Military Review

"Outline more belligerent goals for Russia ..."


In the international situation that accompanies the 70 anniversary of the victory over German Nazism and Japanese militarism, it is impossible not to recall that the great union of the USSR, the USA and Great Britain, which decisively ensured this victory, collapsed amazingly quickly. Within a few months, the joint struggle with the common enemy gave way to the Cold War, with the beginning of which the former allies began to look at each other through the slot of the sight.

“Strikingly fast” is, however, only in the opinion of contemporaries of the Great Victory, who did not know about the secrets of big politics. In fact, the preparation of the West for the confrontation with the USSR began at the height of the Second World War. This was targeted, in particular, by the “Rankin” plan developed by the Allied forces headquarters in 1943 and which, after the landing of the Anglo-American troops in Western Europe, started to collapse the eastern front of the Germans under the blows of the Red Army, to the west and with its help stop the advance of the Soviet troops in Germany. Or the intention of Winston Churchill to unleash a war against the USSR under the plan of an emergency operation “Unthinkable”. Or the second birth of the Rankin plan in the summer of 1945: the joint intention of the Anglo-Americans to use unarmed units of the Wehrmacht in the event of a military clash with the Red Army.

The Soviet side was absolutely right, declaring at one of the meetings of the Control Council for the Administration of Germany that история knows few examples of such treachery and betrayal of allied obligations. Field Marshal B. Montgomery, who was part of the Control Council of the United Kingdom, initially tried to dismiss the accusation voiced by Marshal of the Soviet Union GK Zhukov, but then was forced to confirm the existence of the Planking Plan. He did this after Churchill, at one of the election rallies, said: yes, an order to collect German weapon and to prepare the units of the Wehrmacht, who had surrendered earlier in captivity, for possible joint actions against the Red Army, he really gave.

As for G. Truman, who replaced F. Roosevelt as president, he, like Churchill, found it possible to take a harsh tone towards the Soviet ally, without waiting for the end of the war. Arrived in April 1945 in the USA, Commissar for Foreign Affairs V.M. Molotov, he expressed sharp reproaches in the absence of progress in solving the Polish question. As a measure of pressure, Truman chose the threat of cessation of lend-lease supplies (why not economic sanctions of the 2014 – 2015 model?).

The US ambassador to Moscow, A. Harriman, who was present at the meeting later recalled: “I regretted that Truman was so tough about the matter. His behavior gave Molotov reason to tell Stalin that they were departing from Roosevelt’s policies. ” Harriman softened his assessment of the situation: the change of landmarks had become a fait accompli by that moment. Political thought in Washington increasingly revolved around the idea of ​​a collision with the USSR. In a memorandum drawn up in mid-May 1945, Acting Secretary of State J. Grew called for "immediately tightening" American policy towards the Soviet Union along all lines. He argued that "it is much better and safer to have a collision before Russia can carry out reconstruction work and develop its huge potential of military, economic and territorial power."

Proponents of a policy from a position of strength especially intensified after testing in the US and their practical use of nuclear weapons over Japan in August of 1945. What kind of allied solidarity could there be, if during the very days of the Potsdam Conference, the secret document “Strategic map of some industrial regions of Russia and Manchuria” was prepared for the head of the American nuclear weapons program, which listed 15 of the largest cities of the Soviet Union, starting with Moscow, as the primary targets for the bombing. The appendix gave a calculation of the number of atomic bombs required for the destruction of each of these cities, taking into account the experience of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. For example, for the defeat of Moscow and Leningrad, according to the authors of the document, six atomic bombs were required, the same type as the one that was dropped on Hiroshima.

By the beginning of 1946, the concept of preventive atomic warfare, which would preempt the transformation of the USSR into a nuclear power, was justified in the USA. Its development was directly related to the highly respected and well-informed military and political figures - US Air Force commander General H. Arnold, Brigadier General F. Everest, representing the Air Force in the Joint Military Planning Committee, commander aviation General K. Spaats, deputy commander of army aviation, one of the authors of the plan for the "carpet" bombing of Germany during the war, General A. Iker and others.

In January, 1946, speaking at the atomic energy commission set up by Truman, General L. Groves stated that he sees only two alternative behaviors for the United States if they want to maintain a monopoly on nuclear weapons: “Or we should have no inappropriate interpretations a realistic and binding for all international agreement ensuring the prohibition of atomic weapons, or we and our reliable allies should have exclusive superiority in this area. ” This meant that if the Soviet Union rejected the US-proposed plan for international control of atomic weapons, the United States was prepared to launch a preemptive strike against Soviet nuclear research centers in order to guarantee its “exclusive superiority” once and for all. General Groves proposed to act as follows: to present an ultimatum to Moscow demanding an end to scientific research and the production of nuclear weapons, and in case of refusing to accept the ultimatum, to deliver a crushing nuclear strike against the USSR.

