Military Review

Myths of the Great Patriotic. Was Stalin an ally of Hitler?

39
В historical and predominantly near-historical publications and discussions of recent times, the opinion is quite widespread that the USSR from August 23, 1939 was an ally of Germany, which manifested itself primarily in the joint seizure of Poland with Germany. The following text is intended to demonstrate to the readers that a review of the details of the Polish campaign does not provide a basis for such conclusions.


First of all, it should be noted that, in spite of the common misconception of the USSR, I did not bind myself with any official obligations to enter the war with Poland. Neither the secret agreement to the non-aggression treaty between Germany and the USSR, of course, nothing of the kind was written in the treaty itself. Nevertheless, already 3 September 1939. Ribbentrop sent the German ambassador to the USSR FW Schulenburg to ask Molotov, “would not consider the Soviet Union desirable for the Russian army to act at the right moment against the Polish forces in the Russian sphere of influence and, with On its part, it occupied this territory ”, adding at the same time that it“ would also be in Soviet interests ”[1]. Similar veiled requests from Germany for the entry of Soviet troops into Poland took place later [2]. Molotov, another 5 of September, replied to Schulenburg that “at the appropriate time” of the USSR “it will be absolutely necessary to begin concrete actions” [3], however, the Soviet Union was in no hurry to go over to actions. There were two reasons for this. The first 7 of September was perfectly formulated by Stalin: “The war is on between two groups of capitalist countries (poor and rich against colonies, raw materials, etc.). For the redistribution of the world, for domination of the world! We don't mind a good fight and weaken each other ”[4]. Germany followed a similar course of conduct during the Winter War. Moreover, the Reich at that time also, to the best of its possibilities, trying not to annoy the USSR especially, supported Finland. So, at the very beginning of the war, Berlin sent a party of 20 anti-aircraft guns [5] to the Finns. At the same time, Germany allowed the delivery of Fiat G. 50 [50] fighters from Italy to Finland in transit through its territory. However, after the USSR, which became aware of these shipments, 6 December declared an official protest to Reich, Germany was forced to stop transit through its territory [9], so only two cars managed to get to Finland in this way. And yet, even after that, the Germans found a rather original way of assisting Finland: at the end of 7, Goering’s negotiations with the Swedish representatives led Germany to start selling its weapons to Sweden, and Sweden owed the same amount weapons from Finland to sell [8].

The second reason why the USSR preferred not to force the start of hostilities against Poland was reported to the IDO of the German leadership when, during a conversation with XuNburg 9 in September, Molotov "stated that the Soviet government intended to take advantage of the further advancement of the German troops and declare that Poland was falling apart and that, as a result, the Soviet Union should come to the aid of Ukrainians and Belarusians who are “threatened” by Germany. This excuse will present the intervention of the Soviet Union plausible in the eyes of the masses and give the Soviet Union the opportunity not to look like an aggressor ”[9]. By the way, the further fate of this Soviet excuse for attacking Poland well illustrates how ready the USSR was to make concessions to Germany.

15 September Ribbentrop sent Schulenburg a telegram in which he spoke of the Soviet Union’s intention to present his invasion of Poland as an act of protecting kindred peoples from the German threat: “Specifying the motive of such a class is impossible. It is the exact opposite of real German aspirations, which are limited to exceptionally well-known zones of German influence. It also contradicts the agreements reached in Moscow, and finally, contrary to the desire expressed by both parties to have friendly relations, he will present both states as enemies to the whole world ”[10]. However, when Schulenburg conveyed to Molotov this statement of his boss, he replied that although the pretext planned by the Soviet leadership contained a “hurtful note for the Germans”, the USSR does not see any other reason for sending troops into Poland [11].

Thus, we see that the USSR, on the basis of the above considerations, did not intend to invade Poland until it exhausted its potential to resist Germany. During a regular conversation with Schulenburg on September 14, Molotov said that for the USSR “it would be extremely important not to begin to act before the administrative center of Poland - Warsaw” [12] falls. And it is quite probable that in the case of effective defensive actions of the Polish army against Germany, and even more so in the case of a real, rather than formal, entry into the war of England and France, the Soviet Union would have completely abandoned the idea of ​​joining Western Ukraine and Belarus. However, the allies de facto did not render Poland any help at all, and alone she was not able to offer any tangible resistance to the Wehrmacht.

By the time Soviet troops entered Poland, both the military and civilian Polish authorities had lost any control threads in the country, and the army was disparate, with no connection to the command or to each other, groups of troops of varying degrees of combat capability. By September 17, the Germans reached the line Osovets – Bialystok – Bielsk – Kamenetz-Litovsk – Brest-Litovsk – Wlodawa – Lublin – Vladimir – Volynsky – Zamost – Lviv – Sambir, thus occupying about half of Poland’s territory, occupying Krakow, Lodz, Gdansk , Lublin, Brest, Katowice, Torun. Warsaw has been under siege since September 14. On September 5, President I. Moscitsky left the city, and on September 13, the government [9]. On September 11-16, the Polish leadership negotiated with France for asylum, September 17 - with Romania about transit, and finally left the country on September 14 [8]. However, the decision to evacuate, apparently, was made even earlier, since already on September 15 the US ambassador to Poland, accompanying the Polish government, sent a message to the State Department, which, in particular, stated that “the Polish government is leaving Poland ... and through Romania ... goes to France ”[7]. Commander-in-Chief E. Rydz-Smigly stayed in Warsaw the longest, but he also left the city on the night of September 10, moving to Brest. However, Rydz-Smigly didn’t stop there for a long time either: on September 13 the rate was moved to Vladimir-Volynsky, on the 15th to Mlynov, and on the 16th to Kolomyia near the Romanian border [17]. Of course, the commander in chief could not normally lead the troops in such conditions, and this only exacerbated the chaos that arose as a result of the rapid advance of the Germans and the confusion at the front. The problems with communication were also superimposed on this. So, the headquarters in Brest had a connection with only one of the Polish armies - “Lublin” [XNUMX]. Describing the situation at that moment in the headquarters, the deputy chief of the General Staff, Lt. Col. Yaklich, reported to the Chief of Staff Stakhevich: “We have been constantly searching for troops and expelling officers to restore communications ... With the internal organization in Brest Fortress, there’s a big booth that I must liquidate myself. Constant raids aviation. In Brest, flight in all directions ”[18]. However, not only the leadership left the country: on September 16, the evacuation of Polish aircraft to Romanian airfields began [19]. The most efficient Polish ships fleet: the destroyers Blyskawica, Grom, and Burza were relocated to English ports on August 30, 1939. Initially, they were supposed to act as raiders on German communications, disrupting German merchant shipping [20], but any Polish ships did not achieve success in this matter, and their absence in the ports of Poland negatively affected the combat effectiveness of the Polish fleet. On the other hand, it was the basing in Britain that saved these destroyers from the fate of the rest of the Polish fleet and made it possible to continue the struggle with the Germans as part of the Naval Forces after the defeat of Poland. During its only major counter-attack on the river. Bzure, which began on September 9, the Polish troops in the armies of Poznan and Pomozhe already lost the initiative by September 12, and were surrounded by German troops on September 14 [21]. And although some parts of the encircled armies continued to resist until September 21, they could no longer influence the outcome of the war. In the face of Poland’s apparent inability to defend its western borders, on September 10, the General Staff issued a directive according to which the main task of the army was “pulling together all troops in the direction of Eastern Poland and ensuring connection with Romania” [22]. Characteristically, this directive was the last combined-arms order of the commander in chief, however, not all of them received it all because of the same problems with communications. After this order was issued, Rydz-Smigly himself, as mentioned above, left Brest and moved just in the direction indicated in the directive - closer to Romania.

Thus, in view of the effective actions of the Germans, the disorganization of the army and the inability of the leadership to organize the defense of the state, by September 17 the defeat of Poland was absolutely inevitable.

Myths of the Great Patriotic. Was Stalin an ally of Hitler?
Photo # 1



Photo # 2


It is significant that even the English and French general staffs in the report prepared by 22 September noted that the USSR began the invasion of Poland only when its final defeat became apparent [23].

The reader may ask: has the Soviet leadership had the opportunity to wait for the complete collapse of Poland? The fall of Warsaw, the final defeat of even the remnants of the army, and perhaps completely complete occupation of the entire Polish territory by the Wehrmacht, followed by the return of Western Ukraine and Belarus to the Soviet Union in accordance with the Soviet-German agreements? Unfortunately, the USSR had no such possibility. If Germany really occupied the eastern regions of Poland, the likelihood that it would return them to the Soviet Union was extremely small. The leadership of the Reich until mid-September 1939 discussed the possibility of creating puppet governments [24] in the territories of Western Ukraine and Belarus. In the diary of the OKH chief of staff, F. Halder, in the recording of September 12 there is such a passage: “The commander-in-chief arrived from a meeting with the Fuhrer. Perhaps the Russians will not interfere in anything. The Fuhrer wants to create the state of Ukraine ”[25]. It was the prospect of the emergence of new territorial formations in the east of Poland, which Germany was trying to intimidate the Soviet leadership in order to speed up the entry of Soviet troops into Poland. So, September 15 Ribbentrop asked Schulenburg to “immediately pass on to Mr. Molotov” that “if Russian intervention is not launched, the question will inevitably arise whether there is a political vacuum in the area to the east of the German zone of influence. Since we, for our part, do not intend to take any actions of a political or administrative nature in these areas, standing apart from the necessary military operations, without such intervention by the Soviet Union [in Eastern Poland], conditions may arise for the formation of new states ”[ 26].


Photo # 3



Photo # 4


Although, as can be seen from this instruction, Germany, of course, denied its participation in the possible creation of “independent” states in Eastern Poland, it must be assumed that the Soviet leadership did not harbor any illusions on this score. However, even despite the timely intervention of the USSR in the German-Polish war, certain problems due to the fact that the German troops managed to take part of Western Ukraine to 17 September, still arose: September 18 deputy chief of staff of the OCW operational management V. Warlimont showed the acting military attache of the USSR in Germany to Belyakov a map on which Lviv was located west of the demarcation line between the USSR and Germany, that is, entered the future territory of the Reich, which was a violation of the secret additional protocol to the Non-Aggression Treaty regarding the division of spheres of influence in Poland. After claims by the USSR, the Germans stated that all the Soviet-German agreements remained in force, and the German military attache Kestring, trying to explain this drawing of the border, referred to the fact that it was a personal initiative of Warlimont [27], but it seems unlikely that the latter drew maps based on some of his own considerations that run counter to the instructions of the Reich leadership. It is indicative that the need for a Soviet invasion of Poland was also recognized in the West. Churchill, who was then the first Lord of the Admiralty, said in an address on radio on October 1 that “Russia is pursuing a cold policy of its own interests. We would prefer the Russian armies to stand in their current positions as friends and allies of Poland, and not as invaders. But to protect Russia from the Nazi threat, it was clearly necessary for the Russian armies to stand on this line. In any case, this line exists and, therefore, the Eastern Front has been created, which Nazi Germany will not dare to attack ”[28]. The position of the Allies on the question of the entry of the Red Army into Poland is generally interesting. After the USSR 17 September declared its neutrality towards France and England [29], these countries also decided not to aggravate relations with Moscow. On September 18, at a meeting of the English government, it was decided not even to protest against the actions of the Soviet Union, since Britain was pledged to defend Poland only from Germany [30]. September 23 Commissar of Internal Affairs L. AP Beria informed the People's Commissar of Defense K. Е. Voroshilov stating that “a resident of the USSR NKVD in London reported that on September 20 p. Mr. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of England sent a telegram to all British embassies and press attaches, in which it indicates that England not only does not intend to declare war on the Soviet Union now, but should remain in the best possible way ”[31]. And on October 17, the British declared that London wanted to see a modest-sized ethnographic Poland and that the return of Western Ukraine and Western Belarus is out of the question [32]. Thus, the Allies, in essence, legitimized the actions of the Soviet Union in Poland. And although the motive of such flexibility in England and France was primarily their unwillingness to provoke a rapprochement between the USSR and Germany, the fact that the allies chose such a course of conduct indicates that they understood how tense relations between the Soviet Union still remain and the Reich and that the August agreement - just a tactical maneuver. In addition to political overtures, Britain also tried to establish trade relations with the USSR: On October 11, at the Soviet-British negotiations, it was decided to resume deliveries of Soviet forests to Britain, which were suspended due to the fact that after the start of the war, Britain began to delay Soviet vessels with cargo for Germany.

Summing up the interim results, we can note that at the beginning of September the Soviet Union was not only eager to help Germany in any way to fight the Polish Army, but also deliberately delayed the start of the “liberation campaign” until the moment when complete defeat Poland became quite obvious, and further delay with the introduction of Soviet troops could end up in that Western Ukraine and Western Belarus in one form or another would fall under the influence of Germany.

