The Great Patriotic War. Option "B"
The philosopher-logician and dissident Alexander Alexandrovich Zinoviev in the years of the Great Patriotic War was a pilot, after the war he interpreted its course and results as a philosopher. Historians are still arguing about the causes of the tragic start of the war for our country, point to the mistakes and miscalculations of Stalin, which allowed the fascists to suddenly attack and defeat the Soviet troops in border battles in the summer of 1941. Convinced anti-Stalinist, however, from the standpoint of the "romantic communist", Zinoviev in the article "Everyday war" gives a different assessment of its beginning, naming the appropriate chapter.
"Inevitability"
- A lot has been said and said about the unexpectedness of the war. Like, missed! This is actually incorrect. It is necessary to distinguish the unexpectedness of war and the surprise of just such a specific beginning of war But the facts that I experienced myself. I joined the army in 1940, in the Far East. At the end of the year the army was disbanded. Many units, including our regiment, began to be transferred to the West. And they told us directly that we would fight the Germans. When? It will be warmer, then it will start ...
Once on the western border, we did not in the least doubt the inevitability of war, but, of course, still did not know what tragedy it would be. I remember that we even rejoiced at it: we were taught that the war would be victorious from the very beginning, and on the territory of the enemy. In the middle of June, the army general (then he was in that rank) Zhukov inspected our units 41. I was on duty at the barracks, and she was in such excellent condition that Zhukov exclaimed: “The war is at hand, and here they are settled like at a resort!”
The next day we were given “mortal medallions” - plastic capsules, into which we stuck pieces of paper with personal data, including a blood type. Soon (it seems, June 19th) we left the barracks and entered combat positions, fully armed, with tanks and armored vehicles ready for battle. They spent the night in the field, waiting for an order to advance, and in the morning they returned to the barracks, handed over shells to the warehouse, put the cars in the park, guns and machine guns were even mothballed (greased with a thick layer of grease). By evening, the command staff left the units for command exercises.
How to evaluate this situation? If you pull it out of context big storiesthen the assessment suggests itself: stupidity, wrecking. But if we take into account the well-grounded aspiration of the country's top leadership to delay the start of war by all means, it will look like one of the tragic events that can only be avoided in the imagination of those Shota Rustaveli spoke about: “Everyone thinks he is a strategist seeing the fight from the side. ”
The defeat of the outbreak of war is well known. About them there is an immense literature. And their assessment varies in rather narrow limits. I, however, allow myself to go beyond these limits. Such defeats were inevitable. Maybe a little less, but still big. It is necessary to take into account the general readiness of Germany for war, experience, the strongest desire to fight and seize the territory of our country. Whatever the Soviet Union undertakes within the framework of the possibilities of those years, it simply could not stop the pressure of the enemy of such strength without great losses. And it is still unknown how the war would have developed if the Germans could be stopped in the first few days and without great losses. In addition, the Germans simply would not have started the war precisely at such a time and in this form, if the Soviet Union had prepared exactly the way the debunkers of the Stalinist strategy think.
The defeats taught a lot to the Soviet leadership, the command and in general a large number of Soviet people. There was a profound change in the state of the country, in the organization of all aspects of life, in the army itself. The result of this change was that the Germans were still stopped. They suffered great losses. And our most important victory in this period is the failure of the German idea of the Blitzkrieg. Blitzkrieg was ripped off. And this sowed doubt in Germany itself about the successful outcome of the war, and for many even the certainty that the war was obviously lost. And who measured the degree of importance of this factor in the war?
We imposed a protracted war on the Germans, which was not included in their calculations, which they did not know how (in any case, they knew how worse than we) to lead. Moreover, at this time began the rapid arming of our army with the newest weapons and updating the command staff.
I myself was among the tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of young people with secondary and higher education who were recalled from front-line units to aviation, tank, artillery and other schools. I ended up in an aviation school, where I began my career as a pilot with the obsolete I-15 and I-16 fighters. Soon they were removed from service. And I retrained for the IL-2 attack aircraft - the best attack aircraft of World War II.
I draw attention to the fact that characterizes the potency of the Soviet social system. The Germans and our allies with what technology started the war, with such and it ended. The progress they had during the war did not significantly affect its progress. In the most difficult conditions of the war, we made an unprecedented leap, having at the end of the war the most effective military equipment that played a role already in this war ...
