Military Review

Did not agree on the Balkans

95
Stalin offered Hitler a world in which there was no place for the US


History does not tolerate the subjunctive mood, and yet, peering into the years preceding the German attack on the USSR, we continue to ask ourselves: could 22 June 1941 of the year be avoided or the course of events unfolding in Europe inexorably led to a tragic outcome?

It is usually believed that the Second World War could have been prevented by Western democracies, they came out in support of Czechoslovakia in 1938, when Hitler demanded the transfer of the German Sudetenland populated by Germany. Note that even without the help of the allies, Prague was able to defend independence, because its troops consisted of 40 well-armed and trained divisions, including four mechanized ones. This was enough to rely on the German divisions, which were also recognized by the commanders of the Third Reich, relying on the first-class engineering line and the fortified line built along the German border. The head of the Wehrmacht, Keitel, then a general, wrote 51 of the year in his diary in September: “The Generals Against the Offensive on the Czech Republic”. Moreover, the commander of the 1938 Army, General Witzleben, who was executed in 1 as a member of the anti-Hitler plot, intended to overthrow the Führer, taking advantage of the German attack on Czechoslovakia. Nevertheless, its president Benes planned to resolve the conflict with Berlin by peaceful means, relying on the diplomatic support of France and England. Although the problem was almost a stalemate: the return of the Sudetenland to the Reich was unacceptable for Prague from the point of view of state security. It was on the territory of the Sudetenland that the Czechoslovak defensive line ran.

“The process of rearmament of the Red Army was in full swing, as was the growing rapprochement between England and the United States. And Hitler made a fateful choice for himself. ”
Thus, the fate of the confrontation largely depended on London and Paris. It is obvious that about any military confrontation between Germany and France, which had the strongest army in Europe, was out of the question at that time. But on the night of 29 on 30 of September 1938, the leaders of England and France Chamberlain and Daladier signed the Munich Agreement, which provided for the transfer of the Sudetenland region to the Reich. Actually, this stopped Vitzleben from an attempted coup, because it prevented a military clash between Germany and Czechoslovakia. Neither the Czech nor the Soviet representatives, as you know, were not allowed to negotiate.

Soviet historiography has invariably given a negative assessment to this agreement. In addition, the combat potential of the Wehrmacht grew sharply due to the military-economic resources of Czechoslovakia occupied in the spring of 1939. Its famous Skoda factories in 1940 produced almost as much weapons as the entire British industry. The only foreign tanks in the combat units of the Nazis at the time of the attack on the USSR were precisely the Czech 35 (t) and 38 (t).

Humiliation Versailles


What was the logic of Paris and London, who, as is commonly believed, ceded Czechoslovakia to the slaughter? In order to understand Chamberlain’s and Daladier’s motivation, as Hitler’s, by the way, it is necessary to return 20 years ago to the basic provisions of the Versailles Peace Treaty, for it is in his main articles, not the Munich Agreement, and we should look for genuine reasons World War II. 11 November 1918 th never experienced the defeat of its troops, but broken by the clutches of the economic blockade, Germany concluded the Compiegne Truce, and 28 June 1919 th - Versailles Peace Treaty. It is necessary to take into account that the place of its signing - the Mirror Palace of Versailles - for German diplomats also became a serious moral test, because it was here, in the heart of the Prussian defeated weapons France, less than 50 years ago, the German Empire was solemnly proclaimed.

Did not agree on the Balkans


Let us turn to some points of a world humiliating for Berlin. Defeated by the Germans in 1870 and saved by Russia in 1914, France regained its coal-rich Alsace and Lorraine; Belgium, conquered by the Second Reich, acquired the districts of Malmedy and Eipen; Poland, which had not existed as an independent state at the beginning of the war, received Poznan, part of Pomerania and Silesia with its developed industry. The Germans lost all their colonies. Such carefully created armed forces were subject to a radical reduction. Germany lost its pride - naval fleet, she was forbidden to have a battle Aviation and the latest types of weapons, actively developed and created by the Germans on the eve and during the First World War. Finally, the huge reparations that had to be paid in favor of the victorious countries were not only a heavy economic burden, but also degraded national dignity. After reviewing the main provisions of the treaty, Earl Brockdorf-Ranzau, representing Germany at the conference, refused to sign it, noting: "The Allies offer us suicide." He returned to his homeland and resigned, but peace was nevertheless concluded.

It is not surprising that the most sober military leaders and politicians in the West warned about the fragility of the Versailles system and foresaw the actual inevitability of World War II. However, the reasons for the military-economic revival of Germany must be sought not only in the articles of the Versailles Treaty, but also in the fear felt by Britain and France over the possibility of a new slaughter. That is what explains the logic of the Western democracies, who looked through the fingers at the revival of the German military machine, "swallowed" the Anschluss of Austria and in fact refused allied obligations towards Czechoslovakia and Poland.

Without an idea there is no empire

It is not a matter of the evil will of the British and French governments, but rather the lack of it, as well as the psychological fatigue of their peoples. As subsequent events showed, the British and French empires were declining, giving way to the leading world powers of the USSR, the USA and China. Why did it happen? Aging of an ethnic group is often due to the lack of an idea capable of accumulating its internal reserves. Such was not the case in France, the majority of whose inhabitants lost their sense of national pride and preferred relatively well-fed slavery to the struggle for freedom, like the Romans of the era of decline with their "Bread and circuses!" But history knows the opposite examples. The genius of Genghis Khan immortalized in world history the name of the hitherto little-known Mongols, who created the largest and unique multicultural empire in the Middle Ages. Earlier, the tsars Philip and Alexander the Great glorified the previously unknown Macedonians for centuries. Had France at the end of the 30s found its own Alexander the Great, capable of awakening the nation, Germany would have remained the Weimar Republic. Alas, the ashes of Joan of Arc had long been scattered to the wind, and de Gaulle at that time served as a simple officer warning his compatriots of the impending danger. But the French, figuratively speaking, were asleep. Unlike the Germans: national pride, humiliated by the Versailles Treaty, opened the way to power for the possessed Hitler. It seems that if the conditions of peace with defeated Germany turned out to be more moderate and did not hurt her vanity so painfully, the victory of the national socialist ideas in the country would hardly be possible and, therefore, it would be possible to avoid the tragedy of World War II.

It is not surprising that it was precisely the German officer corps, educated in the old Prussian order, which is perhaps the best in Europe, the most humiliated by the unfair world from the point of view of the Germans, which allowed the Nazis to gain a foothold in power. As for the British, they, demonstrating political short-sightedness, looked with indifference at the collapse of the Versailles system in Europe, but the spiritual forces and national pride of the British woke up as soon as the immediate threat to their independence arose. And most importantly, at the time of trial at the head of Britain, Churchill turned out to be - the last great politician of the dying empire.

