Military Review

Versailles "mine"

26
The Second World War was, in fact, a continuation of the First World War. The Versailles peace treaty not only did not resolve the old contradictions, but also created new ones. Under Europe, several new “mines” were skillfully brought. Moreover, the instigators of the future war will be the United States, Britain and France. Germany will be put in such conditions that its vital necessity will be the breaking of the Versailles system.


The dismemberment of the Russian and German empires led to the emergence of a number of artificial state formations, which in the west were called "limitrofy" (from the Latin limitrophus - border). Back in 1916, a draft was prepared in London on future territorial changes in Europe. According to him, it was stipulated that Poland should become a buffer state between Russia and Germany. According to British politicians, the creation of Poland, as well as several states on the territory of the Austro-Hungarian empire, "would be an effective barrier against Russian dominance in Europe."

Thus, the "allies" of Russia on the Entente, even before the February Revolution, made plans against it, planning to create a "barrier" against us, and also to take away the Polish lands from the Russian Empire. That is, our Western "partners" were going to create a "sanitary cordon" in any case - even against Bolshevism, even against "Russian imperialism."

The Russian delegation was not invited at all to sign the Versailles Peace Treaty, which laid the foundations for the future political structure of the world community, and had to determine the future of humanity for a long time. As if the Russians had not brought millions of lives to the altar of victory. In addition, London, Paris and Washington recognized Admiral Kolchak as the supreme ruler of Russia. All Russia's diplomatic missions abroad were safe and fully capable. Dozens of leading Russian diplomats were in Europe and wanted to take part in the Versailles Conference. Grand Prince Alexander Mikhailovich arrived too. He tried to meet with French Prime Minister Georges Clemenceau, but he did not want to see the Grand Duke. They made it clear to Alexander Mikhailovich that his further attempts to meet with the leaders of the Entente states are inappropriate. According to the winners, neither tsarist, nor democratic, nor Soviet Russia has the right to vote at the conference, where the destinies of Europe and the world are decided and where the borders of Russia will be determined. Not invited to discuss the terms of the contract and the German delegation.

Germany cruelly humiliated. The country, which never suffered a military defeat, lost one eighth of the territory (including areas inhabited by ethnic Germans), one-twelfth of the population! .. It lost all colonies. The powerful German army was reduced to 100 thousand people, including 4-thousand. officer corps. In fact, the German army was turning into a police volunteer formation that did not have heavy weapons. Universal conscription was abolished. General Staff dismissed. The German fleet was also practically destroyed, reducing to weak coastal defenses (6 old battleships, 6 light cruisers and 12 destroyers). Germans were forbidden to have a submarine fleet. The armed forces should not have any planes, even balloons. Germany banned the use of long-distance radio. As a result, the German army has become weaker, even the Belgian army.

With Germany, they acted as if the armies of the Entente with heavy fighting had passed the whole empire and stormed Berlin. Germany tried to turn into a secondary, deprived of independence of the country. Berlin did not even have full sovereignty on its territory. All German airfields should have been open to the Entente aircraft. Aircraft winners could fly anywhere and anytime. The Kiel Canal, which ran deep into German territory and was of strategic importance, had to be always open, not only for merchant ships, but also for warships of victors. The Elbe, Oder, Neman and Danube rivers (from Ulm to the confluence with the Black Sea) were declared free international routes.

In addition, huge reparations were imposed on Germany. Until May 1, 1921, Germany was obligated to pay 20 billion marks with gold, goods, ships and securities. In exchange for the ships sunk by German ships and submarines, Germany had to give all its merchant ships with a displacement of over 1600 tons, half of the vessels over 1000 tons, one quarter of the fishing vessels and one fifth of its river fleet. In addition, the Germans pledged for five years to build for the winners merchant ships with a total displacement of 200 thousand tons per year.

It should be noted that during the preparatory stage, the French were the most aggressive. Their slogan was the words: "The Germans will pay for everything!" The war was on French territory, and they suffered greatly. Paris wanted to compensate for the losses at the expense of Germany. In addition, it was a rematch for the defeat in the war 1870-1871. Moreover, it was Paris that most insisted on the creation of Poland, when London recommended “not to create new Alsace and Lorraine” (provinces, because of which France and Germany argued).