The most detailed substantiation of a preventive nuclear war was given by a political analyst from Harvard University, J. Burnham, who suggested that it should be assumed that the Third World War had already begun. And if so, then the atomic bombing of the USSR should be considered as a new phase of military operations, as justified as the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

All such ideas are vividly reflected in US National Security Council Directive No. 20 / 1 of 18 in August 1948. “US Objectives for Russia”, which predetermined America’s confrontation with the Soviet Union for several decades.

The text of the directive read: “The government is compelled, in the interests of the current political war, to outline even now, in peacetime, more definite and warlike goals towards Russia than was necessary towards Germany and Japan before the start of hostilities with them ...”

The main goals of the war of the West against the USSR were clearly formulated: “... a) to minimize the power and influence of Moscow; b) to carry out fundamental changes in the theory and practice of foreign policy, which the government in power in Russia adheres to ... "" This is, first of all, about that, "the directive emphasized," to make and keep the Soviet Union weak in political , militarily and psychologically compared with external forces beyond its control. ”

Of great importance is the recognition of the compilers of directive No. 20 / 1 in that their claims to control over the policy of the Soviet Union and its territory in the event of occupation of the USSR are not ideological, but geopolitical in nature: “What goals should we pursue in relation to any non-communist government? that may arise on part or all of Russian territory as a result of the events of the war? .. We must create automatic guarantees that ensure that even a non-communist and nominally friendly regime : a) did not have great military power; b) economically strongly depended on the outside world ... "

* * *

So, Washington was thinking about how “to carry out fundamental changes in the theory and practice of foreign policy, which the government in power in Russia adheres to ...” seven decades ago. Is that the political heirs of Truman and Dulles trying to solve this problem today? Yes, the task is the same: do not allow Russia to become strong. You can’t refuse observation of the head of the Russian Foreign Ministry, S. Lavrov, who said last November: The West does not hide the fact that the goal of anti-Russian sanctions is a change of political regime in Russia.

Do not think that this is a reaction to the Crimea and the Donbass. This manifestation of the desire, inherent in Western civilization, if it allows Russia to exist, then only as a state "weak politically, militarily and psychologically."

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site:

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Baikonur
    Baikonur 3 August 2015 14: 23
    if Russia is allowed to exist, it is only as a state “weak in political, military and psychological relations”
    Jackals want to bite. The warrior against Russia to start, destroy! They sleep and see. But whoever goes with us with a sword, we will rip out rotten jackal nagloseksky teeth!
    1. anEkeName
      anEkeName 3 August 2015 14: 31
      Exactly. For the Anglo-Saxon snobs, there are two types of people: they (the Anglo-Saxons) and the rest, and if the "others" are not their slaves, then this is at least undemocratic, at most a "threat to national security."
      1. Scoun
        Scoun 3 August 2015 16: 00
        Quote: anEkeName
        For Anglo-Saxon snobs, there are two kinds of people: they (Anglo-Saxons) and the rest

        The possibility of the latter was foreseen by Edrikhin-Vandam already during the Boer War and warned compatriots: "It is bad to have an Anglo-Saxon enemy, but God forbid to have him as a friend ...

        There is nothing more to add .. the nation of hyenas is the first to start genocides and loudest indicating to others louder ...
        PS and more

        (not without reason they say: “if you started negotiations with the Anglo-Saxons, you have already lost”)

        About the stable, rotten essence of Anglo-Saxon politics.
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. Gorinich
      Gorinich 3 August 2015 14: 49
      Quote: Baikonur
      if Russia is allowed to exist, it is only as a state “weak in political, military and psychological relations”

      Very soft wording of the author. Naglo-Saxons generally want Russia not to be. This is their true purpose.
    4. nikolaj1703
      nikolaj1703 3 August 2015 19: 19
      I'm amputee ... to the very neck.
    5. free
      free 4 August 2015 08: 43
      in this regard, I think we should not be afraid to use YAO either, it’s better to die but destroy the damned west than to live as a slave!
    6. Air Force captain
      Air Force captain 4 August 2015 10: 42
      We have felt capitalism since 91 and now we know what crises are under capitalism, which was not under the USSR. Moreover, they were personally convinced of the predation of capital in the shape of the United States and correctly said that under capitalism, man was a wolf to man, which was not the case under the USSR, when even the doors to the apartment often had broken locks and there were no bars on the lower floors. And in the village at all, the door either did not lock or was locked only for that. so that they know that there is nobody in the house. People only did not tolerate bureaucracy, and only bureaucracy from careerists and swindlers easily excited people to barricades, to change politics. But no one wanted the collapse of the USSR and this will not be erased from history. The collapse was committed by the traitors, the counter-revolutionaries, or, to date, the fifth column.
    7. The comment was deleted.
  2. Standard Oil
    Standard Oil 3 August 2015 14: 30
    What do you want from the Anglo-Saxons? It’s as if you discovered America, they want complete power on the planet, what the hell did Russia or the USSR surrender to? Only like Gorbachev they can buy their brochures.
  3. V.ic
    V.ic 3 August 2015 14: 31
    Isn't that what the political successors of Truman and Dulles are trying to solve today? Yes, the task is the same: not let Russia become strong. Author Yuri RUBTSOV

