Comrade Stalin in the language of the 40s talks about modern "allies" in the fight against terrorism
The world media (and Russian ones too) are trying to guess under what conditions the very antiterrorist coalition will be knocked together (if at all), the need for which Russian President Vladimir Putin spoke out from the rostrum of the UN anniversary general assembly. As you know, initially the very idea that Russia could hit the teeth of a variety of terrorist groups hard using aviation component and launches of cruise missiles from the Caspian Sea, in the West (and not only) seemed delusional. But as soon as the airborne group of the Russian Aerospace Forces in Syria began to level the infrastructure of militants with the earth, to smoke them from holes and cracks, to destroy not only terrorist military equipment, but also the channels for obtaining basic financing (oil refining facilities), Western friends “buzzed”.
Now the conversation is not going on the wave of statements that “we will not create any coalition with Russia”, “no contacts with Moscow on Syria are impossible by definition”. The conversation turns into the plane, if I may say so, of the need to create at least a contactless informal coalition (interaction), when different forces (Russia and the West) have their own “front of work”, and everyone on their front can achieve some success.
That is, it seems that the coalition is inevitable, the opening of a real “second front” too, but again in what format the “final” process will take place, because each of its participants is trying to pursue their geopolitical interests. More difficult for those who themselves sponsored the creation of a terrorist infrastructure for the change of power in Syria.
On this subject, you can think for a long time, but would it not be a more sensible thing to turn to storiesand specifically to how the process of creating a coalition with the allies was described at one time by a person who knew firsthand how much time and nerves the process of negotiating the formation of a viable coalition against a common enemy could take away. We are talking about a person whose works and recordings of speeches in modern conditions are many times more difficult to find than publications of "non-living free" historians about him. Speech about Stalin. With all the ambiguity of this figure, his statements can hardly be left unnoticed. And without that, they had been trying to leave them for too long under a layer of ash and liberal garbage.
After reviewing the records of Stalin's speeches, you can follow the important detail. If, a month after 3-4, since the beginning of the Great Patriotic War, the Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR (at least publicly) spoke about the entry of the allies from the United States and Britain into the war, as if about to happen (from minute to minute) and should save the USSR, over time, the thoughts of IV Stalin on this issue changed in the direction of a clear increase in the percentage of skepticism and the level of understanding that the allies, as they say, are broad only in words.
November 1941:
And the words are some acquaintances ... Isolation ... Bullying by the ghost of the revolution ... Almost three quarters of a century has passed, and our "friends" (if by this word we mean the collective West, led by different representatives of "unique nations" at different times,) even change the record were not going to. In 40, they “isolated” the USSR, at the same time they attempted (successful or less successful) to change the powers of certain countries to the regimes pleasing themselves in order to serve their geopolitical interests. And the main tool remained the same: contradictions, attempts to split.
JVStalin from the speech “The Causes of Temporary Failures of Our Army”:
A very solid illustration of the conditions under which the fight against terrorism is conducted in the Middle East. Of course, we are not talking about some strange attempt to compare the situation of the Red Army in 1941 and the Russian air group in Syria in 2015. The thing is that Russia is now forced to fight those who, in fact, can be called the single enemy of civilization, alone. All these victorious reports of the Western media about the "successes" of the American coalition look very similar to the publications of the American media about the "victories" in the war with the coalition of Hitler's 1941 sample of the year. As soon as the States announced their entry into the war, so you understand, and began to "win one brilliant victory after another." Like, why the second front ... We are better because of the "puddle" or in small groups where it is not as hot as, for example, near Moscow ... And if you can help, then with equipment and food, but don’t think that it is free. ..
Against the background of the statements of the modern “allies” about the readiness to fight terrorism by any means, and against the background of the reigning disorder and vacillation in the camp of the “allies” themselves, the statement of I.V. Stalin (the end of 1941) that against the background of the spread of Hitlerism in Europe, it itself is formed by fragility and fragility.