Versailles "mine"

Signatories of the Versailles Peace. J. Clemenceau, W. Wilson, D. Lloyd George. Paris, 1919 year

In Versailles, the borders of most of the new states were recognized, which created territories belonging to Russia, Germany and Austria-Hungary. In most of the new states, aggressive nationalists came to power, who sought not to peace with powerful neighbors who experienced temporary difficulties, but to seize new territories. In particular, even “moderate” Finnish politicians demanded the seizure of the Kola Peninsula, all of Karelia and part of the Vologda region. The fantasies of the radicals went much further - the “Great Finland” had to extend to the Northern Urals or even the Yenisei.

No less appetites were the Polish gentry. They dreamed of restoring "Great Poland" from sea to sea, with the inclusion of Western Russian lands. Moreover, even in the new Poland, the Poles proper made up only about 60% of the population, the rest were Germans, Russians, Jews, etc. In addition, other Slavic ethnic groups — Lemko (Rusyns), Kashubians, etc. — were recorded in ethnic Poles. Polish "elite" was in agreement with the theses of the Polish historian Adolf Bozhensky. The historian proclaimed the policy of war as the only true for the Polish state. Only during the war was it possible to create the “Great Poland” and “return” the lands that were part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. With the help of the great Western powers, the Poles wanted to plunge Europe into a big war again. They hoped that a new big war would give Poland the lands for which the Poles are claiming. The future "victim of German and Soviet aggression" had territorial claims to all its neighbors. Warsaw claimed the lands of Lithuania, the Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia, Germany, and wanted to include the free city of Danzig in Poland.

Czechoslovakia was also an artificial entity. It was created on the ruins of the “patchwork” of the Austro-Hungarian empire and inherited part of its problems. Actually, there were a little more than 50% of Czechs in the state, and Germans made up a large minority - 25%. Slovaks were about 18%. In fact, it was possible to create a state of Czechs, Germans and Slovaks. In addition, in Czechoslovakia there was a significant community of Rusyns. Neither Germans, nor Slovaks, nor Rusyns wanted to live in this state formation. In the fall of 1918, the Germans even tried to separate from the self-proclaimed republic, but their self-defense units were defeated. And in the summer of 1919 the Slovak Soviet Republic was proclaimed. She controlled two thirds of the territory historical Slovakia. However, Czech troops quickly suppressed this state formation. There was also a right-wing opposition to Czech rule in Slovakia. In the early 1920s, the Slovak People's Party was created, which was actively supported by the Catholic Church. The People's Party fought for the independence of Slovakia. As a result, Czechoslovakia turned out to be the same “patchwork” state as Austria-Hungary, and the same “prison of peoples” as Poland. The only difference was that Czechoslovakia was a more democratic state than Poland, and its territorial claims to its neighbors were not so pronounced.

Even more artificial states were the Baltic countries - Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. Latvia and Estonia had no historical roots as independent states. And Lithuania 1920-1930-s. practically had nothing to do with the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Historical continuity has long been interrupted. In addition, the Baltic Limousines did not have the military, demographic and economic potential for independent existence. Their fate - to be part of any imperial education (Sweden, Germany and Russia). Nothing has changed even now, when the political "elites" of the Baltic republics "creep" in front of the American empire ...

The Versailles system created a whole mass of large and small problems, which together led to war. Thus, East Prussia was cut off from the rest of Germany and did not have rail and road links with it. The separate existence of the city of Danzig did not suit either Poland or Germany (the German population prevailed in the city, so it could be safely called German). The USSR lost almost all the bases of the Baltic Fleet. The Soviet fleet could be based only in Leningrad. And Leningrad itself, where it was concentrated up to 60% of the country's defense industry, and the region was the second historical industrial center of Russia, was under threat. In Leningrad it was easy to strike from the Baltic or from the territory of unfriendly Finland. Thus, at the beginning of the war, the Soviet Union could almost immediately lose the most important political, industrial center of the country and the Baltic Fleet. All the centenary efforts of the Russian Empire to strengthen the Baltic states and protect St. Petersburg were launched to the wind.