Last Chance


Was the war of Germany and the USSR inevitable after the defeat of Poland and France? In 1939, the main tasks of the Soviet foreign policy were formulated as follows: “The war is between two groups of capitalist countries (poor and rich against colonies, raw materials, etc.) for the division of the world, for domination of the world. We do not mind that they fought well and weakened each other. It would be nice if the position of the richest capitalist countries (especially England) would be loosened by Germany’s hands. ” Before us — if we reject Comintern’s rhetoric — a pattern of sober imperial politics based on rational egoism. After the well-known Soviet-German pact, the real threat of the USSR in the spring of 1940 came from the Anglo-French bloc, which planned air raids on the Caucasian oil fields: the French told the British about their readiness to strike at Baku 15 in May, but five days earlier the Germans launched an offensive on the Western front, and Gamelin was not up to Baku. Soon the Third Republic signed a truce with Germany, even earlier the British evacuated their troops from Dunkirk for the subsequent defense of the metropolis. Hitler hoped that London after the rapid defeat of France would go to the conclusion of peace with the Reich, but the last of the British Mohicans Churchill was not Raynaud.

However, it was during this period that it was worth considering the question of peace. First, the humiliation of the French in Compiegne - the Germans forced them to sign peace in the very car in which 11 November 1918 of the year concluded it themselves, Germany restored the status of a great power, got rid of the complex of national humiliation. Secondly, the tolerable living conditions for the conquered French did not arouse from their side the active support of the resistance movement. As for Britain, according to the modern historian M.I. Meltyukhov, the continuation of the war required the creation of a new anti-fascist coalition, but most small European countries were in a hurry to distance themselves from London, and the United States and the USSR took a wait-and-see attitude, because England's role on the world stage.

Thus, it was July 1940-th was the optimal month for the termination of the already started World War II. As a concession, the Germans could re-create a demilitarized Poland, but without a corridor providing it with access to the Baltic Sea, the Silesian industrial region and the lands that had ceded to the USSR. The revival of France as a great power was hardly included in the plans of Moscow, Washington and London. In addition, the Soviet Union was in a certain sense a counterweight to Germany in Europe, which was objectively in British interests. As for Czechoslovakia, then, as history has shown, its unification was artificial and did not stand the test of time. But here, Berlin could have gone for revival, albeit in a reduced form, of Czech and Slovak statehood, leaving the German garrisons there.

Hitler at the crossroads


It is known that Churchill opposed any peace with the Third Reich, but the end of the war depended in many respects on the position not of London, but of Moscow. November 10 The People's Commissar for Foreign Affairs V. Molotov arrived in Berlin on November 1940. Hitler proposed to the Soviet Union to join the Tripartite Pact, to be more precise - to conclude a quadripartite agreement of Germany, the USSR, Japan and Italy. In response, Molotov essentially raised the question of a new division of spheres of influence in Europe, emphasizing that the interests of the Kremlin extend to the Balkans, Romania, Bulgaria, and Turkey. The Soviet People's Commissar also tried to get Hitler's consent to the occupation of Finland by the Red Army, but was refused.

The expansionist aspirations of the Kremlin were not due to the revival of the Trotsky-Leninist ideas of the early 20-s. The Soviet leadership set itself another goal: to create a cordon of dependent states as a barrier against Germany. Actually, this task was carried out after the Second World War in the form of the Warsaw Pact, which opposed NATO. However, Hitler did not want to see the Balkans the sphere of influence of the USSR, moreover, by November 1940, the detailed elaboration of the Barbarossa plan was completed and it was tested at two war games. At the same time, Berlin considered it necessary to crush the Soviet Union in order to finally bring Britain to its knees. The chief of the German General Staff, General Halder, wrote down the words spoken by the Fuhrer: “The hope of England is Russia and America. If hopes for Russia collapse, America will also fall away from England, since the defeat of Russia will result in an incredible strengthening of Japan in East Asia. ”

Nevertheless, there are no sufficient grounds to believe that by the fall of 1940, Hitler made the final decision to attack the USSR. Let us again turn to the point of view of M. I. Meltyukhov: “The German leadership at that moment was concerned about several military-political problems. It intended to attract France to the anti-British coalition, draw Spain and Portugal into the war (operations to capture Gibraltar and protect the Canary and Azores), support the Italian offensive in North Africa, prepare an operation against Northern Greece (through the territory of Bulgaria, which should have been brought to the Tripartite covenant), to continue developing a plan of war with the USSR and to be prepared for the possible implementation of Operation Sea Lion in the spring of 1941. ” That is, at this moment the German strategy was clearly at a crossroads.

Let us examine the possible options for action by Hitler. The idea of ​​attracting Vichy France to the anti-British coalition, whose military potential was significantly weakened, looked utopian. Although it is impossible to deny the negative attitude of many of its citizens to a recent ally after the British operations against the French fleet in Oran and its neighboring Mers-el-Kebir 3 July 1940. However, as we have already noted, the Germans had to reckon with the reluctance of the population of the defeated Third Republic to fight. As for Spain, General Franco declined to participate in the adventures of Hitler, and the Portuguese dictator Salazar signed a pact of Iberian neutrality with Madrid in 1939 year. This was entirely reasonable, since Lisbon’s open support for the Reich threatened the vast Portuguese colonies in Africa. Join Salazar to Germany, the overseas possessions of Portugal would be occupied by the British. The operations of the Germans in North Africa and against Greece, as subsequent events showed, weakened the position of the British in the Mediterranean, but did not prompt London to make peace with Germany. For this, it was necessary either to land in Britain itself, which did not guarantee success, or to deprive Churchill of the allies, among whom in the foreseeable future and against the background of the controversy between Moscow and London could be the Soviet Union, which seemed to be even ready to sign a four-party agreement.

Great Soviet interest


Once again consider the proposals of Moscow. German troops must leave Finland in exchange for the defense of the USSR of German interests in this country - it is a reasonable condition. Further, the Soviet leadership insisted on the conclusion of a union treaty with Bulgaria and the deployment of military bases of the Red Army in the area of ​​strategically important Bosphorus and Dardanelles. Thus, the USSR intended to protect its interests in the Black Sea basin. The area to the south of the Baku-Batumi line, including the Persian Gulf, was also recognized as the sphere of Moscow’s interests, which was natural from a geopolitical point of view and infringed upon the interests of the UK rather than Germany. Finally, Japan had to give up its rights to oil and coal concessions on North Sakhalin, which did not concern the interests of the Reich at all.

Quite reasonable suggestions. It seems that Berlin made a mistake by refusing to accept them. Time did not work for the Germans, because the process of rearming the Red Army was in full swing, as well as the growing rapprochement between Britain and the United States. Under these conditions, Hitler made a fateful choice for himself - to destroy the USSR in one short-term campaign. The decision did not take into account the full power of the military-economic potential of the Soviet Union and ultimately turned into the collapse of the Reich.

In our opinion, in November 1940, the most sober step for Berlin would be to agree to Moscow’s proposals and conclude a four-party agreement. This would fundamentally change the situation in the world: the United States would not oppose Japan and, perhaps, would distance itself from London, and England, deprived of allies, would go to the world with Germany, even against Churchill’s will - without agreeing to peace with the Reich, he most likely would just lose the prime minister’s chair. A new map of Europe could in fact take the forms we wrote about above.

