Military Review

Cold War Cold War

49
Cold War Cold War



Already during the Second World War, and especially after its completion, there were many official statements by American political and military leaders that the United States had made a strategic mistake in associating itself with the USSR by an alliance of the anti-Hitler coalition. Republican leader R. Taft, known in the past, wrote in his book Foreign Policy for Americans that he warned our country on the third day of the German attack: “A Communist victory in a war will be much more dangerous for the United States from an ideological point of view than a fascist victory ".

The consequence of this kind of thinking was the “cold war”, which, as all sober-minded people know, except for some democratic historians and teachers of prestigious universities, was unleashed by the United States. Actually, the “cold war” in many statements was associated with the victory over fascism. So, in 1952, McCarthy said that we can safely say that the next, third, world war began with the victory of the Soviet troops at Stalingrad. As we see, the “cold war” began its life at the very moment when the fascist received such a blow, after which the victory of our country over Germany became obvious.

Arguments about the "unnaturalness" of the Soviet-American alliance in the war against fascism found in the political science of the West the widest circulation. They had a clear goal. It was necessary to prepare the Americans and their allies for a possible new war, now against a recent ally - the USSR. Speaking of 5 in March 1946, in Fulton, Churchill, sputtering out saliva, appealed to the Americans, stating that the United States is now at the very top of world power, therefore, residents of the United States should not only enjoy the benefits, but also fear lose positions achieved. Therefore, Churchill called on America not to behave in such a way “so that events would develop by gravity.”

Britain, meanwhile, was holding more than 70000 unformed German forces in its German occupation zone, hoping for an "opportunity". William Churchill's speech was expressed by the official foreign policy of the United States, which had already become by that time. According to the testimony of W. Taubman, G. Truman, at the end of April 1945, had a conversation with V.M. Molotov in a clearly defiant manner, demonstrating a “new American approach” that changed the course stories. However, at that point in time, according to Taubman, the US president still lacked confidence. She came with the atomic gain weapons and resulted in the “Truman Doctrine”, which can be considered the first political directive formally marking the beginning of the Cold War.

At the beginning of March, 1947, at the passing joint session of the Congress, G. Truman, justifying the claims of the United States to world domination, stated that “free nations” expect their country to protect “their freedoms”, called for “decisiveness” in the “leading role” .

K. London, in his book How Foreign Policy Is Done, pointed out that the United States can and must use nuclear war as a means of national policy until the Soviet Union created an atomic bomb, he demanded to spin the flywheel of the cold war to prepare Americans for war "hot".

In the “American people and foreign policy,” published by G. Almond in large circulation, the author called for the authorities to stop fearing the consequences of the war, but, on the contrary, to start it as soon as possible in the name of protecting “democratic values”. Let mankind "not reward with love or respect for such a policy ... - says Almond, - but the American people will surely approve of it and the preventive war against Soviet Russia."

Many American politicians have seen the task of the United States in creating the largest possible number of strategic points around the world and preparing the troops to hold these territories. They planned to use Germany as a so-called springboard for further movement to the Balkans and Ukraine. All these statements become doubly remarkable if we recall that they were formulated against the background of the active development of real plans for atomic aggression on the USSR.

In the fall of 1945, the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CSTS) approved the “Basics of the formulation of American military policy” (1496 / 2) and the “Strategic concept and plan for the use of the US military” (1518). The 1496 / 2 Directive provided for the possibility of preemptive attacks. It noted that the US command could not afford any false ideas about the impossibility of their own aggressive actions, if the first blow could be dealt to the United States. In such circumstances, the US government is obliged to take the appropriate political decision in the shortest possible time, and the military at this time will have to carry out the necessary preparations for delivering a forward first strike. Those. it was proposed to transfer everything to the dependence on the degree of paranoia of the US political leadership.

In early October 1945, the OKNS demanded to accelerate nuclear research and the manufacture of atomic bombs, and the secret development of November 31, 1945 already indicated the targets for atomic bombings: Moscow, Leningrad, Gorky, Kuibyshev, Sverdlovsk, Novosibirsk, Omsk, Saratov, Kazan, Baku, Tashkent, Chelyabinsk, Nizhny Tagil, Magnitogorsk, Perm, Tbilisi, Novokuznetsk, Grozny, Irkutsk, Yaroslavl. By the fall of 1947, one hundred Soviet city centers were already serving as targets for the atomic strike. The following year, the first strategic operational plan was prepared. aviation, who stated that the main feature of nuclear weapons is the ability to successfully and highly efficiently destroy mass crowds, and this feature should be used. In those years, the Americans developed both general and specific plans for nuclear bombing and military operations, which received the names "Broiler", "Frolik", "Harrow" and others.



The Strategic Planning Directives (01.05.1947) OKNSH document stated that if the necessary military bases and communications were established, the United States could shortly after the outbreak of hostilities carry out offensive, strategic, air operations, attacking Soviet cities and strategically important industrial centers. The need was emphasized for the separation of ground forces, the Air Force and the Navy to ensure the capture of important areas in order to ensure the effectiveness of strategic bombardments, and then to launch a large ground attack. Pacifism and peacefulness here does not smell, as well as doubts about the need to trample our land with the American army boot.