"If the Germans managed to stop ..."
Those who wish can easily find this most interesting article about the Great Patriotic War on the Internet, but I’ll dwell on one phrase that once struck me with its depth: “It’s not yet known how the war would have started if the Germans could be stopped in the first days and without much loss. " Today it is fashionable to write alternative stories, what would happen if the world's biggest events ended differently, which, in general, could be. Let's see what could be, "if the Germans managed to stop in the first days ..."
For example, 22 June 1941, the Red Army met in full combat readiness, and, after fierce fighting, somewhere on the Minsk-Kiev line, our German troops stopped, the front stabilized, and the war assumed a positional character. What would be then? And what was not? We can definitely say what would have happened then: the anti-Hitler coalition would not have developed, and therefore the Great Patriotic War assumed a completely different character ...
England in the summer of 1941 of the year was already at war with Germany, so 22 of June, her Prime Minister W. Churchill, naturally declares support for the USSR in its struggle against fascist aggression: "The danger to Russia is our danger and the danger of the United States as much as everyone’s Russian, fighting for their land and home, is the work of free people and free nations in any part of the globe. " It would be surprising if he did not make such a statement.
24 June with a similar statement was made by US President F. Roosevelt. 12 July 1941, England and the USSR signed an agreement on mutual assistance and joint actions against Germany with the obligation not to enter into separate negotiations with her. This was the beginning of the Anglo-Soviet-American coalition.
This “beginning” refers to help and joint actions, but it came to “joint actions” only in the 1944 year. Until the end of 1941, the United States, before Pearl Harbor, had the status of a “non-military ally” of England. Today we do not give due assessment to the long-lasting inaction of our Anglo-American allies in Europe, in the main theater of military operations, not without the help of Western historians. Somehow we forget that in their “anti-fascist” politics from the very beginning there was a “second bottom”, which, in particular, was expressed in this “inaction”.
"... let them kill each other as much as possible."
The mood of the US elites can be judged by the statement of an influential congressman, future US President Harry Truman, one day after the German attack on the Soviet Union declared: "If we see that Germany is winning, then we should help Russia, and if Russia will win, then we should help Germany and, therefore, let them kill each other as much as possible. " Similarly, the “governing circles” of England were thinking in 1941 year, where the Minister of Aviation Industry Moore Brabazon spoke in the same vein: “For England, the best outcome of the struggle on the Eastern front would be the mutual exhaustion of Germany and the USSR, with the result that it could take a dominant position in the world. "
The tragic start of the war for the USSR led to the fact that the overwhelming majority of politicians in the West, including Roosevelt and Churchill, were convinced that the USSR would last a maximum of 4-6 weeks. Then these terms were repeatedly postponed, but this strategic thinking itself was finally handed over to the archive only after the Battle of Stalingrad. The formation of the anti-Hitler coalition with the participation of the USSR, which officially ended on January 1 1942, thus took place with the confidence of the Anglo-American allies in the near defeat of the USSR.
And it didn’t bother them at all; on the contrary, their confidence in this made the theoretically “unnatural” Anglo-Saxon-Soviet coalition possible. And what would happen if the Germans managed to stop near Minsk and Kiev? Then our Atlantic allies, most likely, would have preferred to observe how Hitler and Stalin were fighting each other, like Confucian monkeys, would have admired from the hill the battle of tigers in the valley.
And what would happen next when the “potencies of the Soviet social system” affected and new military equipment came to the Soviet troops? At that time, the world community was poorly informed about the horrors of fascism. And now the Red Army begins to smash and crush the fascists to the west of Minsk and Kiev, and Hitler would have begun to shout Goebbels’s lips about the invasion of the Bolshevik hordes into Europe, as he had shouted about it in reality.
"The second bottom" of the anti-Hitler coalition
Here it is worth remembering the Munich Treaty of 1938 of the Year, which England and France betrayed Czechoslovakia for their own interests, as well as their Strange War with Germany in 1939, which turned into a betrayal of Poland, and then the defeat of France. It can be assumed that Britain would have betrayed the USSR with even greater ease, and found a reason to make peace with Hitler, for example, in view of "the threat to common European values." America, England’s “non-warring ally,” began to make Lend-Lease deliveries not to Murmansk, but to German ports. Such a turn of events was possible, there is documentary evidence for this.