We can argue about the immorality of the alliance with Hitler. However, the truth is that in big politics moral principles do not work. Each country strives to measure its actions based not on moral norms, but on state interests. Do not forget that the world was saved from the third world war with yesterday’s allies only by creating nuclear weapons in the USSR that didn’t allow Truman to realize his monstrous plans for the destruction of atomic bombings of Soviet cities with millions of civilians.

In conclusion, let us touch upon the question of the prospects for the preemptive strike of the Red Army on the Wehrmacht in 1941. Our task is not to discuss whether or not the USSR intended to attack Germany. However, the statement that the German troops would have been put in a difficult situation seems exaggerated. Yes, strategically, the Wehrmacht was vulnerable to attack by the Red Army, but the problem is that its commanders simply did not know how to carry out the most complex operations involving a large mass of troops and tanks. And in the first days of the war we would have been the victim of our own confusion and chaos, which would greatly facilitate the Germans’s stabilization of the front and the subsequent transition to a counteroffensive. But that's another topic.
Author:
Originator:
http://vpk-news.ru/articles/30856
95 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. CORNET
    CORNET 4 June 2016 12: 21
    +26
    There was a time .... the USSR will return!
    1. Finches
      Finches 4 June 2016 12: 39
      +15
      The Anglo-Saxons needed blood from the nose to turn Hitler to the East - although he saw the continuation of his Reich in the East, nevertheless, for a start, he wanted to protect himself in the West, but the smart-ass Anglo-Saxons beat everyone - the French, the Germans and us , perfectly understanding, unlike Hitler, that the Germans will break their necks in Russia, but they will also weaken the USSR economically and then there will be one dominant nation in the world - the Anglo-Saxons! And the French were already becoming ordinary pawns, with whom no one reckoned! And in general - Hitler is a project of the Anglo-Saxons and they have achieved the result - now all of Europe, the so-called European Union, is just an artificially created association for more convenient management countries - six of the Anglo-Saxons! And they did it all with our hands ... A little bit entered the war in 44, so to speak, marked on the ground their "invaluable" contribution to the fight against Nazism ... which they themselves gave rise to!
      1. CORNET
        CORNET 4 June 2016 12: 56
        +29
        Quote: Finches
        The Anglo-Saxons needed to turn Hitler’s nose to the East - although he saw the continuation of his Reich in the East, nevertheless, for a start he wanted to protect himself in the West, but the cunning Anglo-Saxons defeated everyone - the French, Germans and us , well aware, unlike Hitler, that the Germans will break their necks in Russia, but they will also weaken the USSR economically and then there will be one dominant nation in the world - the Anglo-Saxons!

        Now it’s like that again .. They just already embroiled all ISIS, Turks, Al Qaeda .... etc. In short, the whole world is again against us (almost ....)))) But Russia is not fighting clearly now .. ..Taught by experience! We’ll make a pancake for you, a revolution! Pay for everything .... We now, as you smile, but we are promoting our business!
        We will be so gentlemen soon ...!
        1. Mikado
          Mikado 4 June 2016 15: 16
          +5
          Now the price at the factory is written only on packs of cigarettes .. And it is constantly growing .. Sadness, sadness crying
        2. NordUral
          NordUral 4 June 2016 15: 39
          +3
          A suicidal argument, for the liberals deadly. I already forgot what happened. It is time to think about the return of such a practice with all its conclusions.
          1. CALL.
            CALL. 5 June 2016 04: 41
            +2
            The only foreign tanks in the combat units of the Nazis at the time of the attack on the USSR were precisely the Czech 35 (t) and 38 (t).

            And French, English trophy, about 3 thousand. They also fought and fired. French tanks burned even near Moscow.
            1. SergeBS
              SergeBS 5 June 2016 22: 23
              0
              This is not the only "weak point" (ie lies that look like the truth) lampoon from Igor Khodakov. But "people are eating". Although, apart from a bunch of non-obvious juggling of concepts, "clever fabrications" and "clever" interpretations of well-known facts, there is nothing.
      2. Mavrikiy
        Mavrikiy 4 June 2016 14: 19
        -2
        Quote: Finches
        The Anglo-Saxons needed to turn Hitler’s nose to the East - even though he saw the continuation of his Reich in the East!

        Let’s separate flies from cutlets. I love cutlets, even very much, but categorically flies ...
        1. Americans and Agla, being allies, had different goals in the war, they were competitors. And recently there are quite understandable "theories" that WW2 was unleashed by the US in order to overwhelm England. And who, participating in the war, what goals will set himself, that is their business.
        2. Did the Angles beat us? Calm down. Stalin concluded an agreement with Germany not to attack, and this is "his gravest sin." It was with this that he broke the whole game in England. Although when Germany attacked France, then the game was broken on England.
        3. What a flight in time, almost Woland. Hitler, but the European Union today. But the European Union was also in 1941, so what? Drive, I don't want to. So it turns out "an elder in the garden, but a dyatka in Kiev."
        4. The European Union is an artificial creation. Rave. An urgent need for Europe, the creation of 3 or 4 poles of power, for its survival. Well, the atom that took control, through Brussels is a fact. Unification is power. And who does not want to understand this, he must live in Georgia.
        5. Why so much !!!, there are still buttons.
        1. russkiy redut
          russkiy redut 4 June 2016 23: 11
          -1
          1. If they were not competitors, then they would have fought with each other, so this is nonsense.
          2. The war was still there, the fact that it was 2 years later did not fundamentally change anything.
          3. Survival from anyone, no one attacked them.
          What kind of friend are you muddy)
      3. My doctor
        My doctor 4 June 2016 17: 25
        +9
        Hitler invited the Soviet Union to join the Triple Pact, to be more precise - to conclude a quadripartite agreement of Germany, the USSR, Japan and Italy. In response, Molotov essentially raised the question of a new division of spheres of influence in Europe, emphasizing that the interests of the Kremlin extend to the Balkans, Romania, Bulgaria and Turkey.
        “The German leadership at that moment was preoccupied with several military-political problems. It intended to draw France into the anti-British coalition, to draw Spain and Portugal into the war (operations to capture Gibraltar and protect the Canary and Azores) ... ”
        Funnily enough, biological garbage wants to be an ally of the Aryans against the Anglo-Saxons. Hitler always emphasized that the English nation is equal to the German one, in contrast to the peoples of the USSR. Even before the USSR, Russia was never considered in Europe as an equal cultural partner. No one even had a thought in their minds to compare the value of a civilized person and a Russian. Hitler believed that even if the army of the USSR was outnumbered and in armament, it would not be able to resist the German one, only because the Slavs are second-class people who do not know how to fight, including fighting. No one in the West believed that the USSR Army would be able to withstand the army of a civilized country. Have you really forgotten the "Barbarossa" plan and the surprise of the same England when it began to slip? Only as a result of the Second World War, the USSR recognized force, and not a historical misunderstanding occupying an exorbitantly large territory with resources.
    2. atalef
      atalef 4 June 2016 13: 15
      -11%
      Quote: CORNET
      There was a time .... the USSR will return!

