Non-aggression pact with Germany: the USSR simply left no choice

On the 80th anniversary of the conclusion of the Soviet-German Non-aggression Treaty, more than expected, there was a sharp aggravation among the anti-Stalinists of all countries and peoples, for whom this historical moment has always been a sore subject. The real fountains of Russophobia, anti-Soviet and, most importantly, eternal hatred of our country, which does not cease, no matter what name it bears, boiled, boiled, and soared. The words about “conspiracy of two dictators”, “opening the way for world war” and other fabrications of such a blow are thundering again. Why is all this being done? After all, the reason is not in the same old grievances of Poland and the Baltic states?



USSR Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov and German Fuhrer Adolf Hitler


The goal is visible to the naked eye: to equate in historical terms communism and Nazism, to put an equal sign between the Third Reich and the USSR, in this way depriving our country, our people, of the status of the victors of Nazism, the saviors of mankind from the "brown plague". Today, it’s especially important for the modern West, turning everything upside down, turning white into black, making heroes villains and liberators aggressors. Not repelling such machinations is like silently watching someone spit on the Victory Banner or mock the mass grave of its creators.

About the "aggressors" and "victims"


Naturally, Western (and after it - domestic liberal) historiography, starting a conversation about the agreement concluded in 1939 between the USSR and Germany, is struggling to present the case in such a way that the "two totalitarian and aggressive states" took, and shredded for nothing, for nothing, virgin innocent, extremely peaceful and deeply democratic Poland. Ay-yai-yay ... Well, but in reality? In reality, everything was exactly the opposite. At the time of the signing of the notorious treaty in the Kremlin, the Soviet Union did not take any actions against a country that, even with the strongest desire, could be interpreted as aggressive. They attacked us, imposed trade, "gold", diplomatic and other blockades against us, tried to stifle them with hunger and devastation - that was all. The intervention against the young Country of Soviets involved not only Poles and Germans, but also the very French, British and Americans whose descendants are now trying to make us “the culprits of the Second World War”. We did not touch them. They crouched on our land, killed, raped and robbed. In 1939, there were more than enough participants in those events.

In the Far East, Japan, the closest ally of the Third Reich, constantly tried to test our strength and defenses. Concerning Poland, the conversation is generally special, because it chopped off territories in our country in the 20s. No, we are not with her! The Provisional Government, and then the Bolsheviks, having come to power, recognized Warsaw’s right to independence and national self-determination, but then they paid for it in their usual manner, that is, in bestial manner. They decided: while the hated Russians are in the Civil War, we will take away Ukraine, Belarus and, as it turns out, bite off the Baltic states. Well, and then how it comes out ... The main Polish Fuhrer - Joseph Pilsudski, croaked about the "sphere of influence from Finland to the Caucasus" (not weak, however, an appetite), and away we go. However, as usual, Poland had more ambition than real forces, so I had to be content with what I managed to snatch - exclusively by Western Ukrainian and Belarusian lands. “Well, better than nothing!” - They decided in Warsaw, and began to wait in the wings, preparing for the division of Russia.

Quotes from the report of the General Staff there (written, by the way, in 1938), in which a line says about the "defeat" of Russia and its dismemberment as the highest military and political Poland’s goals have long been imposed on everyone’s teeth, but what can you do - you won’t erase a word from a song. And what scale did the anti-Soviet subversive activities of the 2nd Division of the same General Staff, the so-called "Two-Mans", reach at the same time, so it’s possible not only to write a separate article, a whole book! Both single spies and saboteurs in the USSR were sent almost in droves, and entire gangs armed to the teeth. What they just didn’t do: burned, blew up, killed and dirty as soon as they could. And here's another thing: We divided Czechoslovakia with the Third Reich into a couple? Or is it Poland? The USSR was just eager to intervene in this infamy, if necessary - and by force of arms. And the British and French did not allow him to do this, having presented Czechoslovakia to Hitler in Munich, as they say, on a platter - only to help him prepare for the war against us. The USSR just consistently opposed Nazi adventures, called for the creation of an international security system that would make them impossible - but only who listened to it!