Germany physically could not pay huge reparations to Western countries. This was the reason for the capture of the French army in 1923, the Ruhr - the most developed industrial region of Germany. 10% of the German population lived in the Ruhr, 40% of steel was produced, 70% of pig iron and 88% of all state coal mined. The occupation of the Ruhr only exacerbated the economic crisis in Germany. Coal mining, steel and iron production almost halved during the year. Workers' wages were on 30-60% less than pre-war. Inflation has reached fantastic proportions. If in July 1923, the gold mark cost 262 thousand paper stamps, then November 5 is already 100 billion! The collapse of the economy was one of the prerequisites that led the Nazis to power.

The only state that condemned the aggression of the Western powers was the Soviet Union. Moscow protested "against the insane policy of imperialist France and its allies." It must be said that in 1922-1938's. The main foreign policy goal of Soviet Russia was to maintain peace. It was a necessity caused by the dire situation of the Soviet Union. The union was really surrounded by enemies, it was not internal propaganda. Around the perimeter of the Russian borders were countries wishing to profit at the expense of the USSR. Among them - Finland, the Baltic border countries, Poland, Romania, Turkey and Japan. The great powers — Britain and the United States — still had plans to dismember Russia. And do not think that the danger was exaggerated. Russia-USSR was so weakened that even the war with Finland or Poland posed a threat to it. Especially given the fact that behind the countries of the second or third rank were great powers. Within the country, difficult processes were under way to combat the “fifth column”, the creation of a new national economy, and the development of education, science and technology. The USSR needed peace.

Therefore, the Soviet government led a flexible policy, maneuvering between the interests of various Western powers, which then did not act as a united front. The establishment of good neighborly relations with all countries, regardless of their socio-political structure, was vital for the USSR.

In humiliated Germany, all parties without exception, from the communists to the nationalists, called for the elimination of the Versailles system. German communists during the occupation of the Ruhr by French troops called on the people to fight against the invaders and their own government, which indulges the invaders. And at the beginning of the 1930-s, the German communists urged young people to study military affairs in order to go on a “march on Versailles”. This is not Hitler invented. The mood was general. True, the communists and socialists urged to fight not only against the external enemy, but also the internal - the government. Hitler also focused on one enemy - external. He did not forget the internal enemies, but they retreated into the background.

Europe simply could not long exist under the domination of the Versailles system. It does not matter who would eventually come to power in Germany - the communists, monarchists or the Nazis. All of them did not suit the Treaty of Versailles, which did not allow Germany to exist normally. A similar picture was in Russia. In Russia, the monarchy could survive, win the Democrats, but national interests demanded to break the web of the Versailles Treaty. Blaming the communists for the fact that it was they who destroyed the world in Europe is stupid.

The instigators of the war were the United States, Britain and France, who first created an unjust political system, and then by their actions only pushed Europe toward war.
Author:
26 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. parus2nik
    parus2nik April 4 2014 08: 01
    +15
    It’s stupid to blame the Communists for the fact that they destroyed the world in Europe.
    Namely, the USA and England began to contribute to the advance of the Nazis to power .. And let's not forget that it was England, France, the USA who refused to help Republican Spain, in its fight against fascism .. Not a big fact .. when the Spanish Republican troops crossed the French border , they were interned and imprisoned in a concentration camp .. French, do not want to repent ...?
    1. strannik595
      strannik595 April 4 2014 11: 17
      +5
      and if Germany and Russia in 1938 came to the conclusion that they have common ancestors from Prussia drinks and the two countries need to go together to a brighter future by correcting the shameful Versailles Treaty by force? where would France, England and the USA be now?
      in Moscow, sidewalks instead of Tajiks would have been smashed ...... it is unfortunate that the Anglo-Saxon Jesuits and Jewish capital managed to pit two great nations.
      Now, to prevent the same bastards from driving a wedge between China and Russia, this will be an unforgivable mistake ....... in 20-30 years, if the common cooperation of the BRICS countries is successful, it will be a completely different world
      1. smile
        smile April 4 2014 14: 56
        +8
        strannik595
        There was no likelihood that we, together with Germany, have done anything serious since 38. Our maximum possible cooperation with them is short-term neutrality. All. Not for that nazism was cultivated. We were absolutely antagonistic with them. The Western "Veolic Powers" had a lot in common with Nazi Germany, they had a lot of Nazis in France, Britain, the United States, right down to members of the British royal family and leading politicians and industrialists. What can we talk about. if the German "Drang nach Osten" was proclaimed a program goal long before that. as the Entente brought up. put on his feet and armed Nazism.