Stalin (from the fragment of the speech "The defeat of the German imperialists and their army is inevitable"):
And if today the word “Germany” is still replaced with the USA ... The speech in this context looks very modern! Moreover, we should not forget that in the 1930s, the Hitlerite party, which, as it now turns out, was sympathized even by the leading monarchist dynasties of Europe, was not without foreign financing. On Hitler did about the same rate that today do on international terrorism. And then, and now, the fascist / terrorist puppeteers believe (believe) that they will forever fulfill their will and never allow themselves to strike at the puppeteers themselves.
Stalin in the same speech:
However, until the moment when Britain and the United States suddenly decided to "support the peoples of Europe", one important detail was needed: the Red Army defeated the Nazi armies in the USSR and its western borders crossed to 1944.
As it can be seen, even now Western “friends” are waiting for an answer to the question: by what trajectory will events in the same Syria develop, and is it necessary in this connection to urgently finish off their offspring in the form of IS, all kinds of “Al Nusr” and other assorted terrorist gatherings so that Russia won the victory.
From correspondence (in letters) conversations of the journalist Associated Press Cassidy c JVStalin about the "possible opening of the second front" (interview sample 1942 of the year):
Cassidy:
Stalin:
Cassidy:
Stalin:
Cassidy:
Stalin:
When changing certain terms - it sounds supermodern ... Supermodern, like a fragment of Stalin's speech from November 1942 of the year on the occasion of the 25 anniversary of the revolution:
One hundred to one that our modern "allies" ignore the materials for the authorship of Comrade Stalin. Well, in vain ... It is in vain ... It would not hurt to familiarize oneself in order not to step on the previous rake in attempts to incite the terrorist fodder on other states, naively believing that the fishery will not jump off the leash.
Now the conversation is not going on the wave of statements that “we will not create any coalition with Russia”, “no contacts with Moscow on Syria are impossible by definition”. The conversation turns into the plane, if I may say so, of the need to create at least a contactless informal coalition (interaction), when different forces (Russia and the West) have their own “front of work”, and everyone on their front can achieve some success.
That is, it seems that the coalition is inevitable, the opening of a real “second front” too, but again in what format the “final” process will take place, because each of its participants is trying to pursue their geopolitical interests. More difficult for those who themselves sponsored the creation of a terrorist infrastructure for the change of power in Syria.
On this subject, you can think for a long time, but would it not be a more sensible thing to turn to storiesand specifically to how the process of creating a coalition with the allies was described at one time by a person who knew firsthand how much time and nerves the process of negotiating the formation of a viable coalition against a common enemy could take away. We are talking about a person whose works and recordings of speeches in modern conditions are many times more difficult to find than publications of "non-living free" historians about him. Speech about Stalin. With all the ambiguity of this figure, his statements can hardly be left unnoticed. And without that, they had been trying to leave them for too long under a layer of ash and liberal garbage.
After reviewing the records of Stalin's speeches, you can follow the important detail. If, a month after 3-4, since the beginning of the Great Patriotic War, the Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR (at least publicly) spoke about the entry of the allies from the United States and Britain into the war, as if about to happen (from minute to minute) and should save the USSR, over time, the thoughts of IV Stalin on this issue changed in the direction of a clear increase in the percentage of skepticism and the level of understanding that the allies, as they say, are broad only in words.
November 1941:
What did the fascist German strategists count on, arguing that they would finish the Soviet Union in two months and reach the Urals in this short time? First of all, they hoped that they seriously hoped to create a universal coalition against the USSR, to involve Great Britain and the United States in this coalition, having previously intimidated the ruling circles of these countries with the specter of revolution, and completely isolate thus our country from other powers. The Germans knew that their game politics at odds between the classes of individual states and between these states and the Soviet country has already yielded results in France, the rulers of which, giving themselves intimidate the ghost of the revolutionWith a fright, they put their homeland under Hitler’s feet, refusing to resist. The fascist German strategists thought the same would happen to the UK and the USA.
