Military Review

On the anti-Hitler coalition: why it did not become a new “Entente”


After the attack led by Hitler Europe on the USSR, the international situation changed. Hating USSR, Churchill, June 22, he stated that everyone who fights against the Third Reich is a friend of Great Britain. June 24 on the support of the USSR said Roosevelt. Representatives of the British prime minister and the American president arrived in Moscow, although their main goal was to “feel for the situation” - will the Russians last for a long time?

There was no real help at first, the requests of I. Stalin to open a second front in Europe, or the parcels of the English expeditionary force to Murmansk and Arkhangelsk were ignored. The only thing that was possible was to conduct a joint operation to seize Persia, which was in the interests of London and sobered by Turkey.

Only from August 1941 began to conclude agreements on deliveries to the USSR weapons, food, strategic raw materials. But at first they were not free, the amounts of loans, annual interest were negotiated, the payment went by mutual cashless payment for "counter" goods. From the USSR demanded gold and jewelry.

In London and Washington they did not believe that the USSR would stand, but before its fall they wanted to pump out its gold reserves, and that the war would go on longer. Therefore, already in September, London 1941 changed the conditions of supply, introduced its analogue of Lend-Lease. The United States agreed to a land-lease only in November 1941 of the year - weapons and equipment were leased, leased and returned, after the war. And until the end of 1941, Lend-Lease deliveries accounted for only 0,1% of all American supplies, the rest of the USSR was paid in gold.

In December, the Japanese Empire attacked the United States, 1942, it played a positive role for the USSR - part of the personnel divisions from the east of the country could be replaced by new ones only with formed units with new recruits. In the field of diplomacy, the United States and England became more compliant - they promised to open a second front in 1942, they increased lend-lease supplies.

True, Washington and London simultaneously developed a strategy for establishing their own “world order” after the Second World War. In August 1941, they adopted the Atlantic Charter, it did not recognize the territorial changes that occurred during the war, including the Soviet acquisitions of 1939-1940. Roosevelt announced the creation of a new system - the UN, the second stub of the "world government", which was to replace the League of Nations. The USSR in 1942 to enter it, so Russia was being pulled into the orbit of the “new world order” in an American way.

Lend-lease deliveries themselves, of course, brought certain benefits to the USSR, in such an intense battle everything could be useful - stew, trucks, Tanks, aircraft, etc. But you should not overestimate these deliveries - 4% of the armaments and equipment produced by the USSR itself. Moreover, if we arrange the deliveries on time, it turns out that the main flow of Lend-Lease cargo started in 1943, when it became completely clear that the USSR would not collapse and a protracted war would continue. But it was precisely in 1941-1942 that every plane, tank, and supplies were insignificant. USSR applications for the first protocol - October 1941 - June 1942, were reduced by half, actually sent even less, so the United States fulfilled its obligations on tanks and planes by 30%, cars by 19%.

In June, 1942 was cut off under the pretext of preparing the opening of the second front, although in the 1942, the second front was not going to be opened. So, in the winter 1941-1942. Churchill drafted a memorandum for the chiefs of staff, it was clearly stated there: “The main factor during the war is currently the defeat and loss of Hitler in Russia ... Neither Great Britain nor the United States should take any part in these events ...”. For them, the ideal situation was when two main geopolitical opponents, for Anglo-Saxon rule on the planet, beat each other, burying their best sons in the graves.

In fact, a new “Entente” was created, where Russia again fought against Germany, and the Anglo-Saxons received all the benefits. The only difference was that in Russia the “fifth column” was significantly drained of blood and could not deliver a powerful blow from the inside that would have led to the death of the Red Empire. And after that, Washington and London would have crushed bloodless Germany. Or would have eliminated Hitler with the help of the conspirators, another more compliant "leader" signed a separate peace

The United States and Britain were implementing their plans: in November 1942, they landed troops in North Africa, which is interesting the French met them with fire, in some places even beat off. But Hitler used this excuse for the complete occupation of France - and the occupation was carried out by very small forces, in the East at that time there were fierce battles in Stalingrad. They did not oppose them, the French soldiers and sailors, without resistance, went to prisoner of war camps.

The second front was not opened even in 1943, explaining this by the unreadiness of the allies for such a large-scale operation, with the most powerful German defense on the Atlantic coast of France. Although at present we know that this is a lie: the Anglo-Saxons had at their disposal an Enigma decryption system and read all German secret messages freely. And they knew very well that the defense of the Germans was very weak, all the best units on the Eastern Front. The main reason was the same as in 1942, the desire that Berlin and Moscow weaken each other as much as possible.

On the anti-Hitler coalition: why it did not become a new “Entente”

Pietro Badoglio, Marshal of Italy (25 Jun 1926), Duke of Addis Ababa, Marquis Sabotino, Prime Minister, who took power over the country after the overthrow of Mussolini in 1943, declared neutrality and brought Italy out of World War II.

True, the Anglo-Saxons organized the capture of Sicily, with the help of mafia structures, the "fifth column" of Mussolini. A coup was organized in Italy itself, Mussolini was arrested, the government was headed by Marshal Badoglio. At this time, there are several very interesting phenomena: Hitler is pissed off and wants to strike in Italy, but the head of intelligence, Canaris, and other associates persuade him not to do so. They say there is nothing to strike, Canaris conceals information about Badoglio’s negotiations with the Westerners, asserting that Rome is still an ally of Berlin, if quarreling with the Italians, then replacing Italian troops in Russia, in the Balkans. September 3 Rome signed a secret armistice agreement with the Anglo-Saxons, September 8 announced a break with Berlin. British and American troops landed on the peninsula. There is also an interesting point here - it was more profitable to land the troops in the north of Italy, thus the German divisions of Kesselring would be blocked; besides the powerful industry of the north of Italy would be captured, the Anglo-American troops would unite with the Italian units.