The enterprises of our oil industry were planned to be subjected to “effective bombardment” from American Mediterranean bases, as well as airfields located in the Cairo-Suez region. The “Directives” indicated that areas around the Soviet capital, the bombing of which, in the opinion of American generals, “would have the maximum moral effect”, were located within the range of B-29 heavy bombers deployed in England or in Egypt. Vital centers for the USSR in the Urals and Kuzbass could be reached from air bases in India. Therefore, it was stated in the "Directive" that in order to achieve the greatest effectiveness of strategic air war, it is necessary to create bases in the countries of the Middle East, the British Isles, and also in India.

Full control over the Soviet Union was planned to be ensured by occupying a limited territory, while it was noted that, in view of the considerable size and number of Soviet people who had to be kept under control, it was necessary to have rather large armed forces of allied satellites.

And in 1946, Assistant to the President C. Clifford prepared the report “American policy towards the Soviet Union”, where the course for war was substantiated. Clifford pointed out that the vulnerability of the USSR is extremely low due to the huge area of ​​Soviet territory, which contains the main defense and industrial enterprises, as well as mineral deposits. However, Soviet Russia can be harmed using nuclear weapons, biological warfare, and air raids. Therefore, the United States should prepare for an atomic and biological war and maintain its armed forces at the level required to effectively curb the USSR. Like this. No more, no less: atomic bombing and infection of the population with the most terrible diseases. This is the true face of the United States, to which, starting from the eighties, in our media and from the stands, we began to pull on sheep's clothing.

During this period, a special structure was formed to coordinate the preparation and direct conduct of the war against the USSR. At the end of 1947, the Ministry of Defense was created, and Forrestal, known for his ultra-right views, became the leader. In addition, the National Security Council (SNB) was established, which was directly presided over by the President. The council coordinated American military efforts and developed a military strategy, which then took the form of OKNSH plans.

The most representative documents of that time were the SNB-7, 20 / 1, 20 / 2, 58 directives. What did the US plans have to happen with the USSR? On this account, the memorandum SNB-20 / 1 to the limit of frank. It pointed out that among the Russian émigrés there is a sufficient number of “interesting and strong groups”, and any of these would be preferable for the United States to the Soviet government to manage Russia. It was further stated that in every part of the occupied territory, the Americans and their allies would have to deal with party workers. In addition, the Communist Party is likely to move to an illegal situation, as it was in the last war in the territories occupied by the Germans, and will organize "guerrilla gangs and rebel groups." To combat them, the US military planned to use "non-communist (whatever kind of) Russian bodies" (read policemen) who need to transfer the required weapons, provide them with military support and allow them to deal with the Communists and other patriots in accordance with "traditional in the way of the Russian civil war ”(probably, here the Americans meant cruelty and frank sadism of the Kolchak units).

After the organization of the North Atlantic bloc in 1949, the further development and equipment of the armed forces of the main capitalist countries took place not only within the national framework, but also within the framework of the blocs.

Even a special theory was born - the theory of "interdependence", the essence of which boiled down to the fact that the United States focuses on atomic weapons and means of delivering them to the target (strategic, tactical and aircraft carrier aircraft, missiles for various purposes, as well as other new military equipment). The rest of the blocs were supposed to develop mainly ground forces. So, if in the United States the number of ground forces did not exceed an average of 37-40% of the total strength of the armed forces, then in France, Italy, West Germany and Turkey, the ground forces accounted for 75 to 85% of the total strength of the armed forces. This is who was assigned the role of cannon fodder, throwing itself under the tracks of the remaining after the atomic strikes of the Soviet tank armada, and who would have to crawl through the zones of radioactive contamination.



Despite the fact that in the leading capitalist countries, after the end of World War II, a process of gradual demobilization took place, none of them actually intended to demobilize their armed forces and bring their numbers to the pre-war level. On the contrary, after 1948, until the early 1950s, the size of the armed forces (SC) began to grow steadily. Even more clearly evidence of this is the budget allocations for military needs.





The United States of America, Great Britain and France possessed an unprecedented number of armed forces for peacetime. This was motivated, in particular, by the fact that a sudden strike with nuclear weapons on the most important economic and political centers of the state could thwart the mobilization deployment at the very beginning of the war, and supposedly therefore the armed forces required for conducting combat operations at the beginning of the war should be fully mobilized and prepared as early as the peace period. In fact, it was a matter of striving to maintain in peacetime armed forces capable of attacking the USSR at any time.

We should not forget that the United States, as well as Britain and France immediately after the end of the war, began to consistently implement measures aimed at preserving the cadres of the former armed forces of Hitler's Germany, reviving German militarism and creating a massive revanchist army. German militarism from that time began to be regarded as the main accomplice in the implementation of plans for war.

Initial activities included:

- the creation of a special organizational center of the former generals and officers of the Hitlerite general staff, led by generals Halder and Guderian, who had the sign "Committee for the Study of the History of War", there also entered Heusinger and Speidel (in fact, they were not engaged in writing materials, but collecting and the study of data on the scattered personnel of the fascist German army and the development of plans for its restoration);
- encouraging the activities of all sorts of military and paramilitary alliances, fraternities, associations, including officers, generals, and soldiers (it was assumed that these organizations would become the core of the subsequent military formations);
- organizations of the so-called "labor formations", created on a military model and headed by a mixed US-German command;
- the creation of an extensive police service.