In the real 13 history of September 1941, a meeting was held in Lisbon between the son of Lord Beaverbrook Aitken, an officer in the British army, later a member of the English parliament, with Hungarian Gustav von Kever, who acted on behalf of the German Foreign Ministry. This is evidenced by a letter from the German Consul General in Geneva, Krauel, about these negotiations addressed to Weizsäcker, the deputy German Foreign Minister. In these negotiations, 1941 of the year (!), Aitken directly poses the question: "Couldn't the coming winter and spring be used to discuss the possibilities of peace behind the scenes?"
In February, 1943 of the year in Switzerland, negotiations are held between the authorized representative of the US Government, Alain Dulles, and Prince M. Hohenlohe, who are close to the ruling circles of Nazi Germany, who became one of the episodes in the saga of the Soviet intelligence officer Stirlitz-Isaev. From the trophy documents of the Hitler’s security service (SD) it follows that these negotiations touched on the issue of concluding peace with Germany. Dulles quite definitely spoke about his Soviet ally: "... by expanding Poland towards the east and preserving Romania and strong Hungary should support the creation of a sanitary cordon against Bolshevism and pan-Slavism."
Speaking about the future of Europe, Dulles "more or less agreed with the state and industrial organization of Europe, on the basis of large spaces, believing that federal Great Germany (similar to the US) with the adjacent Danube Confederation would be the best guarantee of order and restoration of Central and Eastern Europe" . It seems that Dulles also possessed a prophetic gift, or insider information, for he actually predicted the emergence of the EU and NATO, including their expansion to the East.
In the Anglo-Soviet, and then in the Soviet-American communique of 1942, our allies undertake to open a second front in Europe in 1942. This was, if you will, a solemn promise in the light of heavy fighting on the Soviet-German front, but it was not fulfilled either in 1942 or in 1943. Is it any wonder in the light of such Anglo-Saxon strategic plans? Delaying the second front fully complies with them, and reminds of a Strange War (without real military actions) of England and France with Germany in 1939, which became the prologue of the fall of France.
After the Battle of Kursk, when the defeat of Germany became apparent, 20 August 1943 of the year was met in Quebec by the chiefs of staff of the USA and Great Britain, in the presence of Churchill and Roosevelt. On the agenda is the question of the possible withdrawal of the United States and Britain from the anti-Hitler coalition (!), And entering into an alliance with the Nazi generals (!) To wage a joint war against the Soviet Union. What kind of a “second front” here, when the Allies thought about the new “Munich”? Only the odious figure of Hitler interfered ...
The collapse of the Anglo-American conspiracy
Doctor of Historical Sciences Valentin Falin writes in this connection: “This is an old-aged Churchill intention. He developed this idea in conversations with General Kutepov back in 1919. Americans, British and French fail and cannot crush Soviet Russia, he said. It is necessary to entrust this task to the Japanese and Germans. In a similar vein, Churchill taught Bismarck, first secretary of the German Embassy in London, in 1930, the year. The Germans behaved in the First World War, as idiots, he argued. Instead of focusing on defeating Russia, they started a war on two fronts. If they were engaged only in Russia, then England would have neutralized France ...
By the time the Allies landed on the continent (in 1944), the plot against Hitler was timed. The generals brought to power in the Reich were to dissolve the Western Front and open the Germans and the British for the occupation of Germany and the "liberation" of Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Austria ... The Red Army was to be stopped at the borders of 1939 of the year.
But, by a miracle, Hitler remained alive during the explosion of a bomb planted by the general conspirators in his residence: the entire force of the blast wave fell on a heavy oak table. He escaped with just a concussion, and, in turn, the security forces destroyed the participants in the conspiracy from the German side, and thus disrupted the brilliant Anglo-American plan of treachery of the USSR.
The end of the war was based on the Soviet scenario, while Churchill's planning for the military operation Unthinkable, with the participation of German contingents, against his Soviet allies immediately after the surrender of Germany, echoed this Anglo-American plot. However, the continuation of the war, already between the former allies, was really unthinkable in May 1945. Churchill lost again, his “intent” failed, and the role of the oak table in the history of the Second World War, which he wrote after the war, did not say a word. In general, the role of this “oak table” in history is undeservedly lowered, and needs to be rethought, in any case, from the Russian side.