And now let's proceed to the consideration of the details of the interaction of the Wehrmacht and the Red Army. So, on September 17, the Soviet forces were Ukrainian forces (commanded by the commander of 1 rank S. TO. Tymoshenko) and Belarusian (under the command of the commander of 2 rank M. AP Kovalev) fronts invaded the eastern parts of Poland. By the way, it is interesting that, although the liberation of Western Ukraine and Western Belarus was only a pretext for the entry of Soviet troops into Poland, the Soviet troops mostly treated the people of these territories as liberators. In the order of the Military Council of the Belorussian Front, the troops of the front about the goals of the Red Army’s entry into the territory of Western Belarus from September 16 emphasized that “our revolutionary duty and duty is to render urgent assistance and support to our brothers Belarusians and Ukrainians in order to save them from the threat of devastation and beating from enemies ... We are not going as conquerors, but as liberators of our brothers Belarusians, Ukrainians and workers of Poland ”[34]. By the directive of Voroshilov and Shaposhnikov, the Military Council of BNO of 14 September was instructed to “avoid bombarding open cities and towns not occupied by large enemy forces” and not to allow “no requisitioning and unauthorized preparation of food and fodder in occupied areas” [35]. In the directive of the head of the Political Directorate of the Red Army army commissioner 1-rank L. 3. Mehlis was reminded “of the strictest responsibility for looting under martial law. The commissars, political instructors and the commander, in parts of which at least one shameful fact will be admitted, will be severely punished, up to giving the Military Tribunal to the court ”[36]. The fact that this order was not an empty threat is well illustrated by the fact that during the war and after its termination, the Military Tribunal issued several dozen war crimes convictions, which, unfortunately, did take place during the Polish campaign. [37]. Chief of the General Staff of the Polish Army V. Stakhevich noted: “Soviet soldiers do not shoot at ours, in every possible way demonstrate their position” [38]. Partly because of this attitude of the Red Army, Polish troops very often did not resist her, surrendering to captivity. It was this result that ended most of the clashes of the units of the Red Army and the Polish Army. An excellent illustration of this fact is the ratio of soldiers and officers of the Polish troops who were killed in battles with the Red Army and captured by the Red Army: if the former numbers just 3500 people, then the latter are 452 500 [39]. The Polish population was also quite loyal to the Red Army: “As evidenced by documents from, for example, the 87 Infantry Division,“ in all the localities where parts of our division passed, the working population met them with great joy, as genuine liberators from the oppression of Polish lords and capitalists as deliverers from poverty and hunger. " We see the same in the materials of the 45 th infantry division: “The population is happy everywhere and meets the Red Army as a liberator. A peasant from the village of Ostrozhets Sidorenko said: “Soviet power would have been established sooner, otherwise Polish nurses sat on our necks for 20 for years, sucking the last of us out of blood, and now the time has finally come when the Red Army has freed us. Thank you comrade. To Stalin for the liberation of Polish landlords and capitalists from bondage ”[40]. Moreover, the dislike of the Belarusian and Ukrainian population towards the “Polish landowners and capitalists” was expressed not only in a benevolent attitude towards Soviet troops, but also in open anti-Polish uprisings in September 1939. [41]. September 21 Deputy Defense Commander X. NUMX commander - rank G. AND. Kulik reported to Stalin: “In connection with the great national oppression of Ukrainians by the Poles, the latter have a lot of patience and, in some cases, there is a fight between Ukrainians and Poles, even threatening to cut out the Poles. An urgent appeal of the government to the population is necessary, as this can turn into a big political factor ”[42]. And Mehlis, in his report on September 20, indicated such an interesting fact: “Polish officers ... fear Ukrainian peasants and the population, who became more active with the arrival of the Red Army and deal with Polish officers, as fire. It got to the point that in Burshtyn, Polish officers sent by the corps to school and guarded by a minor guard asked to increase the number of guards as prisoners, fighters, in order to avoid possible reprisals against the population ”[43]. Thus, the Red Army carried out peacekeeping functions in a certain sense in the territories of Western Ukraine and Western Belarus. However, even after these regions joined the USSR, their Belarusian and Ukrainian population did not change their attitude towards the Poles, although this began to manifest itself in a slightly different form. For example, during the eviction from the western regions of Ukraine and Belarus, precipitators and forest guards in February 1940. the local population of these regions received this decision of the Soviet government with great enthusiasm. Beria Stalin’s special report on this matter states that “the population of the western regions of the Ukrainian SSR and the Byelorussian SSR react positively to the evictions of forest guards and forest guards. In a number of cases, local residents provided assistance to the operational groups of the NKVD [44] in the detention of escaped osadadniki. The same, but a little more detail, is also stated in the report of the Drohobych regional trio of the NKVD of the Ukrainian SSR about the same events: “The eviction of osadnik and workers of the guard of the forests by the majority of the peasants of the region. I was happy to be approved and fully supported, which is eloquently indicated by the fact that a large number of rural assets participated in the operation (3285 people). ) ”[45]. Thus, at least part of the population rejection of Western Ukraine and Belarus from Poland was really perceived as liberation. But let us go back to examining the peculiarities of the Soviet-German interaction, which began with the fact that at two o'clock in the morning 17 September Stalin summoned Schulenburg, announced the introduction of Soviet troops in Poland and asked "not to fly the German planes from now on east of the Bialystok - Brest-Litovsk - Lemberg [Lviv] line. Soviet aircraft will begin bombing the area east of Lemberg today [46]. The request of the German military attache to Lieutenant-General Kestring about the postponement of the hostilities of the Soviet aviation, so that the German command could take measures to prevent the incidents involving the bombardment of the areas occupied by the Wehrmacht, remained unsatisfied. As a result, some German units were hit by Soviet aviation [47]. And in the future, the most striking episodes of the Soviet-German relationship were not joint actions to destroy the remnants of the Polish troops, as the Allies should have been, but similar excesses that led to casualties on both sides. The most notable such incident was the clash of Soviet and German troops in Lviv. tank brigades. The reconnaissance battalion of the 24th battalion was introduced into the city. However, at 8 in the morning, units of the 30nd German Mountain Infantry Division stormed the city, and the Soviet battalion was attacked, despite the fact that initially it did not show any aggression. The brigade commander even sent an armored vehicle with a piece of a lower shirt on a stick towards the Germans, but the Germans did not cease fire. Then the tanks and armored vehicles of the brigade returned fire. As a result of the ensuing battle, Soviet troops lost 2 armored vehicles and 2 tank, 1 people killed and 3 wounded. The losses of the Germans amounted to 4 anti-tank guns, 3 people killed and 3 wounded. Soon, the shooting was stopped and a representative of the German division was sent to Soviet troops. As a result of negotiations, the incident was resolved [9]. However, despite the relatively peaceful resolution of this conflict, the question arose of what to do with Lviv. On the morning of September 48, the German leadership through Kestring transmitted to Moscow a proposal to take the city together, and then transfer it to the USSR, but, having been refused, was forced to issue an order to withdraw its troops. The German command took the decision as “a day of humiliation for the German political leadership” [20]. In order to avoid similar incidents on September 49, a protocol was drawn up at the talks between Voroshilov and Shaposhnikov with Kestring and representatives of the German command, Colonel G. Aschenbrenner and Lieutenant Colonel G. Krebs, regulating the advance of Soviet troops to the demarcation line and the withdrawal of units of the Wehrmacht from Soviet territory occupied by them.

Ҥ 1. The Red Army units remain on the line reached by 20 on the 20 September 1939 of the year, and continue their movement westward with the dawn of the 23 September 1939 on the year.

§ 2. Parts of the German Army, starting from September 22, are retracted so that, by making every day a journey of about 20 kilometers, finish their retreat to the west bank of the river. The Vistula near Warsaw in the evening of October 3 and Demblin in the evening of October 2; on the west bank. Piss by the evening of September 27, p. Narew, in Ostroleka, in the evening of September 29 and in Pultusk in the evening of October 1; on the west bank. San, near Przemysl, in the evening of September 26 and to the west bank of the r. San, at Sanok and south, in the evening of September 28.

§ 3. The movement of the troops of both armies must be organized in such a way that there is a distance between the advance units of the Red Army columns and the tail of the German Army columns, on average, up to 25 kilometers.

Both sides organize their movement in such a way that by the evening the Red Army units take to the east coast of the river 28 September. Pissa; by the evening of September 30 on the east bank of the r. Narev at Ostroleka and by the evening of October 2 at Pultusk; on the east bank. Wisla at Warsaw in the evening of October 4 and at Deblin in the evening of October 3; on the east bank. San near Przemysl towards the evening of September 27 and to the east bank of the r. San y Sanok and south to the evening of 29 September.

§ 4. All questions that may arise during the transfer of areas, points, cities, etc. to the German Army and the Red Army reception are resolved by representatives of both sides in place, for which special delegates are allocated on each main highway of movement of both armies.

In order to avoid possible provocations, sabotage from Polish gangs, etc. The German command takes necessary measures in cities and places that are transferred to the Red Army units, to their safety, and special attention is paid to the fact that cities, towns and important military defensive and household structures (bridges, airfields, barracks, warehouses, railway junctions, railway stations, telegraph, telephone, power plants, rolling stock, etc.), both in them and on the way to them, would be saved from damage and destruction before transfer and x representatives of the Red Army.

§ 5. When the German representatives appeal to the Red Army Command to assist in the destruction of Polish units or gangs standing in the way of small units of the German forces, the Red Army Command (chiefs of columns), if necessary, select the necessary forces to ensure the destruction of the obstacles on the way of movement.

§ 6. When German troops move to the west, German Army aircraft can fly only to the rearguard line of German troops and at an altitude not higher than 500 meters; Red Army aircraft can only fly to the avant-garde lines of Red Army columns and at an altitude not higher 500 meters. By the occupation by both armies of the main demarcation line for pp. Pissa, Narev, Vistula, r. San from the mouth to the origins of aviation of both armies does not fly over the above line "
[50].

As we see, all measures were taken to ensure that the Red Army and the Wehrmacht didn’t come into contact with each other during the actions in Poland - what kind of cooperation there is. However, it is for cooperation that the 4 and 5 points of this protocol are sometimes attempted to give out, although in general there is nothing special about them. The German side merely undertakes to return to the USSR intact the objects that already belong to it, since they are located on the territory departing according to the secret additional protocol to the Soviet Union. As for the Soviet obligation to assist small German units in the event that the remnants of the Polish troops interfere with their advancement, it is not the USSR’s desire to cooperate with the Wehrmacht, but the unwillingness to have any contacts with it. The Soviet leadership wanted so much as quickly as possible to send the German troops out of its territory, that it was even ready to escort them to the demarcation line.

However, even this protocol, which seemed to minimize the possibility of clashes between the Soviet and German parts, could not prevent further conflicts between them. On September 23, at Vidomlya, the reconnaissance rifle squad 8 was fired at 6 German machine guns, killing 2 man and injuring 2. Soviet troops returned fire with a single tank, whose crew was killed [51]. September 29 in the area of ​​Vohyn 3 German armored vehicles opened fire on the demining battalion 143-sd [52]. On September 30 in 42 km east of Lublin, the 1 th battalion of the 146 spy 179 th ran 44 sd. Eight people were injured [53].

On October 1, regular negotiations were held between Voroshilov and Shaposhnikov, on the one hand, and Kestring, Ashenbrennrom and Krebs, on the other, on the withdrawal of German and Soviet troops to the final border, which was defined by the Soviet-German Treaty on Friendship and the Border on September 10. Regarding measures to prevent collisions between the Red Army and the Wehrmacht, the new decision of the contracting parties generally repeated the protocol of September 21, but to avoid incidents like the September 30 that happened, the following item appeared in the protocol: “With the withdrawal of the Red Army, the Red Army can only fly to the line the rearguard of the columns of the Red Army and at a height not higher than 500 meters, the German Army aviation, when moving to the east of the German Army columns, can only fly to the vanguard line of the German Army columns and at a height not higher than 500 meters ”[54]. So, as we can see, the numerous agreements and consultations that really took place in Soviet-German relations, starting from 17 September, were not aimed at coordinating joint actions of the Soviet and German forces to combat the remnants of the Polish formations, as befits allies , but only on the settlement of various conflicts that have arisen as a result of the collision of the Red Army and the Wehrmacht, and on the prevention of new conflicts. It seems quite obvious that in order to prevent the escalation of minor clashes to the size of a real conflict, any states had to act this way. And the measures taken by the Soviet Union and Germany speak not about the allied nature of their interaction. On the contrary, the very fact that these measures had to be taken, and the form in which it was done, perfectly demonstrate to us that the main goal of the parties was primarily to delineate the zones of action of their armies, and to prevent any contacts between them. The author managed to find only two examples that can truly be described as cooperation between the Soviet Union and Germany. First, September 1 Assistant Commissar for Foreign Affairs V. Pavlov conveyed to Molotov the request of the adviser to the German embassy in Moscow G. Hilger said that in Minsk, in his free time, the radio station transmitted for urgent aeronautical experiments a continuous line with interspersed call signs: “Richard Wilhelm 1. O ”, and besides, when the program is being broadcast, the word“ Minsk ”is often used. From resolution B. М. Molotov on the document follows that it was agreed to transmit only the word “Minsk” [55]. Thus, the Luftwaffe could use the Minsk station as a beacon. However, this decision of the Soviet leadership is quite understandable. After all, any mistake of the German pilots operating near the Soviet territory could lead to all sorts of undesirable consequences: from clashes with Soviet fighters to bombing Soviet territory. Therefore, the consent of the Soviet leadership to provide the Germans with an extra reference point is again caused by the desire to prevent possible incidents. The second case is the mutual obligation of Germany and the USSR not to allow “no Polish agitation in their territories that acts on the territory of another country” [56]. However, it is quite obvious that, on the basis of only two of these facts, it is quite problematic to draw far-reaching conclusions about the Soviet-German "brotherhood in arms".