The Soviet Union concluded a non-aggression pact with the Third Reich the last in Europe. Poland is perhaps the first ... Our country by 1939 was, in fact, the only one that fought against the Nazis! It is quite real war, and not glorifying them notes with an "expression of concern." In view of I have, if someone suddenly did not understand, Spain. Nazi Germany and fascist Italy provided military support to the Francois coup d'état quite openly, sending whole military units there (one Legion “Condor” was worth it). The USSR did not enter into confrontation at the state level, however, the flow of weapons, military equipment, and, most importantly, fighters, officers and generals of the Red Army, went from us continuously. Citizens of the rest of Europe, if they participated in the war on the side of the Republicans, are exclusively in the form of private initiative as part of the so-called "international brigades." The League of Nations quickly organized a "Committee of Non-Intervention in Spanish Affairs" and announced an embargo on the supply of weapons to which the fascists of all countries wanted to "cheat". Only the USSR had the conscience and courage to send fighters and tanks to the Republicans. Well, and the last: even in the summer of 1939, when the threat of a Nazi invasion hung over Poland, the Soviet Union was ready to defend it! All these intentions were smashed to pieces by the donkey stubbornness of the Poles themselves, who said they would rather die than allow at least one Red Army soldier to enter their territory. And what could we do?

Multiple Virtuality


Those who are talking about the “criminal conspiracy of dictators” today and are covering up the non-aggression pact are stubbornly unwilling to answer the question: “How would everything go, did Stalin refuse to negotiate with Berlin in August 1939?” Do you know why? Yes, because any versions of this very answer, coming from the true historical and military-political realities of that time, and not sucked from a finger, completely break their whole nonsense. And let's consider them, at least the basic ones. The most ideal continuation of the events, of course, seems to be the shameful return of Ribbentrop, who had received a complete slap from Stalin, to Berlin, after which Hitler, fearing, immediately cancels the already approved and signed directives on the invasion of Poland. And then he goes to console himself with schnapps with beer in the closest beer to the Reich Chancellery, having realized that nothing will come of his plans for world domination ... It's funny, right? Wait a minute, it’ll be even funnier. An option that gentlemen of liberal historians broadcast with the murderous seriousness of clowns is “the creation of a broad European anti-Hitler coalition, with the participation of Great Britain, France and the USSR,” which would not only protect Poland, but would also put an end to all the aggressive claims of the Third Reich, as as such. This, excuse me, is not a version. This is complete nonsense, so do not blame me ...

This alignment is even more fantastic than the Fuhrer in the rumpled uniform, dropping muddy tears in the mug with the Bavarian in August 39 because of the diplomatic failure that befell him in Moscow. Yes, if the countries of the West wanted to fight Hitler and his gang, had at least a shadow of the intention to stop them, they would have done it! They would not turn a blind eye to the transformation of the toothless Reichswehr into a mighty Wehrmacht, the occupation by Germany of the demilitarized zones, the Anschluss of Austria and other “cute pranks”. They wouldn’t help “saw” Czechoslovakia, threatening war to anyone who dares to intervene. And most importantly, they would not have pumped up the Third Reich with loans, military materials and technologies, would not have pushed it quite openly to the "great campaign to the East." In the summer of 1939, neither the British nor the French had yet penetrated - in Nazi Germany, they saw a threat not for themselves, their loved ones, but exclusively for the Bolsheviks deeply hated by them. The goal in front of them was clear and precise - to push Berlin and Moscow at any cost in a fighter war. For this it would be necessary to surrender Poland - they would surrender as dear ones. What was she, after all, better than the same Czechoslovakia, Spain or Romania, for the "salvation" of which, in London and Paris, they did not lift a finger? While Hitler declared anti-communism and a firm intention to go to war on the Russians, absolutely everything was forgiven to him. However, the non-interference of Britain and France - this was far from the worst option. Of the real ones, of course ...