        Therefore, we now have an opportunity to agree with China, with Nazi Germany at that time - N I K A K O Y!
        1. alicante11
          alicante11 April 5 2014 04: 09
          0
          With the Nazi no matter how. But with the communist or even Weimar - easily. What scared these nuggle-saxons. Oh, they didn’t know in the 33rd that one could help not only by force of guns, but also by the courtesy of polite people who could be thrown by the sea and help the German Communists. Now all blatant Saxons would be cancer.
      2. Siberian German
        Siberian German April 5 2014 05: 03
        +2
        what are you, what are you - I told a radical Fritz something about it - that we shouldn't have been at war, I should have united in an alliance and put the rest of the world "cancer" so he looked at me like a leper and called me a fascist
  2. avt
    avt April 4 2014 09: 05
    +10
    In general, one could focus on the fact that Ukraine in its eastern borders was created by Lenin practically according to the map that his adviser, Texas Colonel Hauser, prepared for Woodrow Wilson, and initially without Crimea and it was turned on at Hauser's insistence, that's before the "destalinizer" Khrushchev's nykyty Crimea was in Russia. Already on TV 1 they showed footage of this map from the amersky archive. And the so-called Ribbentrop-Molotov pact on the “partition” of Poland returned the USSR to the Curzon line - to the eastern borders of Poland, prescribed again after the First World War.
  3. svskor80
    svskor80 April 4 2014 09: 32
    +6
    The instigators of the war were the United States, Britain and France, who first created an unjust political system, and then by their actions only pushed Europe toward war.


    The beacons of democracy have been doing the same thing from century to century - they are "dragging chestnuts" out of the fire by someone else's hands.
  4. Horn
    Horn April 4 2014 09: 33
    +11
    Quote: parus2nik
    It’s stupid to blame the Communists for the fact that they destroyed the world in Europe.
    Namely, the USA and England began to contribute to the advance of the Nazis to power .. And let's not forget that it was England, France, the USA who refused to help Republican Spain, in its fight against fascism .. Not a big fact .. when the Spanish Republican troops crossed the French border , they were interned and imprisoned in a concentration camp .. French, do not want to repent ...?

    - And how the Germans were surprised to see the French among the winning countries in May 1945!
    1. Setrac
      Setrac April 4 2014 13: 42
      +3
      Quote: Horn
      - And how the Germans were surprised to see the French among the winning countries in May 1945!

      And there is Israel, which then simply did not exist, but there are more reparations than any other participant in the war.
    2. smile
      smile April 4 2014 15: 03
      +3
      Horn
      If it were not for Stalin’s tough stance, France would not have been allowed to enter the victorious camp on the threshold. De Gaulle wrote in sufficient detail about this in his memoirs. In general, his memoirs are fairly honest, not like Churchill’s. For example, he described how France and Britain were going to bomb our oil mines in Baku and Grozny, to land an expeditionary force in Narvik with the aim of fighting the Finns together with us. Moreover, such plans were created long before our war with Finland and agreed with it. The goal is the capture and rejection of Karelia, St. Petersburg, etc. ..... in general, those are still peaceful ... :)))
    3. cdrt
      cdrt April 4 2014 23: 12
      +2
      Quote: Horn
      - And how the Germans were surprised to see the French among the winning countries in May 1945!