So, summing up, we can draw the following conclusions. In the course of the German-Polish war, the Soviet Union did not intend to render any assistance to Germany. The entry of Soviet troops into Polish territory pursued exclusively Soviet interests and was caused not by the desire to help Germany in any way with the defeat of the Polish army, whose combat capability by that time already uncontrollably sought to zero, namely the unwillingness to transfer the entire territory of Poland to Germany . In the course of the “liberation campaign”, the Soviet and German troops did not conduct any joint operations and did not practice any other forms of cooperation, and there were local conflicts between separate units of the Red Army and the Wehrmacht. All Soviet-German cooperation, in fact, was aimed precisely at resolving such conflicts and creating the previously non-existent Soviet-German border as painlessly as possible. Thus, the allegations that during the Polish campaign the USSR was an ally of Germany are nothing more than insinuations that have little to do with the realities of the Soviet-German relations of that period.

In the context of the discussion of the Soviet-German cooperation, another episode is of interest, which, oddly enough, many publicists serve as the main argument in proving that parts of the Red Army and the Wehrmacht in 1939 entered Poland as allies. This is, of course, the “joint Soviet-German parade”, held in Brest on September 22. Alas, most often the mentions of this parade are not accompanied by any details, as if this is a completely obvious fact known to every reader. However, publicists can be understood: after all, if you start to understand the details of the Brest parade, then the idyllic picture of the Soviet-German brotherhood in arms deteriorates somewhat and everything that happened in Brest does not look as clear as many would like. But first things first…

On September 14, units of the German 19 motorized corps under the command of the general of the tank troops G. Guderian occupied Brest. The garrison of the city, headed by General K. Plisovsky, took refuge in the fortress, but on September 17 it was taken. And on September 22, the 29-I tank tank brigade of SM Krivosheina approached the city. Since Brest was in the Soviet sphere of influence, after negotiations between the command of the 19-th MK and 29-th Tbr, the Germans began to withdraw their troops from the city. Thus, initially the parade was, in fact, a solemn procedure for the withdrawal of German units from Brest. It remains to answer two questions: was this action a parade and what role was assigned to it by the Soviet troops?

In the Charter of the infantry 1938 g. To the parade apply rather stringent requirements.

“229. For command of the troops being displayed at the parade, the commander of the parade is appointed, who in advance gives the necessary instructions to the troops.

...

233. Each individual part participating in the parade sends to the commander of the linear parade, under the command of the commander, from the calculation: from the company - 4 linear, from the squadron, battery - to 2 linear, from motor-mechanized parts - each time according to the special instructions of the parade commander . On the bayonet of a linear rifle, denoting the flank of the part, there must be a flag the size of 20 x 15 cm, the colors of the buttonholes of a kind of troops.

234. The troops arrive at the place of the parade according to the order of the garrison and are built at the places designated by linear, after which the linear ones fall into place, left in the back rank of the unit.

...

236. Military units are built into the line of battalions; each battalion is in line with the mouth; in battalions - authorized intervals and distances; between battalions the interval in 5 m. The commander of the unit is on the right flank of his unit; in the back of his head - the chief of staff; next and to the left of the commander is the military commissar of the unit; to the left of the military commissar is the orchestra, which is equal to its first rank in the second rank of the right-flank company. To the left of the orchestra, two steps in the same line, is Assistant No. 1, the denominator and Assistant No. 2, which are equal in the first rank of a right-flank company. The commander of the head battalion is two steps to the left of Assistant No. 2. The rest of the commanders are in their places.

239. Troops at the site of the parade, before the arrival of the host parade, welcome:

a) military units - commanders of their units;

b) all troops of the parade - the commander of the parade and the commander of the garrison.

To greet, the command is given: “At attention, alignment to the right (left, middle)”; orchestras do not play.

240. The host parade arrives at the right flank of the parade. When approaching it to the troops on 110 – 150, the parade commander issues the command: “Parade, quietly, alignment to the right (left, in the middle)”. The command is repeated by all commanders, starting from the commanders of individual units and above. For this command:

a) the troops take the position "quietly" and turn their heads in the direction of alignment;

b) the entire command and commanding composition, starting with the platoon commanders and above, puts a hand to the headdress;

c) orchestras play “Counter march”;

d) the parade commander comes up with a report to the host parade.

When the host parade on horseback, the parade commander meets him on horseback too, holding the sword “high” and dropping it at the report.

During the report of the parade commander, the orchestra stops the game. After the report, the parade commander gives the host to the parade a note on the composition of the troops withdrawn to the parade.

When the host of the parade starts moving, the orchestra of the head part begins to play “Counter march” and stops playing for the duration of the greeting of the part and the response to the greeting.

241. To the greeting of the host of the parade, the units reply: “Hello”, and to the greeting, “Hooray.”

242. When the host parade proceeds to the head unit of the next separate unit, the orchestra stops playing, and the new orchestra starts playing.

243. At the end of the detour, the parade commander issues a command to the parade’s host: “Parade is FREE”.

All commanders, starting with the platoon commander, go out and stand in front of the middle front of their units: platoon commanders - in P / 2 m, company commanders - in 3 m, battalion commanders - in 6 m, unit commanders - In 12 m. The military commissars become close and to the left of the commanders who have come forward.

...

245. For the passage of troops in a solemn march, the commander of the parade gives the command: “Parade, quietly! To the solemn march, on so many linear distances, porotno (battalion), alignment to the right, the first company (battalion) is straight, the rest is direct, in ple-CHO, in steps - MARSH ”.

All commanders of individual units repeat commands, except for the first - “Parade, attention”.

246. At the command "To the solemn march," the commanders of the units and formations with the military commissars go over and stand in front of the middle of the front of the head battalion; behind them in 2 m the chiefs of staff become, and behind the chiefs of staff in 2 m - the denominators with assistants; the linear ones run out of order and occupy the places indicated by them to designate the line of movement of troops by a solemn march; the orchestras of all the individual parts break down their parts and stand against the host parade, no closer than 8 m from the left flank of the troops marching in. "


Of course, none of this was observed in Brest. At least there is no evidence of this. But there is evidence to the contrary. In his memoirs, Krivoshein writes that Guderian agreed to the following procedure for withdrawing troops: “At 16 hours, parts of your corps in a marching column, with standards in front, leave the city, my units, also in a marching column, enter the city, stop on the streets, German shelves are passing by, and they salute with their banners to passing parts. Orchestras perform military marches ”[57]. Thus, based on the words of Krivoshein, no parade in the canonical sense of the word in Brest was even close. But let's not be formalists. Suppose that a joint parade can be considered any joint event, during which two commanders receive the parade of the troops of both armies passing by. However, even with such a loose interpretation of the term “parade” with the identification of an event in Brest, problems arise precisely as a parade. It follows from the above quotation of Krivoshein that there was no joint passage of troops along the same street. Kombrig clearly says that the parts should not intersect. In the memoirs of Guderian, there is also a mention of the events in Brest: “Our stay in Brest ended with a farewell parade and a ceremony with the exchange of flags in the presence of the brigade commander Krivoshein” [58]. As we see, the general also did not say a word about participation in the parade of Soviet troops. Moreover, it does not even follow from this phrase that Krivoshein somehow participated in the parade. Rather, he was next to Guderian as an observer, which is quite consistent with the purpose of the presence of the brigade commander at all this event - monitoring the withdrawal of German troops. Indeed, it is completely incomprehensible on what grounds Krivoshein is so persistently trying to write to the host parade. No ceremonial accompanying this post was not observed, and the fact of the presence of the brigade commander during the passage of the German troops says nothing. In the end, at the parade in honor of Victory Day, too, there are many foreign delegations in the crowd, however, to name them, oddly enough, does not occur to anyone. But back to the Soviet parts. The historian O.V. Vishlev, citing the German edition of the “Great German March against Poland” 1939 of the issue, again asserts that there was no joint parade. First German troops left the city, then Soviet [59] entered. Thus, we do not have a single written source that would tell us about the joint passage of Soviet and German troops through the streets of Brest.

Now we turn to the documentary sources. Of all the photographs taken by 22 in September in Brest [60], which the author managed to find, only four captured Soviet troops stationed on the roadways of Brest streets. Let's analyze them in more detail. In photos No. 1 and 2 we see a column of Soviet tanks. However, these photos were taken clearly before the parade: in the place where the stand will stand later (under the flagpole), it is not there; columns of German troops are, and how vigorously the Wehrmacht fighters twist their heads around, clearly shows that they are not even in readiness for the solemn march. The fact of the presence in the city of some Soviet units is completely understandable: Krivoshein, naturally, came to Guderian not in proud solitude, but accompanied, probably, by headquarters and guards or, if you like, an honorary escort. Apparently, the arrival of this escort we see in these photos. In the photo number 3 we again see the Soviet tank column, but in a completely different place. It also has nothing to do with the parade: there are no German troops on the sides of the road, but locals walking idly - as many as you like. But with the photo number 4 all the more complicated. On it, we finally find at least some attribute of the parade - the German orchestra. Nevertheless, we cannot conclude that the photograph depicts the parade, again: we cannot see the rostrum, and the musicians, instead of providing the parade participants with musical accompaniment, are inactive. That is, with the same success, the photo could have been taken during the preparation for the parade, but before it began. Viewing newsreels, which today thanks to the World Wide Web is available to anyone who wishes, will also not reveal anything new to us. Frames again with the Soviet tank column (the same) are on two commercials that the author managed to find. However, they didn’t see the parade, but the passage of tanks through the streets of Brest, in which not a single German soldier or command was visible, but there are townspeople welcoming parts of the Red Army. Thus, out of the total amount of cinema and photographic materials, only one photo was taken, possibly, during the participation of Soviet troops in the parade. And perhaps completely at another time, and the Soviet troops there have no relation to the parade - we have no reason to assert this. Simply put, the entire version of the “joint parade” is based on a single photograph, and that one cannot be confidently attributed to the time of the parade. That is, there is no clear evidence of the participation of Soviet troops in the “joint” parade of apologists of the theory of the Soviet-German “brotherhood in arms”. Their opponents also have no evidence to the contrary, however, nobody has yet canceled the ancient formula ei incumbit probatio, qui dicit, non qui negat.

Summarizing, we can say that the fact of holding a joint parade in Brest is unproved. And the most plausible, as it seems to us, picture of what happened in the city looks like this: first Krivoshein arrives in Brest with headquarters and a tank escort column, then the commanders settle all the problems associated with the withdrawal of German troops. After that, probably, Soviet troops enter the city, however they keep their distance from their German colleagues. Parts of the Wehrmacht solemnly pass by the podium with Guderian and Krivoshein. After that, the general gives the combriga a flag and leaves after his corps. Then the Soviet troops finally occupy the city. At least, this version is consistent with all available sources. But the main mistake of historians, who rush to the Brest parade as a written bag, is not even that they are trying to pass off an event as an obvious fact, the reality of which is very doubtful. Their main mistake is that even if this parade really was, this fact in itself does not say anything. In the end, the Russian and American armed forces in our time also organize joint parades [61], but it does not occur to anyone to declare Russia and the United States allies. The joint parade can serve only as an illustration of the thesis about the allied nature of relations between the USSR and Germany in September 1939, but not its evidence. And this thesis is wrong, regardless of whether there was a parade or not.