Option "B"
Thus, “if the Germans were able to stop in the first few days,” the second bottom of our Anglo-American allies would immediately become the first, and the Great Patriotic War and the Second World War would very soon take a different ideological character, not the struggle of the Anglo-Soviet American allies with German fascism, and the struggle between "the world of freedom and communism", "Europe" and "Bolsivism and pan-Slavism", according to Dulles.
Churchill's Fulton speech on the need to combat communism, which had declared the Cold War of the USSR by the West, would have sounded much earlier, during the years of the hot war: "We need to stop these barbarians as far as possible in the East." The appeals of the American generals, which then took place "to stop the descendants of Genghis Khan", would have become the property of Western propaganda. With the retreat of Hitler Germany under the onslaught of the Red Army, the Anglo-American allies would have been on the front from the Hitler side.
And how could this all end? In May, 1945, this is unlikely to have ended. Probably, the war would have been delayed, and could have been reduced to the creation by the fascists already with the help of the Americans, nuclear weapons, and they had FAA missiles. Neither the fascists nor the Americans had any deterrent moral factors from the use of nuclear weapons. This means that the nuclear war of “Europe” against Russia-USSR would have become a reality in the middle of the twentieth century, instead of nuclear bombing of Japan.
As a result of such a war, perhaps America would have survived, for it is overseas, if only nuclear war did not lead to the phenomenon of “nuclear winter.” In this case, the Second World War would be the last page in the history of mankind. However, this tragic world scenario was blocked. First, which put the Red Army 22 on June 1941 on the brink of defeat by the USSR, thanks to which the “friendly” embraces of its ideological enemies opened, and then the “oak German table”.
... During the time of Catherine the Great, Russian Field Marshal Munnich, a German in the Russian service who helped Count Potemkin conquer the Crimea, said strange words: "Russia is undoubtedly ruled by God himself, otherwise it is impossible to explain its existence." Otherwise, it seems impossible to explain much in the history of Russia, including these tricks of history in the Great Patriotic War, when, as if, the hand of Providence intervened to change the already visible historical fabric. I want to believe this especially today, when US missile-bombing attacks have become a way of spreading “Western democracy” in the world. But maybe it remains only to believe ...
"Inevitability"
- A lot has been said and said about the unexpectedness of the war. Like, missed! This is actually incorrect. It is necessary to distinguish the unexpectedness of war and the surprise of just such a specific beginning of war But the facts that I experienced myself. I joined the army in 1940, in the Far East. At the end of the year the army was disbanded. Many units, including our regiment, began to be transferred to the West. And they told us directly that we would fight the Germans. When? It will be warmer, then it will start ...
Once on the western border, we did not in the least doubt the inevitability of war, but, of course, still did not know what tragedy it would be. I remember that we even rejoiced at it: we were taught that the war would be victorious from the very beginning, and on the territory of the enemy. In the middle of June, the army general (then he was in that rank) Zhukov inspected our units 41. I was on duty at the barracks, and she was in such excellent condition that Zhukov exclaimed: “The war is at hand, and here they are settled like at a resort!”
The next day we were given “mortal medallions” - plastic capsules, into which we stuck pieces of paper with personal data, including a blood type. Soon (it seems, June 19th) we left the barracks and entered combat positions, fully armed, with tanks and armored vehicles ready for battle. They spent the night in the field, waiting for an order to advance, and in the morning they returned to the barracks, handed over shells to the warehouse, put the cars in the park, guns and machine guns were even mothballed (greased with a thick layer of grease). By evening, the command staff left the units for command exercises.