After the formation of the Federal Republic of Germany in 1949, the revival of German militarism was put on a state basis. In May, 1955, almost on the tenth anniversary of the Victory, the Federal Republic of Germany was officially admitted to NATO. Since that time, the revival of its armed forces began to be conducted at an accelerated pace. In accordance with the Paris Agreements of West Germany, at the first stage, the formation of a cadre army of 500 thousand men was allowed, followed by its use as a basis for broad mobilization deployment.



In the USA and the UK, starting around 1954, the year after year there was a slight decrease in the total number of aircraft. In the USA, for example, in 1958, compared with 1954, this reduction was almost 800 thousand people, or 21%., And in the UK - 300 thousand, or 24,5%. At the same time, in the United States and in Great Britain, mainly ground forces decreased, while in the ground forces, mainly serving and auxiliary units. Despite the reduction, the firepower of the armed forces not only did not decrease, but increased significantly due to the introduction of nuclear weapons and their carriers.

Since the future war was viewed as a nuclear war, the main attention was paid to the type of armed forces that possessed the main carriers of nuclear weapons and could use them most effectively in the interests of successful warfare against our country and other socialist countries. According to US military leaders, the Air Force was the decisive tool at the time, as well as guided missiles of various radii of action. However, priority remained with strategic aviation, which was considered the dominant type of aircraft and the main deterrent. All this is reflected in the so-called “new course” of the American strategy, the development of which began in 1953, after the choice of Eisenhower. A three-year plan for the construction of the armed forces was drawn up for the period from July 1954 to July 1957. It provided for a significant increase in air power. Budget allocations vividly reflected this line. If in the 1950 / 51 of the fiscal year 24,4% of the military budget was spent on the Air Force, in the 1953 / 54-m already 32,3%.



1955 to 1959 funds were distributed as follows: about 46% - to the air force, about 28%. - Navy and marines and approximately 23%. - land forces. As for the most important part of the allocations intended for the purchase of new weapons, the Air Force for this period systematically received approximately 60% of disbursed funds, naval forces - of the order of 30% and the army - about 10%. In the official instruction of the Air Force, which was widely distributed among the personnel of the American armed forces, the role of the Air Force was defined as follows: “The air force is the main fighting means ensuring the seizure of initiative and obtaining decisive results in all forms of international relations, including complete peace, cold war, war of limited scope and total war. ”

The American plans to unleash an atomic war against our country were “embarrassed” by a TASS report from 25 of September 1949 about the testing of a Soviet atomic device. The most devastating blow to these plans was delivered in the second half of 1957, by the successful testing of an intercontinental ballistic missile in the USSR. These scientific achievements of the USSR, which were a surprise to American strategists, overthrew all calculations for unpunished aggression.

In the American strategy, the main stake was made on delivering a sudden strike by strategic aviation, which was based on the US's presumed advantage over our country in atomic weapons, the means of delivering it to the target and its geographic location. With the advent of such weapons, the USSR was temporarily postponed a preemptive strike on them due to fear of retribution and, in general, uncertainty about the outcome of the war. However, this did not at all mean that the thought was left about achieving world domination through the nuclear destruction of the USSR. In the middle of August, the 1950 of the year was determined by the school as the main task “the destruction of facilities that provide the Soviet Union with the opportunity to use nuclear bombs. In second place was the task of slowing the onset of the Soviet Army, the third bombing of enterprises producing liquid fuel, conventional and nuclear power plants. These three categories were given the code names Bravo, Romeo and Delta.

A comparison of the texts of the official documents of the first post-war decade with all subsequent statements, up to the present day, illustrates the sequence of the course on doing business with our country from a position of strength. Presidents, parties in power, ministers were replaced, but directives remained the same.

Maybe the Soviet Union gave any reason for such a hostile, aggressive policy? No, did not give. At that time (after the defeat of Germany and Japan), the Armed Forces of the USSR were transferred to a peaceful situation, their numbers were sharply reduced. 23 June 1945, the twelfth session of the USSR Supreme Soviet of the first convocation adopted the Law on the Demobilization of Older Personnel. Workers and collective farmers, engineers, doctors, teachers and other specialists returned to the national economy to peace work. It was necessary to raise the country, revive the land, rebuild cities and factories, revive production, re-establish life. Yesterday's warriors, trashed with weapons in the hands of the fascists, without pauses, without respite were involved in difficult, constructive work.

Against the background of the warlike directives and plans of the leaders of the United States of America to start the next world war, plans for the destruction of the USSR, the documents on combat training, for example, the group of Soviet occupying forces in Germany (GSOVG) in 1946-1948, are completely different. which can be found on the Internet.