Yes, the most, perhaps, is the time to move from nonsense to talking about how events could actually develop. So, let's say Stalin declares: “No agreements with Hitler! We will fight for Poland! ” In this case, the Fuhrer would not refuse to attack and would not have thought - if he had been afraid of the Red Army in 1939, he would not have come to us in 1941, when the army became even more powerful. So, war ... There’s only a problem - the USSR does not have a common border with the Third Reich. How will we fight? It remains only to send troops into Polish territory, and immediately engage in battle with the "defended." That is exactly how it was in reality! However, in this case we would not have any agreement with the Germans. Do you know how Hitler would have acted in this situation if he had even a drop of brains (and the Führer, of course, had them, and in large numbers)? He would quickly reconcile himself to the Poles, frightened to a bear’s disease, go to the front of Paris and London, withdraw troops, and ... And the Soviet Union would be the aggressor in the eyes of the “world community”! With all, as they say, flowing. The option of allowing the Poles to pass through our Wehrmacht for a “retaliation strike” against the USSR is far from the worst, believe me. All of Europe could unite against us, and most likely would unite by starting the long-planned “crusade against Bolshevism”. It could not be, you say? Well, yes, and there was no intervention of this entire European pack in the 20s. And plans to wipe the USSR off the face of the earth with atomic bombs, which in the USA and Britain began to cherish already in 1945. Of course, it wasn’t that I invented everything ...

And here you are, by the way, another virtuality, more than likely and utterly rotten. There is quite reliable evidence that literally in the last months and weeks before the war, when Warsaw thoroughly smelled the fried, there they were very actively trying to negotiate with Hitler on absolutely any terms. We were ready to give Danzig and to join the Anti-Comintern Pact - everything, as the Fuhrer had previously demanded. It so happened that the Nazis turned out to be even more stubborn than the Polish lords and having decided to completely tear them to pieces, they refused flatly to any negotiations: “Before, you had to twist your nose with a smaller one!” Otherwise, the Soviet Union would have had a very real chance that the Great Patriotic War would have begun for him not in the summer of 1941, but two years earlier and in a much more unfavorable military-strategic situation. You think I'm exaggerating? So, after all, it’s not a secret to the moaning of the Polish “leg” angels, “historians” who bitterly lament that Warsaw never became a military ally for the Third Reich against the USSR! A certain Pyotr Zykhovich piled up a whole little book precisely on this topic, and roughly called: “How valiant Poles with the Wehrmacht in the same ranks of Russians would be defeated” - something like this roughly, the meaning is exactly like that. Another figure, Pavel Vechorkevich (who professed at Warsaw University, by the way) even calculated that Warsaw could well give the Wehrmacht the very same “missing dozens of divisions and hundreds of tanks,” which, according to the pundit, Hitler was just not enough to take To Moscow. He regretted it terribly ... There is not the slightest doubt - had Hitler made another decision (and in the case of a negative answer, in Moscow it was more than possible) and the Polish Zhovners would have tried to conquer us in the front ranks of the invasion army, as it, in fact, was in the same 1812.

USSR left no choice


All of the above scenarios would not only be dangerous for the Soviet Union - they could lead to its death. The war that began in 1941 with Nazi Germany and its many satellites cost our people 27 million victims. What would happen if this thunderstorm erupted in 1939 - and it hurts to think. And if all Western countries had turned against the USSR ... And just don’t talk about “exaggeration” and “distortion”! The first plan for the destruction and dismemberment of Soviet Russia was drawn up by our future "allies in the anti-Hitler coalition" back in December 1917. Do you think something in their attitude towards the USSR has changed, after 22 years? If it has changed, then certainly not for the better. Simply, the USSR no longer saw them as easy prey. If they were going to fight it with their own hands, it was only at the final stage of hostilities, when the Red Army would be bloodless and practically defeated. Equally, however, like the Wehrmacht, which was fostered by them, just for this purpose. In 1939, both London and Paris made every effort to turn the negotiations in Moscow, literally on the eve of Ribbentrop’s arrival, into a natural clownery, and they succeeded in this. Delegations, which, like a laugh, included some, forgive me, gentlemen, old farthers, mothballs generals and admirals who did not have any authority, traveled for a fortnight in the most circular way possible. But, if desired, could fly in a day ...