How to evaluate this situation? If you pull it out of context big storiesthen the assessment suggests itself: stupidity, wrecking. But if we take into account the well-grounded aspiration of the country's top leadership to delay the start of war by all means, it will look like one of the tragic events that can only be avoided in the imagination of those Shota Rustaveli spoke about: “Everyone thinks he is a strategist seeing the fight from the side. ”
The defeat of the outbreak of war is well known. About them there is an immense literature. And their assessment varies in rather narrow limits. I, however, allow myself to go beyond these limits. Such defeats were inevitable. Maybe a little less, but still big. It is necessary to take into account the general readiness of Germany for war, experience, the strongest desire to fight and seize the territory of our country. Whatever the Soviet Union undertakes within the framework of the possibilities of those years, it simply could not stop the pressure of the enemy of such strength without great losses. And it is still unknown how the war would have developed if the Germans could be stopped in the first few days and without great losses. In addition, the Germans simply would not have started the war precisely at such a time and in this form, if the Soviet Union had prepared exactly the way the debunkers of the Stalinist strategy think.
The defeats taught a lot to the Soviet leadership, the command and in general a large number of Soviet people. There was a profound change in the state of the country, in the organization of all aspects of life, in the army itself. The result of this change was that the Germans were still stopped. They suffered great losses. And our most important victory in this period is the failure of the German idea of the Blitzkrieg. Blitzkrieg was ripped off. And this sowed doubt in Germany itself about the successful outcome of the war, and for many even the certainty that the war was obviously lost. And who measured the degree of importance of this factor in the war?
We imposed a protracted war on the Germans, which was not included in their calculations, which they did not know how (in any case, they knew how worse than we) to lead. Moreover, at this time began the rapid arming of our army with the newest weapons and updating the command staff.
I myself was among the tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of young people with secondary and higher education who were recalled from front-line units to aviation, tank, artillery and other schools. I ended up in an aviation school, where I began my career as a pilot with the obsolete I-15 and I-16 fighters. Soon they were removed from service. And I retrained for the IL-2 attack aircraft - the best attack aircraft of World War II.
I draw attention to the fact that characterizes the potency of the Soviet social system. The Germans and our allies with what technology started the war, with such and it ended. The progress they had during the war did not significantly affect its progress. In the most difficult conditions of the war, we made an unprecedented leap, having at the end of the war the most effective military equipment that played a role already in this war ...
"If the Germans managed to stop ..."
Those who wish can easily find this most interesting article about the Great Patriotic War on the Internet, but I’ll dwell on one phrase that once struck me with its depth: “It’s not yet known how the war would have started if the Germans could be stopped in the first days and without much loss. " Today it is fashionable to write alternative stories, what would happen if the world's biggest events ended differently, which, in general, could be. Let's see what could be, "if the Germans managed to stop in the first days ..."
For example, 22 June 1941, the Red Army met in full combat readiness, and, after fierce fighting, somewhere on the Minsk-Kiev line, our German troops stopped, the front stabilized, and the war assumed a positional character. What would be then? And what was not? We can definitely say what would have happened then: the anti-Hitler coalition would not have developed, and therefore the Great Patriotic War assumed a completely different character ...
England in the summer of 1941 of the year was already at war with Germany, so 22 of June, her Prime Minister W. Churchill, naturally declares support for the USSR in its struggle against fascist aggression: "The danger to Russia is our danger and the danger of the United States as much as everyone’s Russian, fighting for their land and home, is the work of free people and free nations in any part of the globe. " It would be surprising if he did not make such a statement.
24 June with a similar statement was made by US President F. Roosevelt. 12 July 1941, England and the USSR signed an agreement on mutual assistance and joint actions against Germany with the obligation not to enter into separate negotiations with her. This was the beginning of the Anglo-Soviet-American coalition.
This “beginning” refers to help and joint actions, but it came to “joint actions” only in the 1944 year. Until the end of 1941, the United States, before Pearl Harbor, had the status of a “non-military ally” of England. Today we do not give due assessment to the long-lasting inaction of our Anglo-American allies in Europe, in the main theater of military operations, not without the help of Western historians. Somehow we forget that in their “anti-fascist” politics from the very beginning there was a “second bottom”, which, in particular, was expressed in this “inaction”.
"... let them kill each other as much as possible."