Order of the Chief of the GSSOV No. 015 from 19 in January 1946 of the Marshal of the Soviet Union G. K. Zhukov on the training of senior commanders and staffs (groups, armies, corps), command plan for 1948 per year, and the operational plan of the Group from 5 in November 1946 The tasks assigned to associations, formations and units are of a purely defensive nature. The order of the commander-in-chief requires that the combat training of the troops be carried out taking into account the experience of the past war, and that defensive and retreat operations and battles are primarily studied, the main emphasis was placed on the military exercises of formations and units of various military branches, with working out the issues of interaction and control in general combat The troops are guided by the study of each type of operation and combat in difficult conditions, while they must learn to act skillfully in breaking through and covering the flanks of our defense with the enemy, and to fight in the environment in the conditions of defense and withdrawal.



The planned front-line and army headquarters military games, command-field field trips, scientific conferences, special exercises, corps command-field field trips are primarily aimed at studying defense issues and are defensive in nature. Commander training in the GDWG was subordinated to the same goals. Commander training is an integral part of operational and combat training. It consists of operational-tactical military-technical, special, fire, reconnaissance, physical and methodical training. Most of the time is devoted to operational-tactical and special training. The absolute majority of classes were devoted to defensive actions.

Our country, unlike the post-war United States, did not have invasive targets, did not think about aggression, did not hold a stone in the bosom and built combat training and study based on the principles of the defensive doctrine.

Sources:
Yakovlev A. From Truman to Reagan: the doctrines and realities of the nuclear age. M .: Young Guard. 1984. C.3-32.
Orlov A. The Secret Battle of the Superpowers. M .: Veche, 2000. C. 24-67.
Omelichev A. From the standpoint of force and threats // VISH. 1988. No.9. C.14-28.
Yemelyanov Yu. Thus began the cold war // Centenary. 14 March 2016.
Yakovlev N. The CIA against the USSR. M .: True, 1983. C. 18-34.
Author:
Articles from this series:
Berlin crisis. On the verge of nuclear war
49 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. PKK
    PKK April 27 2016 06: 42
    +8
    The Americans were afraid to start the War against the USSR. The Soviet Army at that time was fantastically strong. Under Zhukov’s command, the Army could capture all of Europe in a week. I believe that the US bases in Africa would also be destroyed. It could completely clear India from Americans. America would be isolated on its own continent and could only continue bombing the entire territory of the USSR that was captured. Further, it is difficult to imagine events. It all depended on whether the SA was able to reach the United States or not.
    1. cap
      cap April 27 2016 08: 13
      +4
      Quote: PKK
      The Americans were afraid to start the War against the USSR. The Soviet Army at that time was fantastically strong. Under Zhukov’s command, the Army could capture all of Europe in a week. I believe that the US bases in Africa would also be destroyed. It could completely clear India from Americans. America would be isolated on its own continent and could only continue bombing the entire territory of the USSR that was captured. Further, it is difficult to imagine events. It all depended on whether the SA was able to reach the United States or not.


      This is not an article but an entire essay, I read something before.
      Definitely +.
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. The comment was deleted.
    4. V.ic
      V.ic April 27 2016 11: 28
      0
      Quote: PKK
      It could well clear India of the Americans.

      In your opinion: what side could American troops be in India?
    5. faiver
      faiver April 27 2016 16: 36
      +1
      Well, as it were in India, the British were
  2. qwert
    qwert April 27 2016 07: 20
    +8
    Quote: PKK
    America would be isolated on its own continent and could only continue bombing the entire territory of the occupied USSR. Further, it is difficult to imagine events. It all depended on whether the SA was able to reach the United States or not.
    Interesting alternative reality hi
    But I must say that the United States was not particularly affected in the war and was strong enough, England would have definitely supported them, plus it was not for nothing that the British kept the Germans unarmed. There would have been that carnage. On the other hand, our people are already tired of the war, plus the Russian mentality ... We treat allies as allies. But all sorts of Anglo-Saxons there are still allies, and are waiting for their backs turned to them. This is well described in the article, for which the author has a plus.
  3. parusnik
    parusnik April 27 2016 07: 30
    +4
    Already during the Second World War, and especially after its completion, there were many official statements by American political and military leaders that the United States made a strategic mistake by linking itself to the USSR as an alliance of the anti-Hitler coalition...Therefore, they confirm that the Nazi sword was forged by the Western powers .. But not in the USSR, in which they are trying to assure us lately ..
    1. Amurets
      Amurets April 27 2016 10: 10
      +1
      Quote: parusnik
      Thus, they confirm that the Nazi sword was forged by the Western powers .. But not in the USSR, which they are trying to assure us of lately ..

      I can’t find the magazine Inventor-Rationalizer for 1968 year. There was a binder. And in this magazine were shown the connections of foreign corporations, patent, financial.
      1. qwert
        qwert April 27 2016 14: 51
        +1
        Quote: Amurets
        I can’t find the magazine Inventor-Rationalizer for 1968 year. There was a binder. And in this magazine were shown the connections of foreign corporations, patent, financial.