      Lieutenant Golitsyn may be back
      cornet Obolensky put on the order
      1. Asadullah
        Asadullah 4 June 2016 15: 04
        -3
        .... the USSR will return!


        And also Tamerlane, Caesar and Ostap, a Turkish citizen ....

        Frankly, I’m somehow scared of the idea, albeit of the past, of the great union of fascist Germany and the USSR. Any dominance is fraught. The dominance of the United States led to endless wars and local conflicts, the dominance of the pederast mafia in Europe led to the practical degradation of part of the world. What could lead to the dominance of essentially hateful religion and a formation that does not regard a person as an individual? Another question is that the German and Russian nations complement each other extremely precisely, an ideal puzzle. Britain will be prevented from doing this by the whole history of its existence.
        1. NordUral
          NordUral 4 June 2016 15: 40
          0
          And you do not promise.
        2. gladcu2
          gladcu2 4 June 2016 17: 35
          +3
          Asadullah

          At the expense of misanthropic religion.

          You will fulfill the conditions of behavior set by the state, and then show your selfish nature, as you want

          By the way, the USSR gave its citizens real freedoms, fueled by material capabilities.

          Modern countries give freedom declarations restricting them economically.

          It’s still to see who hated the person.
        3. SergeBS
          SergeBS 5 June 2016 23: 02
          0
          Quote: Asadullah
          Frankly, I’m somehow scared of the idea, albeit of the past, of the great union of fascist Germany and the USSR.

          Think what you write. The USSR is the LAST country to sign a non-aggression pact with Hitler's Germany. After the crowd of "Eurocivilized" who dreamed of extracting the heat from the stove with someone else's hands, but they broke off.
          There was no union.
    3. cap
      cap 4 June 2016 14: 07
      +4
      Quote: CORNET
      There was a time .... the USSR will return!


      Let Russia, only with an ideology and concept of development.
      Only without regard to "partners".
      With the former engineering school, training and much more.
      A lot of things ...
    4. Platonich
      Platonich 4 June 2016 14: 23
      0
      How would this happen quickly !!!!!
    5. Pitot
      Pitot 4 June 2016 14: 45
      +1
      I hope so. As everything is already tired - rotten officials, thieving Power, lawlessness of bandits ...
      1. Talgat
        Talgat 4 June 2016 18: 25
        +4
        Hopefully! It may not be exactly a copy of our homeland of the USSR - but the Eurasian Empire will return! They always rise from the ashes (of course, I apologize for the repetition - I often repeat it - I just believe) after death. And always stronger than they were.

        The union of the Russians and the great steppe will always be at the core, and with them will be the Caucasus and Central Asia, and possibly even Mongolia. Iran and Syria may become allies, and China with its 9 Bolivarian countries will become a temporary ally and fellow traveler (due to a common threat from the US of the West and Japan)

        As everyone knows (they write a lot about this), it is important to bridge the social abysses (the dominance of the oligarchs) to unite all the peoples of Eurasia, to create a unifying Eurasian idea (communism has already worked out its unfortunately - but something similar and fair) and most importantly so that traitors do not appear in the leadership again such as Gorbachev Eltsin, etc.
    6. Aryan
      Aryan 4 June 2016 19: 41
      -4
      What did the author smoke? how can one even think so that with a warbler, the essence of whose ideology was the destruction of Russia and the Soviet Union, peace was possible?
      I see here a veiled call for the equalization of Nazism and Stalinism!
      when will these calm down? invent everything more sophisticated
      1. SergeBS
        SergeBS 5 June 2016 22: 43
        -2
        Quote: Aryan
        What did the author smoke?

        The author carried out the "order" (guess where). According to this "order" that Hitler and Stalin are the same. Only "true democracy" from the USA is "white and fluffy".
        Despite the fact that both on 1 World and 2 World, these "white and fluffy" - profited GOOD (guess at whose expense). Why not invest the buck in propaganda, if it will ruin the competition and bring 100 dollars in profit?
    7. Pereira
      Pereira 5 June 2016 09: 57
      -2
      Quote: CORNET
      They may object to the immorality of allied relations with Hitler


      There is a mistake.
      Until 41, Hitler was not at all immoral. He acted within the framework of European morality, according to European principles, and did not do anything that England, France, and Austria would not have done in previous centuries.
      Hitler was a very respectable European politician, with whom the peers of England did not hesitate to confront, and the Americans invested a lot of money in the development of Germany.
      The immorality began when the Ost plan was adopted.

      We are blamed for the neutrality treaty. But remember the story:
      1. SergeBS
        SergeBS 5 June 2016 23: 11
        0
        Quote: Pereira
        Until the age of 41, Hitler was not at all immoral

        Well yes. "Just something" all the dissidents were driven into concentration camps, but destroyed. I recommend reading at your leisure about the policy towards the citizens of your country in Germany since 1936. On the other hand, how does this "morality" differ from the "morality" of Great Britain during the period of "fencing", or the United States during the period of America's conquest. Yes, nothing. "Nothing personal, just business."
  2. ovod84
    ovod84 4 June 2016 12: 23
    +12
    I’ll tell you a secret, there’s no mood in history if. Hitler wrote to Mine Kampf about the capture of Russia and its lands, I think his goal was to create a great Germany from Berlin to the Urals, but the goal remained the goal and the dream so Stalin led the Soviet people, the main core of which was the Russian people defeated evil
    1. Ami du peuple
      Ami du peuple 4 June 2016 13: 03
      +7
      Quote: ovod84
      there is no mood in history
      Subjunctive, I guess?
      Quote: ovod84
      Hitler wrote in Mine Kampf about the capture of Russia
      Absolutely right! Ost-Lebensraum - Hitler's fix idea. A clash would be inevitable anyway, even on the basis of the ideologies of a different pole between the communist USSR and Nazi Germany. Having concluded a similar treaty with the German Nazis, the Soviet Union would have lost the moral right to be called an international and proletarian state. And that would mean the collapse of the communist go around the world.
      The author is trying to pull an owl on a globe and imagine what is possible in principle was impossible. honestly speaking, the approach is to equate the USSR and Fascist Germany. The liberal approach.
      1. avt
        avt 4 June 2016 13: 16
        +3
        Quote: ovod84
        . Hitler wrote to Mine Kampf about the capture of Russia and its lands, I think his goal was to create a great Germany from Berlin to the Urals,

        Well, in the future, yes, but according to the "Barbarossa" plan - to the line from Arkhangelsk to Astrakhan with the ability to reach the Ural by bombers.
        Quote: Ami du peuple
        . A clash would be inevitable anyway, even on the basis of the ideologies of a different pole between the communist USSR and Nazi Germany.