The mood of the US elites can be judged by the statement of an influential congressman, future US President Harry Truman, one day after the German attack on the Soviet Union declared: "If we see that Germany is winning, then we should help Russia, and if Russia will win, then we should help Germany and, therefore, let them kill each other as much as possible. " Similarly, the “governing circles” of England were thinking in 1941 year, where the Minister of Aviation Industry Moore Brabazon spoke in the same vein: “For England, the best outcome of the struggle on the Eastern front would be the mutual exhaustion of Germany and the USSR, with the result that it could take a dominant position in the world. "
The tragic start of the war for the USSR led to the fact that the overwhelming majority of politicians in the West, including Roosevelt and Churchill, were convinced that the USSR would last a maximum of 4-6 weeks. Then these terms were repeatedly postponed, but this strategic thinking itself was finally handed over to the archive only after the Battle of Stalingrad. The formation of the anti-Hitler coalition with the participation of the USSR, which officially ended on January 1 1942, thus took place with the confidence of the Anglo-American allies in the near defeat of the USSR.
And it didn’t bother them at all; on the contrary, their confidence in this made the theoretically “unnatural” Anglo-Saxon-Soviet coalition possible. And what would happen if the Germans managed to stop near Minsk and Kiev? Then our Atlantic allies, most likely, would have preferred to observe how Hitler and Stalin were fighting each other, like Confucian monkeys, would have admired from the hill the battle of tigers in the valley.
And what would happen next when the “potencies of the Soviet social system” affected and new military equipment came to the Soviet troops? At that time, the world community was poorly informed about the horrors of fascism. And now the Red Army begins to smash and crush the fascists to the west of Minsk and Kiev, and Hitler would have begun to shout Goebbels’s lips about the invasion of the Bolshevik hordes into Europe, as he had shouted about it in reality.
"The second bottom" of the anti-Hitler coalition
Here it is worth remembering the Munich Treaty of 1938 of the Year, which England and France betrayed Czechoslovakia for their own interests, as well as their Strange War with Germany in 1939, which turned into a betrayal of Poland, and then the defeat of France. It can be assumed that Britain would have betrayed the USSR with even greater ease, and found a reason to make peace with Hitler, for example, in view of "the threat to common European values." America, England’s “non-warring ally,” began to make Lend-Lease deliveries not to Murmansk, but to German ports. Such a turn of events was possible, there is documentary evidence for this.
In the real 13 history of September 1941, a meeting was held in Lisbon between the son of Lord Beaverbrook Aitken, an officer in the British army, later a member of the English parliament, with Hungarian Gustav von Kever, who acted on behalf of the German Foreign Ministry. This is evidenced by a letter from the German Consul General in Geneva, Krauel, about these negotiations addressed to Weizsäcker, the deputy German Foreign Minister. In these negotiations, 1941 of the year (!), Aitken directly poses the question: "Couldn't the coming winter and spring be used to discuss the possibilities of peace behind the scenes?"
In February, 1943 of the year in Switzerland, negotiations are held between the authorized representative of the US Government, Alain Dulles, and Prince M. Hohenlohe, who are close to the ruling circles of Nazi Germany, who became one of the episodes in the saga of the Soviet intelligence officer Stirlitz-Isaev. From the trophy documents of the Hitler’s security service (SD) it follows that these negotiations touched on the issue of concluding peace with Germany. Dulles quite definitely spoke about his Soviet ally: "... by expanding Poland towards the east and preserving Romania and strong Hungary should support the creation of a sanitary cordon against Bolshevism and pan-Slavism."
Speaking about the future of Europe, Dulles "more or less agreed with the state and industrial organization of Europe, on the basis of large spaces, believing that federal Great Germany (similar to the US) with the adjacent Danube Confederation would be the best guarantee of order and restoration of Central and Eastern Europe" . It seems that Dulles also possessed a prophetic gift, or insider information, for he actually predicted the emergence of the EU and NATO, including their expansion to the East.
In the Anglo-Soviet, and then in the Soviet-American communique of 1942, our allies undertake to open a second front in Europe in 1942. This was, if you will, a solemn promise in the light of heavy fighting on the Soviet-German front, but it was not fulfilled either in 1942 or in 1943. Is it any wonder in the light of such Anglo-Saxon strategic plans? Delaying the second front fully complies with them, and reminds of a Strange War (without real military actions) of England and France with Germany in 1939, which became the prologue of the fall of France.