Therefore, Berlin ordered Kesselring to disarm the Italian troops. The German group, most of which was engaged in deterring the Anglo-American forces, were able to disarm the Italian troops. Although they were in their homeland and were superior to the Germans in number, they allowed themselves to be blocked, disarmed and taken to prison camps. Disarming and capturing the Italians in Russia and the Balkans also passed without incident. Berlin was able to create the Italian Front. Or was he allowed to do this? After this, the actions on this front went without serious consequences for the Reich - the allies moved through small Italy for more than a year and a half.

Albert Kesselring, Field Marshal Luftwaffe. As commander in the south, he led German forces in the Mediterranean theater, including the North African campaign. Kesselring restrained the Allies on the Italian front until October 1944, when he got into a car accident. At the final stage of the war, he commanded the German troops on the Western Front.

Stalin in relation to the old "allies" on the Entente acted quite differently from the tsarist government. If Nicholas II went to meet the demands of Paris and London, considering the common interests above Russian, in the case of need was a polite and modest petitioner. That Stalin clearly defended the interests of the USSR-was a pragmatist, a rationalist. He held firmly, independently, considered the "allies" debtors of the Union, demanded from them, but did not ask. And his policy was much more effective, London and Washington had a hard time. The authority of the USSR was much higher in the world.

Stalin really determined the global policy: he did not allow the Control Council to establish power in France, since France was actually an ally of Berlin. He recognized the de Gaulle government in exile, insisted that France become a member of the anti-Hitler coalition, and then a separate French zone of occupation of Germany was allocated. So France was not defeated in the German camp, but the winner in the camp of the anti-Hitler coalition. And what is important - de Gaulle remembered this, becoming the leader of an independent France, retaining respect for Stalin even after Khrushchev's “revelations”.

In addition, Roosevelt led his game against London, Washington more and more intercepted the threads of control from the decrepit British Empire. So, in 1943, through J. Davis, and then himself, Roosevelt proposed to Stalin to divide the colonies of England into "spheres of influence." Stalin refused to discuss this issue, realizing that there was some kind of American game of his own.

Sources of:
Bezymensky LA Secret front against the second front. M., 1987.
History Russia. Ed. Munchaeva Sh.M., Ustinova V.M. M., 2005.
Semanov S.N. Stalin: life and work lessons. M., 2002.
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Evgan
    Evgan 27 June 2011 13: 34 New
    Ah, the British! Ah, the Americans! What are the bad ones, you look ... It is somehow doubtful that the USSR was not beneficial for Germany and England to drown each other in blood. There is no need to whitewash the USSR, no need to denigrate the British - everyone was to blame for what happened, what happened, someone a little more, someone a little less. And all at the same time pursued their national interests. How can we reproach Britain for striving to win the war with Russian blood, while we ourselves would like to reduce our victims at the expense of the Anglo-Saxons?
    By the way, Alexander, the preposition "o" is replaced by "o" if there is a word behind it beginning with a vowel;)
    1. His
      His 28 June 2011 12: 15 New
      Yes, but in the West we are blackened
  2. datur
    datur 27 June 2011 14: 48 New
    all this has long been known. This is a secret only for Westerners and their liberoids. with foam at the mouth proving the guilt of the USSR in the outbreak of World War II and the decisive role of the West in the victory over fascism. you .....Evgan, apparently from their ranks?
  3. Evgan
    Evgan 27 June 2011 22: 10 New
    datur, point by point.
    I believe that the USSR is to blame for unleashing the Second World War to about the same extent as the British and French. Their “Munich conspiracy” and our Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact for me are of a single field of berries, with the only difference being that the UK definitely lost from the conspiracy, and we got certain benefits.
    As for the "decisive role of the West," I believe that it was the peoples of the USSR who made the main contribution to the Victory and belittling their role is inadmissible. It’s just that I share the policy of the USSR on the eve of the war and what our compatriots did during it.
    datur, am I a "zapadnyuk and liberoid"? :)
    1. His
      His 28 June 2011 12: 17 New
      See their interpretation in history textbooks. After the collapse of the USSR, we rewrote our textbooks, but they are not. They added, now in the image of the enemy - the USSR, automatically redone - to Russia. This fight is actually with the Russian world
  4. Evgan
    Evgan 29 June 2011 13: 40 New
    Own, but I'm not talking about the struggle or the absence thereof. I’m just saying that the French and the British before the war are scum, removed, traitors and all that, and the USSR is a white sheep, somewhat incorrect, and that everyone is approximately (I emphasize, approximately) equally guilty of that Hitler was allowed to unleash the Second World War. But at the same time, the fact that our people made the main contribution to the Victory is undeniable for me. And therefore, their eternal memory ...
  5. Evgan
    Evgan 29 June 2011 13: 43 New
    I’m not arguing about mine, yes. But here, too, not everyone approaches the assessment of "their" always objectively, does it?
    1. His
      His 29 June 2011 13: 52 New
      And they fought with us shoulder to shoulder. Or did American soldiers go to battle near Stalingrad?
  6. Evgan
    Evgan 29 June 2011 15: 59 New
    My own, I did not quite understand the question - what was he related to? I never said that the Allies fought with us “shoulder to shoulder,” and even more so near Stalingrad. They fought on our front, we on our own. And yes, we made a much bigger contribution to the Victory. What is wrong?