        There is this information on the Internet. Type American companies in the service of Nazism. From Hugo Boss and Coca-Cola to oil and rubber magnates.
  4. Basil50
    Basil50 April 27 2016 10: 16
    +4
    It is surprising that all this is not a secret for anyone, and in RUSSIA there are those who require submission to the USA simply because the USA exists. And it’s sane to explain their requirements * positioners * can not except for outright lies or screams. I'm talking about talk shows featuring * Democrats *.
  5. uskrabut
    uskrabut April 27 2016 10: 28
    +9
    This article and the official documents mentioned in it should be poked in the snout of the professor from MGIMO who was broadcasting live nonsense about the creation of NATO in response to the Warsaw Pact. What would this scoundrel and bastard not find a place in our country!
    1. V.ic
      V.ic April 27 2016 11: 32
      +4
      Quote: uskrabut
      I would have to poke that professor from MGIMO

      From the point of view of "that" "professor" - this is a lie for the good / for the good of his sponsors /, since the younger generation of history did not know and will not know. I made a throw-in = maybe it will take root.
  6. iouris
    iouris April 27 2016 11: 30
    +2
    Such publications are very useful, since modern material is classified, but the general direction of the policy towards our country, no matter how it is called, no matter who is in power, does not change.
  7. MegaDRON
    MegaDRON April 27 2016 11: 47
    +2
    It seems that only in our country people remember thanks to whom the 2nd MV ended and the cold began ... It is necessary for our children to put this into their heads, otherwise they will be retrained in a Western way ...

    I wonder if our leaders of that time would know what would become of our country, would the meeting on the Elbe be the same? At that moment, they would have been thrown back from the Norman coast for a maximum of a couple of months.
  8. DimerVladimer
    DimerVladimer April 27 2016 12: 02
    +1
    ... Our country, in contrast to the post-war USA, did not have aggressive goals, did not think about aggression, did not hold a stone in the bosom and did military training and study based on the principles of a defensive doctrine ...

    Did you come up with this, or did you subtract from the manuals of the USSR political worker?

    In fact, following the results of the WWII, the USSR occupied half of Europe, where it established pro-communist puppet governments. And actions against the communist regimes were suppressed by the occupation forces, later by the Warsaw Pact countries, for which we are still not loved either in the Czech Republic or in Hungary.
    Not a very "peaceful" step.

    I agree that the first plans for the war against the USSR began to create the British and the Americans-this is a fact.
    But the fact that the doctrine of the USSR in Europe was defensive ?! What nonsense! And the exit of tank armies to Lamansh in 2 weeks? Your statement does not fit with the real forces of a limited contingent in Germany.
    1. 0255
      0255 April 27 2016 12: 33
      +6
      Quote: DimerVladimer
      In fact, following the results of the WWII, the USSR occupied half of Europe, where it established pro-communist puppet governments.

      Yes, and this was agreed upon at the Yalta Conference. The United States, with England and the USSR, included in their sphere of influence those countries that liberated.
      Quote: DimerVladimer
      And actions against the communist regimes were suppressed by the occupation forces, later by the Warsaw Pact countries, for which we are still not loved either in the Czech Republic or in Hungary.

      This can be blamed, but the Warsaw Pact was necessary to defend against NATO. The Czechs regularly worked for Hitler, raising an uprising only closer to May 9, 1945, the Hungarians fought on the side of Hitler. Before blaming the USSR for 1956 and 1968, let them remember how they deserve membership in the ATS.
      Quote: DimerVladimer
      But the fact that the doctrine of the USSR in Europe was defensive ?! What nonsense! And the exit of tank armies to Lamansh in 2 weeks? Your statement does not fit with the real forces of a limited contingent in Germany.

      And what, in the counterattack in the case of the third world did not have to go? Or was it necessary to let NATO reach Moscow, as in the Second World War?
      1. DimerVladimer
        DimerVladimer April 27 2016 12: 55
        +1
        Quote: 0255
        And what, in the counterattack in the case of the third world did not have to go? Or was it necessary to let NATO reach Moscow, as in the Second World War?


        So I about it - there was no combat training under a purely defensive doctrine - this is the demagogy of the author of the article.
        And in 1947-1951, NATO did not have a chance to repulse the strike from East Germany, the one who won less time in deploying the main forces won.
        1. alicante11
          alicante11 April 27 2016 14: 13
          +2
          So I about it - there was no combat training under a purely defensive doctrine - this is the demagogy of the author of the article.