1 Telegram of the Imperial Minister for Foreign Affairs to the German Ambassador in Moscow on 3 in September 1939 // To be announced. USSR - Germany 1939 – 1941. Documents and materials. - M., 2004. C. 89.
2 Telegram of the Imperial Minister for Foreign Affairs to the German Ambassador in Moscow on September 8 1939 // Ibid. C. 94.
3 Telegram of the German Ambassador in Moscow to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Germany from September 5 1939 // Ibid. C. 90.
4 Diary of the ECCI Secretary-General G. M. Dimitrov // Materials of the site http: // bdsa. ru.
5 Vihavainen T. Foreign aid to Finland // Winter war 1939 – 1940. Book one. Political history. - M., 1999. C. 193.
6 Zefirov, MV. Aces of World War II: Allies of the Luftwaffe: Estonia. Latvia. Finland. - M., 2003. C. 162.
7 Baryshnikov V.N. On the issue of the German military-political assistance to Finland at the beginning of the Winter War // Proceedings of the website http: // www. history. pu. ru.
8 Baryshnikov V.N. On the issue of the German military and political assistance of Finland at the beginning of the Winter War // Proceedings of the website http: // www. history. pu. ru.
9 Telegram of the German Ambassador in Moscow to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Germany from September 10 1939 // To be announced. USSR– Germany 1939 – 1941. Documents and materials. C. 95 – 96.
10 Telegram of the Imperial Minister for Foreign Affairs to the German Ambassador in Moscow on September 15 1939 // Ibid. C. 101.
11 Telegram of the German Ambassador in Moscow to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Germany from September 16 1939 // Ibid. C. 103.
12 Telegram of the German Ambassador in Moscow to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Germany from September 14 1939 // Ibid. C. 98
13 Meltyukhov M. I. Soviet-Polish Wars. Military-political confrontation 1918 – 1939 - M., 2001. C. 251.
14 ibid.
15 Pribilov V. I. “Capture” or “Reunion”. Foreign historians about 17 September 1939 g. // Site materials http: // katynbooks. narod. ru.
16 Meltyukhov M. I. Soviet-Polish Wars. Military-political confrontation 1918 – 1939 C. 251.
17 ibid.
18 ibid. C. 252.
19 Kotelnikov V. Aviation in the Soviet – Polish conflict // Site materials http: // www. airwiki. or.
20 Poberezhets S. German-Polish War of 1939. // Site materials http: // wartime. narod. ru.
21 Meltyukhov M. I. Decree. cit. C. 266.
22 ibid. C. 261.
23 Profit Century I. Decree. cit.
24 Meltyukhov M. I. Soviet-Polish Wars. Military-political confrontation 1918 – 1939 C. 291.
25 Halder F. Occupation of Europe. The military diary of the Chief of General Staff. 1939 – 1941. - M., 2007. C. 55.
26 Telegram of the Imperial Minister for Foreign Affairs to the German Ambassador in Moscow on 15 in September 1939 // To be announced. USSR - Germany 1939 – 1941. Documents and materials. C. 100 – 101.
27 Meltyukhov M. I. Soviet-Polish Wars. Military-political confrontation 1918 – 1939 C. 325 – 328.
28 Churchill W. World War II. Prince 1. - M., 1991. C. 204.
29 Nota of the USSR Government, presented on the morning of September 17 1939, to ambassadors and envoys of states having diplomatic relations with the USSR // To be announced. USSR - Germany 1939 – 1941. Documents and materials. C. 107.
30 Meltyukhov M. I. Soviet-Polish Wars. Military-political confrontation 1918 – 1939 C. 354.
31 World Wars XX century. Prince 4. The Second World War. Documents and materials. - M., 2002. C. 152.
32 Meltyukhov M. I. Soviet-Polish Wars. Military-political confrontation 1918 – 1939 C. 355.
33 ibid. C. 356.
34 Order No. 005 of the Military Council of the Belarusian Front to the Front Forces on the Entry of the Red Army into the Territory of Western Belorussia on September 16 // Katyn. Prisoners of the undeclared war (materials of the site http: // katynbo oks. Narod. Ru).
35 Directive No. 16633 of the People's Commissar for Defense K. Ye. Voroshilov and Chief of the General Staff of the Red Army B. M. Shaposhnikov to the Military Council of the Belarusian Special Military District on the start of an offensive against Poland // Ibid.
36 Svishchev VN. Beginning of the Great Patriotic War. T. 1. Preparing Germany and the USSR for war. 2003. C. 194.
37 Meltyukhov M. I. Soviet-Polish Wars. Military-political confrontation 1918 – 1939 C. 372 – 380.
38 Profit Century I. Decree. cit.
39 Meltyukhov M. I. Stalin's missed chance. Fight for Europe: 1939 – 1941 Documents, facts, judgments. - M., 2008. C. 96.
40 Meltyukhov M. I. Soviet-Polish Wars. Military-political confrontation 1918 – 1939 C. 363.
41 Fight against Polish occupation in Western Ukraine 1921 – 1939 // Site materials http: // www. hrono. ru; Meltyukhov MI Soviet-Polish wars. Military-political confrontation 1918 – 1939 C. 307.
42 Report of the Deputy People’s Commissar of Defense of the USSR, commander 1 of the rank of G. I. Kulik on combat operations of units and formations of the Red Army in Western Ukraine and the political and economic situation in this region // Katyn. Prisoners of undeclared war.
43 Meltyukhov M. I. Soviet-Polish Wars. Military-political confrontation 1918 – 1939 C. 367.
44 Special report by L. P. Beria to I. V. Stalin on the results of the operation to evict precipitators and forest guards from the western regions of Ukraine and Belarus // Lubyanka. Stalin and the NKDC-NKGBGUKR "Smersh". 1939 - March 1946 / Stalin's archive. Documents of the highest organs of party and state power. - M., 2006. C. 142.
45 Report of the Drohobych Regional Three of the NKVD of the Ukrainian SSR to the People's Commissar of the Ukrainian SSR I. A. Serov on the results of the operation to evict the members of families of precipitators and foresters // Stalin deportations. 1928 – 1953. - M., 2005. C. 126.
46 Telegram of the German Ambassador in Moscow to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Germany from September 17 1939 // To be announced. USSR– Germany 1939 – 1941. Documents and materials. C. 104.
47 Vishlev O. V. On the eve of June 22 1941. - M., 2001. C. 107.
48 Meltyukhov M. I. Soviet-Polish Wars. Military-political confrontation 1918 – 1939 C. 320 – 321.
49 Halder F. Decree. cit. C. 58.
50 Meltyukhov M. I. Soviet-Polish Wars. Military-political confrontation 1918 – 1939 C. 329 – 331.
51 Meltyukhov M. I. Soviet-Polish Wars. Military-political confrontation 1918 – 1939 C. 337.
52 ibid. C. 338.
53 ibid. C. 340.
54 ibid. C. 360.
55 Report of the USSR People’s Commissariat of Foreign Affairs V.N. Pavlov to the USSR People’s Commissar of Foreign Affairs V.Molotov // Year of the Crisis. 1938 – 1939. Documents and materials (materials site http: // katynbooks. Narod. Ru).
56 Secret Additional Protocol to the German - Soviet Treaty of Friendship and the border between the USSR and Germany // Katyn. Prisoners of undeclared war.
57 Meltyukhov M. I. Soviet-Polish Wars. Military-political confrontation 1918 – 1939 C. 336.
58 Guderian G. Memories of a Soldier. - M., 2004. C. 113.
59 Vishlev O. V. Decree. cit. C. 109.
60 For a selection of photos and videos about events in Brest, see http: // gezesh. livejournal. com / 25630. html.
61 9 May 2006 The crew of the US Navy destroyer "John McCain" participated in the Victory Parade in Vladivostok, along with Russian sailors.
Author:
Articles from this series:
Myths of the Great Patriotic. Was Stalin an ally of Hitler?
Myths of the Great Patriotic. Did Stalin have prostration in the first days of the war?
Myths of the Great Patriotic. The Tale of Lost Communication
Myths of the Great Patriotic. Why did the Stalingrad prisoners die??
Myths of the Great Patriotic. "Die aktion kaminsky": Lokot "self-government" and the creation of the RONA brigade
Myths of the Great Patriotic. Papier mache helmet
39 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Landwarrior
    Landwarrior 24 January 2014 09: 14
    +17
    In any case, even if it was, in foreign policy there are no concepts of "right and wrong", but there is only "Beneficial for the country - Unprofitable for the country."
    The English say "Maybe my country is not right, but this is MY COUNTRY!" All hi
    1. aleksei-2011
      aleksei-2011 24 January 2014 16: 54
      0
      No matter how your posts are respected by the people of China and begin to learn the bowels of Siberia ...
  2. Ivan Petrovich
    Ivan Petrovich 24 January 2014 09: 44
    +8
    and we still cannot give a clear history textbook to children. Shame and shame
  3. 0255
    0255 24 January 2014 10: 30
    +12
    Finally, a normal article appeared with arguments proving that the USSR and Hitler were not allies. And then all sorts of ******* divorced, pouring mud on the USSR.
    The British allowed the Germans to seize Austria and part of Czechoslovakia, American companies and banks helped the Wehrmacht with money, resources, equipment - and nothing, they don't call themselves allies of the Third Reich. I am more than sure that in the West, allegations of US aid to Hitler are considered "dirty communist propaganda."
    Thanks to the author hi
    1. aleksei-2011
      aleksei-2011 24 January 2014 17: 12
      0
      I absolutely agree that "The British allowed the Germans to seize Austria and part of Czechoslovakia, American firms and banks helped the Wehrmacht with money, resources, equipment - and nothing, they do not call themselves allies of the Third Reich. I am more than sure that in the West there are allegations of aid to Hitler on the part of the USA they are considered “dirty communist propaganda.” And what does the parade in Brest have to do with the invasion of Poland? Why pretend to be a virgin (ie, the main anti-fascists). The article contains only falsifications of facts, terry patriotism and xenophobia.
    2. Albert1988
      Albert1988 24 January 2014 18: 18
      0
      Quote: 0255
      The British allowed the Germans to seize Austria and part of Czechoslovakia, American companies and banks helped the Wehrmacht with money, resources, equipment - and nothing, they don't call themselves allies of the Third Reich. I am more than sure that in the West, allegations of US aid to Hitler are considered "dirty communist propaganda."

      This is why they so fiercely shift "blame" to the USSR for helping Hitler - in order to divert attention from their own, active, and most importantly targeted assistance to Nazi Germany in expanding its territory and restoring its military potential, in order to further incite it to the USSR.

      It is also worth citing the transcript of the secret meeting of the Politburo on August 1982, 19, long since declassified (somewhere in 1939), long found in the archives by historians, but for some reason forgotten by everyone. And in it, among other things, among other things, Stalin's vision of the prospects for a future war is set forth - Stalin is convinced that in response to the attack on Poland, Britain and France will declare war on Hitler. And then there are two options - a long and protracted trench war, and as a result, the bankruptcy of the Nazis, the fall of their regime and the coming to power in Germany of sociolists with the support of the USSR. In this case, the USSR generally stands aside and does not take any action. The second option is a "fast" war of the Anglo-French against Germany, in this case the USSR enters the war on the side of the Anglo-French and the result is approximately the same as in reality happened in 1945. Therefore, ours were in no hurry to enter Poland - they waited including retaliatory actions from England with France. Only now the "allies" actually threw Poland ...
      Unfortunately, Stalin could not assume one thing - that Hitler would defeat France in 3 weeks.
    3. comrade Bitch
      comrade Bitch 6 February 2014 19: 36
      0
      yeah, now let the author justify “BASIS NORD” and everything will be like a shtirlitsa!
  4. avt
    avt 24 January 2014 10: 36
    +7
    Quote: Landwarrior
    The English say "Maybe my country is not right, but this is MY COUNTRY!" All

    Why is everyone. It is imperative to argue so that the Svanidza chroniclers do not throw in their delirium, settling scores for relatives in dusty civilian helmets, shitting on the graves. The article is good. But I would strongly recommend adding the prehistory of the liberation of the western territories, namely the liberation. Indeed, after the First World War, the winners outlined the "Curzon Line", which generally coincided with the zones of influence outlined in the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Poland is the "hyena of Europe", according to one very weighty English politician of those times, taking advantage of the Civil War and fighting for the Crimea, attacked the Soviet Republic and went much further than western Belarus and Ukraine. Well, the truth is, after the epic leadership of the greatest commander of all times Tukhachevsky, whose failures naturally blamed on Stalin, they chopped off smaller territories after the signing of a peace treaty. Well, on whom else can you blame your mistakes if not on Stalin and the "horse" marshals? Well, don't read memoirs of the great strategist where he himself writes that for a week he lost the entire Polish army near Warsaw - he could not establish reconnaissance, and the insidious Poles took it and ran out of nowhere, and even defeated the genius commander! By the way, a completely different person started the Polish company with victories - Kamenev, but according to Trotsky, it was Tukhachevsky who should have ended with a victorySo the USSR regained its own, what the "world community", following the results of the First World War, prescribed to Russia. Yes, and mention the fact that the Helsing agreements of the time of Ilyich No. 2, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was practically recognized and documented as inviolable borders following the Second World War.
    1. anomalocaris
      anomalocaris 25 January 2014 07: 10
      0
      On this topic there is a wonderful book by Shirokorad "The Great Intermission".
  5. Standard Oil
    Standard Oil 24 January 2014 10: 46
    +6
    And who was Hitler for Stalin then? Why was he worse than England or France? Well, whoever, Joseph Stalin, cared about the welfare of the SOVIET people, not French like Nicholas II, not American like Gorbachev or Yeltsin, but the Soviet people, he is his own made the choice, right or wrong, not for us to judge him, he is not a seer, not a clairvoyant, not even a "holy great martyr", an ironclad fact: under Stalin, Russia in the form of the USSR reached the highest point (at least so far) of its development, and certainly not for some man in the street who even make an elementary choice to marry Masha or Dasha, to condemn a person who was billions of times more difficult and the fate of the whole people depended on his decision, and not just the opportunity to get punched in the face.
    1. aleksei-2011
      aleksei-2011 24 January 2014 17: 18
      0
      Of course he cared, the greatness of Stalin cost us 27 million, I know your arguments: "The situation, the war, the damned West, well, there were excesses ..". But among the victims of Comrade Chikatilo there were probably not very good people, (prostitutes say), the family man was good, he worked at the factory (proletarian) ... A good comparison, isn't it?
  6. Shogun23
    Shogun23 24 January 2014 10: 53
    +6
    I haven’t read an article yet, maybe it’s here, but it’s known for certain that between the USSR and Germany, in the period from 12.1933-19.08.1939 even a trade agreement was not signed, despite the fact that Germany was traditionally considered the largest trading partner of Russia in Europe, and maybe even in the world.
    At the same time, the "free capitalist countries" allowed Germany to have air, water and submarine fleets, turned a blind eye to the production of powerful anti-aircraft and field artillery, as well as armored forces. The introduction of universal military service, the occupation of the Rhineland, the annexation of Austria, and later the Sudetenland. (I am already silent about how much money the future "allies" invested in Germany)
    And note, this was all a violation of the points of the Versailles-Washington system, which the countries of the former Entente and the League of Nations were to monitor, and these measures were aimed primarily to prevent the military revival of Germany. So who in the end prepared Hitler’s army and, in fact, World War II? Pact 23.08.39? That is, they really want to convince people that in just a week, after the pact, Germany was able to create a powerful army, develop an offensive plan, concentrate troops, equip them with arms and supplies and establish supplies? I think everyone understands that this is nonsense.
  7. Roman 1977
    Roman 1977 24 January 2014 11: 21
    +5
    Of course, Stalin was an ally of Hitler, the same as British Prime Minister (then) Neville Chamberlain and French Prime Minister Eduard Deladier, by the way, after signing the Munich Agreement in 1938 on the division of Czechoslovakia:

    And here is a German poster dedicated to this event:

    or as Polish rulers who did not abstain and participate in the section themselves, having received a bone in the form of Tieszyn Silesia from the master's table ...