      Keitel, in my opinion, said when he saw at the signing of the surrender - "... And these are here? ..."
  5. stas11830
    stas11830 April 4 2014 09: 33
    +7
    Lenin, having concluded the "Brest-Litovsk Peace", gave the Germans gigantic territories, including Poland and Ukraine. Well, the victorious "allies" then divided what they had taken from the Germans as they wanted. England has always been Russia's historical enemy. So she cared for and cherished Poland taken from Russia, indulging there a gigantic Russophobia. So it will be in Ukraine now. Only England is no longer acting independently, but is strictly in the wake of Washington's policy. And the European Union resembles a bunch of mongrels that Washington is setting against Russia.
    1. smile
      smile April 4 2014 15: 10
      +4
      stas11830
      Lenin did not give anything. Nothing at all. Everything has already been captured. At the time of the signing of the Brest Peace, at the disposal of Lenin was less than 120 thousand sabers and bayonets ... That's all. For comparison, one Mannerheim had about a hundred thousand bayonets and he was going to tear off vast territories from us. The last attempt at that period was in 21 years. And there was Poland, and Germany also had millions of soldiers on our front. Therefore, the Brest Peace is the only possible way out of an almost hopeless situation. In less than six months, we intensified. Germany weakened and the Brest peace was annulled. All. He had no legal consequences.
      Another question is that the Bolsheviks could not return all the seized lands - they simply did not have enough strength. especially when you consider. that this could be counteracted by the White Knights supported by the Entente (in order to finish Russia off).
      1. avt
        avt April 4 2014 17: 17
        +2
        Quote: smile
        Lenin did not give anything. Nothing at all. Everything has already been captured.

        good Quite right! Here, like Semenov's - the last phrase is remembered. '' For some reason, no one remembers that initially Trotsky led the negotiations on a separate peace and it was he who brought them to the state of "no peace, no war, but the army to dissolve" and left. After that the Germans launched an offensive and Lenin simply faced the fact of how to stop the Germans. Here, no trip in a sealed carriage and lifting from the Germans to the revolution helped him. He made the only correct decision to maintain power and centralized control of the country at the time of the formation of the armed forces and authorities, and an unfolding full-scale civilian. He did not regret even gold - he gave away having in view of the fact that they say we will still make a revolution in Germany and take it back. And after all, we almost did! But the Hans of the Polovts turned out to be than "temporary" rulers.
    2. 11111mail.ru
      11111mail.ru April 4 2014 16: 57
      +1
      Quote: stas11830
      and Poland, taken from Russia, was cherished and cherished

      Be precise: the territory of the Kingdom of Poland taken by the Germans from the Russian Empire.
  6. inkass_98
    inkass_98 April 4 2014 11: 22
    +5
    But Soviet Russia was the first country to reach out to crushed Germany, concluding the Rapallo Agreement with it in 1922. Trade, technical, and then military cooperation began. What chances were missed! Adik ruined everything with his foolishness, but there could have been a division of spheres of interests in Europe and Asia, and no England and the United States could blather. However, what was, was. Today's Germany is repeating its previous mistakes, forgetting that only two armies could fight on equal terms in inhuman conditions in two world wars, that now two economies could complement each other perfectly, and a single policy would benefit both countries.
    1. Assistant
      Assistant April 4 2014 21: 49
      +2
      Trade, technical, and then military cooperation began. What chances were missed!


      The Fritzes were created specifically as a disposable weapon against the USSR for mattress, British and Jewish money. Well, the Germans did not dare to turn 180 degrees at the peak of their ascent, they decided to play "both ours and yours": to defeat the USSR, thus appeasing their creators, and to crush all of Europe under themselves, so that they could not be removed according to the domino principle immediately after completing the task ...
  7. Robert Nevsky
    Robert Nevsky April 4 2014 12: 16
    +4
    Good article!
  8. Prometheus
    Prometheus April 4 2014 12: 32
    +4
    Samsonov’s articles are good in material construction and manner of presentation.
    On the topic - we could cooperate with Germany and now we can, focus on energy and technology.
  9. 11111mail.ru
    11111mail.ru April 4 2014 17: 10
    +4
    Germany against France, England in 1914 (Russia is fighting on the side of the Entente): Germany was defeated.
    Germany against France, England in 1941 (Russia adheres to the non-aggression pact with Germany): Germany defeated the Entente in 1940.
    The State of Israel was established in 1948.
    In two world wars of the 20th century, Russian + Germans died XNUMX times more than the Anglo-Saxons. Question: Who benefits from pitting other peoples with the Russians?
  10. Atash
    Atash April 4 2014 21: 09
    -3
    Quote: smile
    The Brest peace is the only possible way out of an almost hopeless situation. In less than six months, we intensified. Germany weakened and the Brest peace was annulled. All. He had no legal consequences.


