surrender.
    and a kind of revenge for the Ardennes.

    and Ploiesti Americans could get in 43 and even 42 from the airfields in Egypt, Sudan or Iraq.
    but then it was important to bleed the USSR as much as possible
  16. Drummer
    Drummer 5 October 2013 20: 58
    -3
    Quote: Rider
    and Ploiesti Americans could get in 43 and even 42 from the airfields in Egypt, Sudan or Iraq.

    Air raids with extreme range, meager efficiency and high losses. Not surprisingly, they were not produced.
    Quote: Rider
    but then it was important to bleed the USSR as much as possible

    In fact, in 1942 the Americans planned to open a second front in France to divert German forces from the East (Operation Roundup), but it did not work out. There was no question of weakening the already drained USSR even more. This is not a question of morality - pure pragmatism, the risk of defeat is very great.
  17. Rider
    Rider 5 October 2013 21: 12
    +5
    Quote: Drummer

    Not surprisingly, they were not produced.

    First raid on Ploiesti June 1942http://www.nnre.ru/transport_i_aviacija/bombardirovshiki_soyuznikov_1939_1945_sp

    ravochnik_opredelitel_samoletov / p78.php

    but they did not get a continuation, I voiced the reason.
    Quote: Drummer
    In fact, in 1942, the Americans planned to open a second front in France to divert German forces from the East (Operation Roundup),

    well, promising does not mean - marrying, besides, to prove the impossibility of this, the British ruined almost 4000 people in landing on Dieppe (operation anniversary)
    by the way, the time is almost the same with the Ploiesti bombing.
    here is one more proof of the "desire" to help the USSR.
  18. Drummer
    Drummer 5 October 2013 21: 41
    +1
    Quote: Rider
    The first raid on Ploiesti June 1942 http://www.nnre.ru/transport_i_aviacija/bombardirovshiki_soyuznikov_1939_1945_s
    pravochnik_opredelitel_samoletov / p78.phpbut they did not receive a continuation, I voiced the reason.

    Hm. Thank you, I didn’t.
  19. chehywed
    chehywed 5 October 2013 22: 17
    +3
    Quote: Drummer
    Actually, the Americans at 1942 planned to open a second front in France
    ... There was no question of further weakening the already bloodless USSR.

    Someone is lying ...
    If we see that Germany wins, then we should help Russia, and if Russia will win, we should help Germany, and thus let them kill as much as possible, although I do not want under any circumstances to see Hitler in the winners . Harry Truman. New York Times, 24.06.1941

    The ideal outcome of a war in the East would be when the last German would kill the last Russian and stretch himself dead. Randolph Churchill, son of Winston Churchill
  20. Setrac
    Setrac 5 October 2013 20: 59
    +3
    Quote: Drummer
    Killer logic. But Dresden was also bombed so that the USSR did not go to it?

    So.
  21. brelok
    brelok 6 October 2013 08: 22
    0
    Quote: Drummer
    Killer logic. But Dresden was also bombed so that the USSR did not go to it?

    And Dresden is already the cannibalistic inclinations of the British.
  22. Setrac
    Setrac 5 October 2013 20: 59
    0
    Quote: Drummer
    Ploiesti was completely bombed by the Americans in the summer of the 44th (by shuttle raids with landing in the Poltava region).

    So that the Russians don't get it, just like, for example, Dresden. And to everyone who wants the recognition of the "guilt" of the USSR, let Britain and the United States first achieve a confession of guilt. these two countries were fighting for leadership in WWII, they are the main culprits.
  23. Shogun23
    Shogun23 5 October 2013 19: 14
    +1
    Quote: EvgAn
    It was an attempt to protect oneself from the fact that a significant part of Caucasian oil would not fall into Hitler’s hands.

    But what about American oil? The United States traded with Germany much more than ours, and continued to trade even after December 7, 1941.

    In addition, we do not forget that England and France at that moment were at war with Germany, to which we supplied resources.

    But what about the inviolability of another's property? When the British were offered to bomb German industry in the years 39-40, they began to resent that they would not dare to bomb other people's property.

    Quote: EvgAn
    By signing a non-aggression pact and working with Hitler in the economy, we also put ourselves in a not very good light.

    Previously, 100500 times inviting the West to unite against the German threat, but all these proposals were successfully moved by this very West. As a result, Stalin decided to think about saving his country first, and economically Germany was traditionally the most important trading partner for Russia, and again, economically, more than one Soviet Union collaborated economically with Germany.

    Quote: EvgAn
    moral - after all, it was a contract with Hitler

    This was the second major agreement with Germany for the entire period of Hitler’s rule, and how many similar agreements were concluded by Western countries are definitely not enough fingers of both hands. Moreover, their agreements were also military, for the production of weapons and military equipment, their repair and maintenance, etc. While the USSR supplied the raw materials, and how it will be used, this is already a matter for Germany, but you will not judge the metal supplier, from which you made a hammer with which the maniac killed a person?
  24. Evgan
    Evgan 5 October 2013 20: 54
    +1
    Quote: Shogun23
    But what about American oil? The United States traded with Germany much more than ours, and continued to trade even after December 7, 1941.


    Agree that the Americans actively helped the Angles before Pearl Harbor and after. And without this help, the Angles would have been kirdyk. And how do you imagine the bombing of American territory in this situation?
    You say double standards? Of course. And who did not use them then?

    Quote: Shogun23
    But what about the inviolability of another's property? When the British were offered to bomb German industry in the years 39-40, they began to resent that they would not dare to bomb other people's property.


    And here is your lie. In 1940, the Angles had already begun to bomb the Hans. True, liquid - the strength was still not enough then.

    Quote: Shogun23
    Pre 100500 times offering to the West


    Yes, yes, 100500 times you are right. But if 2 “righteous men” made a deal with the devil, this is not an excuse for a third to do the same, is it?
    At the same time I repeat - I think that the pact from a pragmatic position was justified 100%
  25. Shogun23
    Shogun23 5 October 2013 20: 58
    -1
    Quote: EvgAn
    But if 2 "righteous men" made a deal with the devil, this is not an excuse for a third to do the same, is it?

    After the war, the Allies made Hitler the Devil.
  26. Corsair
    Corsair 5 October 2013 21: 29
    +2
    Quote: Shogun23
    After the war, the Allies made Hitler the Devil.

    And having untied the world massacre, destroying millions, the demoniac remained "white and fluffy"?
  27. Shogun23
    Shogun23 5 October 2013 21: 31
    +2
    But Napoleon remained a hero.
  28. Corsair
    Corsair 5 October 2013 22: 35
    +1
    Quote: Shogun23
    But Napoleon remained a hero.

    You should not idealize Napoleon, and he is a "product" of another time.
  29. Proud.
    Proud. 5 October 2013 19: 47
    +5
    Quote: EvgAn
    and collaborating in economics with Hitler, also put themselves in a not very good light.

    In an ordinary, in an ordinary light. As States that are not at war. If we are not at war, then why cannot we trade? Purely business relations. And they did not arise "all of a sudden." The first treaty. The so-called Rapallo. Between (then still) The RSFSR and the Weimar Republic was concluded on April 16, 1922 during the Genoa Conference in the city of Rapallo (Italy). By the way, very necessary. He settled many aspects of relations between Us and Germany (restoration of diplomacy, in full. Refusal of claims, to reimburse the military and non-military expenditures. The Germans recognized the nationalization of the German state. and private property in the RSFSR). April 23, 1926, an agreement confirming Rapal's obligations. The main agreement, dated 1935, for 200 Llama marks. Yes, bound. But! According to it we received industrial equipment, very necessary. Additional to it, from 1938. The agreement from 1939, this is an addition to the trade agreements of 1935 and 1938.
  30. Evgan
    Evgan 5 October 2013 20: 58
    -1
    Then I will say that we are both right. The light is really ordinary for that time - for the same Yankees traded with Germany. But he still pulls a choke from him.
  • Alexander Romanov
    Alexander Romanov 5 October 2013 12: 58
    +4
    Excuse me, but do you read books published in England?
    Quote: Drummer
    Passers-by I advise you to read some book on the history of WWII
    1. Drummer
      Drummer 5 October 2013 14: 32
      -6
      In order to find out that England and France declared war on Germany on September 3, 1939, it’s enough to open a history textbook for the corresponding period, or to hammer a request into Google.
  • Ingvar 72
    Ingvar 72 5 October 2013 14: 29
    +7
    Quote: Drummer
    Minusters advise reading a book on the history of WWII.

    Do you want to advise V. Suvorov?
    1. Shogun23
      Shogun23 5 October 2013 15: 22
      +10
      Ok, cute! Do not give him the name of this illustrious man! Rezun he was, is and will be!
      1. Corsair
        Corsair 6 October 2013 01: 44
        +4
        Quote: Shogun23
        Rezun he was, is and will be!

        The father of this renegade did not forgive the betrayal, actually denying him.
        Since the inception of the idea of ​​treason, he is simply a subject without a name or honor ...
  • vladkavkaz
    vladkavkaz 5 October 2013 19: 42
    +3
    Drummer-Before you advise anyone, read it yourself, at least something different from the collection of fool-rezun, corned beef, falcon, and textbooks on the history of the Second World War.
  • anip
    anip 5 October 2013 22: 31
    +4
    Quote: Drummer
    Minusters advise reading a book on the history of WWII.

    How do you like these authors: Liddelgart, Tippelskirch, Guderian, Goth, Manstein, Fest, Isaev? Read and find, maybe.
  • sanecc
    sanecc 5 October 2013 17: 09
    -4
    and Th minus ten ---- THESE A WRONG CHEL? I DIRECTLY PRUSED FROM THE OBJECTIVITY OF THE ASSESSMENTS - WE ARE BEAUTIFUL AND SMART - OTHER UGLY VALVES
  • kripto
    kripto 5 October 2013 19: 33
    +2
    Go to the library and study literature, and not dump your fantasies here.
  • Dovmont
    Dovmont 5 October 2013 22: 51
    +1
    Drummer They declared war on Germany, but they didn’t take any action against Germany.
  • chehywed
    chehywed 5 October 2013 23: 28
    +1
    Quote: Drummer
    in reality, England and France declared war on Germany two days after the invasion of Poland.

    And these two days fell on the weekend? And what's the difference, they didn’t start fighting, until Hitler attacked them.
  • brelok
    brelok 6 October 2013 07: 54
    +1
    Quote: Drummer
    These are your fantasies, in reality England and France declared war on Germany two days after the invasion of Poland.

    Aha! though not a single cannon fired during the year of this war! "Strange war" remind whose expression is this? .But regularly played football.
  • revnagan
    revnagan 6 October 2013 16: 46
    +1
    Quote: Drummer
    These are your fantasies, in reality England and France declared war on Germany two days after the invasion of Poland.

    Yes, and such military operations were called "zitskrieg"
  • aleshka
    aleshka 6 October 2013 20: 48
    +1
    and what actions did they take besides declaring war ???
  • washi
    washi 5 October 2013 12: 18
    +8
    Quote: Cooper
    At 39 Hitler would have been erased to powder.

    All is correct. Both England and France declared war on him. But why not erased? Stalin was in favor.
    By the way, there was also a Polish-German agreement. And Czechoslovakia in 1938 was Derbanil not only Germany, but also Poland and Hungary.
  • knn54
    knn54 5 October 2013 13: 45
    +8
    -Cooper: At 39 Hitler would be pulverized.
    In the second half of 2 it was unambiguous. Unfortunately, the British managed to convince Hitler to attack the USSR.
    -Drummer KZ: And what is the victory of diplomacy?
    Read the article carefully.
    We went to the border ("Curzon line"), ie no seizure of Polish lands.
    And after the capture of Poland, Hitler "moved" to the West, not us!
    If the war were met at the borders of 1939 (it was ~ 30 km from the border to Leningrad) it would have been much harder.
    PS There is evidence that Hitler flew to London, where the Britons brazenly promised him mountains of gold, right up to the union, and Hess’s flight was a distracting maneuver. It’s not for nothing that the documents of the Foreign Ministry of that period have not been declassified.
  • Shogun23
    Shogun23 5 October 2013 14: 59
    +3
    Yeah, And the dream of all "Western democracies" would come true - the war between the USSR and Germany, and in the end they would feast on the bones of both powers.
  • vladimirZ
    vladimirZ 5 October 2013 13: 20
    +2
    The betrayal and revision of Soviet history, the activities of Stalin IV, including the Moscow Treaty of 1939 between the USSR and Germany (Molotov-Ribentrop Pact), began by the leaders of our state back in Soviet times, first by the stupidity of Khrushchev, and then deliberately, the traitors of the Gorbachev time were agents of US influence Gorbachev and Yakovlev with the campaign.
    Yakovleva Gorbachev introduced the Politburo, appointing him Secretary of the Central Committee for ideology. After Yakovlev was appointed Secretary of the Central Committee for Ideology, an open revision of Soviet history began, including during the Second World War.
    Based on the revisionist "perestroika ideology" prepared by Gorbachev and Yakovlev, the 1989 Congress of People's Deputies condemned the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact by its resolution.
    The same policy, condemnation of the actions of the Soviet leaders during the Second World War, was continued by Yeltsin, and then by his successor in power, Putin, who confirmed the illegality of the "Molotov-Ribentrop Pact" on the 2th anniversary of the outbreak of World War II in Poland.
    As the saying goes, if its leadership officially recognized "the illegality of the Molotov-Ribentrop Pact", what is there to ask foreign leaders who are clearly interested in recognizing the USSR, and accordingly Russia, the aggressor and culprit of World War II together with Nazi Germany? with the corresponding legal consequences of such recognition in the form of financial and territorial compensation.
    After that, the only question that arises is which of our leaders of the state of past and present is the agent of influence of a foreign state, and who is a person who does not give an account of his words.
    1. Ulan
      Ulan 7 October 2013 09: 51
      0
      I completely agree with you. Just one comment. Only a court can recognize someone or something criminal.
      Deputies can only make statements that are their private opinion and no more.
      With regard to the moral side of this matter, it is hardly appropriate to speak about the morality of deputies and leaders of the country. One cannot discuss what is not.
  • slava_sherb
    slava_sherb 5 October 2013 18: 09
    -9
    Until September 1, 39, we had Snemites and there was no common border, and if not the pact, then the Germans did not attack Poland
    1. chehywed
      chehywed 5 October 2013 18: 35
      +2
      Quote: slava_sherb
      and if not a pact, then the Germans did not attack Poland

      Yeah ... And so they planned an attack in a week, mobilized and turned around to attack ... Yeah ...
    2. Shogun23
      Shogun23 5 October 2013 19: 17
      +1
      And you read the plan "Weiss", how much is written there about the influence on the beginning of the war, the position of the USSR?
    3. Ulan
      Ulan 7 October 2013 09: 52
      0
      Study the topic first before issuing such pearls.
  • smile
    smile 5 October 2013 10: 36
    +27
    Drummer
    The USSR did not have allies — the Entente Straets planned the dismemberment and destruction of our country and set Hitler on their fosterling. Shot down a coalition-Germany Poland, Finland, the Baltic states. Finland conducted regular exercises with the Balts to block the Gulf of Finland with help. coastal batteries up to 305 mm, and planned to seize our territory in a mandatory connection with the actions of the Japanese, opened the largest Japanese intelligence center. valid until September 44. So, then, they all did not come out against us as a united front - this is a real victory.
    It is possible to ignore the fundamental change in the state of our armed forces from 39 to 41 only intentionally — all the main types of tank and aircraft namesake that we used during the military technical operations were adopted and put into production precisely during this period. Transfer. or will shame not allow you to admit that you don’t even know this? :))) You don’t know how much we upgraded our machinery at the expense of the Germans during this period?
    Living conditions, this, adnaka, is important, but if we didn’t return our Baltic territories, if we didn’t return part of our territory to the Finns, we would be close to collapse in 41, Leningrad would have been lost. And Leningrad is 25 percent of the industrial potential, this is the millionth liberated group of Nazis, this is the 600 thousandth Finnish army, which would have flooded to Murmansk ... like it? And keep in mind, Finnish aggressive plans for a coalition war have been prepared for 20 years. From that. that we pushed the border. having returned part of their territory, their plans have not changed a bit. I'm not saying that the Germans would be two years longer than the genocide of the population of Ukraine and Belarus, who lived in territories previously occupied by the Poles. A stationary defensive lines showed their inconsistency during the 2 MV - they did not stop anyone anywhere.
    And last, what international image did the USSR have at that time? Target country. which the leading powers of the planet were about to tear to pieces. We did not ruin our relations with any potential ally, but we broke up the anti-Russian coalition, increased our international image, showing our strength and making us reckon with us.
    In view of the foregoing, your conclusions, alas, look like an uncomplicated set of ideological clichés from the time of perestroika, based on nothing. The argument is simply sucked from ... let it be a finger, although I can’t imagine who has such dirty fingers ... :)))
    1. sergey1972
      sergey1972 5 October 2013 15: 01
      +5
      dear smile, here I wanted to enter into a "fight" for a just cause, but you have already done everything. What you write is true and only distant people or European intriguers will dispute and distort these facts. THANK YOU.
      1. smile
        smile 5 October 2013 15: 27
        +2
        sergey1972
        Thank you for your support.
      2. kripto
        kripto 5 October 2013 19: 47
        +2
        I completely agree with you. Here are just deprived of the pleasure of the "fight"))) !!!
  • Uzoliv
    Uzoliv 5 October 2013 10: 39
    +8
    Quote: Drummer
    And what is the victory of diplomacy? The fact that the USSR entered the war without a single ally?

    And who could become an ally of the USSR - England and France? In theory, such a union could have been. But in practice, in my opinion, neither the allies nor the USSR were eager to create such an alliance. Negotiations went neither shakily, nor roll. Allies behaved passively, did not offer specifics. For them, it was a sounding of the soil. In the future, this could lead to something. But we were running out of time. We had a conflict on Khalkhin Gall and no one knew this conflict would grow into a big war or not. Hence the USSR’s position - you don’t want to hell with you, we will conclude an alliance with the Germans. The alliance with the Germans looked interesting: we get territories (and ours — we crossed the Curzon line, and the allies didn’t even protest after our troops entered Poland — for they understood that we were taking our own. Relations deteriorated only after the outbreak of war with the Finns, here then we were kicked out of the League of Nations), again, the war between Germany and the Allies looked interesting, even if they kill each other there - yes it is cynical and cruel, but such a life is either oppressive or bent on you. No one could have imagined that the Germans would outperform the French in three weeks.
    For 39 years, I do not believe in the possibility of an alliance between the USSR and the Union, I can not imagine the Communists and capitalists in one team - at that time. No one thought that the war would be like that. The Germans are of course a serious opponent, but nobody considered that the Germans would be defeated by the Germans or go to the Volga.
    1. Ulan
      Ulan 5 October 2013 11: 30
      +5
      What kind of alliance between the USSR and Germany are we talking about? Maybe you’ll sound what the union treaty was called when it was concluded and against whom it was concluded. It would be nice to voice some of the most important articles ... well, for example, in the event of a military conflict, the Soviet Union exposes 70 infantry divisions, 30 tank divisions, 3000 airplanes, etc. d.
      Or at least a link where you can read the text of this union agreement.
      You can believe it, you can’t believe it, this is an ephemeral category, and I will allow myself to remind you of the agreement of the USSR with France and Czechoslovakia. It is quite a capitalist state.
    2. Drummer
      Drummer 5 October 2013 12: 09
      -14%
      Well, that's about the results, and not about how the future was presented in 1939.
      The bottom line is that the Pact has brought us nothing but problems, and its long-term consequences in the form of hostile Poland and the Baltic countries are felt even now. By the way, independent Ukraine, too, could hardly have formed without the territories cut off in 1939 (vast areas of the south of Russia, Stalin gave Ukraine earlier).
      Quote: Uzoliv
      And who could become an ally of the USSR - England and France? In theory, such a union could have been. But in practice, in my opinion, neither the allies nor the USSR were eager to create such an alliance. Negotiations went neither shakily, nor roll.

      The long way begins with one step - for the USSR, such a step could be a declaration on supporting Poland and the Baltic countries in the event of Gremansky aggression (in May 39 the AIF announced this).
      Quote: Uzoliv
      The alliance with the Germans looked interesting: we get territories (and ours — we crossed the Curzon line, and the allies did not even protest after our troops entered Poland — for they understood that we were taking our own.

      It was better to have good neighborly relations with the Balts and Finns, and leave the Ukrainian and Belarusian nationalists to the Poles. The long-term alliance between Germany and the USSR in 1939 had no chance - all the advantages overlap with the fact that the USSR inevitably has the role of a junior partner in it, and in the future, a raw materials appendage.
      1. Misantrop
        Misantrop 5 October 2013 12: 17
        +8
        Quote: Drummer
        its distant consequences in the form of hostile Poland and the Baltic countries are felt even now.
        Found, damn it, the notorious Slavophiles ... lol You might think that they throughout their history had a different attitude to the Slavs, but it was this pact that made a mess of everything ...
        1. Drummer
          Drummer 5 October 2013 12: 32
          -5
          I’ll tell you more - the Poles and the Slavs themselves, and the Latvians and Lithuanians not far from the Slavs left, in addition, about 30% of the population of the Baltic countries and until 1940 was Russian-speaking - the legacy of the Russian Empire.
          1. Rider
            Rider 5 October 2013 12: 50
            +5
            Quote: Drummer
            I'll tell you more - the Poles and the Slavs themselves


            Here's an example of how the "Slavs" wanted to fight against the USSR

            On December 28, 1938, Counselor at the German Embassy in Poland, Rudolf von Shelia, meets with the newly appointed Polish Ambassador to Iran, Karsho-Sedlevsky. Here is an excerpt from their conversation: “The political perspective for the European East is clear. In a few years, Germany will be at war with the Soviet Union ... For Poland, it is better to completely side with Germany before the conflict, because Poland’s territorial interests in the west and Poland’s political goals in the east, primarily in Ukraine, can only be secured by Polish-German agreement reached in advance. He, Karsho-Sedlevsky, will subordinate his activities as the Polish envoy to Tehran to the realization of this great Eastern concept, because in the end it is necessary to persuade and encourage the Persians and Afghans to play an active role in the future war against the Soviets. ” This, therefore, is a whole concept!

            Or, on December 10, 1938, the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of Poland, Count Schembek, sends an instruction to the Polish ambassador in Moscow Grzybowski: “It is extremely difficult for us to maintain a balance between Russia and Germany. Our relations with the latter are completely based on the concept of the most responsible persons of the Third Reich, who claim that in the future conflict between Germany and Russia Poland will be a natural ally of Germany. "

            And in a December 1938 report from the 2nd (intelligence) department of the General Staff of the Polish Army emphasized: “The dismemberment of Russia lies at the heart of Polish politics in the East ... Therefore, our possible position will be reduced to the following formula: who will take part in the section. Poland should not remain passive at this wonderful historical moment. The task is to prepare well in advance physically and spiritually ... The main goal is to weaken and defeat Russia. ”

            Read more: http://www.km.ru/front-projects/krestovyi-pokhod-zapada-protiv-rossii/raschlenen
            ie-rossii-lezhit-v-osnove-polskoi-pol


            I hope now your illusions about the "Slavic brotherhood" with the Poles will disappear.
            1. smile
              smile 5 October 2013 13: 18
              +1
              Rider
              Hello. Oh, and I, too, gave a certificate from the 2nd department of the General Staff of the Polish Army ... honestly, regardless of you ... :)))
            2. Drummer
              Drummer 5 October 2013 14: 45
              -5
              How does this refute my claim that the Poles are Slavs? Is it somewhere I have written that Russian with a Pole brothers forever? If a neighbor grinds your teeth and says unpleasant things, this is not a reason not to help him in the fight against a common and truly dangerous enemy.
              1. Rider
                Rider 5 October 2013 15: 14
                +4
                Quote: Drummer
                If a neighbor grinds your teeth and says unpleasant things, this is not a reason not to help him in the fight against a common and truly dangerous enemy.