    Or the Americans who supplied Nazi Germany with military equipment, so that in honor of the 75 anniversary of Ford, the Führer awarded the hero with the “Great Cross of the German Eagle” - the highest award that a foreigner from the Nazis could receive at that time ... And the German consul made a trip to Detroit to personally hang the Golden Cross with a swastika on the chest of the car magnate.
    And the liberals are telling us that "the fascist sword was forged in the USSR." Yeah, that's exactly how it was ...
    1. 0255
      0255 24 January 2014 11: 45
      +4
      And the German consul made a trip to Detroit to personally hang the Golden Cross with a swastika on the chest of a car magnate.

      if only FBI agents would have liquidated it together with Ford in Detroit fellow
  8. family tree
    family tree 24 January 2014 11: 24
    +4
    Yes, it seems, back in the 36th, in Spain, they clashed with these "allies" what , and from the anti-Comintern pact, signed in the same year, these "allies" didn’t leave a fig, again, but I don’t observe a treaty of alliance and mutual assistance with these "allies". request
  9. leks
    leks 24 January 2014 11: 50
    +3
    Quote: 0255
    Finally, a normal article appeared with arguments proving that the USSR and Hitler were not allies. And then all sorts of ******* divorced, pouring mud on the USSR.
    The British allowed the Germans to seize Austria and part of Czechoslovakia, American companies and banks helped the Wehrmacht with money, resources, equipment - and nothing, they don't call themselves allies of the Third Reich. I am more than sure that in the West, allegations of US aid to Hitler are considered "dirty communist propaganda."
    Thanks to the author hi

    And what good is it, it was revered here on military review by a couple of dozen people and that’s all, such information is needed in textbooks and in evening prime time TV then there will be sense !!!!
  10. Hort
    Hort 24 January 2014 12: 02
    +3
    Finally, a normal article appeared with arguments proving that the USSR and Hitler were not allies. And then all sorts of ******* divorced, pouring mud on the USSR.
    ha, yes, even if they were, then to such a union until June 22, 1941 by and large there would be no complaints.
    We can say that this would be a classic geopolitical act - the two most powerful continental powers at that time enter into an alliance. There were prerequisites for this in 39-40 (after the nonaggression pact there was a treaty of friendship and borders). And if instead of Hitler the Fritz had a more pragmatic and reasonable leader, there would be no World War II. And all that remains is to state the fact that the British (with the Americans) in diplomacy outplayed us, pushing the two strongest states against their foreheads ...
    1. smile
      smile 24 January 2014 14: 12
      +2
      Hort
      I would like to correct a little, with your permission.
      The most powerful aggressive Nazi power, the Anglo-Saxons actually nurtured just in order to incite it on us. Regardless of the monstrous costs. They actually picked up Hitler himself in a pub, laundered, taught him how to dress (I'm not kidding, literally) and helped come to power ... even Churchill's son personally participated in organizing Hitler's election marathons in the early 30s ... miscalculated, not keeping Hitler in check - he wished to be independent and attacked his "parents". And our clash with Nazi Germany was inevitable - we were antagonistic with her, unlike the Western powers.
      So. that the Anglo-Saxons didn’t outplay us. rather, the opposite.
      1. Hort
        Hort 24 January 2014 16: 38
        +1
        And it was they who miscalculated, not keeping Hitler in check - he wished to be independent and attacked his "parents". And our clash with Nazi Germany was inevitable - we were antagonistic with her, unlike the Western powers.
        So. that the Anglo-Saxons didn’t outplay us. rather, the opposite.

        Here I will correct you. Without the tacit consent of Britain and France, Hitler would not have started the war. It was then the turn of France came. And the Germans did not fight with Britain in full force, otherwise London would have been under them for a long time. Our clash, yes, was inevitable, but not because the state was antagonistic (they were also socialists, only "national"), but because they had Hitler and it was here that we were outplayed in the sense that we were unable to entice him.
        Of the Western powers, only France was more or less close to us, because it was also a continental country, but they lay under British (in politics), and then under the Germans (in war).
        By the way, the Germans pushed us foreheads two wars in a row ...
        1. Albert1988
          Albert1988 24 January 2014 18: 32
          +1
          Quote: hort
          And the Germans did not fight with Britain in full force, otherwise London would have long been under them.

          I’ll correct you a little - they didn’t mean that they didn’t fight at full strength, just that Hitler was a big Anglophile and the quarrel with the British was more of an annoying misunderstanding for him, and secondly, for the war with Britain it was necessary to have some kind of fleet, and Hitler for the fleet osbo I didn’t spend it - after all, initially I was preparing purposefully for a land war.
          Quote: hort
          Our clash, yes, was inevitable, but not because the power is antagonistic (they were also socialists, only "national")

          And here you are strongly wrong - it is difficult to find a more antagonistic regime in relation to the Soviet one, even amer cannot be compared with the Angles! Look - what anti-Soviet propaganda there was in Germany! As soon as the USSR was not called - and the "Jewish Empire", and the "new Mongol horde" and everything in this spirit. After all, the West supported Schickel-Gruber because he was an extremely radical anti-communist and when he came to power, the first thing he did was to be against the USSR.
          And if some other smarter instead of the Hitler’s, then they would hardly have helped him. A strong Germany was not needed by the West if it pursued its interests and did not oppose the USSR, so somehow ...
        2. smile
          smile 24 January 2014 19: 42
          +3
          Hort
          1 Do not confuse National Socialists and Communists. who built communism. The difference between them is simply monstrous in all respects. The Nazis are much closer to the bourgeois socialists. And the similarities between Socialism and Nazism are about the same as between the dental technician and the construction technician. It is in the restructuring of this get along launched by the reunists.
          2. Regarding the actions of Hitler before landing in Norway - I agree - in practice he acted with the consent of England and France. Then no. And the success at that time of the landing operation through the English Channel is rather doubtful. The Germans could not gain superiority in the air (for various reasons, including because they did not throw the main forces there), and the British Navy possessed overwhelming superiority. But I agree, Hitler, perhaps, was not going to capture the British metropolis.
          3. Regarding France - I agree, but until then. until Bart was banged and the "pro-Russian party" was turned off ...
          And thanks for the adjustment. It is interesting and useful to both parties.
        3. invisibility
          invisibility 24 January 2014 21: 03
          +1
          And then I will correct you. Most importantly, they were National Socialists, and we are Communists. Not too.
          Whom to lure? Hitler’s? Mine Kampf leaf through.

          And they miscalculated, not keeping Hitler in check
          smile is absolutely right! While Hitler was moving in the right direction, everything was as it should. And then ...
          he wished to be independent and attacked his "parents"
          1. anomalocaris
            anomalocaris 25 January 2014 08: 27
            +1
            That is yes. Hitler with his actions in 1940 surprised everyone: both the Anglo-French allies and Stalin. He actually took the first ones from the mainland, and set England in such a position that he forced Churchill to subscribe to the Atlantic Charter. Stalin with the ease with which he defeated the most powerful French army. As far as I can tell, Stalin counted on at least a year-long war between Germany and the Anglo-French, after which the Wehrmacht would be restored for at least another three years.
  11. leks
    leks 24 January 2014 12: 10
    0
    Quote: hort
    Finally, a normal article appeared with arguments proving that the USSR and Hitler were not allies. And then all sorts of ******* divorced, pouring mud on the USSR.
    ha, yes, even if they were, then to such a union until June 22, 1941 by and large there would be no complaints.
    We can say that this would be a classic geopolitical act - the two most powerful continental powers at that time enter into an alliance. There were prerequisites for this in 39-40 (after the nonaggression pact there was a treaty of friendship and borders). And if instead of Hitler the Fritz had a more pragmatic and reasonable leader, there would be no World War II. And all that remains is to state the fact that the British (with the Americans) in diplomacy outplayed us, pushing the two strongest states against their foreheads ...

    If the Nazis did not imagine themselves to be a higher race, and did not consider the Russians barbarians whom they should destroy and populate our lands with the Germans.
    So I agree with you that most likely the Anglo-Saxon rule came to an end, it would be a different world, I don’t know how, it should be asked from alternatives.
    1. Hort
      Hort 24 January 2014 12: 18
      +3
      The topic of the superior race has been with them since the First World War - they only called "pan-Germanism". And in the 30s the "fertile" seeds of National Socialism (again from the British island) fell on the old yeast - an ideology in many respects not bad, but which, thanks to this very pan-Germanism, reached the point of absurdity and grew into racism.
      Well, then - a matter of technology, as they say. From 35-36 the British began to "fasten" Hitler with anti-Bolshevik treatment (like, Germany is the last bastion before the red hordes, etc.)
      1. Albert1988
        Albert1988 24 January 2014 18: 24
        +1
        Quote: hort
        The topic of the superior race has been with them since the First World War - they only called "pan-Germanism".

        If you take a deeper look, such concepts were still very actively promoted by Bismarck at the time, and even earlier, Hegel's ideas about the superiority of the "Prussian state" only slipped ... So the prerequisites for Nazism arose from the very foundation of a united Germany ...
  12. leks
    leks 24 January 2014 12: 40
    +2
    Quote: hort
    The topic of the superior race has been with them since the First World War - they only called "pan-Germanism". And in the 30s the "fertile" seeds of National Socialism (again from the British island) fell on the old yeast - an ideology in many respects not bad, but which, thanks to this very pan-Germanism, reached the point of absurdity and grew into racism.
    Well, then - a matter of technology, as they say. From 35-36 the British began to "fasten" Hitler with anti-Bolshevik treatment (like, Germany is the last bastion before the red hordes, etc.)

    Everything is right from the side of the Anglo-Saxons, the Wehrmacht was sent in the right direction, that is, against the red threat, from the east. These two-faced creatures give me birth in general, in 1917 they directly betrayed allied Russia, with the tacit consent they gave the Bolsheviks power, the Russian empire was to them not needed, a new government has come and again we are enemies to them. Maybe you gentlemen of the Anglo-Saxons, it’s time to shoot yourself.
  13. Trapperxnumx
    Trapperxnumx 24 January 2014 14: 05
    +2
    Today, of course, many are trying to interpret those events on the basis of the "order" of the interested party, hence the pearls of Mr. Rezun, comrades, but I personally do not care much about them, because I believe that we must adhere to the principle "how did they treat then?" And here we see something completely different, namely that even such an evil anti-communist as Churchill, and he recognized the whole correctness of the actions of the USSR at that time. What then are we talking about?
    The article is good, correct and necessary. To the author +.
    1. Shogun23
      Shogun23 24 January 2014 15: 08
      +2
      Quote: Trapper7
      but I personally don't care much about them, because I believe that we must adhere to the principle "how did they treat then"?

      I am interested in one more question, in these cases - What should Stalin do in that case?
  14. Snoop
    Snoop 24 January 2014 14: 16
    +2
    Everyone knows about the Munich Agreement. But the report must be kept even earlier. The turn in British policy towards the Third Reich must be carried out since 1935. On June 18, 1935, the Anglo-German naval agreement was concluded, by which England confirmed Germany's right to the Navy in the amount of 35% of the total tonnage of the British fleet. Also, the British were allowed to have a submarine fleet in the amount of 45% of the tonnage of the British submarine fleet. Naturally, no one checked the observance of these norms by Germany. France was shocked then, because England unilaterally removed the Versailles restrictions. Well, further along the knurled, they presented Austria, the surrender of Czechoslovakia, and then the Anglo-German declaration of September 30, 38, in fact, a non-aggression pact. France recoiled a little and also concluded the same declaration on December 6, 1938. The same Klaipeda (formerly German. Memel, following the results of the First World War was torn away from Germany), the British and French gave Germany. Although they were the guarantors of the entry of Klaipeda into Lithuania. On March 21, 1939, a German ultimatum to the Lithuanians, the Lithuanians sign the act of transferring the territory of Germany, the Diet unanimously ratifies it. And on March 23, Hitler solemnly enters Memel on the pocket battleship Deutschland. Zero emotions from the British with the French, did not even blather. A whole chain of concessions, towards the East.
  15. Poppy
    Poppy 24 January 2014 14: 24
    +1
    only there were no secret protocols - this is a myth
  16. Galich Kos
    Galich Kos 24 January 2014 15: 15
    +1
    Almost until the end of the war with Germany, American business had business - because war is war, and business is business and do not care about the moral side. For the sake of the interests of the USSR, Stalin had for some time to be an ally of Adolf Alloizovich (again, after no agreements were reached with France and England). So, the union was definitely forced!
  17. leks
    leks 24 January 2014 15: 26
    +1
    Quote: Trapper7
    Today, of course, many are trying to interpret those events on the basis of the "order" of the interested party, hence the pearls of Mr. Rezun, comrades, but I personally do not care much about them, because I believe that we must adhere to the principle "how did they treat then?" And here we see something completely different, namely that even such an evil anti-communist as Churchill, and he recognized the whole correctness of the actions of the USSR at that time. What then are we talking about?
    The article is good, correct and necessary. To the author +.