    ...Harya crack! There were even Poles 400 years ago and the French 200 years ago in the Kremlin ... In 170 years, Suvorov took Warsaw, and a year and a half later, Russian troops entered Paris. The corporal with a mustache did not even visit Moscow, and in 1945 he bit a cyanide.
    1. Scraptor
      Scraptor 4 August 2015 06: 52
      From him and from his samurai friends in Manchuria, apart from cyanide, there is still a small bunch of other all sorts of "substances", so the United States never had a chance to destroy the USSR (and he had some of his own), and not to be destroyed by the USA ...
  4. Corporal Valera
    Corporal Valera 3 August 2015 14: 31
    How Russia bothers them, they can’t eat
      DIVAN SOLDIER 3 August 2015 14: 53
      Yes, they all interfere, who does not want to creep under them.
  5. rotmistr60
    rotmistr60 3 August 2015 14: 32
    he really gave the order to collect German weapons and prepare units of the Wehrmacht that had previously surrendered, for possible joint action against the Red Army.

    The entire history of the State of the Russian British by all means harmed our country, often with the wrong hands. A nation with politicians whose blood hates Russia. And these ... are trying to teach us how to live.
  6. sever.56
    sever.56 3 August 2015 14: 33
    The USA is a well-armed schizophrenic that no one can bind ...! BYe can not bind !!!
    1. Scraptor
      Scraptor 4 August 2015 06: 57
      You can distribute all the most modern weapons to those who do not like them, and then with a good deal (California, Texas, Florida Arizona, New Mexico - Mexico, Oregon and Maine - Canada, Louisiana - France, Nbyu-York - the Netherlands, Alaska - Russia, everything else to the Indians) this state will naturally reduce to a Mormon reservation in Utah. fellow
      Well, what is not an option? what All of them will tear their flag flat with pleasure. laughing
  7. An60
    An60 3 August 2015 14: 33
    Washington and London dreamers. Lords, damn it, rings ....
  8. new communist
    new communist 3 August 2015 14: 58
    jackals will bite Russia and China in 2020 - this is almost inevitable.
  9. Sergey Medvedev
    Sergey Medvedev 3 August 2015 14: 59
    Well, I have no desire to hold a parade of our troops in Washington. But arrogant Saxons will force ...
  10. shadow
    shadow 3 August 2015 15: 00
    Quote: An60
    Washington and London dreamers. Lords, damn it, rings ....

    Bagel Hole
  11. olimpiada15
    olimpiada15 3 August 2015 15: 04
    They complied with Directive 20/1 by destroying the USSR and sending it on the path of economic liberalization, moreover, they openly declare their goals, and what about the Russian Federation -?
    The Russian Federation stubbornly continues to promote liberal reforms, retaining in power those leaders who carried out reforms on the instructions of CIA agents, which Putin openly said at one of the forums (in the United States, the agents who carried out our reforms took their chunk from privatization, which was revealed) .
    The Russian Federation continues to intensively integrate into the global economy, which is what needs to be done to achieve the objectives of Directive 20/1.
    Under whose control the economies of the world are under control, a vote was once again proved in the UN Security Council, where representatives, seeing that Russia does not impede the investigation, which is being conducted suspiciously long and secretly, and there are no grounds for UN interference in such proceedings, nevertheless vote for the resolution, which refers to an article inappropriate for this case.
    I don’t know what the management’s plans are, but some facts, such as the denial of recognition by the head of Sberbank Gref of Crimea as Russian territory, lead to sad thoughts.
    1. solohan
      solohan 3 August 2015 19: 24
      in general, with Crimean misunderstandings, some Crimean products dated last year October produced in Ukraine brought a massandra from Crimea so it had an excise tax and for sale on the territory of the Crimean federal ... the last time I bought canned fish so produced in Ukraine but the factory itself is in Kerch as understand this? and sho for rumors go sho take property from us Ukrainians in the Crimea? or really don’t know what to do with Crimea am why half the solutions request
      1. lecturer
        lecturer 3 August 2015 21: 07
        ... so it was made in Ukraine, but the plant itself is in Kerch, how do you understand this? But what about rumors? What do they take property from us Ukrainians in Crimea? or really do not know what to do with Crimea am why half-hearted decisions
        , see YEAR OF PRODUCT CERTIFICATE! and everything will fall into place ... crest!
      2. voronbel53
        voronbel53 3 August 2015 22: 21
        My friend, you were not taught to put punctuation marks at school in Ukraine, at least occasionally, and for which capital letters exist. Because of all this, the meaning of what was written was distorted to an incomprehensible one - somehow take a more responsible approach, so as not to disassemble it, like: you can’t pardon me ... I didn’t understand the content, I didn’t understand it, but the form was minus.
  12. Captainden
    Captainden 3 August 2015 15: 36
    The Anglo-Saxons are treacherous, no doubt. I will note that not only in relation to us. What Guderian writes in his memoirs "Memories of a Soldier" - "..." Hitler called me to his table, and I had the opportunity to talk with him for almost two hours. During the conversation, I asked him why he was so sharply opposed England. He explained this by the fact that the British, in his opinion, had shown insincerity during the negotiations with him in Godesberg, "
    “Hitler was infuriated with what he believed was an insult, and he said that in reality the British did not seek genuine reconciliation. The British insincerity touched him especially hard, because initially he attached great importance to relations with England, wishing to establish long-term cooperation with her. ”