                This phrase makes you seriously worry about the presence of causal relationships.
                Excuse WHOM to help?
                the state about to attack us?
                they were brought to you by their OFFICIAL position, we are ENEMIES for them, moreover, they strongly resist the creation of an anti-Hitler union.
                AND THERE WAS IT AND WAS SO YOU DESIRED STEP ON CREATION OF THE SOVIET POLISH UNION!
                tell you whose fault he did not take place?

                Have you ever read anything on that topic?
                1. Drummer
                  Drummer 5 October 2013 17: 57
                  -4
                  Want to prove that Poland is an opponent comparable to Germany? Will not work.
                  1. Rider
                    Rider 5 October 2013 18: 43
                    +2
                    Quote: Drummer
                    Otite to prove that Poland is an adversary comparable with Germany? Will not work

                    I could tell you a lot of things, but I’ll just ask.
                    you want to say that Poland was an ally of the USSR?
                    and if she (Poland) felt a threat from Germany, then why did not FIRST try to establish allied relations with us?

                    but the answer is simple, and I already voiced it to you.
                    Poland SAMA wanted to attack the USSR.
                  2. kripto
                    kripto 5 October 2013 19: 51
                    +1
                    Moreover, Poland was not averse to chop off a fat piece from Germany.
                  3. Shogun23
                    Shogun23 5 October 2013 20: 05
                    +1
                    They chopped him off and didn’t choke, but they didn’t say thanks either
          2. Shogun23
            Shogun23 5 October 2013 20: 07
            +1
            Quote: Drummer
            If a neighbor grinds your teeth and says unpleasant things, this is not a reason not to help him in the fight against a common and truly dangerous enemy.

            And you tell them did not offer this help? They offered more than once, but the Poles did not accept this help, they seriously hoped for Franco-British guarantees.
      2. Alexander Romanov
        Alexander Romanov 5 October 2013 12: 58
        +2
        Quote: Drummer
        I’ll tell you more - the Poles and the Slavs themselves,

        Now you will definitely not get a visa to Poland laughing
      3. rexby63
        rexby63 5 October 2013 17: 26
        0
        until 1940 it was Russian-speaking


        And also German-speaking. Also the legacy of the Russian Empire. By the way, until 1917 there were more ethnic Germans in the Baltic than Russians. The same German University of Dorpat already means a lot. There were no Russian universities on the territory of the Baltic provinces
      4. Setrac
        Setrac 5 October 2013 21: 11
        0
        Quote: Drummer
        I'll tell you more - the Poles and the Slavs themselves

        They are Catholics, and Catholics, oddly enough, they reject the soul.
  • washi
    washi 5 October 2013 12: 37
    +3
    Poland was always opposed to Russia. (the opposition of Catholicism and Orthodoxy + Poland reached its heyday under the RUSSIAN Jagiellons.) Stalin did not give the Outskirts of the territory (with the exception of the western one). Stalin was against the creation of nat. republics, but succumbed to the opinion of Lenin and the majority of "revolutionaries" who want to have their "subjects" These territories were seized under Kerensky Austrian-German nationalists
    Our country was ready to provide assistance to Czechoslovakia and Romania and Bulgaria. But you will not be forcibly sweet. These prostitutes worked for the English (just like today's ours for Amers)
    Do you know how many daily defectors from the same Baltic were until 1940? Just the best standard of living. Despite the collective farms of the NKVD, etc. And what did Stalin buy from Hitler and presented to Lithuania?
    1. Shogun23
      Shogun23 5 October 2013 14: 50
      0
      Well, not always, but quite a lot. For example, in the XNUMXth century, Tsarevich Alexei Alekseevich had every chance of being elected king of Poland (but alas he died), plus they fought with us several times, and in the Seven Years War they allowed our troops to go through their territory.
  • smile
    smile 5 October 2013 13: 14
    +7
    Drummer
    The bottom line of the Moscow Treaty remains:
    1. the acquired territories did not allow the Germans to achieve much more impressive successes, they simply did not manage to capture Peter, communications stretched for hundreds of kilometers. The armed forces of the Baltic states did not take part in the war on the side of Hitler. Our industry has worked fine and has been updated very well thanks to German supplies. We launched a series of weapons and military equipment, which bore the brunt of the war. The time that the Nazis traveled to Ukraine and the Baltic states is precious days and weeks, which allowed for almost exemplary evacuation of enterprises. We saved the Belarusians and Ukrainians in the territories liberated from the Poles from the two-year genocide - this is millions of lives.
    2. The Declaration on the Defense of Poland, which was our worst enemy and openly preparing a war of aggression with us, including with Germany, causes only mocking laughter.
    Reference: 38 year. From the report of the 2nd department of the General Staff of the Polish Army:
    ... The dismemberment of Russia lies at the heart of Polish politics in the East. Therefore, our possible position will be reduced to the following formula: Who will take part in the section. Poland should not remain passive at this wonderful moment. The main thing is to prepare. The main goal is the weakening and division of Russia ...

    LIKE THIS! Are you the ones you want to protect?

    3. Concerning nationalism in the USSR. In 43, Bandera, under Hitler's patronage, created the "Bloc of Captive Nations" and held the first congress. This is an anti-Russian organization designed to organize interethnic strife and separatism in the USSR. After we finished off Nazism, this organization came under the wing of the CIA with the same name and staff. The organization was expanded into it, thousands of Hitler's collaborators and war criminals joined. It was this organization that coordinated and developed separatism and nationalism in the USSR. All perestroika nationalists in the republics received support from her. most of all Ukrainian and Baltic. The Baltic leaders are not right now. what they do not hide, they boast in memoirs and interviews.
    Google, you’ll be very happy in this Nazi gang, which was later acquired by the successors of the Nazis-USA. full of like-minded people. :)))
    Your last offer gives you a head-reject the Ukrainians, let them make enemies. Refuse the alliance with Belarus-let Russophobia blossom too ... is this your blue dream? Well, you let out, you can’t but know that the more we make concessions, the more they demand from us. Is always. Thank God this time has passed.
    I express my thoughts. that Stalin could be a junior partner to anyone .... :))) do not disgrace. If this is your partner whispered to you, change him to fuck, he lied to you. :)))
    1. Rider
      Rider 5 October 2013 13: 18
      +2
      Quote: smile
      If this is your partner whispered to you, change him to fuck, he lied to you. :)))


      ahhh !!!

      ya by the foot!

      neighing for a long time, shake my hand.
    2. chehywed
      chehywed 5 October 2013 14: 10
      +10
      Quote: smile
      1. the acquired territories did not allow the Germans to achieve much more impressive successes, they simply did not manage to capture Peter, communications stretched for hundreds of kilometers

      A year ago, one Pole complained to me that from the lands joined in the 1939 year, 150-200 thousand Poles were deported to Siberia.
      That's what I told him about this: "In 1939 the border was pushed back by 300 km., And in 1941 the Germans did not have enough to reach Moscow 27 km. And in this regard, I don't give a damn how many Poles were taken to Siberia."
      1. Garysit
        Garysit 5 October 2013 15: 35
        +5
        You would ask him if he knew how many Russian soldiers the Poles killed in their concentration camps after the 1st World War ??????
        1. chehywed
          chehywed 5 October 2013 15: 56
          +8
          Quote: GarySit
          Does he know how many Russian soldiers the Poles ruined in their concentration camps?

          Knows. I already posted the details of some of our conversations with him. He reproached Katynya all the time, and when I presented them for the tortured Red Army men, he answered masterpiece: "YOURSELF DIED" !!!
          This is their interpretation of History.
        2. Shogun23
          Shogun23 5 October 2013 16: 04
          +1
          after the Soviet-Polish
      2. smile
        smile 5 October 2013 15: 36
        +4
        chehywed
        Exactly! Well said! There and the road to them ... and, by the way, it will be said, the Pole lied to you. The criminal element and the potentially dangerous were taken out much less. And so did all the warring parties. And in general, let them say thanks that all the Polish war criminals, besiegers and gendarmes were not shot ... out, only the Germans frolic around Katyn. And then everything was blamed on us ....
  • Shogun23
    Shogun23 5 October 2013 14: 47
    +5
    Quote: Drummer
    The bottom line is that the Pact has brought us nothing but problems, and its long-term consequences in the form of hostile Poland and the Baltic countries are felt even now. By the way, independent Ukraine, too, could hardly have formed without the territories cut off in 1939 (vast areas of the south of Russia, Stalin gave Ukraine earlier).

    And before that Poland was friendly to the USSR? What a news! The beginning of their "friendliness" comes from the Soviet-Polish war, and then its peak probably falls on the Neurath-Lipske pact, when Poland wanted to chop off Eastern Ukraine and Belarus with the support of German weapons.

    Quote: Drummer
    The long way begins with one step - for the USSR, such a step could be a declaration on supporting Poland and the Baltic countries in the event of Gremansky aggression (in May 39 the AIF announced this).

    Did you know that Poland was repeatedly offered this option during the summer of 1939? But the "proud and independent" Poles rejected it ... And the Baltic states agreed to this support and allowed the presence of the Red Army military bases on their territory.

    Quote: Drummer
    It was better to have good neighborly relations with the Balts and Finns, and leave the Ukrainian and Belarusian nationalists to the Poles.

    And it is necessary that they also want these "good neighborly relations." But the Finns, for example, slept and saw dreams about "Great Finland", I already wrote about the Balts, they had such good-neighborly relations that they became part of the USSR VOLUNTARY. And in Western Ukraine and Belarus, not only "nationalists" were, I will even say they were a minority there.

    Quote: Drummer
    The long-term alliance between Germany and the USSR in 1939 had no chance - all the advantages overlap with the fact that the USSR inevitably has the role of a junior partner in it, and in the future, a raw materials appendage.

    What alliance are you talking about?
  • Uzoliv
    Uzoliv 5 October 2013 15: 13
    +5
    Quote: Drummer
    consequences in the form of hostile Poland and the Baltic countries

    Yes, the Poles and before that were hostile. In the 20s and early 30s, Polish intelligence carried out sabotage on the territory of the USSR. And this fact is not denied even by liberal historians. At Echo of Moscow there was a cycle of programs called the Price of Victory. There was a program dedicated to the pre-war relations of Poland and the USSR, there it is. Relations between Poland and the USSR before the war can be described in one word - hatred.
    Quote: Drummer
    for the USSR, such a step could be a declaration on supporting Poland and the Baltic countries

    Given the fact that the Allies conducted military operations after the German attack on Poland, the USSR could be in a situation of dragging chestnuts out of the fire for others.
    Quote: Drummer
    The long-term alliance between Germany and the USSR in 1939 had no chance

    So Stalin understood this.

    I can partly agree with you that the pact did not bring the dividends for which they were counting. But in that situation, not everything depended on the USSR. Negotiations are mutual, it’s difficult to negotiate with people who do not particularly want to talk with you. What did the Poles ask for security guarantees from Germany from the USSR - no. Or the foreign ministers of the Allies crawled at the doors of our Foreign Ministry with proposals for a military alliance - either. And they had to do it. Because a major war didn’t give them anything good. England entered the First World War as a creditor to the United States, and left the war already as a debtor. The following algorithm is obvious. I understand they did not want to fight. After the victory from Germany there is nothing to take; there are no colonies, to rob her with reparations - they robbed her in 20 years, the result was that in the impoverished Germany the position of the Communists grew sharply. And communist Germany is a terrible dream of capitalism. So they pacified her, they all pulled and pulled and reached.
    1. Drummer
      Drummer 5 October 2013 18: 26
      -1
      Quote: Uzoliv
      So Stalin understood this.

      Not at all sure. Look at the instructions given to Molotov during the November 1940 meeting - it was a question of a favorable for the USSR division of spheres of influence in the Middle East (Turkey, Iran, Iraq) as a fee for entering the war on the Axis side.
    2. kotvov
      kotvov 5 October 2013 18: 42
      +1
      No, they sent some secondary ones, I don’t even know what to call them. I think they just wanted to feel it, but that was all. And actually the policy of England and France was in setting Germany against the USSR. SUMMARY: this is the most, drummer, , does not know or does not want to know the truth, in general he is a dumbass.
  • rexby63
    rexby63 5 October 2013 17: 18
    +1
    In the bottom line, the Pact brought us nothing but problems, and its long-term consequences in the form of hostile Poland and the Baltic countries


    Well, they have already indicated here that this is obvious nonsense. In the period from 1920 to 1939, Poland was the USSR's probable opponent No. 1. This is not news to anyone. And to Voroshilov’s question on 14.08.1939/XNUMX/XNUMX about the possibility of corridors through the territory of Poland, both Drax and Dumenk unanimously answered that this was impossible. For what reason - it is impossible - no one began to specify, neither the Soviet side, nor the Anglo-Saxons with the French. Everything was clear. And here you are, without hesitation, declare some potential friends. Take history lightly
  • Farvil
    Farvil 5 October 2013 10: 50
    +1
    and the fact that the British and the paddlers were preparing an attack on the USSR before Hitler is a fact, what the hell are the allies, we didn’t have them when and if there were prostitutes and.
    1. Shogun23
      Shogun23 5 October 2013 15: 20
      0
      Well, as far as I remember, according to their documents, these are defensive plans, in case of the union of the USSR and Germany.
  • rexby63
    rexby63 5 October 2013 11: 21
    +2
    These are only the simplest, immediate consequences of PMR


    I did not understand how the pact affected the development of the tank industry and the training of command personnel. Both this and the other obviously need more time than 2 years from the 39th to the 41st
    1. Ulan
      Ulan 5 October 2013 11: 34
      +2
      If we take it as an axiom that the tank industry in the USSR and the training of command personnel began only after the signing of the pact, then the influence is really not decisive.
      But for this you need to forget that it began much earlier and the time for development was not two years, but much more.
      Development did not start after the signing of the pact, but by signing increased the time for the already ongoing development, for its intensification.
  • bistrov.
    bistrov. 5 October 2013 11: 45
    +4
    Quote: Drummer
    And what is the victory of diplomacy? The fact that the USSR entered the war without a single ally?

    What allies? Are you flying in the clouds? The entire capitalist world only dreamed of destroying the USSR with the help of Hitler. Actually, it was created for this. But Hitler deceived the "hopes" of the European imperialists and turned his weapons against them in the first place. It was here that they rushed in, trying to get the USSR as "allies", knowing full well that only he could break Hitler's neck. Which ultimately happened. Then what model line did Hitler update? He simply appropriated weapons to France, Czechoslovakia, etc., for example, more than 400 Czech light tanks LT-38, which amounted to more than half of all light tanks of the Wehrmacht during the attack on the USSR.
  • Jaros81
    Jaros81 5 October 2013 13: 25
    +3
    What is the victory of diplomacy? The fact is that we were not drawn into the war in 1939. The fact is that on August 12, 1939, negotiations began between France, Britain and the USSR. The Soviet leadership foresaw a war between Poland and Germany, therefore, it was not unreasonable that they demanded passes through Poland in order to come into direct contact with the forces of Germany. Our diplomats have put this at the forefront of the formation of any union. But what are our future "allies" doing? They send people to negotiations who have no right to conclude any agreement with the USSR. General Dumenc, the head of the French mission, had at least a mandate and proposed a scheme for mobilizing the French army, but he was eliminated along the aisles. The British generally "distinguished themselves" - they sent retired Admiral Drax WITHOUT POWERS AND MANDATE AT ALL !!!!

    But the most interesting is not this, but the fact that he stated:

    If Poland and Romania do not require assistance from the USSR, they will soon become simple German provinces, AND THEN the USSR WILL DECIDE HOW TO COME WITH THEM.

    Negotiations dragged on (Poland did not want to provide passes). On August 20, Hitler appealed to Stalin to receive Ribbentrop to sign the Non-Attack Pact. On August 21, the head of the Soviet delegation Voroshilov did not receive the main answer regarding the aisles and curtailed negotiations. On August 23, the Pact was signed.

    And about VPK-T-34 and KV, have been mass-produced since 1940, as well as the MIG-1, Yak-1, and other types of weapons
    1. Jaros81
      Jaros81 5 October 2013 13: 53
      +2
      In addition, I want to say: Ribbenttrop is not some admiral, this is the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Third Reich
  • Shogun23
    Shogun23 5 October 2013 15: 03
    0
    You dear, look everything through the prism of war, that is, you already know what happened then, but answer one question: How much, in our time, can last in a war against the United States, say India or Iran?
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. Jaros81
      Jaros81 5 October 2013 15: 55
      0
      Who cares?
      1. Shogun23
        Shogun23 5 October 2013 17: 59
        0
        There is an up arrow, which shows to whom and where the answer goes
  • kripto
    kripto 5 October 2013 19: 30
    +2
    Let me find out about what are the likely allies of the USSR in 1939-1941. You speak? Name at least one state in pre-war Europe that even with a big stretch could be considered as an ally. A huge minus to you for misinterpreting historical reality.
  • Setrac
    Setrac 5 October 2013 20: 33
    +2
    Quote: Drummer
    And what is the victory of diplomacy? The fact that the USSR entered the war without a single ally?

    We have two allies - the army and the navy. An example of Poland is not an indicator for you?
  • Sokolowik
    Sokolowik 5 October 2013 21: 53
    +4
    Drummer. Questions are answers.
    1.Question: Who and for what created the Third Reich as it was by 1939?
    Answer: The elite of Great Britain and the USA to counterbalance the growing power and influence of the USSR, and in a special period as the vanguard of aggression against the USSR (And with the active military support of sponsors).
    Total: The alignment of the parties; USSR- Germany + Italy + Japan (Having Great Britain, France, USA and other European and not only European trifles ....
    100% defeat for the USSR.
    2. Question: Why was the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact signed and what did he give to the parties?
    Answer: The German elite (and not Hitler) did not trust their sponsors. Only by defeating their neighbors in increasing military power (Czechoslovakia, Anschluss of Austria, Poland ... France, Great Britain) Germany, having secured her back, could fight with the USSR based on a subordinate European base. A military clash with the USSR in 1939, Germany simply could not stand it .... (Sponsors, of course, would come to the rescue
    and the Soviet Union figured out .... but with the idea of ​​world domination would have to part)
    The USSR elite (and not Stalin) perfectly understood the alignment of interests of all parties and played on it .... they correctly calculated that war with Germany could not be avoided but who would decide the outcome of the war in allies.
    Total: The alignment of the parties; the USSR, Great Britain, USA, France, China and other world trifles - the axis Germany + Italy + Japan and other European trifles.
    !!!100%!!! rout of axis countries !!!
    World diplomacy of all times and peoples has never known such success and still does not know it! (Do you think Drummer, why in the world press there is so much dirt and misinformation poured on the USSR about the Molotov-Ribentrop Pact ....)
  • Rakti-kali
    Rakti-kali 5 October 2013 22: 38
    +2
    Quote: Drummer
    And what is the victory of diplomacy? The fact that the USSR entered the war without a single ally?

    The victory of diplomacy lies in the fact that without a single serious ally (well, do not count the "mighty" Mongolian army as a serious "additional aid"), the USSR entered the war (in general, inevitable) much later than the main "players" and from the positions of much more profitable than those that were before the victory of diplomacy.
    Quote: Drummer
    Prevention of war would be a victory, a good result would be a quick defeat of Germany, delaying a war can only be called a success with big reservations.

    Immediately I remembered the anecdote: - "... it would be so big, but grab some honey ..." ...
    And how would the USSR prevented the war or quickly defeated Germany, in conditions when the main "superpowers" of that time stubbornly attributed the USSR to the objects of politics, and by no means to its subjects, and the first "offended" by Hitler were ready to cut their throats, but not let The Soviets either simply planned aggression against the USSR on the side of their "offender" Hitler.
    Quote: Drummer
    By itself, gaining time would make sense if the Soviet military-industrial complex developed faster than the German one (one could catch up), but in reality it was the other way around - Germany for 1939-41 completely updated the range of main types of weapons, while in the USSR rearmament was only it began.

    That here is not in "V" business, here "PC" had to be at least some sort of set up ... and the army from a hundred thousandth volunteer militia into at least a fit instrument of a big war.
    Quote: Drummer
    The Red Army was also unable to take advantage of the time - as a result of conflicting reforms, growth diseases, and personnel shortages, its combat effectiveness even decreased by 1941.

    It is better to have 10.000 fighters in one division than their own in 100 partisan units. The combat readiness of the Red Army as a whole, by 1941, compared with 1938, increased significantly, despite the sagging level of command personnel - the quantity grew into quality.
  • pravednik
    pravednik 6 October 2013 06: 46
    +1
    G. Udarnik, and which states were allies of the USSR at that time? And how did we ruin our relationship with them? USA, France and UK? Those countries that first dreamed of destroying the USSR with the help of Germany, and then dividing them together like a pie. And this treaty of not attack spoiled their entire plan. And now these stupid attacks on Russia are due to anger that did not work out destroy our MOTHERLAND. And people like you help them with your stupid and treacherous thoughts (learn history).
  • Jager
    Jager 6 October 2013 21: 36
    +2
    I wonder if there could be allies in the USSR at that time AT ALL. England, France or the USA? I do not consider the rest - almost all of Europe was under Germany, the rest under the USA or England. While China did not exist at all, it burned in a civil war and at the same time in a war with the Japanese. Ideologically, the Union was ALWAYS one, with few exceptions.
    I wonder what weapons Germany updated for 39-41? In terms of armaments, the USSR left the Germans far behind (another question is that there was not enough time for development before the war). Or did they not create the "Panther" in the form and likeness of the T-34? Or did they not accept our magnificent F-22? Or did you not experience the power of BM-13 on your own skin? Or did they not eat the earth during the Il-2 raids? And what about the SVT-40? Of course, they also had good examples. We had only our own industry, a start-up, inexperienced and frankly frail in places. The industrial skeleton has been created, but has not yet been overgrown with "meat".
    Stalin hoped to delay the war even at the beginning of 1942, and this was calculated on the regrouping of troops. Entire armies were created and relocated in weeks! This is a daunting task, given the distance, the road network and the transport facilities. Hitler was at times easier in this regard.
    And about the "prepared line of fortifications" - did the Maginot Line help the French a lot? or Mannerheim? URs have lost their combat value. Yes, Brest fought, but it ended up far behind the German lines.
    Our "dim-witted" generals were far from idiots (at least not all).
    The price of victory does not have. She is priceless. Having destroyed the moral foundation of the Victory, Russia will collapse. This is perhaps the only thing that unites us yet.
  • 225chay
    225chay 5 October 2013 09: 33
    +5
    Quote: poccinin
    Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. was a logical victory of Soviet diplomacy. everyone understood that war was inevitable. And it was necessary to take time to rearm the army and navy.