    He recognized the correctness of the USSR only until the end of the war !!!
    His sayings "THE ENEMY OF MY ENEMY MY FRIEND" !!
    Churchill felt how profitable it was for the Wehrmacht to turn his troops east, that he recognized the rightness of the USSR, and the English Channel had saved them, that's all.
  18. Falcon5555
    Falcon5555 24 January 2014 17: 03
    +1
    The article looks more thorough than Lebedev's nonsense. If all this is true, it sheds new light on this part of the story, although it draws a strange conclusion. It is clear that if two countries conclude an agreement on the division of the continent, then they enter into a kind of union. But then links 7 and 8 interested me. And then it turned out that, firstly, they are the same. Secondly, the address is too vague. And this material cannot be found there. Third, what kind of source is this "site materials"? That site, of course, is from a reputable organization, but it is about the turnover of this organization, and you will not find this material there.

    7 Baryshnikov V.N. On the issue of the German military-political assistance to Finland at the beginning of the Winter War // Proceedings of the website http: // www. history. pu. ru.
    8 Baryshnikov V.N. On the issue of the German military and political assistance of Finland at the beginning of the Winter War // Proceedings of the website http: // www. history. pu. ru.
  19. aleksei-2011
    aleksei-2011 24 January 2014 17: 07
    0
    Here is one document where the "always right" (they are fighters for the rights of the working people) voluntarily CANCELED the Red Army's liberation campaign. The agreement on the restoration of diplomatic relations between the USSR and the government of the Polish Republic in exile (better known as the "agreement (agreement) of Maisky-Sikorsky" or "Sikorsky-Maisky") is a bilateral agreement signed on July 30, 1941. Here is his text.

    “The government of the USSR recognizes the Soviet-German treaties of 1939 regarding territorial changes in Poland as invalid. The Polish government declares that Poland is not bound by any agreement with any third party directed against the Soviet Union.
    Diplomatic relations will be restored between the two Governments upon signing this Agreement and an immediate exchange of ambassadors will be made.
    Both governments mutually commit themselves to provide each other all kinds of help and support in a real war against Nazi Germany.
    The Government of the USSR expresses its consent to the creation in the territory of the USSR of the Polish army under the command appointed by the Polish Government with the consent of the Soviet government. The Polish army on the territory of the USSR will operate operatively under the leadership of the Supreme Command of the USSR, which will include a representative of the Polish army. All details regarding the organization of command and the use of this force will be permitted by subsequent agreement.
    This agreement comes into force immediately from the moment of its signing and is not subject to ratification. This agreement is made in 2 copies, each of them in Polish and Russian, both texts being equally authentic.

    The following protocol was attached to the agreement:
    The Soviet Government grants amnesty to all Polish citizens currently imprisoned on Soviet territory as prisoners of war or on other sufficient grounds, since the restoration of diplomatic relations. "
    Who do you want to fool in your article? Themselves ? A few readers? Take a trip to Lviv, Ivano-Frankivsk, there they will explain to you whether their land was liberated, and what they think of the Russians.
  20. Beck
    Beck 24 January 2014 17: 27
    +2
    Well, the direct allies of the USSR and Germany have never been. Both states honored their interests and the mutual moment brought their positions in Poland closer. From which Germany has benefited more.

    By and large, but this is now from the height of time, the USSR had, with a visionary policy, categorically objected to the occupation of Poland. Poland would be a buffer between the Wehrmacht and the Red Army. As the countries of Eastern Europe in the post-war period. Then there would be no contact of borders. And it would not have been possible for a sudden, treacherous attack with the complete defeat of the border Soviet armies in 1941. And then the time would have been won to prepare for an inevitable war anyway.
    1. avt
      avt 24 January 2014 20: 03
      +2
      Quote: Beck
      By and large, but this is now from the height of time, the USSR had, with a visionary policy, categorically objected to the occupation of Poland. Poland would be a buffer between the Wehrmacht and the Red Army.

      laughing Well, this is Pivovar's stupidity. What kind of buffer "????" Yes, the Germans single-handedly swallowed Poland and the USSR brought in troops when there was simply no organized resistance and the government RUNNED, the fleet, who could have gone on ships and interned, the pilots jumped to Romania If you look closely at history, the only chance for Poland to remain a state was during successful trilateral negotiations with the Franks and Angles before the signing of the pact, when they sent third-rate negotiators to Moscow, and the Angles even without credentials, and even to the remark of the Soviet side, brazenly and phlegmatically noted read the protocols of negotiations - on SPECIFIC proposals of Voroshilov one verbal diarrhea in response. Yes, they fucking did not need Poland, only the war between Nazi Germany and the USSR. The Baltic states and the territory occupied by the Poles following the war between Poland and the USSR in the 20s.And now the chronicles of the Svanidza and the brewers with fantasy millechins are inventing about different buffers and about how the Soviet people like themselves, without any Stalin and the Communist Party, who interfered with their detachments, and the Soviet authorities, took it and went and won.
      1. Beck
        Beck 24 January 2014 21: 02
        -1
        Quote: avt
        Well this is stupidity pivovarovskaya.


        It's not the same for everybody. Germany swallowed Poland because it prepared the rear in the east, in the USSR. And if the USSR did not agree with Germany on the partition of Poland, and put forward a firm position on sovereign Poland, then Hitler would still have decided not to decide to attack Poland in the year 39. After all, he would fall into a vise. From the west, England with France, from the east of the USSR. This alliance took place anyway, but even then, when the border armies of the USSR were defeated.

        Quote: avt
        And BUFER Stalin created, as later in Eastern Europe, moving troops to the Baltic states and occupied by the Poles following the war


        That is what I wrote at the top. If there were no common border between Germany and the USSR, then the Wehrmacht would not have been able to quietly concentrate troops and suddenly attack. To get in touch with the Red Army, the Wehrmacht would need to first advance a mass of troops across Poland to the Soviet borders, and you can’t do this unnoticed. At the most favorable moment, this would take at least a week, the Soviet troops would have time to turn around. Not that June 22 is dying in the barracks.

        Quote: avt
        Third-party negotiators were sent to Moscow, and the Angles even without credentials, and even to the remark of the Soviet side, brazenly and phlegmatically noticed that they would send with a scheduled steamer!


        What is more important at such a moment - endure swagger or secure the borders of the Motherland, gain time, prepare troops? And then the Englishman has a long nose, I'd rather sign an agreement with Hitler. Although Uroshniki claim that Stalin knew about the inevitability of a war with Germany.

        Quote: avt
        about "buffers" are different and about how the Soviet people like that themselves, without any Stalin and the Communist Party, which interfered with their detachments, and the Soviet authorities, took it and went and won.


        In any case, the USSR would have won, but without Stalin with less losses. Here everything is the repression of officers, and the policy of rapprochement with Hitler and more.
        1. invisibility
          invisibility 24 January 2014 21: 09
          +1
          Beck, you’ve put together an excellent collection of myths in your comment. Congratulations.
          The Soviet people won the Great Patriotic War under the leadership of I.V. Stalin.
          Do not carry nonsense.
          1. Beck
            Beck 24 January 2014 21: 14
            +1
            Quote: invisible
            The Soviet people won the Great Patriotic War under the leadership of I.V. Stalin.
            Do not carry nonsense.


            Stalin's personality, but if he were even wiser, he would not have allowed the occupation of half the country.
            1. invisibility
              invisibility 24 January 2014 22: 41
              0
              How? Imagine yourself in the place of Stalin. What would you do?
              1. Beck
                Beck 25 January 2014 18: 00
                -2
                Quote: invisible
                How? Imagine yourself in the place of Stalin. What would you do?


                First of all, the people would not set up concentration camps against the authorities, especially in the newly annexed Western lands. From here come some of the roots of the resistance of the Soviet regime. The second would not have repressed in 1937 the 40 thousandth officer corps, the successor of the glorious deeds of the truly Russian officer corps, brought up on the glorious history of Russia. I would not curtail the NEP in the twenties. All this and much more, and came around in 1941.
                1. Setrac
                  Setrac 25 January 2014 18: 55
                  -1
                  Quote: Beck
                  First of all, the people would not set up concentration camps against the authorities

                  And the people were not against the authorities, they were going, they were dying. For the motherland! For Stalin!
                  Quote: Beck
                  The second would not have repressed in 1937 the 40 thousandth officer corps, the successor of the glorious deeds of the truly Russian officer corps, brought up on the glorious history of Russia.

                  Leave these general phrases for dibilov. Each case must be considered separately and it turns out that they planted it for the case.

                  Quote: Beck
                  I would not curtail the NEP in the twenties.

                  And what does Stalin have to do with it?

                  Quote: Beck
                  I would not curtail the NEP in the twenties. All this and much more, and came around in 1941.

                  You answer the main question, HOW TO PREPARE GERMANY IN DEPLOYMENT? I recall that due to the shorter distances in Europe against the USSR, the Wehrmach concentrated its troops three times faster.
                  1. Beck
                    Beck 25 January 2014 19: 11
                    0
                    Quote: Setrac
                    And the people were not against the authorities, they were going, they were dying. For the motherland! For Stalin!


                    For the Motherland YES. For Stalin NO. For Stalin, this is a propaganda slogan of any phenomenon of leaderism. Try not to scream - For Stalin, after the battle, if you stay alive, you will deal closely with Smersh.

                    And besides those people who suffered from repression and went over to the side of the enemy, of course not all. I was referring to the western, newly annexed lands, where, in response to the repressions of the 40s, in 41 = 42 SS divisions "Galicia" and SS divisions in the Baltic countries appeared.

                    Quote: Setrac
                    You answer the main question, HOW TO PREPARE GERMANY IN DEPLOYMENT?


                    Well, I already wrote my opinion above. It was not necessary to come into contact with the borders, occupying Poland. It was necessary to firmly declare Germany the inviolability of the borders of Poland. Then there would be a space between the Wehrmacht and the Red Army that could be overcome in at least a week. And to move such masses of troops across foreign territory is secretly impossible. Then the advanced armies of the Red Army would not have been taken by surprise.
                    1. Setrac
                      Setrac 25 January 2014 19: 21
                      +1
                      Quote: Beck
                      For the Motherland YES. For Stalin NO. For Stalin, this is a propaganda slogan of any phenomenon of leaderism.

                      You are, as always, wrong, because we know about these slogans from veterans, and not from the yellow press.
                      Quote: Beck
                      It was not necessary to come into contact with the borders, occupying Poland.

                      Do not seize the territories occupied by Poland? Then the border would simply be closer to Moscow.
                      Quote: Beck
                      It was necessary to firmly declare Germany the inviolability of the borders of Poland.

                      But the Third Reich does not give a damn about all the "hard statements", then what? To fight as you said "for other people's interests"?

                      Poland was captured by Hitler with the inaction of the Western allies; Poland did not want to enter into an alliance with the USSR. And do not make victims of logs, they are the same aggressors, like the Germans, were going to slander the USSR with the Germans.
                      1. Beck
                        Beck 25 January 2014 19: 37
                        0
                        Quote: Setrac
                        But the Third Reich does not give a damn about all the "hard statements", then what? To fight as you said "for other people's interests"?


                        You just to shake the air in vain. Do not carefully read and repeat the same thing. Read the above, I already answered.
                      2. Setrac
                        Setrac 25 January 2014 19: 41
                        0
                        Quote: Beck
                        You just to shake the air in vain. Do not carefully read and repeat the same thing. Read the above, I already answered.

                        Because you, as a "mantra", repeat - "firmly declare". Yes, the Germans spat on these statements.
                2. Beck
                  Beck 25 January 2014 19: 43
                  0
                  Quote: Setrac
                  Leave these general phrases for dibilov. Each case must be considered separately and it turns out that they planted it for the case.


                  Dibilov is written through E -. Before, which is a comma.

                  Quote: Setrac
                  And what does Stalin have to do with it?


                  Lenin, realizing that the surpluses of military communism could not build socialism, at the Tenth Congress, in 1921 proclaimed the NEP. Late twenties it is Stalin turned the NEP.
                  1. anomalocaris
                    anomalocaris 26 January 2014 00: 20
                    +1
                    Lenin, realizing that the surpluses of military communism could not build socialism, at the Tenth Congress, in 1921 proclaimed the NEP. In the late twenties, it was Stalin who turned the NEP.

                    Yeah. That's just where the NEP and where the Second World War. By the way, the NEP curtailed in many respects itself, as it did not meet the challenges facing the country.
                    Z.Y. If you mean by the collapse of the NEP the destruction of non-state enterprises, then you hit the sky with your finger. Under Stalin, the cooperative movement was highly developed, as was private labor. Moreover, it is in the manufacturing sector.
                    1. Beck
                      Beck 26 January 2014 09: 29
                      -1
                      Quote: anomalocaris
                      Yeah. That's just where the NEP and where the Second World War. By the way, the NEP curtailed in many respects itself, as it did not meet the challenges facing the country.