        That is exactly how it was to be buggy with some kind of agreement with Hitler on TPU - "we did not agree, so he attacked," a stupid occupation. , or only with angles. And that is why he did attack the USSR without finishing with the Metropolis and the circumcision of Suez in Egypt, this is really an interesting topic! As well as the capture of Malta.
        1. Ami du peuple
          Ami du peuple 4 June 2016 16: 35
          0
          Quote: avt
          .And that's why he did attack the USSR without finishing with the Metropolis
          And remember, the secret flight of the Deputy Führer Hess to Great Britain in May 1940. Hitler made him a madman and a traitor, but who knows what the real task of the third Reich man was? Later, Stalin believed that this was an attempt at peace negotiations, initiated by the British, and Hess brought the British concrete proposals for a ceasefire and the declaration of neutrality by Great Britain during the war between Germany and the USSR. But now there is nobody to ask - the elderly grandfather Rudi was strangled in Spandau prison.
          However, a logical chain looms, right? This is what we need to write about, and not about the mythical agreements of Stalin-Hitler on the division of Europe.
          1. gladcu2
            gladcu2 4 June 2016 17: 45
            0
            Ami de peuple

            I do not agree with you. The author nevertheless tries to give an unbiased assessment.
            And his phrase about the lack of morality in international relations is very clear. More pragmatics.
            The Soviet Union could well find an excuse for all its actions.
            1. SergeBS
              SergeBS 6 June 2016 00: 23
              0
              Quote: gladcu2
              The author nevertheless tries to give an unbiased assessment.

              The author sings like a mongrel (see, for example, my comments). And fulfills the "order" - "The USA is great, and the others are tyrants." But due to complete infantilism in terms of military affairs, etc. - the author cannot even believably ramble.
          2. avt
            avt 4 June 2016 20: 38
            0
            Quote: Ami du peuple
            And remember, the secret flight of the Deputy Führer Hess to Great Britain in May 1940. Hitler made him a madman and a traitor, but who knows what the real task of the third Reich man was?

            Add the fact that he received a sentence, and not a watchtower, he was silent all the time, and when he spoke before his release - I’ll tell you everything, I “hanged myself”, and the change of security was ..... BRITISH! Oh-oh-oh-you know very well an interesting place was during the Second World War, the prisoners even made a glider to escape in the attic wassat , and some seemed to run away and almost reached Switzerland by train. When the allies arrived - the prisoners were taken out ..... by transport aircraft - almost by personal planes.
        2. avva2012
          avva2012 4 June 2016 16: 43
          0
          But the Germans from the British how are they different?
          It is believed that Germany only wanted recognition from the British, and to share a little. British losses from German raids, this is a laugh, even in comparison with the losses of Poland.
        3. SergeBS
          SergeBS 5 June 2016 23: 33
          0
          Quote: avt
          But why did he attack the USSR without ending with the Metropolis and circumcision of Suez in Egypt, this is a really interesting e-e-e-ne theme! As a matter of fact, and not the capture of Malta.

          We are building a simple logical chain:
          - War is a continuation of politics by force;
          - Politics - a servant of the economy;
          - A successful economy is the basis of prosperity and stability of power.
          Both then and now, the economy depends on the availability of natural resources, and FIRST of all - on oil.
          Now, for example, the Emirates live very well, Norway, too. There is oil. And do not fight.
          And in Europe (Western) there is almost no oil. Ploiesti's oil was not enough. And "close by" - both the territories and Baku oil. Plus the incitement - "you hit, and we will help, only do not offend US much." That, in general, Hitler did with France - he offended, but not much. Etc.
      2. avva2012
        avva2012 4 June 2016 16: 46
        +1
        I would add a liberal approach, a la rezun. The bait is the same, "imperial greatness". And a beautiful card is slipped.
      3. SergeBS
        SergeBS 5 June 2016 22: 51
        0
        Quote: Ami du peuple
        The author ... The liberal approach.

        Exactly. Trying to plunge YOUR Homeland into (manipulating the facts), to agitate for a "potential enemy" is at least a liberal. But if you come seriously - an enemy agent, the "fifth column", which must be destroyed. am
  3. avvg
    avvg 4 June 2016 12: 24
    +3
    History does not teach anything, but only punishes for ignorance. Indeed, we Russians do not want war, but we have always warned and warn that whoever comes to us with swords will also perish by the sword.
  4. evil partisan
    evil partisan 4 June 2016 12: 28
    +1
    Even some well, oh-oh-oh-very brief retelling of "History 2 MB" ... what
    1. Pyokhar
      Pyokhar 4 June 2016 12: 31
      +2
      Not just retelling, but retelling with options. smile
      1. evil partisan
        evil partisan 4 June 2016 12: 55
        +2
        Quote: Pyohar
        Not just retelling, but retelling with options.

        Oh, okay ... These "options" were everywhere: rezun, corned beef - and that's just offhand ... Isaev in "Antisuvorov", it seems to me, ideally for the everyday level articulated the entire prehistory of Hitler's attack on the USSR. There are also major studies on this topic. There are so many of them that he gets too excited when reading the list of works ... It seems to me that articles of this kind are like retelling the entire content of "War and Peace" in 45 minutes of a school lesson. sad
        1. gladcu2
          gladcu2 4 June 2016 17: 48
          +1
          evil partisan

          This is not a retelling. You did not have the patience to carefully read the article.

          The article is an analysis of the political situation, carried out very objectively.
          1. SergeBS
            SergeBS 5 June 2016 23: 51
            0
            Quote: gladcu2
            The article is an analysis of the political situation, carried out very objectively.

            check the facts. "Objectively" with a show-off laughing ... the author mows under the gopnik, who yells: "I stabbed him with a knife, because he regretted giving me a piece, but he is RICH. Greedy. So I punished him for greed."
    2. ALABAY45
      ALABAY45 4 June 2016 12: 40
      +3
      And, you, as an "old partisan", should take a look at modern history textbooks for children, ours ... This article is 0,27 volumes from "The Great Patriotic War 1941-1945: an encyclopedia. / Ed. M. M Kozlov Editorial board: Yu. Ya. Barabash, P. A. Zhilin (deputy chief editor), V. I. Kanatov (executive secretary) and others - Moscow: Sov.Encyclopedia, 1985. - 832 pp. with ill., 35 sheets. ill. - Circulation 500 copies. " , in comparison with the contents of such "textbooks" ... I saw it myself, I lost it ...! hiWith such a pace of development, the newly adopted "scenario" of the Second World War, Livanov will soon advocate assignment to Hitler - "Hero's Star" ... Posthumously, of course, but, nevertheless ... am
      1. evil partisan
        evil partisan 4 June 2016 13: 00
        +1
        Quote: ALABAY45
        as an "old partisan"

        Evil! Evil !! am Moreover, he has good connections in the prosecutor's office of the Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Okrug ... winked
        Hello macho with poacher genes! drinks Oh, bring you to the zugunder yes men with fundamental faces and villagers without signs of cellulite ... sad but there are options ... repeat
        1. ALABAY45
          ALABAY45 4 June 2016 13: 08
          +2
          Glamorous boys and cellulite townspeople ?! Sorry, not mine ...! Alas, not an option ...! About "connections" - do not get excited, here we have another "rotation of personnel" ... wink
          1. evil partisan
            evil partisan 4 June 2016 14: 09
            0
            Quote: ALABAY45
            here we have another "rotation of personnel" ...