    +++ 1000 want to rewrite History!
    Insolently, the Saxon creatures fed and financed Hitler and incited him against the USSR.
  • Coward
    Coward 5 October 2013 10: 41
    +2
    Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact

    Let us nevertheless use the official name of the document, and not its pseudonym coined by Westerners.
    1. Walking
      Walking 5 October 2013 16: 30
      +2
      In my opinion, a non-aggression pact with Germany was needed at that time.
  • sanecc
    sanecc 5 October 2013 17: 06
    0
    I agree with something.
  • starshina78
    starshina78 5 October 2013 21: 55
    +4
    The whole West tries to talk about the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, but is silent about the conspiracy with Hitler of France and England in the Sudetenland of the Czech Republic. It was with the consent of England and France that Hitler first occupied the Sudetenland, and then the whole of Czechoslovakia, then Austria followed, and again silence from France and England. The hypocrisy of Western politics is sometimes off scale. All those who consider the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact illegal and contrary to international law are hypocrites, and those who are residents of Russia (members of Memorial and other crap, which starts to get heartburn at the mention of the USSR) are generally enemies of Russia. It is correctly written that now they are trying to rewrite the history of the times of the USSR, showing him as a kind of monster devouring everyone and everything, but they are unlikely to succeed. As long as those who taught history from the textbooks of the USSR, who lived in the USSR and know the history of the country, are still alive, correspondence history will not work.
  • peter_shchurov
    peter_shchurov 6 October 2013 21: 05
    0
    And what, the glued tanks in the summer of 1941 greatly helped the Red Army?

    The Germans, I read, strongly respected the Soviet regimental 76-mm guns, the benefit and the ammunition for them
    it was captured in large quantities.
  • FC SKIF
    FC SKIF 5 October 2013 08: 16
    +7
    The end of the 30's is a complex and controversial time. and blaming Russians alone is somehow ridiculous. In general, then it was not clear against the coalition of which states we had to fight. It may be recalled that the same England seriously planned to carry out air raids on the Baku oil fields, our Western allies all changed, did not go to a direct anti-Hitler alliance, Poland played something in geopolitics, half the Europe gladly fell under the Germans, and to blame everyone Of course, Stalin.
    1. smile
      smile 5 October 2013 09: 51
      +8
      FC Skiff
      I will supplement it. England and France did not just plan to strike at the oil fields of Baku and Grozny. Until the German attack on France, there was a concentration of aviation on their Mediterranean bases. Several dozen reconnaissance missions were carried out, aerial photography was carried out. Specific goals are assigned and allocated. The Germans in France seized documents about this operation and mockingly published them in the press.
      By the way. ours also knew about this, and also prepared for retaliatory measures — aerial aerial photography of the air bases from which they were planning to bomb us was also carried out, routes were developed and tested. on which we gathered for them on a return visit.
      And Poland did not just play geopolitics, she planned to seize our territory right up to the Black Sea. First, along with Hitler, and then, since spring 39, along with the Anglofranzusami.
      According to the article.
      The author, of course, is right. But it is bewildering that she is trying not to notice that at present the attitude and policies of the country's leadership are the opposite of those that were in 1989 under the Elbon. Our thought, and behind that, the humpback and the ebon came to recognize a lot of things and the pact and Katyn .... Comrade Yakovlev, by the way, seriously suspected that he was an enemy agent-Humpbacked ordered to stop development when the KGB predictor stuck to him .. .... And now we have practically moved away from the policy of concessions — it was a cardinal change in our position that prevented the European Court of Human Rights from last year in satisfying the Poles’s claims that we were guilty of the deaths of their gendarmes, officers, besiegers and other war criminals who were shot whether the Germans in 41 in the Goat Mountains (later the Poles named the place of destruction of Katyn. although to this village there is quite far away, I just liked the name :)))) After Pu's Munich speech, the concessions in these matters ended completely and irrevocably.
      1. Snoop
        Snoop 5 October 2013 12: 08
        +2
        But what about the recognition of the execution of Poles in Katyn by Medvedev and Putin?)))) Nothing has changed since the EBN ..
        1. smile
          smile 5 October 2013 15: 53
          +3
          Snoop
          I don’t know about the bear, I have not heard. but Putin was forced to talk about it while dancing on Polish bones. which the Poles were stalking in Katyn and later. when Kaczynski was killed, Pu didn’t say that we were guilty, he acknowledged the tragedy, but there was something bukhtel that they all suffered, I don’t remember exactly - but imagine that moment. All of Poland stood on its ears, there was a powerful rush that we wrote it off, on the other hand, since there was a Kaczyński gang on the plane - Russophobes closest to him, moderate Polish parties had a chance to seize power (it happened). Moderate Polish parties exhorted their populations, saying that the Russians were not to blame, they mourn with us that something was past. we must live today and build good neighborly relations.
          Or would you like Pu to send them to hell, in a word, enthroning the surviving pathological Russophobe Kaczynski to the throne?
          Putin acted as a politician. And I remind you, it was during Vova that the position of our state changed dramatically during Vova, the European Court refused to satisfy a package of dozens of Polish lawsuits, which would then be a precedent. So please look deeper.
      2. chehywed
        chehywed 5 October 2013 16: 40
        +3
        Quote: smile
        which the Germans shot in the 41 year in the Goat Mountains

        I got tired of explaining this to my Polish grandfather. Why shoot the Poles near Smolensk, if in Siberia there are a lot of secluded places where they still would not have been found. And there is no need to spend ammunition, they would gobble up each other.
        But they believe Goebbels, but we do not. Yes, it is understandable Goebbels "flashed his skates", with him bribes are smooth. And from Russia I want to shake the loot.
    2. Ulan
      Ulan 5 October 2013 11: 36
      +4
      Do not forget about the tension in the East. There was a real threat of war on two fronts.
      In the west against the European coalition, the composition of which was unclear and in the east against Japan.
  • Admiral 013
    Admiral 013 5 October 2013 08: 26
    +4
    Disgraced the same way? Full der.mo! Everyone knew that there would be a war and each prepared in his own way. The USSR was looking for allies in the west and it seemed to work out, but Czechoslovakia was given to Hitler to be torn to pieces and the indecision of the Western countries decided everything, they agreed that you just need to feed the brazen beast without worrying about the consequences.
    1. Ulan
      Ulan 5 October 2013 10: 25
      +6
      This is not indecision, it is a fully conscious and clearly pursued policy.
  • Proud.
    Proud. 5 October 2013 08: 34
    +9
    At that time, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin published an article in the Polish press - Gazeta Wyborcza, which many Russian media quoted. Let us cite excerpts from it: “... Without any doubt, we can fully condemn the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, concluded in August 1939.
    Excuse me, but are there any doubts? For whom are such confessions? Which obviously are not good for us? We, as a Country, have nothing to blame!
    But a year earlier, France and England signed a well-known treaty with Hitler in Munich, destroying all hopes of creating a united front against fascism. ”
    Yes, they have already picked it up with this "Munich"! Why do not they remember the "Non-aggression Pact" between Poland and Germany (Pilsudski-Hitler Pact) of January 26, 1934? The Franco-German Declaration on Non-Aggression, dated December 6, 1938? The French politician Paul Reynaud wrote about the results of these negotiations: “... the impression was that from now on German policy would be aimed at combating Bolshevism. The Reich made it clear that he had a desire for expansion in an eastern direction ... ". The Anglo-German Declaration of 1938, a declaration of non-aggression signed by British Prime Minister N. Chamberlain and German leader A. Hitler on September 30, 1938 in Munich immediately after the conclusion of the Munich Agreement of 1938. All these" declarations " In essence, treaties gave Hitler carte blanche for hostile actions against the USSR. In short. They shouldn't try. They would shut up. We are not to blame for anyone, for nothing! We have no "national shame"! We defended ourselves as best we could! And all these crying Europiodes, let them go through the forest, fields and swamps!
    1. Ingvar 72
      Ingvar 72 5 October 2013 09: 03
      +6
      Quote: Be proud.
      “... Without any doubt, we can justifiably condemn the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, concluded in August 1939.

      Vova, as always, in her repertoire, both ours and yours.
    2. Asgard
      Asgard 5 October 2013 09: 30
      +5
      Here you are, the ready President of Russia!
      Victor is much more oriented in politics and law. laws than a "sun-faced patriot" Vova .... And how the media are presented ...
      Well, the media understands why the "figure" of the Resident is more stupid and the more he rests in Sochi with gymnasts, they are better ...
      They will get more on dubious privatization deals ...
      More People will be deceived, robbed, killed ..... (Russian People)
      Then they will deal with the President as they know how)))))
      A fool ...... that repents for the shots of the Poles in Katyn (with German ammunition))) condemns the Ingenious and only builder of the Country, whom Vovik is betraying ..... (with all his might)))

      Fools in power ... on the Roads of Fate)))
      When is Victoria waiting for us ???
    3. smile
      smile 5 October 2013 10: 04
      0
      Gordey
      Everything is simple here. Vova then tried to establish relations with the Russophobic government of Poland, which unleashed at that time unbridled Russophobian hysteria, which was not similar to modern Poland ... it was only in the period from 1918 to 39 years. they say you don’t need to tear up the past, we are all not without sin. In such a situation, calling a spade a spade in plain text means causing a storm of indignation of the entire Polish population. By the way, a hysteria broke out over his appeal, but so on. I note that there were enough Poles who took his appeal positively — I spoke with the Poles at that time — many agreed — well, they say, everything was not without sin — that is, the goal was partially achieved, so it was an excellent POLITICAL move.
      Of course, this will also distort me, but such is the diplomatic language - and so it was already a breakthrough, if we compare it with the position of the USSR in the late period and, especially, the Elbon, when we recognized our crime and sprinkled ashes on our heads as soon as possible .... and impossibility. So that Vova turned out to be a great patriot than the leadership of the USSR.
      1. Ingvar 72
        Ingvar 72 5 October 2013 14: 26
        +1
        Quote: smile
        so it was a great POLITICAL move.

        It reminds the actions of a prostitute - I’ll give it here, I’ll give it there too, but I don’t need it in the ass. AND wassat once in the ass did not give, well done.
        1. smile
          smile 5 October 2013 16: 00
          +2
          Ingvar 72
          This resembles the actions of a normal politician who defends the interests of his country through diplomatic methods. If you look at some of the figures who criticize him and compare with Vova, in your terminology they are only suitable for a brothel for passive bestiality .... and then, the country benefits from this-zero. But Pu, by his statement, has disposed a part of the Poles to himself and did not allow the pathological Russophobe Kaczynski to come to power, if this is not good, then what is good?
          1. Ingvar 72
            Ingvar 72 5 October 2013 16: 29
            +2
            Quote: smile
            If you look at some of the figures who criticize him and compare with Vova, in your terminology they are only suitable as a brothel for passive bestiality ....

            Wow... belay I did not expect such ingenuity from you. But you are right, everything is relative. laughing
            1. smile
              smile 5 October 2013 17: 17
              +1
              Ingvar
              And then! :))) Thank. + :)))
              :))) I just try to keep abreast of the latest European realities :))) I almost got mad when I found out that there are such people in Holland and Germany ... :))) By the way, the local animal defenders are very indignant at this, they are protesting, distribute relevant leaflets with touching photos of animals and angry texts ... :))) So, I didn’t have to invent anything ... :)))
  • Grbear
    Grbear 5 October 2013 08: 39
    +11
    Abram asks Joni.
    A: Is black a color? D: Color.
    A: Is white the color? D: Color.
    A: You see, Vanya, I sold you a color TV.

    Russia has nothing to repent of before the world. If there is any fault, then she is in front of her people, and not of Russia, but of some figures. And we will deal with them ourselves.

    MOTHER cannot be guilty and not her children give her to scold.
  • Far East
    Far East 5 October 2013 08: 48
    +3
    “Russia” with its richest reserves, and of course its territory, did not let almost all of Europe and America sleep peacefully! And nobody wanted to get involved with Russia! but then the devil jumped out of the snuffbox hitler.nu and then you all know about small britain, americosia, italy and the like. and how it all ended! and there are still many black spots in history, and untrue! hi
    1. smile
      smile 5 October 2013 10: 08
      +1
      Far East
      Hitler did not jump out like a devil out of a snuffbox - he was raised and nurtured by the British and Americans in this snuffbox. Starikov wrote very well about this in the book "Who forced Hitler to attack Stalin" .... Although I do not like Starikov because he became a galimous populist, barely got into politics, but this book is perhaps one of the best about who and how he raised Hitler, even though there are a couple of dubious conclusions ...
      1. Far East
        Far East 5 October 2013 11: 01
        +1
        Quote: smile
        smile (

        Vladimir, all right, I just did not reveal the essence of my thoughts! you corrected me good hi
        1. smile
          smile 5 October 2013 13: 22
          +1
          Far East
          Sergey, let’s better add, rather than correct. I like it more. :)))
          1. Far East
            Far East 6 October 2013 02: 57
            0
            Quote: smile
            Sergey, let’s better add, rather than correct. I like it more.

            OK. hi
  • andrei332809
    andrei332809 5 October 2013 09: 00
    +5
    but why do the zadapodus not remember their shame (agreed to shame out of greed?) when they surrendered Czechoslovakia to Hitler? How did the Czechs rob the Czechs arm in arm with Hitler? of course, we are no stranger to the selectivity of the memory of the "civilized", but they went to the dupa
    1. smile
      smile 5 October 2013 10: 12
      +1
      andrei332809
      I think the Chesi refused our help when they realized that France and England, their masters, would not come to help. and they twisted their hands ... because we could not get to Czechoslovakia without the consent of Poland. which catfish ground on Czechs. By the way, as a result of the capture of Teszyn, the industrial potential of Poland grew by a third.
    2. Ulan
      Ulan 5 October 2013 10: 38
      +5
      And who is the most screaming about the equal responsibility of Germany and the USSR?
      The Anglo-Saxons, who brought Hitler to power and nourished this beast with well-defined goals.
      Then the Poles, who were going to share the USSR with Hitler and aspire to Ukraine. Something about this they are keeping quiet today.
      They also contributed a lot to prevent the emergence of a united front in Europe against Hitler.
      Who else? Balts, now glorifying Nazi criminals.
      Who else are all Romania, Hungary, who were allies of Hitler, who, together with the Nazis, killed, robbed and raped on our land and only in time jumped miraculously escaped the Nuremberg Tribunal.
      Good "judges"!
      And these fascist mongrels, today they are trying to shift from a sick head to a healthy one.
      We do not have a true national leader capable of protecting our history, our fathers and grandfathers, our truth, not letting us humiliate and rebuff any bastard.
  • borisjdin1957
    borisjdin1957 5 October 2013 09: 21
    +2
    from the Don.
    that the muzzles are turned back by the writers and their customers when it comes to: the Munich agreement:! How did this shobla insist; exceptional!
  • Valery Neonov
    Valery Neonov 5 October 2013 09: 33
    +3
    Russia has nothing to repent of before the world- and more .. WORLD BEFORE RUSSIA, USSR, RUSSIA MUST Apologize! yes soldier hi
    Tired with their inclinations to introduce their "tsennosti" .... yeah. stop
  • pahom54
    pahom54 5 October 2013 09: 38
    +1
    I quote: ... "Today, the urgent task is to restore Russia's authority in the world and strengthen Russian statehood. With a powerful liberal lobby in the country's political establishment, this is not easy to do, but it is necessary ..." ...
    No matter how you look at history, they always try to mix Russia with shit ... Wouldn’t it turn out that in another eleven years Russia will be declared responsible for the appearance of Hitler and for conceiving the arson of World War II ??? The British are rolling a barrel at us, but they themselves don’t remember how much nasty things they did with their diplomacy ??? And I’m silent about the USA.
    So, the phrase cited at the beginning is urgent at the present stage of development of both world and Russian. I can only emphasize: first of all, it is necessary to carry out in my own country, among my people, but the opinion of Western Moseks can also be pooh .. eh ...
  • Ulan
    Ulan 5 October 2013 09: 54
    +5
    Excellent article. It would be yes to the leadership of Russia in the ears.
    Undoubtedly, the conclusion of the "Non-Aggression Pact (this is the correct name of the pact) is a diplomatic and political victory of the USSR, which made it possible to gain additional time and prevent the formation of a united western front against the USSR.
    The West outplayed itself. Trying in every possible way to direct Hitler’s aggression against the USSR, they foiled the signing of the Soviet-French-English treaty to counter German aggression in Europe. Moreover, Poland also put its feet to this.
    As a result, driving the USSR into a hopeless situation, the Western countries were forced to enter into an agreement with Germany.
    With this step, the USSR violated the plans of the West and outplayed it.
    It was not for nothing that Churchill called the conclusion of the pact "Britain's largest diplomatic defeat of the 20th century."
    As regards the entry of the Red Army into the territory of western Ukraine and Western Belarus, let the Poles thank their allies, who set them up and brazenly threw them, feeding Hitler.
    The same Churchill said about the introduction of the Red Army - by this step the USSR practically created a second front against Germany. During the French campaign, Hitler was forced to keep more than 20 divisions against the USSR.
    1. smile
      smile 5 October 2013 10: 46
      +1
      Ulan
      It was a cardinal change in the policy of the country's leadership in comparison with the perestroika of the USSR and the Elbon period that enabled the appearance of such articles. So. that with the ears of our leadership everything is fine now ... if people like Dimon are not outweighed there. The claims to Putin in this regard are very small, and the merits are undeniable - it is precisely his merit that people like pork land ceased to form the attitude of the people in the media - now there are much more reverse materials, people are recovering from unconsciousness. And to be honest, you can’t ignore this.
      1. Ulan
        Ulan 5 October 2013 11: 44
        +2
        I don’t argue that a turn has been outlined. But we are maximalists, I want everything at once, especially after almost 20 years of humiliation and timelessness.
        Yes, articles began to appear, but at the same time, the opposite side continued its destructive activities.
        1. smile
          smile 5 October 2013 13: 24
          +1
          Ulan
          Well then. that I want everything at once, it’s yeah ... I also want to. And further. to burn a spotted one with Chubais at the stake, like godly Satanic offspring ... :))) I will not argue with you, because I agree.
  • poccinin
    poccinin 5 October 2013 10: 03
    +3
    Quote: Drummer
    And what is the victory of diplomacy? The fact that the USSR entered the war without a single ally? Prevention of war would be a victory, a good result would be a quick defeat of Germany, delaying a war can only be called a success with big reservations.
    By itself, gaining time would make sense if the Soviet military-industrial complex developed faster than the German one (one could catch up), but in reality it was the other way around - Germany for 1939-41 completely updated the range of main types of weapons, while in the USSR rearmament was only it began.
    The Red Army was also unable to take advantage of it - as a result of contradictory reforms, growth diseases and personnel starvation, its combat effectiveness even decreased by 1941. The regrouping of troops from traditional places of deployment to the freshly joined western regions of Ukraine, Belarus and the Baltic states added problems - everyone was busy settling out, living conditions sharply worsened (even former Polish prisons adapted to barracks, but many lived in the field), and finally the prepared line of fortifications was abandoned, they didn’t have time to build a new one.
    These are only the simplest, immediate consequences of the PMR, not to mention the decline in the international image, spoiled relations with probable allies, and so on.
    RUSSIA still has no allies.
    1. kaktus
      kaktus 5 October 2013 11: 49
      +1
      two allies, as always - the army and navy soldier
    2. Shogun23
      Shogun23 5 October 2013 15: 17
      +3
      And we don't really need them, because in most wars, our "allies" ended up throwing us hard, either leaving us to fight alone (as the Austrian women did), or in the end were ready to attack Russia, if only she did not become stronger than it was (there are enough examples here, take at least the Napoleonic Wars)
      1. chehywed
        chehywed 5 October 2013 16: 15
        +2
        Quote: Shogun23
        or in the end they were ready to attack Russia, if only it did not become stronger than it was (there are enough examples here, take at least the Napoleonic wars)

        Napoleon had no doubt that the Austrian emperor Franz and the Prussian king Friedrich Wilhelm III, to save whom the Russian soldiers had shed so much blood in 1805, 1806, 1807, to no avail, will certainly betray Russia and help her to smash. Nevertheless, Friedrich Wilhelm III surprised Napoleon: it turned out that the Prussian king was not only ready to speak out against Russia together with Napoleon, but already in advance he was asking his imperial majesty very much that his imperial majesty bestowed him upon the victory over Russia the entire Baltic region to Pskov .

        Napoleon almost never laughed in his lifetime, and even very rarely smiled. But then the sullen emperor cheered up. “However, what a great scoundrel this Prussian king is all the same!” Napoleon said laughing heartily when his minister, the Duke of Bassano, informed him of Friedrich-Wilhelm III’s most comprehensive request for the Baltic states. Napoleon wrote a sarcastic resolution on the report: “What about the oath over the tomb of Frederick II?” It reminded us of how in 1805 Frederick William III and the Russian Tsar exchanged an oath of eternal love and friendship in the Potsdam Mausoleum. Friedrich-Wilhelm was ordered to fulfill what they say. Napoleon did not even deign to answer about the Baltic region. And the king respectfully fell silent.
        E.V. Tarle "Napoleon's Invasion"
      2. Drummer
        Drummer 5 October 2013 18: 14
        +1
        Quote: Shogun23
        And we don't really need them, because in most wars, our "allies" ended up throwing us hard, either leaving us to fight alone (as the Austrian women did), or in the end were ready to attack Russia, if only she did not become stronger than it was (there are enough examples here, take at least the Napoleonic Wars)

        Take Napoleonics. And take the Russian-Turkish war of Catherine the Second.
        And then we somehow forget that the miraculous heroic army of Suvorov, fanned by legends, in the battles of Fokshany, Rymnik, Novi and Trebia consisted of two-thirds of the Austrians.
        1. chehywed
          chehywed 5 October 2013 18: 53
          0
          Quote: Drummer
          two-thirds consisted of Austrians.

          Great commander. That's just without Suvorov, the Austrians often robbed Lyuli from the same Turks.
        2. Shogun23
          Shogun23 5 October 2013 19: 25
          +1
          And you read the moment why these same Austrians fought along with Suvorov (for example, at the same Fokshan)? And also remind, why did Suvorov go through the Alps? Or why didn’t he head to the south of Italy? And then why didn’t they go to fight revolutionary France?
          1. Drummer
            Drummer 5 October 2013 21: 31
            -1
            So there are two versions - patriotic (the Austrians betrayed) and not so (Suvorov stuck out in Italy for too long, regardless of the general situation).
            1. Shogun23
              Shogun23 5 October 2013 21: 33
              +1
              And what in the end turned out to be a complete cleansing of Italy from the influence of France, do you remember?
  • Sergey Medvedev
    Sergey Medvedev 5 October 2013 11: 11
    +3
    It is not surprising that in a state that deliberately destroys, despite public protests, the opinions of experts and professionals, a system of not only civilian, but also military education, a considerable part of the youth appears, which takes myths about the occupiers for granted.

    Well, our schoolchildren study history from textbooks from Soros. In these textbooks there are no battles of Stalingrad and Kursk, what will they teach? And there’s no one to ask for this outrage. Vovochka is good. He defended Snowden.
    1. pahom54
      pahom54 5 October 2013 11: 36
      +2
      Well, as far as I understand, "Little Johnny" has already personally tackled this problem with history textbooks, and I think that something good in terms of ideology and patriotism will come out. After all, he has already created a commission to review and admit new history textbooks to the educational process.
      1. kaktus
        kaktus 5 October 2013 11: 51
        +1
        well, historians, hold on! wink
        1. smile
          smile 5 October 2013 13: 26
          +1
          kaktus
          I would put it differently, with a well-known quote: In turn ssss ... obachkiny children in line! :)))
  • NORILCHANIN
    NORILCHANIN 5 October 2013 11: 44
    -1
    Little Johnny is not far from the mind but chatty unmeasured!
    1. smile
      smile 5 October 2013 13: 30
      +1
      NORILCHANIN
      Even the most ardent enemies of Vovochkin, who have brains, well, at least a drop of water - like Novodvorskaya and all sorts of McCains - do not deny that everything is in order with his head ... and you, apparently, have let us down ... my condolences. :)))
  • garik77
    garik77 5 October 2013 12: 24
    +1
    Actually, there can be no complaints against the USSR. The same Poland entered into a pact with Germany on no attack back in 1934 ...
  • GastaClaus69
    GastaClaus69 5 October 2013 12: 33
    0
    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.