    Here it is necessary to mention the Polish campaign of Tukhachevsky in 1920, about which little is said. The Red Army stood for three days near defenseless Warsaw, awaiting orders from Moscow, which Stalin sabotaged according to some sources. In three days Pilsudski organized a devastating counteroffensive. The world revolution was quite feasible. For Poland Germany, in which the Weimar Soviet Republic, and the Bavarian Sov. Republic. Further, and Slovak, it turns out was. And in Italy at this time, Fiat produced cars with a hammer and sickle on the radiator. Nothing was lost from the Brest Peace, since there were such opportunities immediately after it. From there came anti-Sovietism, the West's reluctance to coalition with the USSR against Hitler, and Tukhachevsky's reputation as a commander. The Bolsheviks never completely abandoned the idea of ​​a world revolution. Hitler's attack on the USSR was not so treacherous, it is believed that Stalin himself planned the attack (Operation Thunderstorm), and Hitler was ahead. After all, the Soviet troops were concentrated on the border, which is why the catastrophic losses of the first days of the war. Now the same thing is observed, by the way. Only instead of Poland, dismantled in half - Ukraine.
    1. 11111mail.ru
      11111mail.ru April 5 2014 00: 17
      +4
      Quote: Atash
      The Red Army stood under defenseless Warsaw for three days, waiting an order from Moscow, which was sabotaged by some sources, Stalin.

      Where do the gingerbreads come from, dear? The Southwestern Front, of which J.V. Stalin was a member of the military council, moved to Lemberg (Lvov in the present). Train # 208 ran from Lvov to Brest under the USSR, in my opinion. Landing at about 9 am, arrival by 8 am. It is from South to North by passenger train 2 hours. From Terespol to Warsaw it takes about XNUMX hours to travel west. If you were in the place of the front commander A.I. Egorov, what: would you quickly deploy the front to the north, leaving an unbroken enemy grouping on the flank? Red Bonaparte M.N. Tukhachevsky should have assigned feasible tasks to his troops. Offensive in diverging directions is the top of the military leadership of Lieutenant Tukhachevsky! Read at your leisure the book of Roman Gulya "Red Marshals", perfectly teaches!
    2. Bakht
      Bakht April 5 2014 00: 24
      +7
      Quote: Atash

      History must be learned from sources, not from the tabloid press.

      1. The Red Army did not face defenseless Warsaw for three days. The "Miracle on the Vistula" was prepared, for example, by General Weygand. Even during World War II, no army could go 400-500 km non-stop. The rear was definitely behind. And a pause was needed.

      2. Stalin did not sabotage anything. It was problematic to get the First Horse Horse out of the fighting. And the number of the First Horse by that time greatly subsided. Plus, it was the capture of Lviv that destroyed the entire Polish front and made the defense of Warsaw meaningless. By the way, it was Stalin who twice in the pages of the newspaper Pravda (that is, quite openly) opposed the campaign against Warsaw. The liberation of Kiev and access to the Curzon line, he considered it quite sufficient. He was not even afraid to speak in open press against Lenin.

      3. Stalin finally abandoned the idea of ​​a "world revolution" in the early 30s. And he built socialism in a single country. Such completely different people as Churchill, Mussolini, Hitler, Solzhenitsyn, Trotsky openly called Stalin an anti-communist.

      4. The thesis about Operation Thunderstorm is so delusional that there is nothing to discuss. But all the rezunists are not translated. A simple question, to which no Groza supporter can answer - what are the densities of the offensive of the motorized rifle division? That "concentration" about which all followers of Rezun write, consists of 57 divisions of the first echelon, stretched over fifteen hundred along the front and 300 kilometers in depth. Calculate the possibilities of the first strike of the Red Army.
      1. Atash
        Atash April 6 2014 00: 47
        -2
        Quote: Bakht
        By the way, it was Stalin who twice in the pages of the newspaper Pravda (that is, quite openly) opposed the campaign against Warsaw.


        I basically about the same, Stalin was against it.
        Thank you for the answer to you and 1111mail.ru. Of course, I am an amateur, I do not presume to argue with you. That's just a little bit smile :

        Quote: Bakht
        Count the possibilities of the first strike of the Red Army.