The notorious Hess was, in fact, sent to England by the German fascists in order to convince the British politicians to join the general campaign against the USSR. But the Germans miscalculated. Great Britain and the United States, in spite of Hess’s efforts, not only did not join the German fascist invaders' campaign against the USSR, but, on the contrary, found themselves in the same camp with the USSR against Nazi Germany. The USSR not only did not turn out to be isolated, but, on the contrary, acquired new allies in the person of Great Britain, the United States and other countries occupied by the Germans. It turned out that the German policy of the game, in contradiction and in intimidation by the ghost of the revolution, had exhausted itself and was no longer suitable for the new situation. And not only is it no good, but it is still fraught with great dangers for the German invaders, for it leads in the new conditions of the war to directly opposite results.
The notorious Hess was, in fact, sent to England by the German fascists in order to convince the British politicians to join the general campaign against the USSR. But the Germans miscalculated. Great Britain and the United States, in spite of Hess’s efforts, not only did not join the German fascist invaders' campaign against the USSR, but, on the contrary, found themselves in the same camp with the USSR against Nazi Germany. The USSR not only did not turn out to be isolated, but, on the contrary, acquired new allies in the person of Great Britain, the United States and other countries occupied by the Germans. It turned out that the German policy of the game, in contradiction and in intimidation by the ghost of the revolution, had exhausted itself and was no longer suitable for the new situation. And not only is it no good, but it is still fraught with great dangers for the German invaders, for it leads in the new conditions of the war to directly opposite results.
And the words are some acquaintances ... Isolation ... Bullying by the ghost of the revolution ... Almost three quarters of a century has passed, and our "friends" (if by this word we mean the collective West, led by different representatives of "unique nations" at different times,) even change the record were not going to. In 40, they “isolated” the USSR, at the same time they attempted (successful or less successful) to change the powers of certain countries to the regimes pleasing themselves in order to serve their geopolitical interests. And the main tool remained the same: contradictions, attempts to split.
JVStalin from the speech “The Causes of Temporary Failures of Our Army”:
One of the reasons for the failure of the Red Army is the lack of a second front in Europe against the German fascist troops. The fact is that at present there are no armies of Great Britain or the United States of America on the European continent that would wage war against the German fascist troops, which is why the Germans do not have to crush their forces and wage war on two fronts, in the west and in the east. Well, this circumstance leads to the fact that the Germans, considering their rear in the west secured, have the opportunity to move all their troops and the troops of their allies in Europe against our country. The setting is now such that our country wages a war of liberation alone, without any military assistance, against the combined forces of the Germans, Finns, Romanians, Italians, Hungarians. (...) There is no doubt that the absence of a second front in Europe against the Germans greatly facilitates the position of the German army. But there can be no doubt that the emergence of a second front on the continent of Europe — and he, of course, should appear in the near future — will greatly facilitate the position of our army to the detriment of the German one.
A very solid illustration of the conditions under which the fight against terrorism is conducted in the Middle East. Of course, we are not talking about some strange attempt to compare the situation of the Red Army in 1941 and the Russian air group in Syria in 2015. The thing is that Russia is now forced to fight those who, in fact, can be called the single enemy of civilization, alone. All these victorious reports of the Western media about the "successes" of the American coalition look very similar to the publications of the American media about the "victories" in the war with the coalition of Hitler's 1941 sample of the year. As soon as the States announced their entry into the war, so you understand, and began to "win one brilliant victory after another." Like, why the second front ... We are better because of the "puddle" or in small groups where it is not as hot as, for example, near Moscow ... And if you can help, then with equipment and food, but don’t think that it is free. ..
Against the background of the statements of the modern “allies” about the readiness to fight terrorism by any means, and against the background of the reigning disorder and vacillation in the camp of the “allies” themselves, the statement of I.V. Stalin (the end of 1941) that against the background of the spread of Hitlerism in Europe, it itself is formed by fragility and fragility.
Stalin (from the fragment of the speech "The defeat of the German imperialists and their army is inevitable"):
There are three main factors, whose strength is growing day by day and which should lead in the near future to the inevitable defeat of Hitler's predatory imperialism.