    Everything is clear, further reading is pointless!
  • washi
    washi 5 October 2013 12: 48
    +6
    Why England, Poland, France, Finland, etc. it is possible to conclude an agreement with Hitler, but not the USSR? Why do not remember our agreement with Japan in April 1941? Maybe because the first one did not suit them, and the second vice versa?
  • vahatak
    vahatak 5 October 2013 13: 16
    -5
    The pact gave the USSR good chances to prepare for war from both a military and diplomatic point of view. Another thing is that Stalin managed to quarrel with Finland and Romania for almost two years of respite, adding to the Germans allies from among the neighbors of the USSR, which would not have contributed to the growth of defense.
    It can be compared with the policies of Alexander the First, who reconciled with Sweden and Turkey before the attack of Napoleon, protecting his flanks.
    1. Shogun23
      Shogun23 5 October 2013 15: 14
      +2
      Both Finland and Romania, until the age of 39 were not friends of the USSR. But Napoleon, before that, allowed Russia to fight against Sweden and Turkey, promising his neutrality.
      1. chehywed
        chehywed 5 October 2013 15: 44
        +3
        Quote: Shogun23
        And Napoleon before that, allowed Russia to fight against Sweden and Turkey, promising its neutrality

        Who told you that?
        ... Kutuzov suddenly managed to make peace with the Turks. Napoleon did not find words to characterize the unprecedented stupidity of the Turks who made peace with Russia just when the Russian Empire was threatened with an invasion from the West and it would have done anything to free its Danube army as soon as possible
        ... Napoleon offered Bernadotte Finland - both that part of Sweden that was conquered by the Russians in 1808, and that which Sweden had lost under Peter I. But Alexander I offered more than Napoleon, Bernadotte: all of Norway. True, Norway belonged to Alexander I just as little as Napoleon did Finland, but Bernadotte knew that both proposals were quite real. Bernadotte, without hesitation, preferred an alliance with Alexander I, and not only because Norway is richer and better than Finland, but also because Russia is a constant neighbor with whom Sweden has lived for centuries and will live for centuries, and an alliance with Napoleon is an unreliable matter, and Napoleon, without the slightest difficulty, at the very turn of his world politics, would surrender Sweden to Alexander I.
        E.V. Tarle "Napoleon's Invasion"
        1. Shogun23
          Shogun23 5 October 2013 16: 02
          0
          You do not forget about the Tilsit world.
          1. chehywed
            chehywed 5 October 2013 16: 26
            +1
            Joining the Continental blockade did not imply vassal relations between Russia and France, and the war with the Turks began in 1806.
            1. Shogun23
              Shogun23 5 October 2013 16: 37
              0
              And no one spoke about vassal relations, but do not forget that Turkey and France at that time had allied relations, which Napoleon refused in Tilsit.
      2. vahatak
        vahatak 5 October 2013 16: 29
        -2
        Even if Napoleon “allowed” Russia (sounds ridiculous, but what can you do) to fight with someone, then it was just in his interests, but Napoleon did not need peace with these states at all.
        According to the secret resolution of the Nonaggression Pact, Hitler also agreed that the USSR should expand its borders, which was done, so that the situation was identical except for the aforementioned detail: Alexander turned enemies into neutrals, and Stalin made enemies from neutral neighbors.
  • bubla5
    bubla5 5 October 2013 13: 21
    +4
    If there wasn’t this pact, then there would be another intervention of the Entente against the USSR, if they would have attacked our country together
  • Motors1991
    Motors1991 5 October 2013 14: 01
    +3
    In order to evaluate the non-aggression pact, one quote from Churchill, a highly realistic step, is enough to not discuss further.
    1. vahatak
      vahatak 6 October 2013 14: 17
      0
      Why not discuss it? After this pact, the USSR and Germany received a common border and war became inevitable. It did not occur to the "genius" Stalin to use Poland as a buffer.
  • Shogun23
    Shogun23 5 October 2013 14: 32
    +2
    Those who condemn the pact of 23 August 1939 need to ask one simple question: "What should have been done then?"
    1. vahatak
      vahatak 6 October 2013 14: 20
      -1
      It was necessary to attack Germany in September 1939. Part of Poland would have been taken anyway, but at that time the Germans were not ready for a war on two fronts, and the French were still in service.
      1. Misantrop
        Misantrop 6 October 2013 21: 27
        +3
        Quote: vahatak
        It was necessary to attack Germany in September 1939.
        Is it a conscious provocation or an inborn cretinism? Even in the current version of the story, are Russia trying to blind the aggressor, and in case of an attack in the 39th year, and even through adjacent (far from friendly) countries? To give occasion to England and the United States to speak on the German side?
        1. vahatak
          vahatak 6 October 2013 21: 48
          -1
          Personally, I do not care what they say about the USSR in the West. I do not like the communists, but this does not mean that I like the stupid propaganda of their enemies.
          And in September 1939, Andlia had already declared war on Germany, and for the United States, Japan was the main enemy, so it was unlikely that they could support the Germans.
          1. Misantrop
            Misantrop 6 October 2013 23: 16
            +1
            Quote: vahatak
            And in September 1939, Andlia had already declared war on Germany
            Do you feel the difference between the concepts of "declare war" and "fight"? Until there are serious battles and territorial conquests, it is not difficult to conclude a truce. England had centuries of experience in this ...
            Quote: vahatak
            Japan was the main adversary
            Until the attack of Pearl Harbor in 1941, the United States had no idea about this "main enemy". So, in pursuit of real money, the war in Europe would have climbed easily
            1. vahatak
              vahatak 6 October 2013 23: 38
              -1
              I know about the bad character of the British, but do not exaggerate. A separate world is not so easy to conclude. even after the defeat in France, they did not agree to this, and all because the contradictions with Germany were unsolvable.
              At the expense of the Americans, too, I have no illusions. Yes, they were chasing money and that was why they were in no hurry to go to war, wanting to profitably trade with everyone, and a war on the side of Germany against France and England was practically impossible.
      2. Shogun23
        Shogun23 7 October 2013 08: 20
        +1
        Are you really that naive or just kidding? In your opinion, the Franco-British would have entered the war (they entered, and not just declared) on the side of the USSR? Yes, this would have come true what they had been preparing Germany for since the beginning of the 30s - the war of fascism and communism, and then the "democratic countries" would have put things in order in these countries "by giving their peoples freedom"
  • Stasi
    Stasi 5 October 2013 15: 00
    +4
    The reason for the West's anger at the so-called Molotov-Ribentropp Pact is understandable. During the era of the Romanovs, Russia often took part in wars that had nothing to do with its national interests, but which benefited the interests of the West, mainly England. The British even had this saying: "Fight for the interests of Britain to the last Russian." In the First World War, we saved France, there was the famous Brusilov breakthrough near Verdun, thanks to which the Germans did not take Paris even then. What did Russia get from this? Nothing. The French themselves did not even say "thank you", they prefer to forget about this service to Russia. By pandering to Hitler, allowing him to violate the Treaty of Versailles, the West hoped that the Russian troops would again face the Germans and again the Russians would fight for Western interests. But Stalin turned out to be much smarter and more far-sighted. Having concluded a non-aggression pact with Hitler, he forced the West to independently clean up the mess that the West had brewed, and this treaty also gave our country a respite from the war. This is precisely what the West cannot forgive us, the fact that we did not fight again for its interests, but observed our own. There are simply no other reasons for claims against us and cannot be.
    1. Shogun23
      Shogun23 5 October 2013 15: 10
      +2
      Quote: Stasi
      The reason for the West’s anger at the so-called Molotov-Ribentropp Pact is understandable.

      I would say that this is not so much anger as an attempt (so far, unfortunately, quite successful) to expose the USSR to be the culprit of the war, thereby transferring all responsibility for its preparation for this very war (here you and Hitler's financing, permission for the Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine , training the Wehrmacht (and not the Reichswehr) for money and on the bases of "democratic countries"), complete passivity in Germany's diplomatic crimes (violation of the points of the Versailles-Washington system), for each of which they could "strangle" Germany with sanctions and other methods of political pressure.
    2. lexe
      lexe 6 October 2013 01: 37
      +2
      Fight for the interests of Britain to the last Russian. "

      I think that after 1917. another winged thought might well have been born:
      To fight for the interests of the Russian Empire to the last German and Frenchman. Verden will not let you lie.
      Another 100 years ago in 1812. the French burned Moscow! And the Crimean war? also with French participation ...
      So Tsar Nicholas 2 was oh, how not simple ...
      Stalin repeated the path of our tsar in European affairs, but did not take into account that great historical decisions were made only once. The French and Germans did not begin to muttise each other again, they became wiser.
      And the West is afraid of only one country, the Russian Empire and possibly even China.
    3. vahatak
      vahatak 6 October 2013 14: 26
      0
      Quote: Stasi
      was the famous Brusilovsky breakthrough near Verdun thanks to which the Germans still did not take Paris.

      Are you confusing anything?
      Quote: Stasi
      The West hoped that the Russian troops would again clash with the Germans and again the Russians would fight for Western interests. But Stalin was much smarter and more far-sighted. Having concluded a non-aggression pact with Hitler, he forced the West to independently shed the porridge that the West had brewed.

      Actually, the Russians did the same with the Germans, and much more blood was shed than in the WWII, and the French and British had fewer losses compared to the same WWI, although they were among the winners, so the USSR was fighting for the interests of the West in WWII.
      1. Stasi
        Stasi 6 October 2013 17: 51
        +2
        I don’t confuse, the Brusilovsky breakthrough forced the German command to transfer troops advancing on Paris to liquidate the breakthrough. The Western allies really had smaller losses compared with the Soviet army, do not forget that the Germans threw their best units on the Eastern Front, the bulk of the German military machine was concentrated there. Another reason for the smaller losses of the Westerners is that Hitler seriously did not want to fight the West. The fact that the West used us to break the German car is understandable. The main goal of the Great Patriotic War is the desire to defend the freedom and independence of your country, that is what you should always know and remember.
        1. vahatak
          vahatak 6 October 2013 18: 35
          -3
          The Germans stepped on Paris more than once, but they didn’t come closer than 70 km, and the French stopped them, who (SUDDENLY) also know how to defend their homeland, and according to your logic, if it weren’t for the French, the Germans would have thrown all their forces east and They would have taken Petrograd with Moscow, and the Russians didn’t even say thanks to them.
          Quote: Stasi
          The main goal of the Great Patriotic War is the desire to defend the freedom and independence of their country

          And the occupation of Eastern Europe and the establishment of puppet regimes there, probably the secondary task of the Great Patriotic War?
          1. Stasi
            Stasi 6 October 2013 19: 52
            +1
            You turn everything upside down. As for control over Eastern Europe - in your opinion, you should not go to finish off the enemy in his lair, but expel from your land there and stay there, waiting for the enemy to lick his wounds from defeats and invade again using newly invented weapons capable of inflicting heavy losses and nullifying all achieved victory? After the war, the USSR invested enormous funds and forces in the restoration of Eastern Europe, until the collapse of the Warsaw Pact and the USSR, the Eastern Europeans lived very well, better than the inhabitants of the USSR. You do not want to say that the West, having taken control of Western Europe, has imposed its regimes there, but for some reason no one talks about Western occupation.
            1. vahatak
              vahatak 6 October 2013 20: 35
              -2
              I'm not flipping anything. I wrote somewhere that the USSR should not have finished off the enemy? I just didn’t have to stay in Eastern Europe for 45 years. Or do you think that they themselves elected communists to the government there, and banned everyone else? Economic assistance can be provided without huge armies in other countries, and no one forced the USSR to help the Warsaw Pact countries, they could be allowed to use the Marshall Plan, but in this case they would have been infused with the USA, which the USSR could not allow. That was precisely the purpose of the USSR in the war: to increase its influence in the world and to put where its puppets could be.
              The fact that the West did the same only says that all the great powers are the same. I repeat: THE SAME, that is, the USSR is NOTHING BETTER THAN OTHERS, and even Germany, but without the Nazis.
              1. Setrac
                Setrac 6 October 2013 20: 50
                +2
                Quote: vahatak
                I just didn’t have to stay in Eastern Europe for 45 years.

                Does the US need to stay? Does the name Ramstein tell you nothing?
                Quote: vahatak
                The fact that the West did the same only says that all the great powers are the same. I repeat: THE SAME, that is, the USSR is NOTHING BETTER THAN OTHERS, and even Germany, but without the Nazis.

                I draw your attention to the fact that the Anglo-Saxons, for example, destroyed Native Americans in the United States, in addition, New Zealanders and Australians, the Dutch were going to destroy the Russians, but the Russians did not even destroy anyone by defeating! And you have the audacity to equate us with the killers, did your conscience go to shit? The Russians are not killers, and not robbers, unlike the Germans and Anglo-Saxons praised by you, ................................. .......
                1. vahatak
                  vahatak 6 October 2013 21: 25
                  0
                  I said somewhere that Americans are better than Russians or Anglo-Saxons who aren’t killing Americans ???
                  I know that Russians are not killers, calm down.
                  And states are not nations. And the communists are not equal to Russian. Someone who, but I know about it.
                  Nazi little man like me. This is something new. I and Nazism. it’s good that I have a sense of emor, otherwise I would have to write in response to insults.
                  1. Apollo
                    Apollo 6 October 2013 21: 36
                    0
                    Quote: Setrac
                    Setrac

                    Quote: vahatak
                    vahatak


                    I give you both warnings against attempts at mutual insults.
      2. Misantrop
        Misantrop 6 October 2013 21: 23
        +2
        Quote: vahatak
        Russians still fought with the Germans, and much more blood was shed than in the WWII, and the French and British had less losses compared to the same WWI
        Maybe it's enough to bear the blizzard about the losses? Do google it before uttering such "truths". WHAT EXACTLY are Russian losses, fighting or civilian population? In Europe, the Germans overthrew the warring regimes with them, including industry with workers in the structure of the Reich. And the Germans went to Russia, clearing the living space under the resettlement of their race. Or is it the same in your opinion?
        1. vahatak
          vahatak 6 October 2013 21: 50
          -1
          So the conversation was not about military operations, but that the British wanted to play off Russians and Germans so that they would kill each other, so I wrote that they achieved their goal. Where is my mistake?
          1. Misantrop
            Misantrop 6 October 2013 23: 08
            +2
            Quote: vahatak
            but that the British wanted to pit Russians and Germans
            Is this news for anyone at least? Germany was equipped, armed and set against the USSR, feeding half of Europe under this business. Moreover, the strongest countries of those years, acting in concert, as a single collective. And now they begin to tell us here that the USSR is to blame and that it was necessary to quarrel all among themselves and defeat with little blood and on foreign territory. Moreover, it will not be a world aggressor. Talleyrands, pancake, homegrown
            1. vahatak
              vahatak 6 October 2013 23: 16
              -1
              Quote: Misantrop
              Is this news for anyone at least?

              I didn’t deny it, just my interlocutor said that the British succeeded in the WWI, and in 1939 Stalin outwitted them. And I believe that this success is somewhat dubious, because in the end, the Reich in the Soviet Union still bleed, and there were more losses than in the First World War.
              1. Misantrop
                Misantrop 6 October 2013 23: 26
                +2
                Quote: vahatak
                there were more losses than in the first world.
                I repeat once again, the bulk of the losses accounted for SLAUGHTER, that is, to the losses of the PEACEFUL population, systematically destroyed by the occupation administration. If the Soviet Union behaved in the same way during the offensive, then half of Europe would be uninhabited
                1. vahatak
                  vahatak 6 October 2013 23: 42
                  0
                  and who says that all the losses were military? here it is not the military aspect that is important, but the political, and the political weight of the state (which the British wanted to reduce) is affected both by the number of people and the losses in the economy that you don’t even consider, although I mean ALL losses.
  • individual
    individual 5 October 2013 15: 03
    +4
    The trouble of our rulers is to interpret historical events in conjunctural considerations.
    And the reality was and is
    The Soviet Union won the Great Patriotic War!
    It is not otherwise.
    And there is nothing to rewrite the history of the country of the winner.
  • Zomanus
    Zomanus 5 October 2013 15: 42
    +2
    The fact that we signed this pact gave us the following:
    1. Preparation for evacuation to the rear of their enterprises. When the enterprises were evacuated, thanks to this, they started work faster.
    2. Preparing the population for war. Gas masks for civilians, regular civil defense exercises.
    3. Japan refused to fight us (although of course the pact was not the only reason for this).
    4. Zatad’s hands were tied, because you couldn’t call us bad guys.
    In the event of a preemptive strike, everyone would attack the USSR, including Britain and America. At the beginning of the war, America set conditions for the use of various weapons. So the pact certainly played a positive role. Well, now it’s just such a time when we are only going to defend our interests in the world. Therefore, we have to go to such diplomatic deflections. I hope that soon and on this issue we will speak as it is, directly.
    1. Namejs
      Namejs 6 October 2013 00: 52
      -3
      Quote: Zomanus
      1. Preparation for evacuation to the rear of their enterprises. When the enterprises were evacuated, thanks to this, they started work faster.


      Tell me please, wouldn’t it be better if the USSR stopped supplying strategic resources to Germany? After the economic blockade of the French and British, the German blockade on the part of the USSR would have weakened much more strongly.

      If you disagree, why?
      1. Setrac
        Setrac 6 October 2013 01: 19
        +3
        Quote: Namejs
        If you disagree, why?

        Because! For example, there was no blockade from the west, the United States and Germany through third countries traded the entire war.
        1. Namejs
          Namejs 6 October 2013 13: 29
          0
          And what did they sell? A strategic sir or is there coffee and such products?

          Germany at the initial stage of the war was heavily dependent on the import of a whole series of sir.
          1. svp67
            svp67 6 October 2013 17: 58
            +3
            Quote: Namejs
            Germany at the initial stage of the war was heavily dependent on the import of a whole series of sir.

            And we were very dependent on Germany in terms of obtaining new technologies and equipment that the West did not give us ... So trade with Germany at that moment was a completely logical step ...
            1. Namejs
              Namejs 6 October 2013 21: 27
              -3
              So what? Necessity technologies could be developed by oneself (and what exactly are the technologies?). But if the USSR had made a blockade of Germany, for its part, Germany would soon have failed to achieve such successes.
              Well, if the USSR were to pashol to the aid of Polshe in September 1939, then Germany would be quickly defeated together (since Germany was still quite happy with the settlement). Then there would be no world war
              1. Corsair
                Corsair 6 October 2013 21: 48
                +1
                Quote: Namejs
                So what? Necessity technologies could be developed by oneself (and what exactly are the technologies?)

                Is Latvia able to "develop technologies by itself" (at the moment)? Share the joy of success.
                1. Namejs
                  Namejs 6 October 2013 22: 07
                  0
                  Well, compared Latvia (2 million) and the USSR (about 200 million?).
                  If we talk about our days, then for such Latvia the level of innovation is unsatisfactory. But for Russia, the level of innovation is very bad. This is recognized by Russian politicians and officials.
                  1. Corsair
                    Corsair 6 October 2013 22: 29
                    +1
                    Quote: Namejs
                    If we talk about our days, then for such Latvia the level of innovation is unsatisfactory.

                    You did not quite grasp the essence of the question, but its essence was as follows: Is Latvia able to independently develop technologies without resorting to "borrowing"?
                    1. Namejs
                      Namejs 7 October 2013 00: 30
                      -1
                      Of course it can. For this, there are all the prerequisites, the question is whether the government of Latvia will be on the horizon and will support science enough. So far, the only reason for the low level of innovation is insufficient funding. According to the already beating president of the Latvian Academy of Sciences, Latvia annually loses up to 5 billion lats from the failure to realize its own Britain.
            2. Drummer
              Drummer 11 October 2013 07: 40
              0
              The dependence is rather arbitrary - from the moment Hitler came to power and before the Pact, the USSR in the military-technical sphere focused mainly on England, France and the USA. Almost all of our equipment hails from there - Carden-Lloyd, Vickers, Christy, Ford, Douglas, motors - Liberty, Gnome-Ron, Wright-Cyclone, Spain-Suiza and their descendants.
              We didn’t get anything special from the Germans after 1939 (well, the Rheinmetal anti-aircraft guns, which became our 53K, Me-110 as a prototype Pe-2 / Pe-3, something at sea).
        2. vahatak
          vahatak 6 October 2013 14: 37
          -5
          Quote: Setrac
          US with Germany through third countries traded the entire war

          This is my favorite part. When the USSR trades with Hitler, this is Stalin’s wise decision, and when the United States does the same, they are corrupt creatures that their mother is willing to sell. The main thing is that we have a piece of paper (pact) that complies with all international laws.
          1. Setrac
            Setrac 6 October 2013 19: 20
            +2
            Quote: vahatak
            This is my favorite part. When the USSR trades with Hitler, this is Stalin’s wise decision, and when the United States does the same, they are corrupt creatures that their mother is willing to sell.

            the difference is that the USSR traded before the war and received vital technologies, the United States - corrupt creatures - traded during the war, and without any need.
            In general, it is strange that a person flying the flag of Armenia is on the side of our enemies. You can immediately see hu from hu. Who is our friend and who is the enemy.
            1. vahatak
              vahatak 6 October 2013 20: 41
              -1
              The USSR traded with Hitler when he fought with Poland, France, England, and, as everyone here says, was going to fight the USSR, the Pact simply postponed the war, so the war was, and Hitler was the same. you just have to be principled.
              The fact that I condemn the partition of Poland, the war with the Finns, the annexation of Moldova and say that it was necessary to attack Hitler in 1939, makes me an enemy ???????????
              Here you can see hu from hu.
              1. Setrac
                Setrac 6 October 2013 20: 53
                +1
                Quote: vahatak
                The fact that I condemn the partition of Poland, the war with the Finns, the annexation of Moldova and say that it was necessary to attack Hitler in 1939, makes me an enemy ???????????

                Yes, anti-Russian propaganda makes the propagandist an enemy of Russia and all Russians.
                1. vahatak
                  vahatak 6 October 2013 21: 28
                  -2
                  Show the words Russia and Russian in my comments. Or do you not distinguish Russians from communists? Personally, I distinguish.
          2. chehywed
            chehywed 7 October 2013 01: 22
            +1
            Quote: vahatak
            This is my favorite part

            Well, if I like it, I treat it.
            As for individual representatives of large American capital, even in the midst of the US war against the Third Reich, they maintained close ties with him. But, of course, secretly.
            To this day, the vast majority of Americans do not even suspect what role some US companies played during World War II. According to Hiem, the government made a lot of efforts to conceal these facts, moreover, it did this not only during the war, but also after its end.
            This is understandable: after all, millions of British and Americans remembered well the long lines at gas stations and the acute shortage of fuel in the country. Meanwhile, in 1942, Standard Oil Corporation sold it to Germany through neutral Switzerland.
            Citizens of the United States and Great Britain would undoubtedly be outraged to learn that after the events in Pearl Harbor, the Chase Bank had entered into millions of transactions with the enemy in occupied Paris with the full knowledge of the management of this bank in Manhattan. And in France, trucks destined for the German occupation forces were assembled at Ford factories.
            And that’s not all. More details here:http://sunapse.ru/rushistory/Oruzie/Oruzie32.html
      2. Proud.
        Proud. 6 October 2013 01: 31
        +4
        Quote: Namejs
        If you disagree, why?