        Maybe Stalin did not expect such a quick outcome, why Hitler ahead of him. There was not enough strength for the first strike because at the moment it was not planned. The plan was in a gradual, as invisible as possible accumulation of forces. After all, Hitler, it turns out, was in a hurry, because he did not get a blitz krieg, despite the suddenness of the attack. Perhaps Stalin thought that Hitler could not help but realize the risk of an attack at the moment.
        1. Bakht
          Bakht April 6 2014 12: 38
          +5
          Quote: Atash
          Maybe Stalin did not expect such a quick outcome, why Hitler ahead of him. There was not enough strength for the first strike because at the moment it was not planned.

          This is ridiculous. The fact is that Rezun-Suvorov has no idea what he is writing about. The USSR applied exactly the plan Rezun writes about. But Rezun is so stupid that he did not even understand this.

          The USSR had a plan of war with Germany. It would be strange if he were not there. But there was no first strike in this regard.
          The accumulation of strength was. And they accumulated at the turn of the Dnieper. In the first echelon there were army cover forces impossibly stretched along the front. 20-30 km per division. The norm for defense is from 8 to 10 km. Moreover, only advanced detachments were on the border. MechCorpuses were grouped at a distance of 20 to 100 km from the border. District warehouses are about the same distance.
          There was no other way to save the situation. The USSR began nominating for combat deployment on June 16. For a long time I read indignantly the interrogation protocols of Pavlov and Korobkov. If this is not a falsification and the protocols are authentic, then Pavlov and Korobkov deservedly received execution.

          And now a question for all fans of the USSR’s aggressiveness. When did Stalin realize that the border battle was lost? According to documents and decisions made.
          And who carefully read the TASS report of June 14? What is written in plain text?
    3. smile
      smile April 6 2014 22: 58
      0
      Atash
      Yeah, they say awesome little about the response to the Polish aggressors ..... Pilsudski did not organize anything at all. the officers of the French General Staff organized .... by the way, do you know that Petain and De Gaulle participated in this business?
      And the fact that, regardless of our opinion, revolutions have arisen in different republics does not mean anything, except that European statehood has rotted utterly ... and it has survived only because approximately 700 thousand people were killed in Europe during the pre-war period. ... more than we destroyed during the ongoing wars for the preservation of our country ..... But, in your opinion, Europeans can probably kill any number of people, right?
      х
  11. smurnoi
    smurnoi April 5 2014 00: 33
    0
    He put a minus because of two points: in 1919, Prince Alexander Mikhailovich could represent only his own needs at the signing of the Treaty of Versailles; the historical continuity of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Lithuania, to put it mildly, is nonsense; with the same success we can speak of the historical continuity of the Murmansk region and Kievan Rus or the city of Turin and the Roman Empire.
  12. Bakht
    Bakht April 5 2014 00: 34
    +4
    On March 25, 1919, Lloyd George sent a memorandum to the peace conference entitled "Some considerations for the attention of conference participants before final conditions are worked out." The document said:

    “You can deprive Germany of its colonies, turn its armed forces into a simple police force, reduce its navy to the level of the fleet of a five-power state, however, if in the end Germany feels that she was treated unfairly at the conclusion of the 1919 peace treaty, she will find the means to obtain reimbursement from her winners ... Peacekeeping will ... depend on eliminating all the causes for irritation, which constantly raises the spirit of patriotism; it will depend on justice, on the knowledge that people act honestly in their desire to compensate for the losses ... The injustice and arrogance shown in the hour of triumph will never be forgotten or forgiven.

    For these reasons, I strongly oppose the transfer of a large number of Germans from Germany to the power of other states, and this should be prevented as far as practicable. I cannot but see the main reason for the future war in the fact that the German people, who have shown themselves sufficiently as one of the most energetic and powerful nations in the world, will be surrounded by a number of small states. The peoples of many of them have never before been able to create stable governments for themselves, but now a lot of Germans will fall into each of these states, demanding reunification with their homeland. The proposal of the Polish Affairs Committee on the transfer of 2100 thousand Germans to the rule of a people of a different religion, a people who throughout their history could not prove that they are capable of stable self-government, in my opinion, should sooner or later lead to a new war in Eastern Europe ".