            And Che, the Administration also rotated, or what? what I didn’t hear ... request
        2. Vladimirets
          Vladimirets 4 June 2016 13: 09
          +1
          Quote: Angry Guerrilla
          with poacher genes

          What are you, my friend, the second day for all the poacher, yes the poacher, your insulting words. recourse
          1. atalef
            atalef 4 June 2016 13: 33
            +2
            Quote: Vladimirets
            What are you, my friend, the second day for all the poacher, yes the poacher, your insulting words.

            There is not enough food in the forests (mushrooms, berries and cones have not yet grown), I really want to eat. crying
            1. evil partisan
              evil partisan 4 June 2016 13: 46
              +1
              Quote: atalef
              There is not enough food in the forests (mushrooms, berries and cones have not yet grown), I really want to eat.

              And mines for what ?? fool 1 mine - 2 moose yes . I don’t know: where to put the meat ... what But there is no green onion in the forest ... sad
              1. atalef
                atalef 4 June 2016 13: 49
                +5
                Quote: Angry Guerrilla
                And mines for what ?? 1 mine - 2 moose

                4 love
                In short, 3 hunters sit as in that picture and talk about their exploits. Well, one says:
                - Yesterday I flunked such a hare as if I had brought it home.
                Second:
                - Bullshit, it’s I flunked such a capercaillie that I couldn’t lift it.
                Third:
                - Once I dumped such a moose a heavy dog! Well, I cut off his thighs on his shoulders ...
                Here 2 says:
                - Let's hit it.
                Well smeared. Third:
                - So on what I stopped ... Ahh, well, I put my thighs on my shoulders and .... as I gave, her slippers already flew
                1. evil partisan
                  evil partisan 4 June 2016 13: 52
                  0
                  Quote: atalef
                  and crammed her full length

                  Shit. negative
                  1. atalef
                    atalef 4 June 2016 14: 01
                    +2
                    Quote: wicked partisan
                    Quote: atalef
                    and crammed her full length

                    Shit. negative

                    This is not me, I found it in Google. Printing itself is laziness.
                    actually fixed
              2. ALABAY45
                ALABAY45 4 June 2016 14: 31
                +1
                "Mines", I suppose, of organic origin, at the sight of last year's bear tracks ?! Elks, get stuck and die from shame and hunger .... And, after that, I'm a poacher ?! You don't have a cross ... crying
                1. evil partisan
                  evil partisan 4 June 2016 14: 39
                  0
                  Quote: ALABAY45
                  There is no cross on you.

                  repeat
                  Then I’ll tell you something: how dad baptized me sad ... Until now, no pop can definitely tell me: am I baptized or not? There is such a theological paradox that it’s just right to turn to the Synod with a question ... And my dad was a militant atheist, the son of the beginning. secret operational calving GubChK yes ...
          2. evil partisan
            evil partisan 4 June 2016 13: 37
            0
            Quote: Vladimirets
            What are you, my friend, the second day for all the poacher, yes the poacher, your insulting words.

            But the faithful. yes
            But there are options ... repeat I also take cucumbers ... winked
            Hello poacher! wink
            drinks
            1. atalef
              atalef 4 June 2016 13: 40
              +4
              Quote: Angry Guerrilla
              But there are options ... I also take cucumbers ...

              wink
            2. Vladimirets
              Vladimirets 4 June 2016 13: 48
              +2
              Quote: Angry Guerrilla
              I also take cucumbers ...

              Cucumbers will be later. recourse Hey. hi
              Quote: atalef
              There is not enough food in the forests (mushrooms, berries and cones have not yet grown), I really want to eat.

              Sorrel went, young nettle. yes
              1. evil partisan
                evil partisan 4 June 2016 13: 53
                0
                Quote: Vladimirets
                young nettle.

                And to you the same and in the same place ... sad
                1. Vladimirets
                  Vladimirets 4 June 2016 13: 57
                  +2
                  Quote: Angry Guerrilla
                  And to you the same and in the same place ..

                  Well, in vain. How tasty nettle cabbage soup. winked You take a home-made rooster, you cook broth from a bird, carrots there, onions. There is a boiled egg. You boil young nettles with boiling water and throw them away, bon appetit. yes
                  1. evil partisan
                    evil partisan 4 June 2016 14: 06
                    0
                    Quote: Vladimirets
                    you cook from a bird

                    what
                    Those. He originally Birds Sholi ?? belay
                    No, I have not met ... request
                    1. Vladimirets
                      Vladimirets 4 June 2016 14: 10
                      +3
                      Quote: Angry Guerrilla
                      Those. He originally Birds Sholi ??

                      Then who!? belay Chicken is a bird, rooster is a bird. What is wrong? request
                      1. evil partisan
                        evil partisan 4 June 2016 14: 29
                        +1
                        Quote: Vladimirets
                        rooster - birds.

                        what
                        Logically ... what
                      2. atalef
                        atalef 4 June 2016 14: 33
                        +2
                        Quote: Vladimirets
                        Chicken is a bird, rooster is a bird.

                        Bulgaria - Abroad wassat
              2. atalef
                atalef 4 June 2016 14: 00
                -2
                Quote: Vladimirets
                Sorrel went, young nettle.

                Yes, that he would eat up - he will have to gnaw at the floor of the forest.
                And on the eaten track, even the blind will find the partisan. wassat
                1. avva2012
                  avva2012 4 June 2016 16: 29
                  +1
                  Do you distribute the propaganda of the Third Reich?
          3. evil partisan
            evil partisan 4 June 2016 16: 37
            0
            Quote: Vladimirets
            poacher,
            Quote: ALABAY45
            And, to you, as an "old partisan"


            The tasks of the battalion are determined tactical both during the offensive and during the defense, and do not represent the front width of more than 20 kilometers.-Matsarevich
            Comrade servicemen! Explain to me the civilian - this is when the battalion was solving problems at the front of 20 km. ?? belay
            1. ALABAY45
              ALABAY45 4 June 2016 19: 52
              +1
              On the border with the DPRK, on ​​the estuary ... There, companies - "zaglaza" ...! smile
            2. SergeBS
              SergeBS 6 June 2016 00: 18
              0
              Quote: Angry Guerrilla
              Comrade servicemen! Explain to me the civilian - this is when the battalion was solving problems at the front of 20 km. ??

              Not a servant, but I will answer: the border. Squad = regiment. In detachment 9 outposts = 3 battalions. In peacetime. Well, 30 minutes is the life of the outpost. sad
              Now it may not be so. I was a "spinjack" 30 years ago.
        3. atalef
          atalef 4 June 2016 13: 12
          +1
          Quote: Angry Guerrilla
          Evil! Evil !! In addition, he has good connections in the prosecutor's office of the Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Okrug

          scare administrative resource? You are so EVIL wassat
          Hi !!!!
          1. evil partisan
            evil partisan 4 June 2016 13: 27
            +1
            Quote: atalef
            You are so EVIL

            But already old sad ... and sick ... recourse
            Quote: atalef
            scare administrative resource?