        In interstate relations, agreements must be legally sealed, which was done. The prehistory of the Soviet-German trade agreements (we take a critical point for Europe - 1940), had a decade and a half. Even if such relations (trade) were sealed "by merchants "(to be honest, but this is impossible in principle), this is not a reason to violate them. And a unilateral rupture of official State agreements could entail unpredictable consequences. The politicians of that time, and that equal (in the USSR) could not afford this . For a number of reasons, very weighty. Political internal, political external, social internal. Yes, and losing the "face" of the Country, in that situation, was akin to suicide.
        1. Namejs
          Namejs 6 October 2013 14: 07
          -3
          Quote: Be proud.
          legally hold together


          I, as a lawyer, will object to you. Russian is not my happy language because I ask you to judge strictly.


          So, in international law (as in any other), certainties are dominated by the principle on the basis of which international agreements are concluded and so on. Well, for example, audiatur et altera pars (having expanded the second side), ex iniuria ius non oritur (from violation of rights, new rights do not appear) and so on.

          Definition of the principle is stipulated in the League of Nations treaties (to which presoidenilss and the USSR) provide for reducing the risk of new conflicts (quotas on the number of weapons, not contributing to the aggressor, etc.) or at least their escalation.

          What does this mean, if there was any agreement between the USSR and the country to the aggressors, then Moscow would have to abide by the supreme principle and break the agreement and the USSR would remain clean.
          It’s also like everyday life - a contract that is contrary to the law or generally accepted principles automatically expires.

          The USSR did not do so. Well, it will be so, but then it’s not necessary for you to ascribe principle and integrity to track more honestly than others (for example, the same Polsha herself)
          1. Proud.
            Proud. 6 October 2013 15: 11
            +2
            Quote: Namejs
            Moscow would have to abide by its principle and break the treaty, and the USSR would remain clean.

            It is easy to talk about the past, from a distance of 74 years, having information about the past.
            Quote: Namejs
            - A contract that is contrary to the law or generally accepted principles automatically loses force.

            What law? Weapons were not purchased. To prevent aggression? The League of Nations, in this case, had to whip itself. First of all, Hitler was spawned and promoted by those who later fought with him. The child grew up and sent to a known address, their breadwinners. Generally accepted principles? Heh ... The practice of double standards. Which is used now, using the vague term - "universal human values", "world community", etc. Forgive, but as they say in "high society", this is chees.USSR did not do thatThe USSR acted in a way that was beneficial to the USSR. Someone didn’t like it? These are their problems. I didn’t understand about Poland at all. More details please.
            1. Namejs
              Namejs 6 October 2013 20: 43
              -1
              Quote: Be proud.
              It is easy to talk about the past, from a distance of 74 years, having information about the past.

              an honest act will always be an honest act. I kind of like the principle of international law already otzivalsa


              Quote: Be proud.
              Which law?

              I gave examples of how the legal principles act in international relations and how in civil law
              Quote: Be proud.
              The League of Nations, in this case, had to carve itself.


              Which, of course, happened. The League of the nation had no effective instruments of influence. The most severe punishment was expulsion from the League of the nation, which they also successfully did but only ...

              Quote: Be proud.
              Heh ... The practice of double standards, which is still used now, using the vague term - "universal human values", "world community", etc. Forgive me, but as they say in "high society", this is not what the USSR did.

              Namely so, the USSR as well as others (England, Germany, etc.) acted in accordance with its double standards, you yourself recognized, the USSR acted in accordance with its own interests!
              Well, Latvia didn’t act in double standards. What is one fact where Latvia was not correct in terms of its attitude towards the USSR or operated by double standards?
              Quote: Be proud.
              Someone didn’t like it? This is their problem.


              Most importantly, these actions of the USSR were illegal (well, of course, they met all the interests of Moscow). Then the question is: What were the interests of the USSR?
              What interests can justify the annexation of independent states?

              Quote: Be proud.
              I didn’t understand about Poland at all. Please details.

              Polsha had a large territory of ambition. Despite the fact that Polsha Latvia significantly helped in the liberation of the eastern regions in the war for independence, Polsha Latgale (Latvian region) considered it to be its territory. In short, Polsha is not without sin, but what reason does it give others to act illegally? In other words, international law gives enough benefits to protect their legitimate interests.
              If something is not intelligible, then please ask again and indicate.
              I apologize for my grammar.
              1. Proud.
                Proud. 7 October 2013 00: 06
                +3
                Quote: Namejs
                What is one fact where Latvia was not correct in terms of its attitude towards the USSR or operated by double standards?

                What has Latvia to do with it? I wrote about a quote about - "... generally accepted principles ..." The wording is absolutely vague.
                Quote: Namejs
                What interests can justify the annexation of independent states?

                Did you know that before World War II, not every annexation was considered illegal and invalid? The principle prohibiting resorting to force or the threat of its use, which has become one of the basic principles of modern international law, was first enshrined in 1945 in the UN Charter. And the interests are simple - concern for one's own security. By the way. A counter question. Why does the current Latvia not adhere to " general human principles "? Dividing people into Citizens and Non-Citizens?
                1. Namejs
                  Namejs 7 October 2013 01: 06
                  -1
                  Quote: Be proud.
                  Do you know that before World War II, not every annexation was considered unlawful or invalid?


                  And which annexation was perceived as legal?

                  Quote: Be proud.
                  The principle prohibiting the recourse to force or the threat of its use, which has become one of the basic principles of modern international law, was first enshrined in the UN Charter in 1945. And interests are simple-concern for their own security


                  It is necessary to read the statues of the League of the nation to which the USSR presoidenils.

                  In general, the complexity of the USSR by annexing Latvia violated dozens of renegotiations of undertakings. Starting with the Mirnov Treaty between Latvia and the RSFSR and documents such as the Paris Counter-Pact (which the USSR adopted in 1929), etc.
                  Quote: Be proud.
                  Counter question: Why does the present-day Latvia not adhere to "universal principles"? Dividing people into Citizens and Non-citizens?

                  With non-citizens, the situation is even simpler — for a non-citizen there is a possibility of naturalization (you just need to take an exam in the Latvian language). At least 180 non-citizens have already taken advantage of this.
                  A non-citizen differs from a citizen in that he has no voting rights. And all the rest crawls with social protection and other guarantees that the citizen. The question is fundamental - many non-citizens who arrived in Latvia in Soviet times (in fact, colonists) are in a hostile mood against independent Latvia + does not know the Latvian language.
                  If in 1940 in Latvia 76% were Latvians, then already in 1990, only 52% (Asimilation - many chauvinists even spoke - there are still a lot of Latvians in our city of Riga) and a rare visitor who just learned Latvian, although practically all Latvians knew Russian. And in order for the latish language to fail to learn the same as the Belarusian language, we had to take measures to protect the language. Of course, many were dissatisfied - why learn the language of "aborigines" and so on.

                  In principle, the situation is good right now. those Russian-speaking who wanted to naturalize it was done by those who did not want to (for example, guys who didn’t serve in the army specially did not know for citizenship). About any kind of discrimination and speech can not be. Look at how many Russians are at the top posts in the country (one mayor of Riga is worth it).

                  There are very few such offended Russians in Latvia. Although what are they Russian. Just look at the names of those who position themselves as the most important defenders - Jacob Pliner, Tatiana Zhdanok and Vladimir Linderman ...

                  I will write about the civil issue again tomorrow because the disinformation in Russia on this issue is very great.
                  1. Setrac
                    Setrac 7 October 2013 01: 34
                    +2
                    Quote: Namejs
                    With non-citizens, the situation is even simpler - for a non-citizen there is a possibility of naturalization

                    Please note that at the time of arrival in Latvia there were no such requirements. At the time when the Baltic states gained independence, these people were citizens of Latvia and were deprived of their citizenship. I am not opposed to the fact that the requirements of knowledge of the language for newcomers are competent, however, the same requirement for already residents is illegal.
                    1. Namejs
                      Namejs 7 October 2013 22: 20
                      0
                      Quote: Setrac
                      Please note that at the time of arrival in Latvia there were no such requirements.


                      In turn, I must explain to you that the Republic of Latvia is not the same as the Latvian SSR. The fact that the names of Latvia appear in both names gives no reason for legal consequences. The fact is that despite the fact that Latvia was annexed, it continued to exist legal de jure. And Soviet Latvia is the same subject of occupational power as was, for example, the Reichskommosiat of Ostland ..
                      So, since legal power did not exist on the territory of Latvia, the legal dichotomy of the Soviet power (occupation) after the restoration of the law of power does not obligate anything. Arriving during the Soviet annexation, they are the same as the colonists. If Russia, as a successor to the USSR, recognized the fact of annexation of the Baltic countries, then they would be the obligation of everyone who came after 1940 to pick up the opposite. Giving citizenship to everyone? Tembolia that a large percentage of them frankly hated the idea of ​​independent Latvia and also hated everything Latvian, a barrier was naturally made, although in reality of unity the grave criterion was knowledge of the language.

                      What would be if citizenship was given to everyone right away, like Lithuanians did for example? The influence of lethiphobian political groups would increase on Latvian politics and there would be a constant political pressure ... In short, everything could end in a civil war, but nothing happened.

                      Was this correct? I think yes. Those who wanted to integrate into society did this without problems and there is no real ethnic dignity. In Latvia, they didn’t act like in Central Asia where the Russians literally got rid of houses and robbed. It is not in vain that after the collapse of the USSR (before the collapse in the average population, about 15% of Russians lived in the Asian republics) less than 1% of the total Russian population remained in the Central Asian republics of the total Russian population
                      1. Setrac
                        Setrac 7 October 2013 22: 33
                        0
                        Quote: Namejs
                        In turn, I must explain to you that the Republic of Latvia is not the same as the Latvian SSR. The fact that the names of Latvia appear in both names gives no reason for legal consequences.

                        Well, return the territories that Soviet power so generously cut to you. In the meantime, you just otmazyvatsya so as not to be responsible for their actions.
                      2. Namejs
                        Namejs 8 October 2013 00: 51
                        0
                        Quote: Setrac
                        Well, return the territories that Soviet power so generously cut to you

                        ?????? What other "slicing" pieces? What did you mean??

                        Quote: Setrac
                        In the meantime, you just otmazyvatsya so as not to be responsible for their actions.

                        What else are our actions ??
                      3. Drummer
                        Drummer 11 October 2013 07: 08
                        +1
                        You confuse Lithuania with Latvia, it was Lithuania that cut the Vilnius region and Klaipeda (Memel).
      3. vahatak
        vahatak 6 October 2013 14: 31
        -5
        Quote: Be proud.
        And to lose the "face" of the Country

        It must be had.
        1. Proud.
          Proud. 6 October 2013 14: 51
          +3
          Quote: vahatak
          It must be had.

          We will not go into philosophical wilds, with a touch of trollism. Do you think differently? Your right. I remain in my opinion.
          1. vahatak
            vahatak 6 October 2013 15: 33
            -2
            And then philosophy and trolling? In 1939, the USSR was the only socialist country. Which face? Before someone save? Before those whom Soviet propaganda calls the last words every day? Everyone hated the communists anyway.
            1. Proud.
              Proud. 6 October 2013 19: 06
              +2
              What difference does it make, what kind of country was the USSR. Do you need to fully quote the meaning of phraseological units? Let me remind you briefly. LOSE FACE - Preserve your reputation. It makes no difference to whom.
              Quote: vahatak
              Before those whom Soviet propaganda calls the last words every day? Everyone hated the communists anyway.

              This, I won’t even discuss it. Goodbye, the debate is over. Do not bother to answer.
    2. vahatak
      vahatak 6 October 2013 14: 34
      -3
      And I will say why they do not agree. Because they do not even have the idea that evacuation could be avoided by protecting their territory, as during the First World War, because then there was tsarism, and tsarism did everything wrong in contrast to Stalin, who did everything right.
      1. Setrac
        Setrac 6 October 2013 19: 32
        +2
        Quote: vahatak
        And I will say why they do not agree. Because they do not even have the idea that evacuation could be avoided by protecting their territory, as during the First World War, because then there was tsarism, and tsarism did everything wrong in contrast to Stalin, who did everything right.

        Remind you how the WWI ended for the Russian Empire? The same "tsarism" allowed Moscow to be burned in 1812.
        1. vahatak
          vahatak 6 October 2013 20: 48
          -2
          The WWII ended with the Brest-Litovsk peace, when the Bolsheviks concluded a separate peace, before breaking up the army. For comparison, even Serbia, being fully occupied, was among the winners.
          And in 1812 Napoleon had a huge advantage in number, which allowed him to take Moscow, but this did not prevent "tsarism" from taking Paris and becoming the most influential state of that time.
          1. kripto
            kripto 7 October 2013 18: 25
            0
            Losers! The First World War, let me tell you a secret, ended with the Treaty of Versailles. And so beloved by you "tsarism" with Varnak Rasputin, just let him down with his mediocre, and sometimes criminal actions, brought the country to revolution.
            1. vahatak
              vahatak 7 October 2013 19: 01
              0
              Quote: Setrac
              You recall what ended with WWI for the Russian Empire?

              FOR THE RUSSIAN EMPIRE
              We are able to read, about the most educated and cleverest?
            2. lexe
              lexe 7 October 2013 19: 45
              -2
              Losers! The First World War, let me tell you a secret, ended with the Treaty of Versailles. And so beloved by you "tsarism" with Varnak Rasputin, just let him down with his mediocre, and sometimes criminal actions, brought the country to revolution.

              Are you apparently an excellent student?
              I’ll tell you a terrible secret - Russia won the 1st World War. Our victory was deliberately delayed. Otherwise, the USSR would simply not have taken place.
              Rasputin? Very sober thought laughing sorry for the aphorism ...
              In addition, each leader has his own Wolf Messing. Do you also disagree with this? No need to be naive, each leader has his own informal sources of information.
              Rasputin ... but he is Russian from the village, unlike any Messings. A slice of the Russian society, so to speak laughing Do you think why such a birth rate was in Russia? Maybe the Soviet leadership didn’t consult with those? Rasputin wasn’t found? The war and mopping-ups all ruffled the Rasputins?
              1. kripto
                kripto 8 October 2013 19: 08
                0
                Dear namesake !!! Without false modesty, I’ll tell you - yes an excellent student, moreover, in a Soviet school))). And I evaluate the historical process not from the point of view of like or dislike, but by simply comparing the facts.
                And to assert that Rasputin is a slice of Russian society until 1917 is at least blasphemy. You want to say that Russian society consisted entirely of thieves, horse thieves, whips and molesters. And this is only a fraction of what can be mentioned. All of the above is confirmed at least by police surveillance documents.
                You will be so kind as to get a well-deserved "fat" minus.
                1. lexe
                  lexe 8 October 2013 19: 47
                  0
                  And to assert that Rasputin is a slice of Russian society until 1917 is at least blasphemy. You want to say that Russian society without exception consisted of thieves, horse thieves, whips and molesters. And this is only a fraction of what can be mentioned. All of the above is confirmed at least by police surveillance documents.
                  You will be so kind as to get a well-deserved "fat" minus.

                  You are apparently not only an excellent pupil but also a saint.
                  There is no more honest and just people on earth than the Russian people.
                  Rasputin has had so many "soldered" articles in previous years, and this is a brand laughing worldwide laughing
                  And for me, so let the brand live laughing .After all, vodka will soon be announced as a Polish invention, if you listen to all the excellent students.
                  That is why the emperor is a simple ideal Russian peasant at court? And so always before my eyes is the dark side of the moon.
                  I don’t put a minus to you; I rarely put them at all. And you do not reach this rare case.
                  Sincerely.
  • Strashila
    Strashila 5 October 2013 15: 51
    +4
    The treaty did not go beyond the framework of international law of that time, the West was just infuriating the Soviet diplomats who had competently washed them.
    About the conditions under which negotiations were underway for the USSR, the West is silent, heavy fighting in the Far East.
    The USSR tried to make it refuse that little was left of Russia following the results of the First World War and lost during the civil war ... flew by. here they were again made by Soviet diplomats, the country reaffirmed the right to the lost, nothing more. All this was confirmed in the future ... what is laid down on the basis of the First World War and no more.
    Everyone is modestly forgetting the so-called injured party ... Poland, which itself was an aggressor during the occupation of Czechoslovakia and did not miss the Soviet troops contrary to international law ... that here all the Westerners shut up and dig their nose abstractly, as they say ... and who started the first.
    No one is considering the option of what would happen if Poland provided a corridor to Danzig, as Germany had asked for ... but thanks then to the Pole ... the show-offs outweighed reality with France’s promises to England of notorious help ... like they’ll hang everyone .
    If they had not thrown Poland ... and there would have been no deployment of Soviet troops.
    The best part is that we did not hear thanks for saving the Polish civilian population from the massacre of Ukrainian nationalists ... which was carried out under the strict supervision of the Nazis in the future.
    1. vahatak
      vahatak 6 October 2013 14: 39
      0
      Quote: Strashila
      No one is considering the option of what would happen if Poland provided a corridor to Danzig, as Germany had requested

      And what happened when Germany asked Czechoslovakia to just give the Sudeten Germans more rights.
  • Akuzenka
    Akuzenka 5 October 2013 16: 04
    +2
    The collapse of the plans of the Anglo-Saxons against the USSR (how many years have passed) causes a natural howl and calls for repentance from liberals of all stripes, from ultra-Nazis to full Tolerasts. You should not pay much attention to ritual howls (they earn so much greens for food), but you must remember this momentous event. Good article.
    1. sanecc
      sanecc 5 October 2013 17: 16
      -2
      mdaa ------- The Anglo-Saxons wanted to pit two odious leaders and two totalitarian systems ----- to warm the paws of a strange fire ..... From the current did not work! Of course, the losses are not the same as in the First World War, but the losses are significant .............. And the Russian Empire won the victory in the First World --------- agree that it simply failed. corny not occupying vast territories in the west, and even foolishly surrendering their own on Brest ......- LOOKING AND LISTENING OPINIONS!
      1. Glory333
        Glory333 5 October 2013 18: 47
        +1
        Western "democracies" are much more totalitarian than the USSR or the Reich.

        In the First World War, Russia fought simultaneously with Germany, Austria-Hungary and Turkey. The West fought practically only with Germany alone, in gratitude for the victims of Russia in the war, England, the USA and France staged 2 revolutions in Russia - first in February and then in October, recognized the independence of the breakaway provinces - Poland, the Baltic States, Finland, provided these separatists with great financial and military assistance ... and finally agreed to give Russia as much as 10% of German reparations !!! This unprecedented generosity was accompanied by "small" conditions - the recognition by Russia of all tsarist debts of 40 billion and, most importantly, of all the huge property of Western oligarchs - factories, railways ... and of course oil fields - all this Russia was to return to the West in exchange for a promise of 10% German payments.
        1. vahatak
          vahatak 6 October 2013 14: 47
          -2
          Quote: Glory333
          In World War I, it fought simultaneously with Germany, Austria-Hungary and Turkey. The West fought almost with Germany alone

          Have you heard about Italy and Serbia, having given up all their strength against the Austro-Hungarian Empire? And about Galipoli, where most of the Turkish army fought ?, and about the Palestinian front? But an elementary comparison of the number of German divisions on the Western and Eastern fronts is not available to us, right? The main burden of that war was on France. Yes, the Anglo-Saxons, as always, took their toll. Those who had the brains also acquired their pieces.
      2. kripto
        kripto 7 October 2013 18: 29
        0
        However, in 1945, the controversial leader returned everything that was lost. And even with a profit. And if under the vast lost territories you regret that the expensive "psheks" did not remain in Russia, thank God, we have less headaches. Definitely a minus to you !!!
  • Ivanovich47
    Ivanovich47 5 October 2013 17: 18
    +4
    Europe, as always, is swine in Russia. All European leaders, including Churchill and the English King George, admired the courage of the defenders of Stalingrad. The whole world watched the battle of giants: the USSR and Germany. Our fathers and grandfathers won. And when the threat of fascism was gone over Britain and France, European "analysts" began to shit on Russia. Yes, they were offended. The well-fed and cowardly French gave their Paris to the Germans without a fight. And the legendary Leningrad defended its honor! We the older generation know the value of Western insinuations. The main thing is that the youth of Russia would not peck at the fabrications of Western cowards ...
    1. Shogun23
      Shogun23 5 October 2013 17: 37
      +6
      There are even no comments
      1. Namejs
        Namejs 6 October 2013 00: 48
        -3
        Like French resistance then it doesn’t count?
        Can I throw a picture of Soviet citizens in military uniforms with crowds of prisoners of war being captured in Germany?

        And it’s just no offense — go to extremes :)
        1. Setrac
          Setrac 6 October 2013 01: 26
          +4
          Quote: Namejs
          And it’s just no offense — go to extremes :)

          How can you not go over to extremes if you help the enemy - enemy propaganda? You can throw a picture, but the picture will show the very fact of the soldiers captured, how they were captured will not be visible. Some were captured because of weakness and cowardice - the French - and when it was still possible to fight. Others - Russians - were captured when they were surrounded and ended with ammunition and food, and often with injuries of varying severity.
          Quote: Namejs
          Like French resistance then it doesn’t count?

          French resistance is a meaningless phenomenon, had no effect on the results of the war.
          1. Namejs
            Namejs 6 October 2013 14: 17
            -3
            Quote: Setrac
            How can you not go over to extremes if you help the enemy - enemy propaganda? You can throw a picture, but the picture will show the very fact of the soldiers captured, how they were captured will not be visible. Some were captured because of weakness and cowardice - the French - and when it was still possible to fight. Others - Russians - were captured when they were surrounded and ended with ammunition and food, and often with injuries of varying severity.


            Your picture shows a weeping Frenchman (civilian) and a Soviet soldier with guns. Would you like to say that the French have failed? Then why is there no picture with French soldiers or with Soviet civilians?

            This is the same as if I inserted a picture with Latvian athletes with a family of seven and Russian alcoholics, and I wanted to make a summary that the Russians are not good at all. This is fundamentally wrong and I disapprove of this kind of comparison.

            Quote: Setrac
            French resistance is a meaningless phenomenon, had no effect on the results of the war.


            Well, how can I tell you, it’s not enough results.

            Paris 1944 freed French resistance with the support of the entire population of Paris. The Allies even intended to get around Paris because they thought that very large German forces had settled there.

            You can also judge the Soviet partisans. It seems that they acted, but the turnover of transportation by railroads of the Germans constantly grew. Of course, you can argue since this is all very ambiguous.

            Morality - inappropriately drawing conclusions is too fast.
            1. Setrac
              Setrac 6 October 2013 19: 38
              +1
              Quote: Namejs
              Paris 1944 freed French resistance with the support of the entire population of Paris.

              Which did not affect the outcome of the war.
              Quote: Namejs
              The Allies even intended to get around Paris because they thought that very large German forces had settled there.