          This is your illiteracy. Strategic defense involves not only defensive operations and retreat, but also counterattacks. Moreover, defensive measures do not win wars.
          A striking indicator of strategic defense is at least a decision to not deliver the first strike. What was the difference between the plans and the Red Army in 1941 and SA in 1945 and later.
          1. DimerVladimer
            DimerVladimer April 28 2016 10: 11
            +1
            Do not refer to illiteracy if you do not know the interlocutor’s education.
            I did not graduate from military academies, but your "knowledge" in strategic defense is an anachronism. The military is preparing for the wars that have already passed.
            Modern wars are not waged according to template scenarios.
            - a preemptive strike, this is an offensive doctrine, not a defensive one
    2. faiver
      faiver April 27 2016 16: 56
      +2
      What means occupied a floor of Europe? in general, the USSR liberated the floor of Europe, and the formation of whom the USSR should have contributed to power? right - those who supported the policies and views of the USSR. How should the authorities of Czechoslovakia and Hungary have to react to actions against the authorities? how Yanukovych chtol? to run? what nonsense to say that? in Hungary do not love us? So can we open the second season of the Nuremberg process? we will extend Hungary with Romania — the largest military contingents of foreign troops who fought for Germany against the USSR — will answer for the hundreds of thousands of lives of the Red Army soldiers and civilians, we will extend the Czech Republic for the fact that every third German tank was produced at their factories, the French for the supply of trucks, airplanes, well, the engines fleet flooded and did not give the Germans, but the British were already very experienced ...
      Hungarians and Germans, together with Voronezh, were smashed into pieces - this city was subjected to the greatest level of destruction for the entire 2MB, neither Hiroshima, nor Nagasaki, nor Stalingrad, nor Dresden, but Voronezh and Hungarians put all their efforts into this
    3. BarakHuseynovich
      BarakHuseynovich April 28 2016 05: 15
      0
      In 1956, in Hungary there was a mutiny of the remnants almost coinciding with the Suez crisis and the massacre in Indonesia, in Czechoslovakia there was not such a big mess, the special services of the NATO countries were muddied to get it out of the ATS by cutting this block in half.

      Nobody "occupied" Finland, Soviet units left Austria and the north of Norway.
      And it was necessary in Europe to put someone else's governments, so that after all the damage they inflicted on us in the Second World War, it was like now and she again for the third time in the last 100 years sharpened her teeth in our direction?
      Between the "first" and "second", the United States raised Hitler in exactly the same way, and then, together with all sorts of Deladier, began to move him to our borders.

      It was better to do this in 2 weeks and not in a month.
      1. BarakHuseynovich
        BarakHuseynovich April 28 2016 05: 36
        +1
        In civilized Greece, which itself freed itself from the rear German units, civilized British then killed after occupying (occupying) the Greeks in 3 weeks more than the Germans in 3 years.
        1. The comment was deleted.
        2. BarakHuseynovich
          BarakHuseynovich April 28 2016 05: 45
          0
          Of the "uncivilized" Russians during the "occupation", no one shot hostages in the squares as the "civilized" Wehrmacht did in the occupied part of the USSR, not to mention the SS ...

          Soviet troops did not patrol the streets with dogs and did not interfere in the internal affairs and self-government of these states, but sat in military units behind fences or were at training grounds.

          The soldiers were responsible for their offenses if they committed them on the way there, and not just sent to the United States as the Americans are now, who shot and killed a dozen civilians ...
          1. DimerVladimer
            DimerVladimer April 28 2016 10: 04
            +1
            Quote: BarakHuseynovich
            Soviet troops did not patrol the streets with dogs and did not interfere in the internal affairs and self-government of these states, but sat in military units behind fences or were at training grounds.
            Yes seriously? Interesting opinion. You judge a later period.

            What was real? The "Soviet bayonets" strengthened the communist government, which kept its citizens in the traditions of Soviet communism - tough.
            For example, in Germany:
            In the period from August 13, 1961 to November 9, 1989, 5075 successful escapes were made to West Berlin or Germany, including 574 cases of desertion.

            During the Cold War, there was a practice in the GDR of releasing citizens to the West for money [6]. Such operations were handled by Wolfgang Vogel, a lawyer from the GDR. From 1964 to 1989, he arranged a border crossing for a total of 215 thousand East Germans and 34 thousand political prisoners from East German prisons. In West Germany, their release cost 3,5 billion marks ($ 2,7 billion) - practically a ransom of the hostages for money? Cool communist business?

            On August 12, 2007, the BBC reported that a written order dated October 1, 1973 was found in the archives of the Ministry of State Security of the GDR (the Stasi), ordering all fugitives, including children, to be shot to kill. The BBC, without revealing the sources, claimed 1245 dead ...
            as of 2006, documented was able to confirm the death as a result of an attempt to overcome the wall for only 125 people.
            And this is only for Germany.

            So there is no need for a fairy tale that the occupying forces had nothing to do with it - if there hadn’t been them - East Germany would not have become so backward in its development and citizens from Germany would not have fled from it.
            And it was the GDR that merged with the FRG, and not vice versa.
            1. Simpsonian
              Simpsonian 10 October 2016 01: 24
              0
              On the towers of the Berlin Wall stood East Germans.
              run away from the patrol on the mexican border you will also be shot
            2. Simpsonian
              Simpsonian 10 October 2016 01: 37
              0
              It is almost always impossible to distinguish a child from an adult, or an adult dressed up as a child from a child (for whom it is generally difficult to overcome an obstacle course) at such short distances.
              Those who left for the permanent residence from the late USSR paid a lot of money, because they, for example, had received free higher education in it when the state paid for them.
      2. DimerVladimer
        DimerVladimer April 28 2016 10: 13
        +1
        Quote: BarakHuseynovich
        In 1956 in Hungary there was a rebellion of disadvantages


        what about Hungary? You nee Hungarian national - no?
        So what do you climb with your stamps from the Cold War?
        Slide to Hungary and chat with locals - you will learn a lot of cognitive.
        1. Simpsonian
          Simpsonian 6 October 2016 05: 48
          0
          Slide to Voronezh will tell you about these non-native people there ...
  9. DimerVladimer
    DimerVladimer April 27 2016 12: 27
    +1
    To assign the USA to the conquering countries - well, these are directly the words of the political worker of the USSR.