            Well, not that I would frighten ... so ... I try to tell people the ways to go ... repeat
            Sholem, a fellow believer! hi
            1. atalef
              atalef 4 June 2016 13: 31
              +1
              Quote: Angry Guerrilla
              But already old ... And sick ...

              How about the famous GLASS OF WATER?
              Quote: Angry Guerrilla
              Well, not that I would frighten ... so ... I try to tell people the ways of departure.

              In the bullpen - a way out? wassat
              Quote: Angry Guerrilla
              Sholem, a fellow believer!

              Truly Shalom hi
              1. evil partisan
                evil partisan 4 June 2016 13: 51
                0
                Quote: atalef
                In the bullpen - a way out?

                You there in Israel are not very careful. request Not bullpen, but KLYA (smoked moose tongue) or (more precisely "I") SSM (slightly salted muksun-2 tons ...). If you help collect all this from Alabai, I'll take it as a share. Believe me: after selling all this, you can safely forget about electricity ... smile
                1. atalef
                  atalef 4 June 2016 14: 06
                  +1
                  Quote: Angry Guerrilla
                  You there in Israel are not very careful. Not bullpen, but KLEA (smoked moose tongue)

                  which is such an aphid?
                  Quote: Angry Guerrilla
                  slightly salty muksun-2 tons ..

                  There are no sanctions on you, you are both evil - an evil partisan with an evil alabai
                2. atalef
                  atalef 4 June 2016 14: 08
                  +1
                  Quote: Angry Guerrilla
                  If you help to recover all this from Alabai, I will take it as a share. Believe me: after selling all this, you can safely forget about electricity ..

                  really, fuck the dead electricity?
                  1. evil partisan
                    evil partisan 4 June 2016 14: 31
                    0
                    Quote: atalef
                    really, fuck the dead electricity?

                    what
                    Well then Amen galleries ... crying
                    1. atalef
                      atalef 4 June 2016 14: 33
                      0
                      Quote: wicked partisan
                      Quote: atalef
                      really, fuck the dead electricity?

                      what
                      Well then Amen galleries ... crying

                      crying
  5. avg-mgn
    avg-mgn 4 June 2016 12: 44
    +2
    I read it with great pleasure. A hackneyed topic, but outlined freshly. Thanks, plus.
    1. Blondy
      Blondy 4 June 2016 12: 54
      +1
      Guys, I can share my experience: here it will pull me to something so-and-so - so I turn to alternatvkah on samizdat, there the stories look more interesting there.
  6. Comrade Glebov
    Comrade Glebov 4 June 2016 12: 55
    +2
    Eh, Comrade Stalin is not enough for us ... The land of such geniuses does not often give birth.
  7. Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter 4 June 2016 13: 11
    +6
    The author "by the ears" pulls "an owl on the globe". There is a wise expression - my shortcomings are a continuation of my merits. Hitler COULD NOT behave otherwise, since the concept of National Socialism implied the superiority of one nation, contempt for the rest, which led to an underestimation of the potential of a potential enemy. Hitler was afraid of a stab in the back from Stalin if he rushed into Britain. It seemed to him that the USSR was easier to deal with than the British Empire. And the beginning of the war only strengthened him in this. Well, then - it was then. He considered the invasion of England seriously, but he was an infantry corporal, and overestimated the British fleet, which, most likely, would have been torn apart by German aircraft in a narrow strait.
    Politics is the art of the possible. Stalin hoped that Hitler would attack Britain, Churchill believed that the opposite. We know the result.
    1. evil partisan
      evil partisan 4 June 2016 14: 52
      +1
      Quote: Mountain Shooter
      Hitler could not behave differently, since the concept of national socialism implied the superiority of one nation, contempt for the rest, which led to an underestimation of the potential of the potential adversary.

      good
      I also wanted to write something similar, but I thought that a lot of bukaf turns out ...
      Quote: Mountain Shooter
      Stalin hoped that Hitler would attack Britain

      It was here that they deceived us. Fact. But thereby Hitler signed a death sentence for himself and his family. One thing still touches me to tears - 12-18 million dead civilians. They destroyed us like bugs, like cockroaches, and we treated them like PEOPLE !! Maybe in vain?
      1. avva2012
        avva2012 4 June 2016 16: 34
        +1
        Yes, not in vain. You can’t just pour blood.
        Germany and Europe as a whole, can it be expressed for good reason?
        1. evil partisan
          evil partisan 4 June 2016 18: 06
          +1
          Quote: avva2012
          Yes, not in vain. You can’t just pour blood.
          Germany and Europe as a whole, can it be expressed for good reason?

          I did not understand my colleague. Decrypt.
          1. avva2012
            avva2012 4 June 2016 18: 45
            0
            Quote: evil partisan I did not understand my colleague. Decrypt.

            "They destroyed us like bedbugs, like cockroaches, and we treated them like PEOPLE !! Maybe all in vain?"
            In my opinion, do not be like cattle. What the Europeans did, led by Hitler, and before that, without it, should return to them. Sooner or later, one way or another.
            I.V. Stalin still studied at the seminary. Considering what they wrote about him, well-wishers and not really, the main thing that they noted in him was a serious attitude to what he studied. So that the Book, he must know very well. Therefore, in my opinion, he saved the peoples of the USSR from fanaticism, thereby protecting him from degeneration.
            I, I do not consider JV Stalin, "our everything", he is the same person, like everyone else. But for a believer, the understanding of "return" for what you do is absolutely natural.
            1. evil partisan
              evil partisan 4 June 2016 20: 17
              0
              Quote: avva2012
              What the Europeans did, led by Hitler, and before that, without it, should return to them.

              Ahhh ... It means it should ... what Well then, it is clear...
              hi
              1. avva2012
                avva2012 5 June 2016 12: 06
                0
                Quote: evil partisan Ahhh ... It means it should ... Well then, I see ...