              These "great German forces" are the grandfathers from the Folksturm and the children from the Hitler Youth, who the French fought with and whom they defeated - the elderly and children.
              Quote: Namejs
              You can also judge the Soviet partisans. It seems that they acted, but the turnover of transportation by railroads of the Germans constantly grew. Of course, you can argue since this is all very ambiguous.

              Soviet partisans quite realistically destroyed German logistics, everything is clear here, the help to the front is quite real.
              1. Namejs
                Namejs 8 October 2013 01: 00
                0
                Quote: Setrac
                Which did not affect the outcome of the war.

                How to know. And not even about this debate. This example serves as a proof that the French resistance took an active part in the struggle against Nazism. Some top-end crawlers claim that the French resistance was just fictitious

                Quote: Setrac
                These "great German forces" are the grandfathers from the Folksturm and the children from the Hitler Youth, who the French fought with and whom they defeated - the elderly and children.

                In the summer of 1944 there was only one Hitler Youth division, and this was a selective division. No grandparents were in Paris (prove the opposite).

                Quote: Setrac
                Soviet partisans quite realistically destroyed German logistics, everything is clear here, the help to the front is quite real.

                As far as I know, the turnover of this German logistics constantly grew (S. S. Zakharevich - Partisans of the USSR - from myth to reality). And the Germans died from the partisans no more than 40.
                1. The comment was deleted.
                2. Proud.
                  Proud. 8 October 2013 10: 44
                  0
                  Quote: Namejs
                  mythoph to reality). And the Germans died from the partisans no more than 40.

                  Referring to an incomprehensible author, who, in fact, is not an author, but a Russophobic, anti-Soviet, and anti-Russian project, this is not even a bad form, but openly hostile actions. This book was published in Vilnius, in 2012, and this is what says about it project, the initiator of this book project, a certain Anatoly Taras. I quote his statements. "... There was a brutal massacre. On both sides - both from the Nazis and from the Communists. Both of them committed a lot of crimes ...". " ... So the war in general looks disgusting. Here is the figure: the valiant Soviet soldiers raped a million German women in 1945. It was ugly, but it was ... "Except how to call him the stupid last Beevor (based on an extreme quote), differently no. Further. "... Yes, the partisans killed their people. They killed because they had to feed. Who will give away food for free, if there are so few of them? The only cow, the last pig, the last chicken. Therefore, they were taken away by force. who resisted were killed, including women. well known, although it is not customary to talk about it. Ugly. "People's avengers" turn out to be "robbers of the people" ... "." ... with specific examples it is shown that the partisans, being flesh of the flesh of the Soviet-Bolshevik cannibalistic system, could not but be criminals. By definition, they couldn't. If we assume that the CPSU (b) is a criminal organization (and the three of us - the author, editor, publisher, think so), then the partisans were what the party was. Yes, sometimes they fought with the enemy, but above all - with their own people ... "For me, the conclusion is the same, all of the listed: the author, editor and publisher are obvious enemies. The figure of 40.000 Germans, according to him, Taras took from the magazine "Rodina". I asked. The magazine "Rodina" is published under the patronage of the presidential administration and the government of the Russian Federation. I did not look for the material, but if it comes from there, personally, it is not surprising. In light of the recognition of certain events by our bureaucrats. with them, different homeland. And you, more like x ... y, do not cite as evidence. Okay, I'll come back later, I'll tell you about your "white, fluffy, democratic-correct Latvia", sample of 1939. "Unjustly" annexed ...
                3. Setrac
                  Setrac 8 October 2013 21: 56
                  +1
                  Quote: Namejs
                  This example serves as a proof that the French resistance took an active part in the struggle against Nazism.

                  Active participation is slightly better than the Danes.
                  Quote: Namejs
                  And the Germans died from the partisans no more than 40.

                  But a large number of equipment and ammunition died, which (ammunition) as a result did not shoot at the Red Army.
                  1. Namejs
                    Namejs 9 October 2013 13: 42
                    0
                    Quote: Setrac
                    But a large number of equipment and ammunition died, which (ammunition) as a result did not shoot at the Red Army.

                    Only the momentum of the Germans did not fall in supplies. And the Germans as a whole lost to the blogarar of the mediocrity of the hanging command

                    Quote: Setrac
                    Active participation is a little better than the Danes


                    then you still need to clearly say that the USSR won the war and there the British and Americans helped a little
                    1. Setrac
                      Setrac 9 October 2013 15: 23
                      0
                      Quote: Namejs
                      then you still need to clearly say that the USSR won the war and there the British and Americans helped a little

                      And this will be true, at least with regard to the Third Reich.
                      1. Namejs
                        Namejs 9 October 2013 17: 49
                        0
                        I disagree with you. But I can understand. In Russia, the only success that remained (except for Gagarin and the satellite) is WWII or WWII, and I see how many people start to get angry when I ask more unpleasant questions or understand any real troubles for a patriot. I understand that perfectly. Only here is what I regretted (without irony) that in the history of WWII the Bolsheviks were very dirty before, first of all, the Russian peoples and also in relation to others. Trying to explain everything with the words “it should have been so” and “there was no other way out”, you turn the same Balts against yourself because the crimes against them are now justified by the Bolsheviks in every way.
                        The fact is that in Russia no one even managed to create new ideas, and they came up with the idea of ​​holding onto Soviet (in my opinion) pseudo values.

                        I apologize for the grammar errors and also thanks for the tolerance
                      2. Avenger711
                        Avenger711 9 October 2013 18: 41
                        +1
                        There were no crimes against the Batians, if the brains are completely absent, that this fact does not reach, then healing euthanasia will help.
                      3. Namejs
                        Namejs 9 October 2013 21: 37
                        0
                        And what then was, for example, the deportation of peaceful people? they were deported by at least 60 people in cattle wagons - what is it? among them, every 000 was a child or an old man. The youngest few weeks .... This is the most natural crime. Councils in Latvia acted just like the Nazis in Belarus or in Russia
      2. vahatak
        vahatak 6 October 2013 14: 54
        0
        Quote: Setrac
        Others - Russians - were captured when they were surrounded and ended with ammunition and food

        The French understood that they would be surrounded as soon as the Germans were in the rear, and the Soviet troops, for lack of information, did not even imagine where the Germans were, and they only realized the situation when each soldier’s personally ended.
        And to call the French cowards is the greatest disgust.
        1. Setrac
          Setrac 6 October 2013 19: 40
          +1
          Quote: vahatak
          And to call the French cowards is the greatest disgust.

          Facts cannot be an insult if they are pigs - we are not to blame. May I remind you how recently the French destroyed Kadaffi - their creditor!
          1. vahatak
            vahatak 6 October 2013 20: 52
            -3
            If defeat in one war and recognition of defeat is cowardice, then what is common sense?
            And such a freak as Gaddafi had to be beaten earlier, and not to dance with him. Yes, this (cooperation with Gaddafi) was immoral. I do not deny that Western politicians are like that, but Soviet politicians were no better.
            1. Setrac
              Setrac 6 October 2013 21: 05
              +2
              Quote: vahatak
              And such a freak as Gaddafi had to be beaten earlier, and not to dance with him.

              To begin with, what is he "yrod"? Second, what about the international law you are praising?
              Quote: vahatak
              I do not deny that Western politicians are like that, but Soviet politicians were no better.

              We do not kill foreign leaders and did not kill.
              1. vahatak
                vahatak 6 October 2013 21: 35
                -2
                where did I praise international law? I am a historian and I know that international law is written for the weak, and the strong always spit them as they wanted.
                What should be called Gaddafi, if he has been ruling the country for 42 years without any brakes, doing everything that comes to his mind with his rivals, governs terrorists (he even once acknowledged the explosion of an airplane over Britain)?
                I do not care much for foreign leaders, but the fact that the Soviet Union suppressed performances in Berlin in 1953, in Hungary in 1956, in Czechoslovakia in 1968 did not kill anyone there? not leaders, ordinary people.
                1. Setrac
                  Setrac 6 October 2013 22: 05
                  +2
                  Quote: vahatak
                  where did I praise international law? I am a historian and I know that international law is written for the weak, and the strong always spit them as they wanted.

                  However, you blame the USSR from the standpoint of international law!
                  Quote: vahatak
                  I do not care much for foreign leaders, but the fact that the Soviet Union suppressed performances in Berlin in 1953, in Hungary in 1956, in Czechoslovakia in 1968 did not kill anyone there? not leaders, ordinary people.

                  Performances - paid for by the West! There are no "ordinary" people at such demonstrations, and civilian casualties were caused by riots in the streets and not by Russian weapons.
                  Quote: vahatak
                  What should I call Gaddafi, if he has ruled the country for 42 years without any brakes, does everything that comes to his mind with his rivals, governs terrorists

                  You know this from Western propaganda, but in fact the state flourished.
                  1. vahatak
                    vahatak 6 October 2013 22: 21
                    -1
                    When did I blame the USSR. If the leadership of the USSR accused of something, it was a mistake, but not a violation of international law.
                    Gaddafi was also not an "ordinary" citizen, and it was not Europeans who killed him, but the rebels, about whom I do not say anything good (this is for prevention, so that I would not be accused of supporting all kinds of radical Islamists)
                    Libya's natural wealth allows it to flourish under any stable regime. This is not the merit of Gaddafi. the same Qatar or Kuwait are also flourishing, although their leaders are still specimens (as you know, I will not regret them either, if ...)
                2. Ulan
                  Ulan 7 October 2013 10: 28
                  +2
                  And who cares about Gaddafi? Is this not the internal affair of Iraq and the Iraqis? What did the Americans do there several thousand kilometers from their borders.
                  American politicians say (Wolfowitz, Cheney, etc.) - yes ... we have the right to remove the rulers we do not like in other states. And how?
                  Berlin? Isn't it the ones that just 8 years ago killed, robbed and raped our citizens? Wasn't Hungary an ally of Hitler and the unrest there were not the ones that escaped the Nuremberg Tribunal? Where did the "peaceful" population suddenly find themselves in their hands? the mass of weapons? Czechoslovakia also did not do without "well-wishers."
                  1. vahatak
                    vahatak 7 October 2013 12: 31
                    -1
                    So Iraq and Libya have internal affairs, but the GDR, Hungary and Czechoslovakia do not? Even if the protests were organized from abroad, this does not give reason to bring troops in and arrest (I do not remember exactly, but they sort of shot) rulers from a legal point of view, but this is, as it were, secondary. I just said that all the great powers interfere in the internal affairs of small states and the USSR is no exception. And the majority here insists that the USSR is white and fluffy, and all the rest are .... sy.
                  2. Setrac
                    Setrac 7 October 2013 15: 32
                    +1
                    Quote: vahatak
                    And the majority here insists that the USSR is white and fluffy, and all the rest are .... sy.

                    You see, the West so dearly beloved to you, these are bandits who go into a strange house (country) to rob and kill, and the USSR is a policeman who goes into a strange house to protect the owner. According to this, the USSR is white and fluffy for all its shortcomings, and the west is n _______ sy, for all their advantages, and they do not hide their homosexual nature, strive for it and are proud of it.
                  3. vahatak
                    vahatak 7 October 2013 16: 11
                    0
                    If I call all the great powers equally aggressive, then I love the West, and even passionately?
                    And with your comparison you just confirmed my words.
                  4. Setrac
                    Setrac 7 October 2013 17: 16
                    +1
                    Quote: vahatak
                    If I call all the great powers equally aggressive

                    And small? Poland for example, or Israel. The aggressors are still those.
                  5. vahatak
                    vahatak 7 October 2013 17: 56
                    -2
                    The article here is not about Poland and Israel. World wars are fought by great powers.
                    The aggression of "small" powers differs in form, methods and goals from the aggression of the great powers. Not better or worse, just a completely different category. Therefore, they are not placed in the same row.
                  6. Setrac
                    Setrac 7 October 2013 22: 38
                    0
                    Quote: vahatak
                    The article here is not about Poland and Israel. World wars are fought by great powers.
                    The aggression of "small" powers differs in form, methods and goals from the aggression of the great powers. Not better or worse, just a completely different category. Therefore, they are not placed in the same row.

                    Oh, how does it mean logs can kill Russians, but Russians can't? Just like in a joke.
                    “Hey, I don’t understand who your friend is, a bear or me?”
                    So I want to ask you a question, who is your friend, Russia or Poland and the USA? Interestingly, such sentiments prevail within Armenia, or are you the only one such "unique"?
                  7. vahatak
                    vahatak 8 October 2013 00: 02
                    0
                    Personally, I am a supporter of the alliance with Russia and the development of this alliance, but because of people like you in disputes with our opponents in Armenia (supporters of the alliance with the USA, so far small in number) there are not enough argumants, because they always poke us with statements of yours, where the USSR and Stalin is the very, most, Russia is just an angel in the person of the state, everyone owes him everything, she saves everyone and saves, and everyone is obliged to do only what the Russians say, and that others also have interests and goals in this life, you not known.
                  8. chehywed
                    chehywed 8 October 2013 00: 14
                    0
                    Quote: vahatak
                    Russia is just an angel in the person of the state, everyone owes him, she saved and saves everyone

                    Yes, with wings. And we help everyone who needs it. Money, Ministry of Emergencies, than we can. But we have our own problems above the roof. Now call at least someone who helped us in Krymsk and the East during the flood.
                  9. vahatak
                    vahatak 8 October 2013 00: 35
                    0
                    This is generally not a topic, but once asked. In Krymsk and in the East, I don’t remember Russia asking for help abroad, and in 2010, anyone helped as best they could. But the conversation, I repeat, was about something else, and you took my words out of context.
  • Avenger711
    Avenger711 9 October 2013 18: 49
    0
    And it is not your business that the USSR suppressed in the states that had previously fought against it, or made weapons to the belligerent. It is his sovereign right to force neighbors to be friendly and eliminate any threat of ending this friendship. Regarding the one who was killed there, you are apparently so dumb that you don’t understand that the USSR was still fussing with this scum, an army with heavy weapons could have put everything there on the asphalt without much loss, and not a hundred bandits that you know in Russian a soldier was shot, which means they were subject to extermination, to shoot.
    1. Namejs
      Namejs 9 October 2013 21: 40
      0
      Quote: Avenger711
      It is his sovereign right to force neighbors to be friendly and eliminate any threat of ending this friendship.

      If I were at a seminar of international law so scolzovat I would be thrown out of the university forever :)))

      Do you just understand the meaning of the word sovereignty?
  • Avenger711
    Avenger711 9 October 2013 18: 46
    0
    Well, of course, the French knew that they had already been surrounded, damn, that in the environment of communication, usually dumb. Yes, and this is ridiculous if a little surrounded and the whole part of the column is captured. For some reason, only the Soviet units tried to break through under the same conditions, hence the loss of 95% by the French prisoners, and 41% in the Red Army in the 60st, this was when the soldier left without cartridges could still surrender, because he did not know what Germans, and there was still hope that a month or two and our Fritz will chase.
  • Omskgasmyas
    Omskgasmyas 6 October 2013 04: 05
    +4
    Quote: Namejs
    Like French resistance then it doesn’t count?

    And what is it?
    Like the Danes who didn’t go on a picnic outside the city, but sat down to fry meat in their courtyards and proudly declared: Stalingrad is here!
  • vahatak
    vahatak 6 October 2013 14: 50
    -3
    The difference is obvious. French citizens are alive and they will probably survive the whole war, and few of the Soviet people in the photo will survive until the next day.
    1. Proud.
      Proud. 6 October 2013 15: 27
      +1
      Quote: vahatak
      , and of the Soviet in the photo, few will survive until the next day.

      What is the reason?
      1. vahatak
        vahatak 6 October 2013 15: 35
        -4
        Of course I will. The Germans will kill. If the French acted in the same way as the USSR, the French would also be killed.
        1. Corsair
          Corsair 6 October 2013 22: 08
          +2
          Quote: vahatak
          Of course I will. The Germans will kill. If the French acted in the same way as the USSR, the French would also be killed.

          And if (God forbid!) The Republic of Armenia would be in the place of the French Republic, and the Republic of Turkey in the place of the aggressor, fascist Germany?
          Youvahatakwould reveal the same pacifism and humility?
          1. vahatak
            vahatak 6 October 2013 22: 26
            0
            You will not believe it, but the Republic of Armenia has been in such a situation in 1918. And yes, I had to go to a humiliating world even after our troops heroically stopped the Turks in front of Yerevan. And they waited until the First World War ended. About the same thing happened in 1920, when Armenia lost the Turkish war and the current borders appeared. And what had to be done? Fight until the other half of the people die? Death with arms in hand is certainly beautiful, but not always smart. And if you survive, then you can hope for a revenge.
            1. Corsair
              Corsair 6 October 2013 22: 40
              +1
              Quote: vahatak
              And if you survive, then you can hope for a revenge.

              I do not think that the majority (emphasis on "o") part of the Armenians will agree with you ...
              1. vahatak
                vahatak 6 October 2013 22: 55
                0
                I did not conduct surveys. Maybe they don’t agree. Although they are not happy they would rather die in a war where it is impossible to win. If most of it wants to, it can attack Turkey right now. The outcome is a little predictable. But for some reason they don’t want to. Even when I say revenge after many years, many do not believe.
                1. Setrac
                  Setrac 6 October 2013 22: 59
                  +1
                  Quote: vahatak
                  If most of it wants to, it can attack Turkey right now.

                  God does not give horns to a vigorous cow.
                  1. vahatak
                    vahatak 6 October 2013 23: 03
                    0
                    Hope for God, but don’t be too bad)
                  2. Setrac
                    Setrac 6 October 2013 23: 13
                    +4
                    Quote: vahatak
                    Hope for God, but don’t be too bad)

                    But so that the Armenians were not slaughtered by the Turks, the Russians had to "fail". And now a descendant of these "saved" sits on the Russian resource and pours dirt on their saviors in the spirit of Western propaganda.
                  3. vahatak
                    vahatak 6 October 2013 23: 47
                    -1
                    To begin with, personally, my ancestors were, as it were, from another region, where the Turks had the imprudence to go a couple of times, but not everyone left.
                    But not everyone was saved from the Armenians, and the Russians somehow left the Caucasus Front in 1917, and the genocide lasted until 1923 if that happened, and we had to save the khotya and, through humiliating peace treaties, the remnants of the people.
                    But where you saw the dirt in Russian, I just do not understand. Just in case, I repeat the Russian is not equal to the communist.
                  4. Setrac
                    Setrac 7 October 2013 00: 01
                    +3
                    Quote: vahatak
                    To begin with, personally, my ancestors were, as it were, from another region, where the Turks had the imprudence to go a couple of times, but not everyone left.

                    And my ancestors were from where they cut. And your ancestors, according to your position (although on the contrary, your position is a continuation of the position of your ancestors) sat behind my ancestors, which does not do you any honor. Therefore, they didn’t leave for the betrayed Armenia, but in Russia, where they didn’t kill for their nationality.
                    Quote: vahatak
                    Just in case, I repeat the Russian is not equal to the communist.

                    Just in case, I will say: a citizen of Armenia = Armenian, Hitler would have envied such "purity of the nation".
                  5. vahatak
                    vahatak 7 October 2013 00: 11
                    0
                    And where did the residents of the Syunik region get out if you are so informed?
                    Quote: Setrac
                    Hitler would have envied such "purity of the nation"

                    If Germany had been left between Berlin and Dresden, 96% of Germans would also have been there. Do you think it would be something to envy?
                  6. vahatak
                    vahatak 7 October 2013 00: 14
                    0
                    For those who do not read branches from the beginning:
                    They asked me what I would do if I were in the place of the French in 1940, and I said that in an analogous situation, my ancestors refused to wholesale most of my country to save the remnants of the people. And you probably would have preferred. so they die.
                  7. Setrac
                    Setrac 7 October 2013 00: 25
                    +1
                    Quote: vahatak
                    For those who do not read branches from the beginning:

                    Actually, a parallel with Armenia was drawn at the end, initially you were answered with attacks on the Soviet government about the allegedly unlawful actions of the USSR in the 1939-1940s against Poland and the Baltic states.
                  8. vahatak
                    vahatak 7 October 2013 00: 34
                    0
                    Read carefully. I did not speak about Poland and the Baltic states and did not discuss the issue from the point of view of law. it all started with the fact that I compared Stalin with Alexander the First in favor of the second, which ensured the neutrality of Sweden and Turkey in 1812, while Stalin quarreled with Romania and Finland. Here, obviously, there are many Stalinists, but Alexander does not like, but in vain.
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. Corsair
      Corsair 6 October 2013 23: 06
      +2
      Quote: vahatak
      Although they are not happy they would rather die in a war where it is impossible to win.

      With this "approach" ANY war is IMPOSSIBLE to win.
      The West also did not believe that the USSR would stand against fascism, and our people despised death and deprivation and gave the planet PEACE and FREEDOM
      1. vahatak
        vahatak 6 October 2013 23: 21
        -3
        I don’t know what the West believed in. The USSR or Russia never faced the choice of dying or surviving. The choice was to win with big losses or lose the war with (maybe) even bigger losses, and maybe with less. No matter how dramatized here, Hitler could not destroy all the Slavs.
      2. Misantrop
        Misantrop 6 October 2013 23: 32
        +3
        Quote: vahatak
        No matter how dramatized here, Hitler could not destroy all the Slavs.
        Well, yes, he needed a certain amount of slaves for the new gentlemen. He could or could not, he did it, the civilian population was destroyed three times more than on the battlefields.
        Quote: vahatak
        The USSR or Russia never faced the choice of dying or surviving.
        Yes, constantly, the whole story. "Enlightened European mind" for the Slavs, other than slavery, DID NOT PROVIDE
      3. vahatak
        vahatak 6 October 2013 23: 56
        -3
        Here is God for you, so that all your enemies are like Europeans. some only dream about it.
    4. Setrac
      Setrac 6 October 2013 23: 35
      +3
      Quote: vahatak
      No matter how dramatized here, Hitler could not destroy all the Slavs.

      You are lying, of course you wouldn’t destroy everyone, the Russians would have survived in Siberia, but the fact of huge losses among the civilian population speaks against you. The Germans had a plan to destroy the Russians and they carried it out.
    5. vahatak
      vahatak 7 October 2013 00: 00
      +1
      Words CANNOT tell you anything? Didn't I say I WANTED?
    6. chehywed
      chehywed 7 October 2013 01: 34
      +1
      Quote: vahatak
      Words CANNOT tell you anything? Didn't I say I WANTED?

      Read about Plan Ost. If we had lost the war, he COULD have done EVERYTHING he WANTED.
    7. vahatak
      vahatak 7 October 2013 12: 32
      0
      In order to be able not to lose the war, you must have a state and an army, which the Russians always had, and many peoples only dreamed about it.
    8. Setrac
      Setrac 7 October 2013 15: 36
      0
      Quote: vahatak
      In order to be able not to lose the war, you must have a state and an army, which the Russians always had, and many peoples only dreamed about it.

      Well, great! The Russians are to blame for someone somewhere not having their own state! Just someone does not spare laboring for the good of their country and dying for their country, as a result, such a country disappears from the world map.
    9. vahatak
      vahatak 7 October 2013 16: 13
      -1
      where did I say that the Russians are to blame for something? I just said that the Russians have never been in such difficult situations in which many peoples have been for centuries, and therefore you will not be aware of the severity of the situation that made this or that state make a choice between evil and lesser evil.
  • Corsair
    Corsair 6 October 2013 23: 39
    +4
    Quote: vahatak
    The USSR or Russia never faced the choice of dying or surviving.