    How many territories were annexed by the USA as a result of WWII? One Japanese island.

    How many annexed the USSR? 4 Japanese islands, East Prussia + pre-war captures Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, part of Finland.
    1. 0255
      0255 April 27 2016 14: 50
      +5
      Quote: DimerVladimer
      How many annexed the USSR? 4 Japanese islands, East Prussia + pre-war captures Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, part of Finland.

      But nothing that the Kuril Islands were taken from Russia by the Japanese in 1905?
      May some Akhedzhakova apologize to the Germans and Japanese wassat
    2. V.ic
      V.ic April 27 2016 14: 52
      +3
      Quote: DimerVladimer
      To assign the USA to the conquering countries - well, these are directly the words of the political worker of the USSR.

      The USA in 1845 illegally annexed Texas (Mexican territory by the way). There were no political leaders in those days, but Texas staffers were depressed.
      Quote: DimerVladimer
      How many territories were annexed by the USA as a result of WWII? One Japanese island.

      You have forgotten something about the "chancellor-act". Any Bundeskanzler for another 50 years will breathe Yusovsky preziks in the ass. No one in a truly independent state will stockpile / deploy / deploy nuclear weapons.
      Quote: DimerVladimer
      How many annexed the USSR? 4 Japanese islands, East Prussia + pre-war captures Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, part of Finland.

      What is so little remembered geography strained? And what big Kuril ridge and half of Sakhalin will you put in yourself?
      Prussia as early as 1758 was sworn in to Empress All-Russian Elizabeth Petrovna, and the limotrophs you mentioned were from the same time subjects of the Russian Empire. Finland did not want for Vyborg, by the way, given to the Grand Duchy of Finland by Alexander the 1st, to receive three times as large territories in Karelia, and it got what it deserved.
      1. DimerVladimer
        DimerVladimer April 28 2016 09: 46
        +1
        Quote: V.ic
        What is so little remembered geography strained? And the big Kuril ridge and half of Sakhalin

        Some individuals compensate for the lack of brains by excessive rudeness, which replaces arguments in the dispute.
        1. V.ic
          V.ic April 29 2016 18: 27
          +2
          Quote: DimerVladimer
          arguments in dispute

          In addition to barking from under the fence, do you have any arguments? Bring them in ... "We'll see."
    3. qwert
      qwert April 27 2016 14: 55
      +3
      Quote: DimerVladimer
      to list the USA as an aggressor country - well, these are directly the words of a political worker of the USSR.

      How many territories were annexed by the USA as a result of WWII? One Japanese island.

      Annealed laughing Amused. Thank. Well, the USA didn’t mark anywhere, they didn’t tilt anyone, they didn’t squeeze anything. A Marshall’s plan is a type of beneficence. Even today you do not seem to feel the influence of the United States on world politics, but you see in them only fighters for democracy. True democracy. You live there and watch a lot of TV.
      1. DimerVladimer
        DimerVladimer April 28 2016 09: 42
        +1
        Yes, I am far from naive ideas about the "empire of good" overseas.
        But the fact remains - one can recall the annexation of Texas ... the Indians expelled from the land, but following the results of WWII, the United States annexed the only island from Japan. So to call them "INVADERS" is nonsense of the oak political workers of the times of the USSR.
        But it was absurd to deny that it was absurd to deny influencing the political elite not by military methods - the USSR kept the political bureau of the Warsaw Pact countries under control - there are enough published documents and if you are not familiar with them, take the trouble to search.
        1. Simpsonian
          Simpsonian 10 October 2016 01: 12
          0
          American troops are still all over Japan, and this is nothing more than a military method of control.
          Civilian Japanese (except for several thousand military controlled by pro-American political workers) do not even have hunting firearms.
    4. alicante11
      alicante11 April 27 2016 15: 16
      +2
      How many territories were annexed by the USA as a result of WWII? One Japanese island.


      This is legal. But in fact, both Japan and Europe are still amers.
      1. DimerVladimer
        DimerVladimer April 28 2016 09: 23
        +1
        Quote: alicante11
        This is legal. But in fact, both Japan and Europe are still amers.


        This is unfounded.
        What does the US influence democratic elections in Japan or Europe? Can you bring the facts ?.
        And the fact that they influence democratically elected politicians by wiretapping or collecting compromising evidence is a generally accepted policy in a bank of spiders (politicians).
        Great Pu also collects dirt on political rivals and merges it into the Internet when necessary.
  10. Mikhail Matyugin
    Mikhail Matyugin April 27 2016 13: 46
    -3
    In general, an interesting review, but it messed up the last paragraph. wink

    Our country, unlike the post-war United States, did not have invasive targets, did not think about aggression, did not hold a stone in the bosom and built combat training and study based on the principles of the defensive doctrine.
    Already above, the comrades noted that the goal was - access to the English Channel. And of course "we do not hold a stone in our bosom", but "our armored train is on the side track."