    Although Lloyd George himself participated in the signing of the Versailles Peace, he was well aware of how this would end. The same thing is happening now. I do not believe that Western leaders do not understand what they are doing in Ukraine.
  13. Atash
    Atash April 6 2014 01: 12
    -3
    Quote: Bakht
    Stalin finally abandoned the idea of ​​a "world revolution" in the early 30s. And he built socialism in a single country. Such completely different people as Churchill, Mussolini, Hitler, Solzhenitsyn, Trotsky openly called Stalin an anti-communist.


    Yes, and perhaps, perhaps in the light of such accusations, he could not refuse the world revolution frankly and definitively. He could offer the party, explicitly or implicitly, to postpone this issue, gain strength, and then, choosing convenient moments, to win something. He took half of Poland when there was an opportunity. He simply could not send the world revolution far away. After all, if you look at the construction of socialism in a single country, it abolishes the communist idea itself. As a temporary measure, this is another matter.
  14. Bakht
    Bakht April 6 2014 12: 07
    +4
    These are your speculations. Real policy does not confirm this. A course was taken for peaceful coexistence. And then again - study the story. Which half of Poland did he take? The USSR annexed what was lost after the First World War and the Revolution. In fact, the post-war border was a repetition of the Curzon line. The exception was only in Western Ukraine. These all Galicia and Lviv were not needed for nothing. It came down now.

    But the territory of Poland, Stalin expanded to an incredible size. Prussia, Silesia. And the Poles primarily engaged in the genocide of the Germans and mass deportations.

    Reading you, I seem to read Rezun. But I’m not going to argue with the residentists. Useless.
  15. Bakht
    Bakht April 6 2014 12: 21
    +1
    The first time Stalin spoke publicly about the war with Poland was on May 25. Pravda published his article, which provided a detailed analysis of the prospects of the Polish campaign. In particular, he wrote: “Unlike the rear of Kolchak and Denikin, the rear of the Polish troops is homogeneous and nationally welded together. Hence its unity and resilience. His prevailing mood - “a sense of homeland” - is transmitted along numerous threads to the Polish front, creating in parts a national commissure and firmness. Hence the stamina of the Polish troops. Of course, the rear of Poland is not homogeneous ... in the class sense, but class conflicts have not yet reached such strength as to break through the sense of national unity. ” Therefore, Stalin made the main conclusion, "if the Polish troops operated in the area of ​​Poland proper, it would undoubtedly be difficult to fight them."

    In this regard, Stalin proposed that the main emphasis be not on a class uprising in Poland, but on a national liberation uprising in the non-Polish areas occupied by Poland. According to him, "the vast majority of the population of the regions adjacent to Poland (Belarus, Lithuania, Russia, Ukraine) consists of non-Polish peasants who are oppressed by Polish landowners." Therefore, the slogan of the Soviet troops "Down with the Polish lords!" finds a powerful response among the majority of the population in these areas. " It is precisely this theoretical position that can explain Stalin's unequivocal objection to the "march to Warsaw." He outlined his position on this issue in an interview with an employee of UkrROST, published in the Kharkiv newspaper Communist on June 24. Stalin bluntly stated that "it would be a mistake to think that the Poles on our front are already over." “It should also be remembered that decomposition on a massive scale has not yet affected the Polish army. There is no doubt that there will still be fights and fierce battles ahead, ”he emphasized. Stalin also touched on the international aspect of the problem, noting that Poland would receive international support from the Western powers. “After all, we are fighting not only with the Poles, but with the whole Entente ... supplying the Poles with all kinds of allowances.”

    Once again, Stalin publicly raised this question on July 11th. In Pravda, his interview was published, where he again warned against a revolutionary war with Poland. In particular, he said: “Our successes on the anti-Polish fronts are beyond doubt. There is no doubt that these successes will develop. But it would be unworthy of bragging to think that the Poles at the base are already over, that we can only do the “march to Warsaw”. It is noteworthy that this conversation was published in the central organ of the RCP (b) on the same day when the Note of Curzon was handed over to the RSFSR. Thus, Stalin once again called on the Bolshevik leadership to take a more realistic position on the war with Poland.
  16. Autolife
    Autolife April 7 2014 00: 57
    0
    Bah! And the faces are the same :-) USA, England