    It’s interesting, what would the STOK start if someone on the Armenian Internet resource would question the FACT of the ARMENIAN GENOCIDE ???
    Do you actually claim that fascism did not exterminate the Russians and other peoples?!?
  • vahatak
    vahatak 6 October 2013 23: 58
    0
    I do not deny anything. I say that Hitler did not have such an opportunity. His defeat was inevitable.
  • chehywed
    chehywed 7 October 2013 01: 51
    +3
    Quote: vahatak
    I do not deny anything. I say that Hitler did not have such an opportunity. His defeat was inevitable.

    What are you? It is not a fact that if we had not concluded a pact with Hitler, our future allies would not have done this. Delirium? And the fact that he hoped to the last that OUR Western allies would appreciate his contribution to the fight against Bolshevism and help him out? And what about Dulles's negotiations with the Nazis? What about Operation Unthinkable?
  • vahatak
    vahatak 7 October 2013 12: 38
    0
    1. Hitler's hopes mean little to politics.
    2. These hopes were associated only with England, but he did not plan to put up with France, so there was no need to generalize.
    4. The negotiations of Dulles were conducted only at the end of the war and only on the conditions of surrender (unconditionally or not), when the outcome was clear,
    5. The "unthinkable" is just a work plan, of which there should be dozens in the headquarters of all armies, since every self-respecting general staff must be ready for several options for the development of the situation.
  • Misantrop
    Misantrop 6 October 2013 23: 35
    +2
    Quote: vahatak
    And if you survive, then you can hope for a revenge.
    And many Armenians managed to survive in Turkey after the Young Turks came to power in 1907? They also did not believe that they would be stupidly cut ...
    1. vahatak
      vahatak 7 October 2013 00: 02
      +1
      Here a different situation was discussed. Are you sure you read the entire thread from the beginning?
  • Corsair
    Corsair 6 October 2013 15: 30
    +2
    Quote: vahatak
    The difference is obvious. French citizens are alive and they will probably survive the whole war, and few of the Soviet people in the photo will survive until the next day.

    Presumably you are for the surrender of the USSR on the "wise example of France"?

    "Legs up" ... and do what the hell with me?

    Clickable Image
    1. vahatak
      vahatak 6 October 2013 17: 05
      0
      Somewhere here I already wrote for what I am. In short: for joining the war in September 1939.
      1. Corsair
        Corsair 6 October 2013 22: 16
        +2
        Quote: vahatak
        Somewhere here I already wrote for what I am. In short: for joining the war in September 1939.

        To enter the war, the willingness of the armed forces and the state to wage it. V1939 has not yet had such an opportunity.
        The Wehrmacht in 1939-41 was at the peak of its power (which gradually began to "fade away" after the attack on the USSR, WHY, I hope there is no need to explain), and the Red Army was in the stage of reforming and rearmament ...
        1. vahatak
          vahatak 6 October 2013 22: 43
          0
          The Wehrmacht reached the peak of power only in 1941. But in 1939, France and partially Poland were still in service, the resources of which in 1941 already served the Wehrmacht.
          Yes, and Romania, the main supplier of oil to Germany, has not yet entered the war.
          At the expense of the preparedness of the Red Army, so in 1941 it did not complete the reform and rearmament, which was the cause of the defeats. There is just such a thing. Someone said that he would rather lose on the territory of the enemy than win on his own. controversial, but pragmatic.
          1. Corsair
            Corsair 6 October 2013 22: 58
            +2
            Quote: vahatak
            The Wehrmacht reached the peak of power only in 1941.

            According to reform plans (if I am not mistaken), the Red Army was to reach a peak of combat readiness only by the 1942 year.
            Quote: vahatak
            Yes, and Romania, the main supplier of oil to Germany, has not yet entered the war.

            Romania in the event of a war between the USSR and Germany in 1939, would have "pulled through" quickly, do not hesitate ...
            1. vahatak
              vahatak 6 October 2013 23: 06
              0
              Well, if ....
              I am only comparing the forces of the parties in 1939 and 1941 and I think that in 1939 the anti-Hitler coalition had a greater advantage than in 1941, although the USSR was ready, of course, worse.
              1. Corsair
                Corsair 6 October 2013 23: 27
                +3
                Quote: vahatak
                I think that in 1939 the anti-Hitler coalition had a greater advantage than in 1941

                There could be no "coalition" in 1939 ...
                "Soyuznichki" caught on only in 1941, when Europe was already lying at the feet of the Fuhrer and the Nazis attacked the USSR.
                Having "pushed" their brains and "rummaged" in their wallets, the future "partners" reasonably (for themselves) decided that in the event of the defeat of the USSR, their turn would come ... And they decided to help ...
                Yes, the help is invaluable, but if it weren’t for the USSR, EVERYTHING WOULD BE EVIDENT ...
                1. vahatak
                  vahatak 6 October 2013 23: 52
                  0
                  Are you saying that France or Poland in the fall of 1939 would have refused aid? I know that the Poles in the summer of the same year were very brave and proud, but only after the start of the war they themselves shouted "help". And in 1941, only England remained in the ranks, and even with a broken muzzle. And in 1940 Italy entered the war, which also has the experience of "choosing" allies; compare PMV.
                2. Corsair
                  Corsair 7 October 2013 00: 05
                  +2
                  Quote: vahatak
                  I know that the Poles in the summer of the same year were very brave and proud, but only after the start of the war they themselves shouted "help".

                  It was not necessary to "shout", but to THINK, to think even at a time when the USSR, bound by the treaty "On Mutual Assistance" with Czechoslovakia, asked for a "corridor" for the troops necessary to defend Czechoslovakia.
                  Instead of "brainwashing" the Poles, together with Hitler, they decided to "snatch a piece" from this state.
                  Naturally AFTER THIS, the USSR, REMAINING ALONE FORCED WAS SIGNING A PACT WITH Germany ...
                3. vahatak
                  vahatak 7 October 2013 00: 16
                  0
                  so read my comments first and make sure that I also think the signing of the pact is correct, just the USSR was not able to take full advantage of this.
                4. Corsair
                  Corsair 7 October 2013 00: 23
                  +1
                  Quote: vahatak
                  just the USSR was not able to take full advantage of this.

                  The signing of the Pact itself is a "stalemate" situation for the USSR, and the only benefit that could be derived from it was the DELAY of the war ...
                  And the USSR took advantage of this "delay" as much as the situation allowed ...
                5. vahatak
                  vahatak 7 October 2013 00: 35
                  -1
                  And the First Lexander used the Tilsit world better, although the situation was no better, but in my opinion even worse.
          2. Corsair
            Corsair 7 October 2013 00: 05
            +1
            Quote: vahatak
            I know that the Poles in the summer of the same year were very brave and proud, but only after the start of the war they themselves shouted "help".

            It was not necessary to "shout", but to THINK, to think at a time when the USSR, bound by the treaty "On Mutual Assistance" with Czechoslovakia, asked for a "corridor" for the troops necessary to defend Czechoslovakia.
            Instead of "brainwashing" the Poles, together with Hitler, they decided to "snatch a piece" from this state.
            Naturally AFTER THIS, the USSR, REMAINING ALONE FORCED WAS SIGNING A PACT WITH Germany ...
  • Avenger711
    Avenger711 9 October 2013 19: 10
    0
    Another rIZuna has read about Romania ...
    About the reform of Nadiolo nonsense read.
  • Avenger711
    Avenger711 9 October 2013 18: 56
    0
    The USSR was also in favor. For fighting with the Germans in Poland. Otherwise, I'm sorry, the Psheks sent all our proposals, they have agreements with England and France, even if they are at war. If the Psheks and the French had fought better, then Stalin could have calmly watched in the 42nd year how they wet each other.
  • sanecc
    sanecc 5 October 2013 17: 39
    +4
    ALL THAN YOU RIGHT SUCH A TYPE IN THIS WORD-Europe has always been arrogant in relation to the USA AND RUSSIA AND HINDERS WITH AUSTRALIANS ....
    And when over Britain and France the threat of fascism was gone, European "analysts" began to shit on Russia ............ am
  • Stasi
    Stasi 6 October 2013 09: 38
    +6
    Europe has always acted and will continue to act swine with Russia, it is high time to understand this. As for France, she is forever indebted to Stalin for allowing him to join the victorious powers. Stalin did this in the hope that de Gaulle would establish a communist regime in France, but he was mistaken. And since occupied France, like all of Europe, easily and obediently carried out Hitler’s will and served him, all European industry and economy worked until the very end on the Reich. So Stalin gave the French a huge gift for which they would never pay. I pay tribute to the heroes of the Resistance, but if it should be appreciated, then the European Resistance did not stand close to our partisan movement, which really fought the Germans and inflicted huge damage on the Wehrmacht.
  • In the reeds
    In the reeds 5 October 2013 17: 20
    0
    [quote = GrBear] Abram asks Joni.
    A: Is black a color? D: Color.
    A: Is white the color? D: Color.
    A: You see, Vanya, I sold you a color TV.

    Almost all attempts to translate the Bible from Hebrew into other languages, including Russian, were accompanied by assumptions of natural errors due to the complexity of Hebrew and the insufficient level of literacy of the translators. But the fact is a stubborn thing ... In Hebrew there are no two different letters "B and C". As there is no "P and F". These are not four, but two letters. It all depends on where they stand in the word. "B" if it is the first letter in the word, and if the second is already "C". The same applies to "P" - "F". This is the grammar rule of the language. So the name Abraham, if translated incorrectly, turned into Abram. The exceptions are dark. But let's not sink into this darkness. After all, so Ivanushka can turn into de God like Fedor. And you bear go into the reeds with tea to drink
    1. sanecc
      sanecc 5 October 2013 17: 36
      +2
      ah, HOW IT IS IN THE TOPIC ...... DIRECTLY TO THE POINT
      1. In the reeds
        In the reeds 5 October 2013 17: 52
        0
        And in the subject, if you could not destroy the egg, destroy the dragon while he is still within your power, until he has grown into a monster. Then all those who cleverly footballed this egg away from their gates do not leaders of their peoples-worthless football players
    2. Corsair5912
      Corsair5912 5 October 2013 18: 46
      +1
      Quote: In the reeds
      Almost all attempts to translate the Bible from Hebrew into other languages, including Russian, were accompanied by natural errors, due to the difficulty of the Hebrew language and the insufficient literacy level of translators

      The primitive language of the long-dead savages Hebrew is no more complicated than other languages.
      And why should I translate the Bible from Hebrew, if the source language in which the Bible is written is Latin? The Bible is translated into Hebrew from Latin, and not vice versa.
      The language, which was considered dead during the 18 centuries, becomes the language of everyday communication, the state language of the State of Israel. This was made possible thanks to the efforts of a number of enthusiasts, the most famous of which is Eliezer Ben Yehuda.
      The idea of ​​reviving Hebrew was an integral part of the ideology of Zionism as such, which sought to break with the legacy of the diaspora and with the languages ​​spoken by Jews living under alien dominion.
      1. Glory333
        Glory333 5 October 2013 18: 57
        0
        The Old Testament of the Bible (Torah) was written when Latin was not yet, naturally written in Hebrew.
        1. Corsair5912
          Corsair5912 5 October 2013 19: 13
          +2
          Quote: Glory333
          The Old Testament of the Bible (Torah) was written when Latin was not yet, naturally written in Hebrew.

          You have the wrong information, Latin, Greek and Slavic writing appeared much earlier than Hebrew. All the antics about Jewish antiquities and Jewish antiquities themselves were composed no earlier than the 19 century.
          The Sinai Bible Codex, Sinai Book (Latin Codex Sinaiticus) is a list of Bibles in Greek, currently considered the oldest uncial parchment manuscript of the Bible.
          The Sinai Codex, along with the ancient papyri, Alexandria, Vatican and a number of other ancient codes, is one of the most valuable sources that allow textologists to recreate the original text of New Testament books. The codex was written in the 4th century and until the middle of the 19th century was located on the Sinai Peninsula in the library of St. Catherine’s Monastery. Part of the Old Testament manuscript was lost, but the New Testament text has been preserved in its entirety. In fact, the Sinai Codex is the only Greek uncial manuscript with the full text of the New Testament. In addition to biblical texts, the codex contains two works by early Christian authors of the 2nd century: “The Epistle of Barnabas” and (partially) the “Shepherd” of Germa.
          1. Glory333
            Glory333 5 October 2013 19: 20
            0
            I'm afraid that you have the wrong information.
            The Bible has the Old Testament, which is an edited Torah, the Torah is written about 600 BC. Judaism is not based on Christianity; on the contrary, Christianity is a branch of the more ancient religion of Judaism; the same Christ, while still unknown, prayed in the Synagogue.
            1. Setrac
              Setrac 5 October 2013 21: 50
              +3
              Quote: Glory333
              The Torah is written about 600 BC.

              There is no evidence for this. The oldest Torah is younger than the Guttenberg Bible.
              1. Glory333
                Glory333 5 October 2013 22: 10
                0
                I don't know :) it is quite possible that it is, although there is reason to believe that the ancient Jews had a written language even when they lived and prospered in Egypt - in "Egyptian slavery".
                1. Setrac
                  Setrac 5 October 2013 22: 32
                  +3
                  Quote: Glory333
                  I don't know :) it is quite possible that it is, although there is reason to believe that the ancient Jews had a written language even when they lived and prospered in Egypt - in "Egyptian slavery".

                  There are no grounds. Egyptian slavery of the Jews is a myth. You can also talk about the American or Russian "slavery" of the Jews. Rest assured, in ancient Egypt the Jews settled down no worse than in modern Russia or the United States, and we can talk about the expulsion of Jews from Egypt, but not about "escape from slavery."
                  1. Glory333
                    Glory333 5 October 2013 22: 36
                    0
                    I thought so too, that's why I wrote that they flourished and put "slavery" in quotes :)
                    1. Setrac
                      Setrac 5 October 2013 22: 42
                      +1
                      Quote: Glory333
                      I thought so too, that's why I wrote that they flourished and put "slavery" in quotes :)

                      I did not notice your quotes wink ... I do not believe in the history of the "ancient world" at all, it is all invented, including in the "ancient Jews".
                  2. Omskgasmyas
                    Omskgasmyas 6 October 2013 04: 13
                    +1
                    You are not quite right. Egyptian slavery really was. But the Egyptians managed to overthrow the foreign slaveholders and expel them to their historical homeland. True, it was not possible to destroy them, since the warriors on the chariots sent instead of fighting chose to take good compensation. The Jews, on the other hand, came up with the myth of the parting Red Sea and the abyss that had devoured the pursuers. The winners write the story, and then they clear out all historical documents that contradict their version.
                    1. Setrac
                      Setrac 6 October 2013 04: 38
                      0
                      Quote: Omskgazmyas
                      You are not quite right. Egyptian slavery really was. But the Egyptians managed to overthrow the foreign slaveholders and expel them to their historical homeland.

                      What you wrote is the history of the Khazar Kaganate. However, it turns out that the Khazar Kaganate is the very "ancient" Egypt, and present-day Egypt was so called to distort history.
                    2. Corsair5912
                      Corsair5912 6 October 2013 09: 12
                      +1
                      Quote: Omskgazmyas
                      The Jews, on the other hand, came up with the myth of the parting Red Sea and the abyss that had devoured the pursuers. The winners write the story, and then they clear out all historical documents that contradict their version.

                      In a particular case, history was composed by those who survived the historical process.
                      Where are they, the great Egyptians, scientists, philosophers and builders? And the little traders survived and composed a great story for themselves. The biblical god in ideology and habits is more like a Fuhrer.
                      At the death of Moses, the servant of the Lord, the Lord said to Jesus, the son of Nun, the servant of Moses:
                      2 Moses, my servant, is dead; so get up, go through this Jordan, you and all this people, into the land that I give to them, the sons of Israel.
                      3 Every place on which the feet of your feet set foot, I give you, as I said to Moses:
                      4 from the desert and this Lebanon to the great river, the river Euphrates, all the land of the Hittites; and to the great sea to the west of the sun will be your limits.
                      5 No one will stand before you all the days of your life; and as I was with Moses, so I will be with you: I will not depart from you and I will not leave you.
        2. Setrac
          Setrac 5 October 2013 21: 47
          0
          Quote: Glory333
          The Old Testament of the Bible (Torah) was written when Latin was not yet, naturally written in Hebrew.

          And where is this copy of the "ancient" Torah kept? He is absent!
    3. vahatak
      vahatak 6 October 2013 14: 56
      0
      You forgot one nuance: the Bible was not translated from Hebrew, but from Greek. It was the Greek translation that was considered canonical.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Corsair5912
    Corsair5912 5 October 2013 18: 39
    +3
    Need a clear and clear position. Russian society, especially its young part, should know: to consider the non-aggression treaty between Germany and the USSR as a national disgrace or as a logical victory of the country's leadership and Soviet diplomacy in conditions of connivance to the aggressor by the Western powers.

    The USSR did not need war; therefore, the non-aggression pact with Germany was highly justified and reasonable for him.
    Concerned about the interests and safety of his sworn enemies of Poland, France, England and others, who had similar agreements with Hitler, Stalin was not obliged, he was not a traitor, like spotted Gorbi and the alcoholic Ben Ben.
    The destalinizers deserve a loop; these creatures are no better than the Nazis.
  • Moore
    Moore 5 October 2013 18: 48
    +4
    Quote: Shogun23
    Those who condemn the pact of 23 August 1939 need to ask one simple question: "What should have been done then?"

    How is it - what? Calmly wait for Hitler to occupy the "Baltic dwarfs", add five divisions to his plus (who has doubts that everyone there would diligently sew on the collar not buttonholes with "cubes" and "sleepers", but national "coils"?) And starts towards Leningrad and Minsk not from new borders, but directly from their suburbs.
    The fate of Leningrad can be predicted, as well as the fate of Murmansk, Arkhangelsk, Petrozavodsk. As well as the northern Lend-Lease.
    Here at the Drummer I read about the lack of allies in the USSR (the same with the late Pikul, a famous konyuktourist, in the "Square of the Fallen Fighters" - he, however, sarcastically recalled Choibalsan). What can you say ... Learn materiel, dear. You look and learn about how the USSR consistently tried to persuade France and England to take joint actions and what came of it.
    1. Motors1991
      Motors1991 5 October 2013 19: 04
      +3
      You forgot to add to this list: Kiev, Smolensk, Odessa. Surely they would have fallen in the first days of the war, like Minsk. And then Kharkov, Moscow, Baku and all, the Germans are in damn.
      1. Drummer
        Drummer 11 October 2013 08: 45
        +1
        This is if German troops suddenly teleport through Poland.
    2. Shogun23
      Shogun23 5 October 2013 19: 28
      -2
      Quote: Moore
      The fate of Leningrad can be predicted, as well as the fate of Murmansk, Arkhangelsk, Petrozavodsk. As well as the northern Lend-Lease.

      They will drink Bavarian beer and ride on chic autobahns.
      1. Shogun23
        Shogun23 8 October 2013 01: 41
        0
        Who does not understand that it was sarcasm, please forgive me, I did not want to mislead you, and I am writing about this now. THIS WAS SARCASM !!!
  • chenia
    chenia 5 October 2013 19: 56
    +4
    Quote: Drummer
    And if you had turned a little differently, then Hitler would have been able to avoid war, having lost popularity under the weight of economic problems, would have remained in history as a flashy misunderstanding like Misha Saakashvili.


    Well, no, Hitler is a Western project of aggression against the USSR. He could economically break it even in 33, so on the contrary, the indemnity was canceled.

    He was supposed to attack the USSR together with Poland, (from East Prussia through the Baltic states having supplies along the Polish-controlled corridor). And on the western border of Germany would be Anglo-French divisions. Poland would fall to Ukraine and Belarus (with all the problems for the occupiers, Germany, the Baltic states, the north of Russia and then, as the British determine).
    At a certain point, you need to push these sides together (for example, Bosnia, the Croats fight with the Muslims against the Serbs, then the Croats beat the Muslims with the Serbs) and so on ad infinitum - this is the dream of the Anglo-Skunks (and with the help of the Franks to control the agility of Germany). Here is their plan.
    1. Glory333
      Glory333 5 October 2013 20: 09
      -2
      Yes, economically, Germany as a half-socialist country was very successful, it is in the Western countries as usual there was a crisis. Any speculation about the economic collapse of Germany is only an attempt to discredit its successful economic model, the German economy did not fall apart even under the conditions of a total war and under the bombs of the allies, unlike the countries of the West who manage to destroy their economies in peacetime.
      1. Corsair5912
        Corsair5912 6 October 2013 09: 28
        +2
        Quote: Glory333
        Yes, economically, Germany as a half-socialist country was very successful, it is in the Western countries as usual there was a crisis. Any speculation about the economic collapse of Germany is only an attempt to discredit its successful economic model, the German economy did not fall apart even under the conditions of a total war and under the bombs of the allies, unlike the countries of the West who manage to destroy their economies in peacetime.

        In Nazi Germany there was not the slightest sign of socialism, and no successful economic model. Churchill asserts this without hesitation, and he was a contemporary and participant in all the events of that time.
        Under the fruitful influence of American and British loans, the restoration of Germany went very quickly. Its trade expanded with incredible speed, increasing the country's domestic welfare
        Churchill, "World War II" book. 1 1949 London.
        .

        The German economy collapsed immediately after the attack on the USSR and rested solely on the robbery of the occupied territories and on the use of the entire industry of Central and Western Europe.
  • Nayhas
    Nayhas 5 October 2013 20: 24
    -6
    Yes, for Natalia Loktionova there are no moral principles. According to her logic, if two people raped a woman, then the one who did it the second did not do anything reprehensible, at that time she was already raped, therefore there is no fact of rape by the second, despite the fact that they planned rape in advance, because "everyone does it." ..
    I hope Loktionova will not have to endure this on herself, otherwise God forbid, the opinion will change ...
    1. Glory333
      Glory333 5 October 2013 20: 29
      +2
      Ha ha In the garden of elderberry and uncle in Kiev.
      If anyone raped anyone, it was the Poles who raped national minorities - Ukrainians, Germans and Belarusians.
      1. Nayhas
        Nayhas 5 October 2013 21: 00
        -1
        Quote: Glory333
        Ha ha In the garden of elderberry and uncle in Kiev.

        Well, I’m glad for you, of course, judging by the flag you have both, but what is the relation to the topic of your passages about rape of Ukrainians and Germans?
        1. Glory333
          Glory333 5 October 2013 21: 41
          +2
          Just your passages about raping women have nothing to do with the topic, I just translated them into a real plane - to the endless terror of the Poles against the population of territories illegally attached to Poland.
          1. Nayhas
            Nayhas 5 October 2013 22: 08
            -4
            Quote: Glory333
            I just translated them into a real plane - to the endless terror of the Poles against the population of territories illegally attached to Poland.