    Well, for a defensive doctrine, defensive lines are built, and a park of several tens of thousands of tanks is not being prepared.
    1. qwert
      qwert April 27 2016 15: 01
      +3
      Quote: Mikhail Matyugin
      Already above, the comrades noted that the goal was - access to the English Channel. And of course "we do not hold a stone in our bosom", but "our armored train is on the side track."

      The goal of going to the Lamansh, as you remember, was after nuclear attacks on the USSR. Well, you have to understand the same, if you do not frequent tanks with the B-29's airfield, no defensive lines will save. This time. And the second one. Where did we end the war? In Berlin. And they could be on the border with Poland. But that would not be true. The enemy must be clamped in his den. Only then will victory be complete, and peace be long. And you propose limiting the retaliatory strike to our borders. And by the way, the author cites Zhukov’s order indicating the number. He probably is on the Internet. And GOSVG is our westernmost fist. He is an indicator. What they were prepared for, such is the doctrine. We must dive into the Internet to look.
      1. DimerVladimer
        DimerVladimer April 28 2016 09: 25
        +1
        B-29x airfields are not difficult to relocate to England - an unsinkable aircraft carrier. These are all idle speculations.
        1. Simpsonian
          Simpsonian 10 October 2016 01: 06
          0
          In addition to the very possible landing on the Island, which even Goering planned in 1940, these airfields with strategic aircraft in open parking areas would be vulnerable on their own to the actions of Soviet tactical aircraft, which had no shortage of gasoline and kerosene as the Germans had.
    2. alicante11
      alicante11 April 27 2016 15: 18
      +4
      Already above, the comrades noted that the goal was - access to the English Channel.


      Of course, finish off the enemy in his den. Although, of course, the den is further, in Fashington, but, as they say, for lack of stamp ...

      Well, for a defensive doctrine, defensive lines are built, and a park of several tens of thousands of tanks is not being prepared.


      Wars are not won by defense. Not a single "line" fulfilled its task.
    3. faiver
      faiver April 27 2016 17: 01
      +3
      and this armored train should stand on the siding, and the goal was correct - in the case of the outbreak of hostilities, it was necessary to eliminate the possibility of American bombers taking off from the territory of Europe ...
      1. DimerVladimer
        DimerVladimer April 28 2016 09: 27
        +3
        Well, how do you prevent the tank armies from taking off the B-29 from England?
        1. faiver
          faiver April 28 2016 12: 03
          0
          from the territory of England in any way, but the farther from the USSR the better, the flight of the B-29 from the territory of England to Moscow, taking into account the flight back, is the limit of its capabilities, you also need to manage to fly with active opposition
          1. Simpsonian
            Simpsonian 11 October 2016 00: 01
            0
            During the war years, almost all of the industry of the USSR was evacuated to the Urals where no B-29s reached.
        2. Simpsonian
          Simpsonian 6 October 2016 05: 45
          +1
          Do you think the USSR could not force the English Channel? This does not require an ocean-class ship, and the P-51 would not be able to withstand the Yak-3 at low altitudes.
  11. Robert Nevsky
    Robert Nevsky April 27 2016 15: 27
    +4
    STALIN I.V. did not allow us to lag behind the Americans!
  12. Technologist
    Technologist April 27 2016 17: 37
    +2
    It seems to me that all these bombing plans, for the most part, are utopian. Most bombers, most of the way, would have to fly without cover, and this at a time when the army was on the rise.
    1. DimerVladimer
      DimerVladimer April 28 2016 09: 35
      +4
      Not certainly in that way. With a mass strike of 500-1000 B-29 bombers at that time, at least 70% would have been able to break through. If Germany, possessing the best air defense at the end of the war, could not oppose anything to night raids, the cream of several ineffective several night fighter squadrons.
      Allied air raids in the conditions of setting passive jamming on radar, it was also not easy to predict and deploy the appropriate forces in time. For example, 1200 aircraft went to one city, respectively, the Germans sent fighter forces to nearby airfields, and the Allies unexpectedly turned and worked out another city - which covered itself with significantly less forces - study the tactics of bombing aircraft and German air defense.
      If the Germans were able to predict the Allied plan, the bombers suffered heavy losses from day fighters
      1. Simpsonian
        Simpsonian 10 October 2016 00: 58
        0
        During night raids against Moscow, several hundred bombers with fighter cover broke through units.
        And Stalin would respond to several WMDs with other WMDs, with no less then effect.

        "Never mind" that in August 1944 the Anglo-Americans were losing more bombers than they were producing, and were close to panic.
  13. Technologist
    Technologist April 28 2016 14: 37
    0
    Well, I think that at that time there were no fools in the General Staff either, and there were significant forces both in the east and in the west of the country, as well as in Mongolia.
  14. den-protector
    den-protector 12 December 2016 22: 13
    0
    Even now the West has not abandoned its crazy ideas, they are only afraid of fighting directly, even if they fall into a coder. They realized that it’s much better and cheaper to destroy our country from the inside with the help of traitors, and to poison their jackals from the outside, such as ISIS pasties, eastern gay men. In the meantime, the relative world, to realize the instructions of A. Dulles through his agents of influence.