After the Battle of Kursk, when the defeat of Germany became apparent, 20 August 1943 of the year was met in Quebec by the chiefs of staff of the USA and Great Britain, in the presence of Churchill and Roosevelt. On the agenda is the question of the possible withdrawal of the United States and Britain from the anti-Hitler coalition (!), And entering into an alliance with the Nazi generals (!) To wage a joint war against the Soviet Union. What kind of a “second front” here, when the Allies thought about the new “Munich”? Only the odious figure of Hitler interfered ...
The collapse of the Anglo-American conspiracy
Doctor of Historical Sciences Valentin Falin writes in this connection: “This is an old-aged Churchill intention. He developed this idea in conversations with General Kutepov back in 1919. Americans, British and French fail and cannot crush Soviet Russia, he said. It is necessary to entrust this task to the Japanese and Germans. In a similar vein, Churchill taught Bismarck, first secretary of the German Embassy in London, in 1930, the year. The Germans behaved in the First World War, as idiots, he argued. Instead of focusing on defeating Russia, they started a war on two fronts. If they were engaged only in Russia, then England would have neutralized France ...
By the time the Allies landed on the continent (in 1944), the plot against Hitler was timed. The generals brought to power in the Reich were to dissolve the Western Front and open the Germans and the British for the occupation of Germany and the "liberation" of Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Austria ... The Red Army was to be stopped at the borders of 1939 of the year.
But, by a miracle, Hitler remained alive during the explosion of a bomb planted by the general conspirators in his residence: the entire force of the blast wave fell on a heavy oak table. He escaped with just a concussion, and, in turn, the security forces destroyed the participants in the conspiracy from the German side, and thus disrupted the brilliant Anglo-American plan of treachery of the USSR.
The end of the war was based on the Soviet scenario, while Churchill's planning for the military operation Unthinkable, with the participation of German contingents, against his Soviet allies immediately after the surrender of Germany, echoed this Anglo-American plot. However, the continuation of the war, already between the former allies, was really unthinkable in May 1945. Churchill lost again, his “intent” failed, and the role of the oak table in the history of the Second World War, which he wrote after the war, did not say a word. In general, the role of this “oak table” in history is undeservedly lowered, and needs to be rethought, in any case, from the Russian side.
Option "B"
Thus, “if the Germans were able to stop in the first few days,” the second bottom of our Anglo-American allies would immediately become the first, and the Great Patriotic War and the Second World War would very soon take a different ideological character, not the struggle of the Anglo-Soviet American allies with German fascism, and the struggle between "the world of freedom and communism", "Europe" and "Bolsivism and pan-Slavism", according to Dulles.
Churchill's Fulton speech on the need to combat communism, which had declared the Cold War of the USSR by the West, would have sounded much earlier, during the years of the hot war: "We need to stop these barbarians as far as possible in the East." The appeals of the American generals, which then took place "to stop the descendants of Genghis Khan", would have become the property of Western propaganda. With the retreat of Hitler Germany under the onslaught of the Red Army, the Anglo-American allies would have been on the front from the Hitler side.
And how could this all end? In May, 1945, this is unlikely to have ended. Probably, the war would have been delayed, and could have been reduced to the creation by the fascists already with the help of the Americans, nuclear weapons, and they had FAA missiles. Neither the fascists nor the Americans had any deterrent moral factors from the use of nuclear weapons. This means that the nuclear war of “Europe” against Russia-USSR would have become a reality in the middle of the twentieth century, instead of nuclear bombing of Japan.
As a result of such a war, perhaps America would have survived, for it is overseas, if only nuclear war did not lead to the phenomenon of “nuclear winter.” In this case, the Second World War would be the last page in the history of mankind. However, this tragic world scenario was blocked. First, which put the Red Army 22 on June 1941 on the brink of defeat by the USSR, thanks to which the “friendly” embraces of its ideological enemies opened, and then the “oak German table”.
... During the time of Catherine the Great, Russian Field Marshal Munnich, a German in the Russian service who helped Count Potemkin conquer the Crimea, said strange words: "Russia is undoubtedly ruled by God himself, otherwise it is impossible to explain its existence." Otherwise, it seems impossible to explain much in the history of Russia, including these tricks of history in the Great Patriotic War, when, as if, the hand of Providence intervened to change the already visible historical fabric. I want to believe this especially today, when US missile-bombing attacks have become a way of spreading “Western democracy” in the world. But maybe it remains only to believe ...
Information