                "They destroyed us like bedbugs, like cockroaches, and we treated them like PEOPLE !! Maybe all in vain?"
                Do you want to kill in person or delegate to someone?
  8. shasherin_pavel
    shasherin_pavel 4 June 2016 13: 14
    +7
    The rearmament of the Red Army
    In general, the "Red Army" and not rearmament, but weapons, since there was nothing to remove from service. The same I-16 25 and 29 series was not much inferior to the Me-109 (520 km / h for the I-16 and 570 for the Me-109).
    The only foreign tanks in the combat units of the Nazis at the time of the attack on the USSR were precisely the Czech 35 (t) and 38 (t). End of quote.
    And Manstein wrote that he did not have a single German tank in the Crimea, and he was right: French tanks fought against the Red Army there. Quote from "III Reich. Panzerwaffe" p. 249. So in 1941, 174 French R35 tanks were converted into self-propelled guns with a 47-mm cannon. p. 250. On the Eastern Front, the 211st separate tfnk battalion in Karelia used light N39 (in the Wehrmacht - Зz. 735 (f) and medium S35 (Pz. 739 (f)). In Ukraine and in Khymu 102- 1st tank battalion with heavy B35bis tanks, rearmed with flamethrowers. and one battalion of S35 medium tanks. The R45 tanks transferred to Romania were rearmed with Soviet XNUMX mm cannons. It is known that Churchill opposed any peace with the Third Reich,
    For example, I know, unlike you, that Churchill proposed that Hitler sign a peace treaty on military cooperation in exchange for breaking the "Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact". It should be noted that the word "pact" in the dictionary means: "additional verbal agreements that serve to supplement the peace treaty in order to supplement it in case of unforeseen circumstances." The "pact" was concluded at the level of the interior ministers, and Churchill proposed to conclude an agreement !!! at the level of heads of state. So here you are purely delirious, dear, trying to whitewash Churchill as a peacemaker. And this is not true, since it was he who kindled the beginning of hostilities between the USSR and Germany. He just did not take into account the fact that Hitler would prefer revenge for the Verdun Treaty to "the fight against communism."
    a cordon from dependent states as a barrier?
    Fascist Poland, which together with Germany participated in the seizure of the lands of Czechoslovakia, do you represent as a barrier against Nazi Germany ?! Representatives of the five fascist organizations of Poland sat in the Sejm and occupied a third of the seats in the government in 1927.
    by the fall of 1940, Hitler made the final decision to attack the USSR.
    What nonsense !!!! Hitler launched an attack on France and its ally, England, so that they could not hit him in the rear, creating a Second Front if he attacked the USSR.
    I don’t even read further. Nicely designed troubles, where at the end, most likely there will be an idea of ​​"a preventive strike by the USSR against the Wehrmacht.
    1. evil partisan
      evil partisan 4 June 2016 15: 20
      0
      Quote: shasherin_pavel
      The same I-16 25

      Honestly, I didn’t hear about I-16 type 25 ... what But the fact that Type 28 and Type 29 with M-63 were really not inferior to Emil in air battles (see at least an interview with N. Golodnikov) is a fact. Plus 2 guns for "Type 28" is a weighty argument ... True, the Germans often used the fact that they had more fuel and when the I-16s left the battle due to Emily's fuel consumption they were caught ...
  9. Arktidianets
    Arktidianets 4 June 2016 14: 43
    0
    Quite sensible arguments were expressed in the article, only history does not know the subjunctive mood, anyway, yes ... article plus.
    1. SergeBS
      SergeBS 6 June 2016 00: 59
      0
      Quote: Arctidian
      Quite sound reasoning is expressed in the article.

      Quite schizophrenic nonsense in the article, or rather, illiterate propaganda about "US democracy is our everything." Because "punctures" on "punctures" and "punctures" are driven by facts. Competent propaganda is when REAL facts are cited, but NOT ALL. And in the libel - bullshit. Calculated for the ALL stupid victims of the exam.
  10. Sergey333
    Sergey333 4 June 2016 18: 54
    0
    Or is it enough to stir up the past? What happened has passed, you cannot return and you will not change. The only thing we can do is to correctly and without lies tell all this in history textbooks.
  11. Vladimir Vladimirovich Medvedev
    Vladimir Vladimirovich Medvedev 4 June 2016 20: 39
    0
    The causes of the Second World War are not as primitive as the author believes.
  12. 23424636
    23424636 4 June 2016 20: 49
    0
    Stalin was a great strategist who regained control over the territories lost by Russia during the treacherous conspiracy in Brest. A similar situation happened in our time after the betrayal of Gorbachev and Yeltsin, the country's territory narrowed to the limits of the RSFSR, which never corresponded to the true borders of the Russian state. The current concessions that come from laurel to the OSCE’s armed mission in Donbass are clearly not comparing Stalin’s policies to push Europe away from Russian land.
  13. guznorodov
    guznorodov 4 June 2016 21: 00
    0
    Here, the article certainly says that Hitler made such decisions. His outgrowth was eaten in order to deal with the USSR. And then take it off the run. Germany and I have been poisoned since the First World War.
  14. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 4 June 2016 21: 07
    -1
    In general, the article is accurate. Stalin and Hitler managed to peacefully divide the north and the center
    Eastern Europe, but in the division of Southeast Europe, they quarreled.

    The Reich received oil from Romania and Bulgaria. Bulgaria's return to Soviet control
    and the Red Army on two borders with Romania were absolutely unacceptable to Hitler.
    (The USSR had no problems with oil - Baku is far behind). Insistence Molotov in December
    The negotiations in Berlin in 1940 on control of Bulgaria and the Turkish Straits were rude
    diplomatic mistake. In addition, Molotov foolishly joked about Hitler’s inability to defeat
    Britain ("if Britain is almost defeated, why are we negotiating in a bomb shelter,
    under the air defense sirens? ") Hitler exploded and ordered the General Staff to prepare a detailed study of Barbarossa.

    Molotov was punished upon arrival in Moscow, and Stalin sent letters of apology to Hitler.
    But it was too late.
    1. SergeBS
      SergeBS 6 June 2016 01: 14
      0
      Quote: voyaka uh
      In general, the article is accurate.

      On the whole, the article is not only inaccurate, but schizophrenic delirium, or "social" order (you can easily guess which country).
      Because the "facts" of this article are, to put it mildly, not facts. And the conclusions are generally a complete out. They are not friendly with logic.
  15. Grim Reaper
    Grim Reaper 4 June 2016 23: 27
    +1
    Quote: atalef
    Quote: Vladimirets
    Chicken is a bird, rooster is a bird.

    Bulgaria - Abroad wassat

    Drink Coca-Cola, read the newspapers and go to school ... ☺☺☺
  16. Grim Reaper
    Grim Reaper 4 June 2016 23: 42
    +1
    There are a lot of "alternative" stories. From "Stalin and Hitler wanted to conquer the whole world" to "The USSR unleashed World War II." I read similar articles "obliquely". We won! And, as winners, we have every right to write OUR history.
  17. SergeBS
    SergeBS 5 June 2016 22: 12
    0
    Quote: Ecilop
    “The process of rearmament of the Red Army was in full swing, as was the growing rapprochement between England and the United States. And Hitler made a fateful choice for himself. ”

    Further ALREADY not to read. There is no heat of rearmament in peacetime in a healthy economy. The rearmament of the army is a continuous process.
    It is not the D-lords who know this, but the author - the L-D (and provocateur).
    In continuation of his essence, he also spoke -
    Quote: Ecilop
    The point is not in the evil will of the British and French governments, but rather in the absence thereof, as well as the psychological fatigue of their peoples.

    "New" term. Passionarity is no longer fashionable (Gumilev seems to have invented, he was also a "great connoisseur" of the reasons for the rise and fall of empires). Although it's the same, only in profile. "Passionarity" was smashed to pieces, it was necessary to "compose a new one."
    Well, the classics of the genre for such shit-throwers - "Hitler and Stalin are the same. It's just that the lads on the arrow didn't divide the regions."