            You were not transferred to the plane, but generally "taken to the side streets."
            At the expense of illegality. The USSR IS NOT THE SUCCESSOR of the Russian Empire, respectively, no territorial claims to either Poland or Romania could have a priori. And your message to the fact that Stalin felt sorry for the Ukrainians living in Poland is simply ridiculous, six years before that he starved the Ukrainians with hunger regardless of the victims, and after the capture of Western Ukraine, wagons with "liberated" Ukrainians began to flow into Siberia, and in 1941 ... Germans in Lvov Germans were met by corpses filled with corpses with the same "liberated" Ukrainians.
            1. Glory333
              Glory333 5 October 2013 22: 26
              0
              In fact, the USSR was the successor to RI.
              In 1933, the Ukrainians were killed by Trotskyists-agents of world capital on orders from the United States; it was not enough for the rulers of the United States (West) to starve their citizens during the so-called. The "Great Depression" was a specially organized crisis, which is why they ordered their agents to arrange famine in the USSR, in which there was no crisis even close.
              In Ukraine’s territories occupied by Poland, many disloyal to the USSR and generally to socialism divorced naturally, and some of them were subjected to repression, the size of which, by the way, is greatly exaggerated.
              1. Nayhas
                Nayhas 5 October 2013 23: 12
                -5
                Quote: Glory333
                In 1933, Trotskyites-agents of world capital were stained by Ukrainians on orders from the United States, the rulers of the United States (West)

                Not a damn thing about how you suffered ... I have not heard such a revelation, it seems to you that Stalin is a US agent and also a Trotskyist ... And there is something in this, something crazy that requires medical supervision. ..
                Quote: Glory333
                that’s part of them that were repressed, the dimensions of which, by the way, are greatly exaggerated.

                It does not matter how many criminals committed the killings, one or five, he is still a criminal.
                1. Glory333
                  Glory333 5 October 2013 23: 40
                  +4
                  In my opinion, it doesn’t work out all your way, it means your doctors too, Stalin just stopped the famine in 1934 and he shot many American Trotsky agents in 1937 and in the following years - tell me, was the execution of these executioners a crime of Stalin? However, in the West they say so, there even the assassination of Trotsky, who organized the killing of millions of innocent people, without hesitation, is called a tragedy.
                  1. Nayhas
                    Nayhas 6 October 2013 09: 21
                    -3
                    Quote: Glory333
                    Stalin just stopped the famine in 1934 and he shot many American Trotskyist agents in 1937

                    Oh how! You are less and less showing signs of rationality. You for yourself have come up with a scheme according to which Stalin relieves all responsibility for the crimes committed, all committed by American agents who were then punished for it. But how is it incomprehensible how some agents involved in the deaths were punished, and others not?
                    For example, Foma Akimovich Leoniuk, who was in 1932-1933, was the head of the Secret Operations Directorate of the GPU under the SNK of the Ukrainian SSR, the deputy chairman of the GPU at the SNK of the Ukrainian SSR survived Stalin and died in 1967. How was an American intelligence agent and one of the organizers of the Holodomor able to hide from the vigilant Stalinist gaze? And he is not the only one, many of those involved in the mass deaths of people survived Stalin. In your opinion, some were American agents and they were punished for their involvement in the famine, while others who were also involved in the famine were innocent? And how does something fit in your head between convolutions?
                    1. Glory333
                      Glory333 6 October 2013 12: 10
                      +2
                      I will ignore personal attacks :)
                      First, any crime must have a motive, what motive did Stalin have to starve the people of his Empire, his workers and peasants, future soldiers in the impending war? Obviously, the rulers of the West and their many Trotskyite agents, who systematically engaged in sabotage and sabotage, had motive for starvation in the USSR — these were facts and not fiction. An irrefutable fact is that the Stalin government fought pests to eliminate the damage they caused, which is why in 1934 there were significant deliveries of food and seeds to Ukraine and other parts of the USSR that stopped the famine. It is interesting that the rulers of the USA also had a motive to destroy their American population, which they did with the help of the great depression.
                      Why haven't all US agents escaped punishment? Mainly because of the pressure of the West in every way protecting its own. In the West, a huge howl was raised (and still continues) due to the destruction of the Trotskyists, and the USSR, in light of the approaching war, was in dire need of supplies of equipment for its industry. There were also other reasons.
                      In the United States, no one was punished for organizing the American famine - how do you explain this?
                    2. Misantrop
                      Misantrop 6 October 2013 12: 38
                      +1
                      Quote: Nayhas
                      For example, Foma Akimovich Leoniuk, who was in 1932-1933, was the head of the Secret Operations Directorate of the GPU under the SNK of the Ukrainian SSR, the deputy chairman of the GPU at the SNK of the Ukrainian SSR survived Stalin and died in 1967. How was an American intelligence agent and one of the organizers of the Holodomor able to hide from the vigilant Stalinist gaze?
                      Probably because he was under the gaze of Nikita Sergeyevich Khrushchev (who is in time for starvation in Ukraine has a much closer relationship, as well as for punitive operations on its territory) wink
            2. Setrac
              Setrac 5 October 2013 22: 35
              +3
              Quote: Nayhas
              USSR IS NOT THE SUCCESSOR OF THE RUSSIAN EMPIRE

              That's a moot point. Correctly it must be said that the West will never recognize Russia as the successor of the Russian Empire. This is legal casuistry directed against Russia, because it is obvious that Russia is the state that used to be the Russian Empire, with some, unprincipled changes in the border.
              1. Glory333
                Glory333 5 October 2013 22: 57
                +3
                I do not agree with you :) The West also recognized the USSR as the assignee of the Russian Empire when it began to demand royal debts with the USSR :)
                In general, it is important that the USSR itself considered itself a legal successor and had very good reasons, by the way, our country agreed to discuss the issue of imperial debts, of course, taking into account its interests, I recall from the West that they demanded that the damage from the intervention be paid.
                1. Nayhas
                  Nayhas 5 October 2013 23: 28
                  -6
                  Quote: Glory333
                  I do not agree with you :) The West also recognized the USSR as the assignee of the Russian Empire when it began to demand royal debts with the USSR :)

                  Because the Entente countries believed that the new state that arose on the fragments of the Russian Empire considers itself a successor. However, the Bolsheviks announced that this was not so, and decided on that. Of course, the country continued to be called Russia, but legally it was not, and even if it was called a cargo, then wrap up your territorial ambitions where everyone thought ...
                  1. Glory333
                    Glory333 6 October 2013 00: 38
                    +3
                    The Bolsheviks, and in particular Stalin, just declared the USSR as the legal successor of the Republic of Ingushetia, so no need, I can quote, I remember that they said when they demanded Moldova. Legally, the countries of the West, recognizing the USSR, also recognized it as the assignee of the Republic of Ingushetia.
                  2. Corsair5912
                    Corsair5912 6 October 2013 09: 39
                    +4
                    Nayhas
                    Because the Entente countries believed that the new state that arose on the fragments of the Russian Empire considers itself a successor. However, the Bolsheviks announced that this was not so, and decided

                    Entente countries could believe that they wanted anything, they had no rights to determine the rights and borders of states.
                    All the same arrogant merciless meanness and unbridled arrogance from a position of strength, like the modern policy of the West.
              2. Nayhas
                Nayhas 5 October 2013 23: 23
                -1
                Quote: Setrac
                That's a moot point.

                And what's controversial? The Bolsheviks themselves announced this, no one pulled their tongue. For Finland, for example, the USSR made territorial claims not because it was part of the Russian Empire, but because the border was close to Leningrad. In Bessarabia, the claims against Romania were somewhat justified, because it was part of the USR which subsequently entered the USSR, i.e. as part of an already new state, and not the successor to RI.
                1. Setrac
                  Setrac 5 October 2013 23: 38
                  +2
                  Quote: Nayhas
                  And what's controversial? The Bolsheviks themselves announced this.

                  Well, where are these Bolsheviks?
                  Quote: Nayhas
                  no one pulled their tongue.

                  Even as pulled by the tongue. Through the efforts of ALL Entente.
                  1. Nayhas
                    Nayhas 6 October 2013 09: 26
                    -1
                    Quote: Setrac
                    Well, where are these Bolsheviks?

                    On the Red Square, one of them lies in the mausoleum. So what? I did not understand your promise.
                    Quote: Setrac
                    Even as pulled by the tongue. Through the efforts of ALL Entente.

                    Do not make excuses; in this case they have absolutely no value. Pull-not pulled, what's the difference? In fact, the USSR is not the successor of the Russian Empire and the reasons why the USSR decided so are not important.
                2. Corsair5912
                  Corsair5912 6 October 2013 09: 51
                  +2
                  Quote: Nayhas
                  And what's controversial? The Bolsheviks themselves announced this, no one pulled their tongue. For Finland, for example, the USSR made territorial claims not because it was part of the Russian Empire, but because the border was close to Leningrad. In Bessarabia, the claims against Romania were somewhat justified, because it was part of the USR which subsequently entered the USSR, i.e. as part of an already new state, and not the successor to RI.

                  Are you lying intentionally or through ignorance?
                  Karelia has ALWAYS been part of Russia-Russia and had nothing to do with Finland. In 1918, taking advantage of the civil war, Chukhn captured Karelia, forcing the RSFSR in 1920 to agree to a peace treaty.
                  The Poles captured part of Ukraine and Belarus, attacking these republics that were part of the RSFSR.
                  The USSR, the undoubted successor of the RSFSR and the territorial requirements for the arrogant invaders who took advantage of the civil war, are extremely fair. For such vile tricks relies on a complete sweep of the initiators of attacks and seizures. Finns and Poles got off easily.
                  1. Nayhas
                    Nayhas 6 October 2013 21: 10
                    0
                    Quote: Corsair5912
                    Are you lying intentionally or through ignorance?
                    Karelia has ALWAYS been part of Russia-Russia and had nothing to do with Finland. In 1918, taking advantage of the civil war, Chukhn captured Karelia, forcing the RSFSR in 1920 to agree to a peace treaty.

                    Give literally the claims voiced by Finland in 1939, find there at least one word about "Rus-Russia".
    2. Shogun23
      Shogun23 5 October 2013 20: 39
      0
      it’s stupid to translate the comparison to the household level, since international politics is ten times more complex mechanism, with many introductory
      1. Nayhas
        Nayhas 5 October 2013 20: 56
        0
        Quote: Shogun23
        it’s stupid to translate the comparison to the household level, since international politics is ten times more complex mechanism, with many introductory

        Well, if you think that everything is different there ... In your opinion, if Japan were to be in December 1941. would invade the territory of the USSR, would you have the right to do so? Well, in terms of big politics, of course ...
        1. Glory333
          Glory333 5 October 2013 21: 57
          0
          Yes, if the USSR occupied Japanese lands originally inhabited by the Japanese and terrorized the Japanese population there, it is quite possible that Japan would have justified reasons to act.
          1. Nayhas
            Nayhas 5 October 2013 23: 06
            -1
            Quote: Glory333
            Japan would have a fair reason to act

            Oh how! And international law on the side? The Germans believed that the Czechs infringed on the rights in the Sudetenland and annexed the Sudetenland. Everyone calls the Munich Agreement criminal, but in your opinion is everything right?
            1. Glory333
              Glory333 5 October 2013 23: 48
              +1
              Legally, the seizure of the Sudetenland region by Czechoslovakia without the referenda for self-determination of residents was illegal, the same thing happened with part of the lands of the German Empire included in Poland, of course these issues are controversial because the Czechs and Poles presented their arguments for these seizures.
              What exactly was illegal was discrimination against the inhabitants of these regions, which in the summer of 1939 turned into open terror in Poland with robberies, rapes and massacres.
            2. Omskgasmyas
              Omskgasmyas 6 October 2013 04: 29
              +1
              Let me be curious, which countries, besides Russia, now consider the "Munich Agreement" criminal? In my opinion, the routine peace and border treaty known to the world as the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact has been declared criminal for more than 20 years. One of many, then concluded by many European countries with Germany.
  • wax
    wax 5 October 2013 20: 47
    +6
    the agreement with Germany concluded by Stalin in August 39 did not go beyond the framework of generally accepted international political norms

    The Soviet Union until the last year sought an alliance with non-fascist Western prostitute countries, and when they began joyfully rubbing their hands that they could remain aloof from the war with Hitler, which was directed by all of them to the USSR, Stalin made a brilliant move, concluding a non-aggression pact with Germany, giving Hitler two years to conquer all of Europe. After that, in a future war, the USSR could no longer stand alone against Hitler. Stalin wiped the West with their own snot, so much that they still cannot calm down, although Stalin’s heirs surrendered the USSR to them a quarter century ago, not only without war, but also without a fight.
  • Omskgasmyas
    Omskgasmyas 5 October 2013 20: 51
    +6
    The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact is an outstanding victory for Soviet diplomacy in the almost hopeless position of the USSR among enemies.
    1. He tore the anti-Soviet bunch of Berlin-Tokyo. After all, the successful battles with the ALLY of Germany - Japan on Khalkhin Gol have just ended. Japan in response harbored a grudge, concluded a similar pact with the USSR and did not attack the USSR in 41, no matter how Germany requested it.
    2. Enemy No.-1 for the USSR: Poland is defeated by the enemy No.-2 by Germany. The eagle tore the hyena. A possible coalition of enemies has weakened.
    3. Almost without loss, nishtyaks were obtained in the form of memory and ST. Part of the new territories of the USSR was given to Lithuania. This impressed the Balts so much that they, in the face of imminent war, made their choice of a lesser evil: they voluntarily became part of the USSR.
    4. The USSR squeezed out of Germany maximum economic assistance. I will not list nishtyaks received from Germany for German loans, you yourself know.
    5. The war was postponed to 2 of the year, which, with the rapid development of the USSR, significantly strengthened it, at the same time Germany fought, spending people and resources.
    1. Nayhas
      Nayhas 5 October 2013 20: 58
      -6
      Quote: Omskgazmyas
      I will not list nishtyaks received from Germany for German loans, you yourself know.

      The main beggar that Stalin received is the common border with Germany. Cool nishtyachok is not it? Now Hitler could suddenly attack Stalin, too, probably without a trace?
      1. Omskgasmyas
        Omskgasmyas 5 October 2013 21: 11
        +3
        Horror. The border with Germany would not be at Brest and Lviv, but at Minsk and Zhytomyr. Plus the Baltic states. From these positions, what, it was impossible to attack the USSR suddenly?
        Sometimes it's better to chew than talk.
        1. Nayhas
          Nayhas 5 October 2013 21: 55
          -5
          Quote: Omskgazmyas
          The border with Germany would not be at Brest and Lviv, but at Minsk and Zhytomyr

          And where does such confidence come from? Stalin in August 1939 had no doubt that Poland would fall?
          Quote: Omskgazmyas
          Plus the Baltic states.

          Plus what? The Baltic states did not have German troops on their territory.
          Or again "but if" or "most likely it would be so"?
          Quote: Omskgazmyas
          Sometimes it's better to chew than talk.

          So ktozh does not give you that, in Omsk gas and meat is over?
          1. Omskgasmyas
            Omskgasmyas 6 October 2013 04: 51
            +2
            Quote: Nayhas
            The border with Germany would not be at Brest and Lviv, but at Minsk and Zhytomyr. And where does such confidence come from? Stalin in August 1939 had no doubt that Poland would fall?

            Trying to catch your train of thought:
            a) If there wasn’t the MR Pact, would Germany not attack Poland, fearing that the USSR would stand up for its enemy and there wouldn’t be a 2MB?
            b) Or Germany, having defeated Poland, would have stopped in front of Brest and Lviv? There is none, she was already there, despite the Pact, and there were even clashes between Soviet and German troops.
            c) Or would Hitler not occupy the memory, ST and part of Polish Lithuania, but would create alternative Israel or some other puppet there, and therefore there would be no common border between the USSR and Germany in 1939?
            I look forward to clarifying your thoughts.
            1. Nayhas
              Nayhas 6 October 2013 09: 55
              -1
              Quote: Omskgazmyas
              a) If there wasn’t the MR Pact, would Germany not attack Poland, fearing that the USSR would stand up for its enemy and there wouldn’t be a 2MB?

              If the USSR had not reacted to Germany’s proposals, even if the negotiations with Britain and France had stalled, war against Poland would have been possible with some probability. If the USSR declared that the attack on Poland would be regarded as aggression against the USSR, then Hitler would certainly not have been shined by a war on two fronts and there would have been no war. Hitler, though an evil tyrant, is not a foolish person.
              Quote: Omskgazmyas
              b) Or Germany, having defeated Poland, would have stopped in front of Brest and Lviv? There is none, she was already there, despite the Pact, and there were even clashes between Soviet and German troops.

              Germany would wage war until the complete occupation of Poland, that is certain. But no matter how long the war went on, by September 17 the mobilization process in Poland had reached its maximum.
              The clashes between the Wehrmacht and the Red Army took place due to ignorance of the location of the allied forces, when the enemy was ascertained, the fighting stopped.
              I understand your idea, this is an old song that the Wehrmacht would go to Moscow without stopping, and once in 1941. the army was not ready, then in 1939. and even more so.
              This is outright nonsense. The Wehrmacht had no chances to continue the offensive, I am not going to paint here such "trifles" as preparing reserves, preparing a transport network for a large-scale offensive and many other tasks that Hitler and his command would have to solve for an attack not on Luxembourg, but to the USSR. The most important thing. Suppose Germany would occupy Poland by October 1, 1939, then the Wehrmacht would set a world record for preparing for a new war with a stronger enemy in advance, spending only a month on it. And on November 1, 1939. launched an offensive on Moscow, head over heels in the snow without winter uniforms, on the same willpower? How does it fit in your head at all? Why do you consider Stalin a ram who is afraid that Germany will suddenly attack the USSR after passing Poland in the fall?
              Quote: Omskgazmyas
              c) Or would Hitler not occupy the memory, ST and part of Polish Lithuania, but would create alternative Israel or some other puppet there, and therefore there would be no common border between the USSR and Germany in 1939?

              It would be possible, but how long would it be? Or do you think that Hitler would further invade the Baltic states with mobilized France behind him?
              1. Omskgasmyas
                Omskgasmyas 6 October 2013 11: 45
                +1
                Let us return to the sources, why I answered you: You wrote:

                Quote: Nayhas
                The main beggar that Stalin received is the common border with Germany. Cool nishtyachok is not it? Now Hitler could suddenly attack Stalin, too, probably without a trace?

                I replied that with or without the USSR's "attack" on the already non-existent Poland, a common border between Germany and the USSR would still appear, only 150-200 km to the east. The position of the USSR in the coming war with Germany would be worse.

                Further considerations do not matter.
                1. Nayhas
                  Nayhas 6 October 2013 21: 27
                  -3
                  Quote: Omskgazmyas
                  I replied that with or without the USSR's "attack" on the already non-existent Poland, a common border between Germany and the USSR would still appear, only 150-200 km to the east.

                  As of August 1939 it was not 100% obvious; moreover, had the USSR of Germany declared its dissatisfaction with Germany’s decision to liquidate Poland, there would have been no war. The USSR could prevent the existence of a common border with Germany, there were many tools, from supporting Poland with arms, ending with participation in the war on the side of Poland. And it would not matter if it was a bluff or real intentions, Germany in 1939. was not able to wage a large-scale war.
                  Quote: Omskgazmyas
                  The positions of the USSR in the coming war with Germany would be worse.

                  What exactly? The Red Army left Western Ukraine in a week, on June 28, i.e. 6 days later the Germans took Minsk. How did the presence of Western Ukraine help the USSR? I am not waiting for an answer, because it simply cannot be. I have already met this occasion, it was invented by the official historians of the USSR, while none of them gave any arguments. Thinking in "axioms" is the principle of official history.
                  1. Misantrop
                    Misantrop 6 October 2013 21: 32
                    +1
                    Quote: Nayhas
                    there were a lot of tools, starting with Poland supporting arms, ending with participation in the war on the side of Poland.
                    An hostile power that has gigantic territorial claims specifically against Russia? Maybe now you advise Japan to sponsor the latest development weapons? Well, they will appreciate ... lol
                  2. Ulan
                    Ulan 7 October 2013 11: 03
                    +3
                    YOU don’t know geography either. Minsk is located in Belarus and not in Ukraine.
                    You are a respected unbridled dreamer, as apparently your idol Rezun.
                    The USSR did not have tools to prevent a war.
                    The Poles did not want help from the USSR.
                    You apparently do not know the fact that in the very first days the Polish ambassador was called to the People's Commissariat of Foreign Affairs and asked what assistance the USSR could render to Poland.
                    This and ... he replied that he would think. So he thought until Poland fell under the blows of Germany.
                    However, the USSR managed to supply some cotton for the production of gunpowder to Poland.
              2. Ulan
                Ulan 7 October 2013 10: 57
                +3
                Ofiget. On September 17-18, the Polish government and the leadership of the army have already fled the country. What mobilization is better for the mob?

                Poland began to mobilize BEFORE the invasion of Germany. This USSR was required for the general mobilization of 2 weeks. And how much did Poland need? Six months?
                If the USSR declared .... yes are you out of your mind? This is really utter nonsense. What a joy for England, they only dreamed about it. On what basis did the USSR have to declare this?
                This despite the fact that Poland categorically rejected any assistance to the USSR.
                Well, you give. Well and a dreamer.
                Do you even know that in the proposed treaty between the USSR-England and France, guarantees were provided for Poland, which she categorically opposed.
                Similar guarantees should have been given to the Baltic republics in the event of an German attack. Having learned about this, the Balts threw a tantrum, saying that it was an encroachment on their independence.
                Even then, they dreamed of lying under Germany.
                And you are not only a dreamer, you are also cheating, distorting what your opponents say to you.
                Nobody here claimed that Hitler would immediately go to Moscow after the victory over Poland, but the war between Germany and the USSR would certainly be if the USSR entered it on the side of Poland, without allies, without Poland’s request, on their own initiative. reason to blame the USSR as an aggressor and gave reason to unite the whole of Europe against us.
          2. Ulan
            Ulan 7 October 2013 10: 45
            +2
            "And where does this confidence come from? Stalin in August 1939 did not doubt that Poland would fall?"
            Stalin had no doubt that there would be a war and secured the USSR from being drawn into this war.
            And how events would develop there, he could only speculate.
            If the allies of Poland, England and France, fulfilled their obligations to Poland as expected, Germany would certainly have been defeated and the USSR would remain on its borders.
            But England bombard Berlin with leaflets and the French on the Maginot Line played football.
            Stalin did the only thing possible in that situation.
      2. Ulan
        Ulan 7 October 2013 10: 38
        +2
        Amazing! Some kind of kindergarten. Do you seriously believe that there wouldn’t be a pact and there wouldn’t be a common border between the USSR and Germany?
        Dear, the common border would still be only much to the east. Do you really think that Hitler would have stopped in the east on the "Curzon Line"?
        Amazing naivety.
    2. Namejs
      Namejs 6 October 2013 00: 42
      -2
      Quote: Omskgazmyas
      Almost without loss, nishtyaks were obtained in the form of memory and ST. Part of the new territories of the USSR was given to Lithuania. This impressed the Balts so much that they, in the face of imminent war, made their choice of a lesser evil: they voluntarily became part of the USSR.


      Can I have more evidence that Latvia entered the USSR voluntarily?
      I don’t even ask for specific documents. Just you know the facts.

      Thank you
      1. Omskgasmyas
        Omskgasmyas 6 October 2013 05: 11
        +2
        On July 14 on 1940, in the extraordinary parliamentary elections of Latvia, a bloc of working people won. In Latvia, the turnout was 94,8%, for the Bloc of the working people, 97,8% of the vote was cast. The new parliament proclaimed the creation of a new state: the Latvian SSR and adopted the Declaration on the entry of the Latvian SSR into the USSR. On August 5, the Latvian SSR was accepted into the USSR by decision of the Supreme Council of the USSR. The entry of the Baltic states into the USSR was recognized de jure by Sweden, Spain, the Netherlands, Australia, India, Iran, New Zealand, Finland, de facto - Great Britain and a number of other countries.