This is, firstly, the fragility of the European rear of imperialist Germany, the fragility of the "new order" in Europe. The German invaders have enslaved the peoples of the European continent from France to the Soviet Baltic, from Norway, Denmark, Belgium, Holland and Soviet Belorussia to the Balkans and Soviet Ukraine, deprived them of elementary democratic freedoms, deprived of their right to control their own destinythey took away their bread, meat, raw materials, turned them into their slaves, they crucified the Poles, the Czechs, the Serbs on the cross, and decided that, having achieved domination in Europe, they could now build Germany’s world domination on this basis. They call it “the new order in Europe”. But what is this "basis", what is this "new order"? Only Hitler's narcissistic fools do not see that the "new order" in Europe and the notorious "basis" of this order is a volcano, ready to explode at any moment and bury the German imperialist house of cards (...).
This is, firstly, the fragility of the European rear of imperialist Germany, the fragility of the "new order" in Europe. The German invaders have enslaved the peoples of the European continent from France to the Soviet Baltic, from Norway, Denmark, Belgium, Holland and Soviet Belorussia to the Balkans and Soviet Ukraine, deprived them of elementary democratic freedoms, deprived of their right to control their own destinythey took away their bread, meat, raw materials, turned them into their slaves, they crucified the Poles, the Czechs, the Serbs on the cross, and decided that, having achieved domination in Europe, they could now build Germany’s world domination on this basis. They call it “the new order in Europe”. But what is this "basis", what is this "new order"? Only Hitler's narcissistic fools do not see that the "new order" in Europe and the notorious "basis" of this order is a volcano, ready to explode at any moment and bury the German imperialist house of cards (...).
And if today the word “Germany” is still replaced with the USA ... The speech in this context looks very modern! Moreover, we should not forget that in the 1930s, the Hitlerite party, which, as it now turns out, was sympathized even by the leading monarchist dynasties of Europe, was not without foreign financing. On Hitler did about the same rate that today do on international terrorism. And then, and now, the fascist / terrorist puppeteers believe (believe) that they will forever fulfill their will and never allow themselves to strike at the puppeteers themselves.
Stalin in the same speech:
Who can doubt that the USSR, Great Britain and the United States will give full support to the peoples of Europe in their liberation struggle against Hitler’s tyranny?
However, until the moment when Britain and the United States suddenly decided to "support the peoples of Europe", one important detail was needed: the Red Army defeated the Nazi armies in the USSR and its western borders crossed to 1944.
As it can be seen, even now Western “friends” are waiting for an answer to the question: by what trajectory will events in the same Syria develop, and is it necessary in this connection to urgently finish off their offspring in the form of IS, all kinds of “Al Nusr” and other assorted terrorist gatherings so that Russia won the victory.
From correspondence (in letters) conversations of the journalist Associated Press Cassidy c JVStalin about the "possible opening of the second front" (interview sample 1942 of the year):
Cassidy:
What place in the Soviet assessment of the current situation does the possibility of a second front occupy?
Stalin:
Very important - one might say - paramount place
. Cassidy:
How effective is the help of the Allies to the Soviet Union, and what could be done to expand and improve this assistance?
Stalin:
In comparison with the assistance that the Soviet Union provides to the allies, delaying the main forces of the German fascist forces, the assistance of the allies to the Soviet Union is still ineffective. To expand and improve this assistance, only one thing is needed: the Allies fulfill their obligations in a full and timely manner.
Cassidy:
What else is the Soviet ability to resist?
Stalin:
I think that the Soviet ability to resist German robbers is no less by its strength, if not higher, the ability of fascist Germany or some other aggressive power to secure world domination.
When changing certain terms - it sounds supermodern ... Supermodern, like a fragment of Stalin's speech from November 1942 of the year on the occasion of the 25 anniversary of the revolution:
People often ask: will there be a second front in Europe? Yes, it will, sooner or later, but it will. And it will be not only because we need it, but, above all, because he is no less needed by our alliesthan us Our allies cannot fail to understand that after France failed, the absence of a second front against fascist Germany can end badly for all freedom-loving countries, including the allies themselves.
One hundred to one that our modern "allies" ignore the materials for the authorship of Comrade Stalin. Well, in vain ... It is in vain ... It would not hurt to familiarize oneself in order not to step on the previous rake in attempts to incite the terrorist fodder on other states, naively believing that the fishery will not jump off the leash.
- Alexei Volodin
- http://www.globallookpress.com
Information