                      With the NEP, the country would come to 2MB more prepared. You are so small that you cannot logically foresee a sequel. And NEP is not only cooperation and not at all cooperative.
                    2. anomalocaris
                      anomalocaris 28 January 2014 17: 25
                      0
                      Quote: Beck
                      Quote: anomalocaris
                      Yeah. That's just where the NEP and where the Second World War. By the way, the NEP curtailed in many respects itself, as it did not meet the challenges facing the country.


                      With the NEP, the country would come to 2MB more prepared. You are so small that you cannot logically foresee a sequel. And NEP is not only cooperation and not at all cooperative.

                      Is that what you decided, or did someone tell you this nonsense?
                      Judging by the development of no more than 15-16 years old, not a single NEPman, or even two, could you build DNEPROGES, Magnitogorsk, Kuznetsk, the Stalingrad Tractor and much more. So with what fright would the NEP allow solving the problem of industrialization?
                    3. Beck
                      Beck 28 January 2014 17: 58
                      0
                      Quote: anomalocaris
                      Baby, and judging by the development of no more than 15-16 years old


                      Some people like you do not have juvenile age syndrome. When a 15-year-old boy, with a sense of infallibility and swaggering seniority, does not recognize anything for a 14-year-old boy.

                      This is illustrated in your case by the fact that without seeing a person in the face, not knowing how old he is, you present a youthful argument - you still have no reason to talk and talk to you kid.

                      Quote: anomalocaris
                      DNEPROGES, Magnitogorsk, Kuznetsk, Stalingrad tractor and much more.


                      What you listed is not the NEP, but Industrialization. Spent on money from the USSR by the US industrial complex.

                      And only one industrialization could not properly prepare the country for war. But together with the NEP it is quite possible.

                      Note. I’ve been born in 1950. If you are from 1900 then you can still somehow say - baby, decrepit old man. If not since 1900 then a man with youthful pimple conceit and swagger.
                    4. anomalocaris
                      anomalocaris 29 January 2014 18: 19
                      0
                      I say, for development.
                      Well, if you have lived so many years and haven’t learned to think, what do I have to do with it? This is not my fault, but your misfortune.
                      By the way, only one industrialization was able to prepare the country for the Victory. The NEP did not give Nikert for the development of Soviet industry.
                3. Poppy
                  Poppy 5 February 2014 12: 27
                  +1
                  no, the NEP did not even allow to feed the country, not to mention preparing for war

                  at least a little materiel
                4. Beck
                  Beck 5 February 2014 14: 21
                  0
                  Quote: Poppy
                  no, the NEP did not even allow to feed the country, not to mention preparing for war


                  How does anyone know this. NEP was not allowed to turn around, strangled in the bud. But the NEP in other countries, that is, a market economy, has led to good results today. The whole world now lives according to the NEP. But the socialist economy did not stand the test of time and fell apart. And the NEP in the USSR by the year 40 would have been 20 years old, and in 20 years it could have done a lot.

                  Quote: Poppy
                  at least a little materiel


                  Within the limits that I need I mate. I know the part. It is you who look at the mathematical part through the rose-colored glasses of socialist ideas that hide objectivity and logic from you.
  21. avt
    avt 24 January 2014 23: 09
    0
    Quote: Beck
    Stalin's personality, but if he were even wiser, he would not have allowed the occupation of half the country.

    In addition to the mistakes that were well discussed, knowing the outcome of the war and its course, there were circumstances that were simply impossible to overcome. We fought with all mobilized Europe with all its military, mobilized potential. We physically did not have enough time to deploy a multimillion-dollar army and train personnel. Moreover, not only officers but also rank-and-file personnel, to co-ordinate troops and rearm the army, which, by the way, implies, again, training of personnel. A simple example - the new T34 was sealed by pouring gasoline into the tank - this is not a joke, but a reality. Before 1942, there was no physical possibility to mobilize the army in accordance with the threat of opportunity, and Stalin absolutely understood this. Hence the desire, sometimes manic and to the detriment of the matter, to delay the war .Plus leapfrog with the date of the appointment of the attack transmitted by intelligence. We now know this on June 22nd, and then the very same Sorge sent 11 telegrams and all with an exact date. The latter seems to coincide, according to the official version.
    1. invisibility
      invisibility 25 January 2014 08: 22
      0
      avt, I will not correct much, with your permission. It was very important not to give Germany a chance to call us an aggressor, from the point of view of world politics. Remember how long the German ambassador was kept at the reception, on the morning of June 22.
  • avt
    avt 24 January 2014 22: 54
    0
    Quote: Beck
    It's not the same for everybody. Germany swallowed Poland because it prepared the rear in the east, in the USSR. And if the USSR had not agreed with Germany on the partition of Poland, and put forward a firm position on sovereign Poland, then Hitler would have decided not yet to have decided to attack Poland in the year 39.

    This is what I like fans of historical fantasy from liberoids, so this is either a complete reluctance to study historical facts, or just the historical anecdotes liked by their thoughts. Are you even aware of the fact that even before the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia, the Czechs had an agreement of mutual assistance with the USSR? Do you know that before the Menkchen agreement on the sale of Czechs to the Germans, Stalin asked the Angles to let Soviet troops into Czechoslovakia and Poland opposed at the suggestion of the Angles? And Chamberlain preferred to break up the country and spoke out for the fact that the Angles, “there is no need to fight for the pig-necked Czechs,” only that Hitler would go eastward. But the fact that Poland signed a non-aggression treaty with Nazi Germany and after the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia chopped off a good piece, for which she was awarded the title of "hyena of Europe" from one authoritative English. What is the buffer from the Poles? Descend to earth from the astral plane.
    Quote: Beck
    Soviet troops would have time to turn around. Not that June 22 is dying in the barracks.

    Again, if you look not only at jokes, find out that those who did not comply with the General Staff directive endorsed by Stalin on putting the troops on combat alert on June 18, which Pavlov completely ignored, found in the barracks.
    Quote: Beck
    In any case, the USSR would have won, but without Stalin with less losses. Here everything is the repression of officers, and the policy of rapprochement with Hitler and more.

    Why? Well, why is it well-fed, without repression of the officer corps, mobilized by wartime states, unlike the Red Army, deployed, with an allied corps, led by marshals - the victors of World War I, France lay down for 40 days and even before the Wehrmacht incomparably weaker than in 1941 ?
    Quote: Beck
    What is more important at such a moment - endure swagger or secure the borders of the Motherland, gain time, prepare troops? And then the Englishman has a long nose, I'd rather sign an agreement with Hitler.

    One must be very limited, or an ignorant person in politics, to demand such stupidity from Stalin, who went very seriously to negotiations, or just stupidly hate the name itself - Stalin. Here is a complete analogy with the ongoing negotiations on Syria in Geneva. Maybe you want to lead them to Lavrov until Assad’s removal and transfer to Syria to terrorists? Or is this how Blair gave an interview in the mountains lately - to create a no-fly zone?
    1. Beck
      Beck 25 January 2014 11: 24
      +2
      Quote: avt
      One must be very limited, or an ignorant person in politics


      Well, that’s how it is so, because we oppose it. Well, let me call you stupid if you believe in the mercy of Stalin and justify his anti-human position in domestic politics. And what will come of it?

      And if we answer all your paragraphs, then we will simply go away from the topic. In general, then add everyone with whom you disagree to the black list, then you will not communicate with the "limited". You will communicate only with your own kind in unison and agreement, dull and boring.
      1. avt
        avt 25 January 2014 16: 10
        0
        Quote: Beck
        Well, that’s how it is so, because we oppose it.

        Well, if it hurt so much - sorry.
        Quote: Beck
        Well, let me call you stupid if you believe in the mercy of Stalin and justify his anti-human position in domestic politics.

        First of all, never and nowhere have I claimed that this is the most humane of the humane. So it’s just past. With regard to the "anti-human" domestic policy, it was less bloody compared to the "victims of Stalinist terror" brought up by Trotsky. I don’t remember that Stalin would poison the peasants with chemical weapons like Tukhachevsky in the Tambov region. You will say - "and collectivization?" Yes, there was famine under the Bolsheviks, there was. An objective reality. But why is he alone to blame? And where are all those, mostly high-ranking performers, whom he later "calmed" during the inter-faction wars? Actually, it was Stalin, who had not yet fully assumed control, who publicly presented the program “Dizziness with success.” Yes, the Bolsheviks carried out their slogan — “we will drive humanity into happiness with an iron hand.” But ALL their cases should be considered from the standpoint of THEIR IDEOLOGY and REAL TIME in which the country lived. After all, even collectivization took place not among peaceful farmers who danced in round dances in their free time, but among the people who had fought since 1914, and even in the Civil War where everyone was against everyone. And where did the thousands of engineers, skilled workers and the industry built by them come from, if everyone was starved to death, shot, exiled to the Arctic Circle? Yes, prisoners worked at construction sites and there were design bureaus of the NKVD. But according to the anecdote of perestroika, no one rolled corpses into concrete - there was a strict record, the roll-ups themselves would have been identified. The set goal - in 10 years to reduce the gap from the West in 50-100 years has been achieved and no one can convincing me yet that it could be done differently in a country devastated to the ground with an ideology alien to the surrounding countries, all the more to give an example and this is real saved us from total, physical destruction. It is now good to talk about "inhumanity", taking advantage of its fruits by the way and invent fantastic stories about how great it would be if it were not for the "evil, bloodthirsty, merciless" Stalin. And I don’t use the black list in principle. Even that I began to put fewer minuses - it’s probably the old one. laughing
        1. anomalocaris
          anomalocaris 25 January 2014 16: 37
          +2
          Dear avt!
          Stalin did not have the slightest relation to the collectivization program of the 1929 model. In general, there were 3 options (we won’t argue that village collectivization was necessary, but this is so). A variant of Bukharin was carried out, not Stalin. The Stalinist version began to be implemented only since 1934.
          1. avt
            avt 26 January 2014 15: 09
            0
            Quote: anomalocaris
            Stalin did not have the slightest relation to the collectivization program of the 1929 model.

            You will not prove, you will not even be able to prove to the liberoid intellectual that it is quite obvious and the well-known fact that in the Empire the bulk of the food was produced by large private latifundia, and in Russia there was a fairly regular mass famine on a regular basis, without any collectivization. The latter, by the way, under Nika # 2, when he was liquidated, at the suggestion of the Deputy Minister of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the supplier of water closets and the owner of the gambling lady Laval. This is the real "alternative" way of agricultural development. Also, you will never prove the existence of famine in the 30s in the USA, photographs of which were exhibited in Ukraine as evidence of Stalin's atrocities, when, again, in the states there was an enlargement of "farms" before the size of the latifundia and the release of a huge number of the able-bodied population, starving in cities, there are real film documents from the times of the depression, right up to the industrial boom associated with the war. But for the liberoid there is freedom regulated by the market through hard labor in "labor camps", when all the earnings went to the maintenance of the prisoners there, "labor public workers", and we naturally have not the labor enthusiasm of the first five-year plans, but the Gulag. knows that it could not be otherwise, even if you try to refute with figures - you will not listen, the propaganda understands. Can the “terrible” fact that Roosevelt got out of depression by practically the same methods as Stalin did in his head, only it is easier for him it was - the population was not allowed through the Civil and so to the internecine bloodshed, when life cost nothing at all, it was not accustomed to the continuous massacre of people since 1914.
        2. Beck
          Beck 25 January 2014 18: 25
          +1
          Quote: avt
          With regard to the "anti-human" domestic policy, it was less bloody compared to the "victims of Stalinist terror" brought up by Trotsky.


          Quote: anomalocaris
          A variant of Bukharin was carried out, not Stalin. The Stalinist version began to be implemented only since 1934.


          For me, there is no difference in family responsibility. All of them are smeared with one tar, red. All of them are communists, adherents of an erroneous theory, which they wanted to introduce by force by any means and by any sacrifice. If Stalin, Trotsky, Bukharin had not existed, all these cataclysms, which most of all affected the Russian people, would have been committed by the communists Ivanov, Petrov, Sidorov. It’s not the surnames, but the party’s attitudes. And the directives - "Workers of all countries unite", an unambiguous call to seize power over the whole world, for which the International was created. "We will destroy the whole world of" violence ", to the ground, and then - We will build our own, we will build a new world ...".
          And who wants to destroy, without asking, his house, his way of life, his aspirations. They did not ask and started from their country. They did not ask the most zealous owner of the earth, the standard of all times - the kulak, they wore it down to the roots, then for 50 years they bought wheat from the damned capitalist west, from the USA and Canada. They did not ask the intelligentsia and were expelled from the country by steamers, thus breaking the historical Russian spirit, which was carried by the intelligentsia. And much more. And on little things - "The victory of communism is inevitable", "The future of humanity is communism." And where is this communism, if its first stage - socialism, having existed for 74 years, without outside influence, collapsed overnight everywhere. And it collapsed because it was imposed by force, because it was unnatural to the very essence of humanity.

          And why say anything - It's not Stalin's fault, but Yagoda, Yezhov and Beria. And if you continue, then not Yagoda, Yezhov and Beria will be guilty, but ordinary trooper, shooter of the firing squad, neighbor-informer, loafer - a member of the Bedcom.
          1. anomalocaris
            anomalocaris 26 January 2014 00: 27
            0
            Mdya ...
            Why, like a liberoid, is so inadequate?
            I wonder how they are going to figure something out, if they don’t even try to delve into the situation that was then.
            If you do not care who, what and why did, then the roots of your obstinacy are completely understandable. Of course, it’s much easier to stupidly believe what some good-looking uncle is telling you than to think for yourself.
            1. Beck
              Beck 26 January 2014 11: 54
              +1
              Quote: anomalocaris
              Mdya ...
              Why, like a liberoid, is so inadequate?
              I wonder how they are going to figure something out, if they don’t even try to delve into the situation that was then.