    The period is October 1938, immediately after the accession of the Sudetenland.

    Excerpt from the book: Guderian, Heinz. “Memoirs of a soldier.” LitRes LLC,, 1951. iBooks.
    This material may be protected by copyright.
  13. Tor5
    Tor5 3 August 2015 17: 37
    Reasonable, capacious, responsible and useful article!
  14. Rostislav
    Rostislav 3 August 2015 21: 43
    Best of all, A.S. Pushkin replied (to the Slanderers of Russia):
    You are formidable in words - try it in practice!
    Or the old hero, deceased on his bed,
    Unable to screw up your Izmail bayonet?
    Is the Russian tsar already powerless to speak?
    Or should we argue with Europe new?
    Il Russian weaned from victories?
  15. NOJ
    NOJ 3 August 2015 22: 25
    in the modern world, tank wedges do not need to be moved to Moscow; traitors in the Kremlin are quite successful in dealing with the collapse of the country
    1. anip
      anip 4 August 2015 08: 49
      Quote: NOJ
      quite successfully traitors in the Kremlin cope with the collapse of the country

      And there is.
  16. Zomanus
    Zomanus 4 August 2015 04: 49
    Here, take an article and insert it into the Russian history textbook, as one of the paragraphs. And not all garbage about the Gulag ... So that the children would understand, therefore, the Union was tearing the veins so, trying to ensure the presence of nuclear weapons in the shortest possible time. Russia has always fought, be it an empire or the USSR. And children should understand this.
  17. kartalovkolya
    kartalovkolya 4 August 2015 06: 09
    Nothing new was said in the article, as America (USA) was a "thieves" state, and it remained and they live not according to the laws of peaceful coexistence, but according to concepts (according to their own concepts), like plowmen in the zone!
  18. anip
    anip 4 August 2015 08: 49
    You will not refuse to observe the head of the Russian Foreign Ministry S. Lavrov, who said in November last year: the West does not hide that the purpose of anti-Russian sanctions is to change the political regime in Russia.

    And if Lavrov were more observant, he would see that this very system is even more doing than the West to change the political regime.
  19. Belousov
    Belousov 4 August 2015 12: 17
    Well, it's only our "liberals" who shout about the good intentions of the staff members. By the way, such is the paradox - the bloody gebnya, but for some reason all the Novodvorskys lived and felt great, they did not shoot anyone for some reason. Gebney had a strange bloodiness.
  20. sharp-lad
    sharp-lad 4 August 2015 17: 52
    Already, Latvia is slowly being occupied. sad
  21. Vlad5307
    Vlad5307 4 August 2015 18: 23
    The main occupation sits in the brains of young people who are clogged with the well-read "intellectuals" of the teachings of Western scientists, who donate their works with the money of the CIA and the State Department of the SGA, preaching exclusively American superiority in all areas over others! This is what will ruin Russia, if you do not stop teaching harmful theories of liberal imperialism as the only way of countries' development in universities! That is why these young people run ahead of their parents and destroy the foundations of the state in which they live, not realizing that they give themselves up with giblets to the enemy of humanity in the guise of SGAs setting up a worldwide mess to achieve their goals of managing the weak world! am