              Actually, they are considered here. options possible actions in 1939. It is you restedthat Stalin's version was the only correct one. But this "correctness" served as the defeat of half of the armies, the surrender of half of the country to the enemy, and in general brought the country itself to the brink of existence.

              The correct policy, both internal and external, the correct assessment of the current geopolitical situation, the correct actions would serve to stop the enemy hordes at the border, their defeat, occupation of the enemy’s territory and Victory in the shortest possible time, and not after 4 years of a difficult war.
              1. anomalocaris
                anomalocaris 26 January 2014 17: 26
                0
                Sorry, the war could have ended before it began in 1938. It was enough for the English lion to roar from behind the canal. After the Munich agreement, war became inevitable. The question was only in a specific date and final alignment of forces.
                By the way, why was the USSR supposed to guarantee something to a hostile state? The funny thing is that those "civilized Europeans" you love did not even put a finger on a finger to help Poland, although they had agreements with it, which specifically spelled out measures that they had to take in case of German aggression. The funny thing is that then the war would have ended also within weeks ...
                By the way, point by point, describe how "correctly" Stalin was supposed to act?
  • Setrac
    Setrac 25 January 2014 03: 03
    +2
    Quote: Beck
    And if the USSR had not agreed with Germany on the partition of Poland, and put forward a firm position on sovereign Poland, then Hitler would have decided not yet to have decided to attack Poland in the year 39.

    You shift the blame from a sick head to a healthy one. This Britain and France did not help Poland, despite the agreements, Poland did not want to conclude an agreement with the USSR. This Poland did not let the Red Army into the Czech Republic.
    1. Beck
      Beck 25 January 2014 18: 46
      0
      Quote: Setrac
      You shift the blame from a sick head to a healthy one. This Britain and France did not help Poland, despite the agreements, Poland did not want to conclude an agreement with the USSR. This Poland did not let the Red Army into the Czech Republic.


      England and France declared war on Germany for attacking Poland. By this, England and France kept their promises to Poland. How they fought is another matter. And if, until September 1939, the USSR firmly declared the inviolability of the borders of Poland. I think Hitler would not dare to fight on two fronts at once. Of course, then he fought on two fronts, but already forcedly, because of his geopolitical miscalculations.

      Quote: Setrac
      This Poland did not let the Red Army into the Czech Republic.


      Firstly, it is possible to allow foreign troops into your territory, but if there are firm guarantees that these troops will not harm you. I do not think that the USSR would agree that Japanese troops enter the territory of the USSR through Europe to restore order.

      And why troops were needed in the Czech Republic, that I wanted to fight. What to put Ivan and Fedor in a foreign land for the interests of others. When these interests should be and could be resolved politically. For example, a declaration of inviolability of borders.
      1. Setrac
        Setrac 25 January 2014 19: 02
        +1
        Quote: Beck
        England and France declared war on Germany for attacking Poland. By this, England and France kept their promises to Poland.

        They were not to declare war, but to begin and fight.
        Quote: Beck
        And why troops were needed in the Czech Republic, that I wanted to fight. What to put Ivan and Fedor in a foreign land for the interests of others.

        What kind of impermanence? You will decide! In Poland, then it was necessary to fight for "other people's" interests, but not in the Czech Republic?
        Quote: Beck
        For example, a declaration of inviolability of borders.

        Well, they said, but Hitler attacked anyway.
      2. anomalocaris
        anomalocaris 29 January 2014 18: 31
        0
        There is such a term "Strange War", google and you will have cognitive dissonance, baby.
        The USSR might have said so, but not unilaterally and contrary to Poland’s desire. Well, the Poles really believed that England and France would intercede for them, and the valiant Polish cavalry would take Berlin in a week.
        No, baby, you somehow decided that the Red Army should fight for Poland, and accordingly, lay Ivanov and Fedorov in a foreign land, but not for Czechoslovakia. Although both states were neither allies nor friends of the USSR.
        Baby, any statements only then stand for something when divisions, squadrons and separate regiments of the Strategic Missile Forces stand behind them.
        1. Beck
          Beck 29 January 2014 22: 37
          0
          Quote: anomalocaris
          There is such a term "Strange War", google and you will have cognitive dissonance, baby.


          Why google, decrepit old man. Google is the one who before the Internet era did not read anything. I made the reservation above that how England and France fought in the first period is another matter. And there were many options. One of them is the hope that Hitler would not dare to fight immediately against France and England and the USSR and backtrack. But this did not happen, but there was an option.

          Quote: anomalocaris
          and the valiant Polish cavalry will take Berlin in a week.


          That's what you think up for yourself, and even present it as evidence. Poland did not plan to capture Berlin, there is not a single document with similar plans.

          Quote: anomalocaris
          No, baby, you somehow decide, the Red Army should fight for Poland,


          That the old man's logical thinking fails. There was no need to fight. It was necessary to declare the inviolability of the Polish borders. And if Hitler nevertheless attacked Poland, move trained and deployed troops to Poland towards the Wehrmacht. And only in this case, and not to fight for Poland, and not for allowing the Wehrmacht to the borders of the country. And in the west, France and England would have unknownly decided to Hitler immediately to a war on two fronts.

          Quote: anomalocaris
          Although both states were neither allies nor friends of the USSR.


          Yes, what are allied relations. It was necessary to think about oneself and observe the country's interests, and do everything so that there was no common border between Germany and the USSR. This common border made it possible for the Wehrmacht to deliver a sudden blow.

          The old man can no longer write his senile fabrications, for what they are. Your senile dementia (senile dementia) is already irreversible as it has captured not only the cortical part of the brain, but also the subcortical, with multiple focal lesions. Treatment drugs donepezil, galantamine, rivastigmine will not help. For relief, you can absorb vitamins B-12, B-3, C, folic acid. As a doctor, I advise. Of course you can send my advice to hell. So this is a master's business, master to himself, wherever you want to go there and turn it over.

          I think you will send not only my advice, but also mentally me. So it will also be useful to you - the release of negative emotions is also a relief.
          1. anomalocaris
            anomalocaris 30 January 2014 15: 30
            0
            I have nothing to answer for you.
            What you wrote here is the nonsense of a mad nymph. I seriously advise you to grow up.
  • anomalocaris
    anomalocaris 25 January 2014 07: 28
    +1
    Which buffer? Until 1939, the Poles considered options for military operations together with the Wehrmacht against the USSR. Including conducted staff planning.
    Do not succumb to the cries of white fluffy Poland. In general, historically, Poland has been and is an extremely aggressive country towards its neighbors.
  • klim44
    klim44 24 January 2014 17: 58
    +1
    My opinion is somewhat different from the opinion of the author of the article. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact did not bring tangible benefits to our country. judge for yourself: the USSR was in the company and even in the role of aggressor, the annexed territories, especially the Baltic states and Western Ukraine, did not bring any benefit, they were still left in the first week of the war. In Western Belarus, the Western Front of Pavlov was essentially destroyed. Stalin more and more seems not as far-sighted politician as before. Currently, all those mines that he laid under the USSR (the same city of Lviv and its environs) have exploded or are still torn, burying the Union under themselves and continue to finish off its remains (events in Ukraine, for example). And do not explain everything that happens only with the machinations of the West.
    1. invisibility
      invisibility 24 January 2014 22: 45
      0
      Like you just have it all. Not tangible benefits. Everything. DOES YOUR LIFE INCLUDE IN TENDABLE USE? Excuse my French custodian ..
    2. anomalocaris
      anomalocaris 25 January 2014 08: 20
      +1
      Wow, what smart hamsters got here!
      To begin with, the Moscow Pact of 1939 (after all, it is customary to call such documents by the place of their signing, and not by the names of the defendants) delayed the German attack on the USSR for at least a year. Hitler would attack Poland whatever: whether the pact was signed or not. He had no other choice; Germany was too much in a difficult political and economic situation. Yes, and the Poles themselves, who believed the British and French, were far from adequate policies in relation to the Third Reich. But the presence of secret protocols, by the way, gave the Poles a chance. But they could not use it.
      Further, the Moscow Pact did not drive such a small wedge between Germany and Japan. But it was just during the negotiations and the signing of this document that the battles at Khalkhin Gol were going on, and it was the pact that in many ways contributed to the cooling of the hot Japanese heads. Then the Germans came back to this with the fact that Japan never attacked the USSR in 1941, and instead of Vladivostok, Japanese carrier-based aircraft defeated Pearl Harbor. Which had another consequence: Hitler declared war on the United States. Until that time, the Americans adhered to even hostile, but neutrality, and so they got a reason to start the war against Germany in full force.
      Now let's talk about the Baltic limitrophes and Finland. Historically, all the listed states, except Lithuania (here the conversation is somewhat special and beyond the boundaries of the topic under discussion), they NEVER, until the 20th century, had their own statehood. At various times they were ruled by Poland, the Livonian Order, Sweden, and Russia. It is very difficult to suspect them of white fluffiness or, God forbid, democracy in the period from 1917 to 1940. But there is no doubt about hostility towards the Soviet Union, because it was precisely as a "cordon sanitaire" that they were created by the creators of the Versailles-Washington system. Moreover, purely geographically, they posed a huge threat to the USSR. Stalin, by the way, courted them as best he could, only the "coort" Balts and absolutely independent, even from common sense, Finland did not go to agreements guaranteeing the security of the USSR. Moreover, together with "neutral" Sweden, they were actively developing operations to block the Gulf of Finland. And since 1935, they have been actively conducting joint exercises to work out joint actions to implement these plans. So decide: was Stalin right and whether he was not when he demolished the Baltic dictatorships and put Finland in a pose.
      Now about the economy. The condition for signing the pact was the signing of a trade agreement. Under this agreement, Germany issued a loan to the USSR, for which equipment, technologies, and models of equipment were purchased in Germany, while the USSR paid for resources. It was necessary for the country only to overcome the consequences of the civil war or not to judge you.
      In general, one can speak for a long time about the consequences and results of the Moscow Pact, but it is clear that this is one of the most successful political agreements of all times and peoples, and the screams of enemies that the "Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact unleashed World War II" is only enemy screams. They screamed like victims, from the time of Ivan the Terrible and now they are not appeased.
  • avt
    avt 24 January 2014 20: 17
    +3
    Quote: klim44
    Currently, all those mines that he laid under the USSR (the same city of Lviv and its environs) have exploded or are still torn, burying the Union under themselves and continue to finish off its remains (events in Ukraine, for example). And do not explain everything that happens only with the machinations of the West.

    Mina, contrary to Stalin's proposal to create not autonomous, but AUTONOMOUS republics when creating the USSR, was laid by Lenin.
    Quote: klim44
    The USSR was in the company and in the role of aggressor

    In the role of "aggressor" the USSR found itself in the sick brain of liberals and outright scoundrels such as Rezun. Stalin did not violate any legal norms during the annexation and introduction of troops into the Baltic States, which were introduced there even BEFORE the UNION of these states into the USSR. troops to Poland, already wrote about it earlier. So it is only in Svanidze, who is embittered with hatred for his relatives, he is promoting this story.
    Quote: klim44
    And do not explain everything that happens only with the machinations of the West.
    Naturally, this was repeatedly said on the website during discussions - in the collapse of the USSR, the Soviet Union was FIRST FIRST, a DEGENERATED ELITE, betraying its own communist ideals. Well, then everything is simple, again, Stalin, and he began in the Council of People's Commissars with national issues, clearly saying that in the fight against socialism, local leaders will raise national banners and that with the construction of a socialist state the class struggle intensifies. What actually is now given to us in sensation.
  • xomaNN
    xomaNN 25 January 2014 00: 05
    +1
    Noble treatise! Thanks to the author for the painstaking research of many sources and good analysis. I remember this wave of filth at the beginning of the 90s of various "pseudo-historians" who expose the criminal Soviet regime. They were ready to smear everything with shit completely, not recognizing the shades.
    One thing is probably bad. If Lviv and surroundings remained Polish. there would not be these pogroms and troubles in today's Kiev stopAnd the Poles would fight with Natsik
  • anomalocaris
    anomalocaris 25 January 2014 12: 19
    +1
    Quote: Beck


    And if you answer all your paragraphs, then we just get away from the topic.

    In short, there is nothing to answer?
    1. Beck
      Beck 25 January 2014 18: 52
      0
      Quote: anomalocaris
      In short, there is nothing to answer?


      Some kind of philistine statement. Type - Himself so. Not your mind business. etc.
      1. anomalocaris
        anomalocaris 26 January 2014 00: 32
        0
        Here I am about that. We turn to the individual, look for grammatical errors from the opponent, but do not answer in essence. For there is NOTHING TO ANSWER!
  • The comment was deleted.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • mehmeh
    mehmeh 5 December 2014 09: 13
    0
    We need to know who the Poles were. and they were a hostile state, plus more Poles then many in the Wehrmacht still served Hitler made an alliance with the Vatican and he came to power with the money of the Bavarian and Ruhr Catholics of Thyssen read Halder. so everything is ambiguous with the Poles. many Poles would gladly return to the German Empire
    And they considered themselves Germans rather