Arriving in the Kremlin, these pompous boobies pushed water in a mortar, poured from empty to empty, ground them with tongues, bringing to death both Molotov, Voroshilov and Stalin himself. Judging by the recollections of eyewitnesses, Kliment Efremovich with Joseph Vissarionovich hardly restrained the desire to strangle these empty chimes, obviously time-consuming. They pulled him! Subsequently, in the memoirs of the highest representatives of the British and French “establishment”, it will be disarmingly frankly said: the purpose of the clownish “negotiations” was not to conclude a military alliance with the Bolsheviks, but to “intimidate” Hitler exactly until he refused to march on Poland due to the onset of late autumn and lousy weather conditions. There is no doubt - until next year, Paris and London would make every effort to ensure that the Wehrmacht popped straight to the USSR, without being distracted by anything "extraneous". Who knows, after all, it could well have turned out, at least according to one of the above scenarios. The Czechs and Slovaks at one time twisted their hands, forcing Hitler to surrender and, in fact, become his allies. Do you think this focus would not have gone with the Poles? Somehow I do not really believe it, especially given the mood and aspirations of the latter. Stalin perfectly understood and foresaw all these “rotten” layouts. He felt that the decision should be taken immediately, without any rumors and delays, otherwise it would be too late to bite your elbows.

Yes, Joseph Vissarionovich did not trust Britain and France for nothing. What should have been ?! Why would it all be? During the spring and summer of 1939, the Soviet Union pounded like a fish on ice, over and over again offering them to create a real, not tinsel, alliance against the Nazis. And every time I was refused. We did everything we could to prevent a new world war, and the potential "allies" behind the back of the USSR did not spare their strength to destroy him in this war. Stalin simply saw through all these tricks and came to the unequivocal conclusion: war cannot be avoided. Now, as a true Leader, he had only one task: to delay the start of hostilities for a maximum period of time and use this time to the full to prepare the army and country for them. What he did, in general, was how much this could be done in a short two years. Regarding the fact that Joseph Vissarionovich hoped that, having devoured Poland, Hitler, confident in the neutrality of the USSR, would turn to the West, where his teeth would break off pretty well, didn’t this really happen? The only thing Stalin was cruelly mistaken in was his assessment of the Europeans' ability to defend their homeland. Well, the future Supreme, who until the last refused to leave Moscow, in fact, already besieged by the Germans, could not predict that they would take Paris without a single shot! It did not fit in his head.

This is perhaps the only mistake made by Stalin when signing the notorious pact. He probably expected that the Wehrmacht would crawl to our borders in five or seven years, decently battered. But it turned out the opposite - Europe surrendered to the Nazis, in fact, without a fight. Not only that, they replenished their arsenals with their weapons, and already considerable ratifications - with many volunteers from all over, eager to “destroy Bolshevism”. Well, nothing, everyone was reassured, everyone had a place in the graves ... In any case, to say today that it was the non-aggression agreement, signed in the Kremlin on August 23, 1939, became the "World War II trigger", either full idiots and ignoramuses, or complete Russophobia, to whom no law is written. Including the laws of History. This war was absolutely inevitable, it just went completely different from the scenario that was planned in the West, and now they are raging there. As the leader of the country, Stalin did exactly what he had to do, and there can be no slightest complaints against him. As for Poland ... Well, excuse me for cynicism, but in 1939 it got exactly what it deserved and asked for, I mean, from the USSR. And we didn’t take anything from them then, we just returned our own. Joseph Vissarionovich was an imperial to the core and was not going to squander Russian lands a single inch. The agreement he signed was the first step towards the great Victory of 1945. Well, trying to “judge” the winners is the eternal destiny of the vanquished ...
Photos used: https://www.vg.no/
Ctrl Enter

Noticed oshЫbku Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

66 comments
Information

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.
I have an account? Sign in

  1. The comment was deleted.
  2. steelmaker Offline
    steelmaker 24 August 2019 11: 15
    +3
    • 4
    • 1
    So many years have passed, but they can’t forgive Stalin for the fact that he delayed the war for two years. Fascists burned Poles in stoves, hung on the squares, and they still hate Russia. Why be friends with such, their .......... necessary. They built the Yeltsin Center, so maybe we’ll build something for Stalin? Stalin deserves respect !!
    1. A.Lex Offline
      A.Lex (Secret information) 24 August 2019 13: 41
      +2
      • 2
      • 0
      ... unlike EBN-on!
  3. Oleg Rambover Offline
    Oleg Rambover (Oleg Rambover) 25 August 2019 01: 15
    +2
    • 2
    • 0
    I always look with interest at the work of Comrade Neukropny.

    And just do not talk about "exaggeration" and "distortion"!

    Well, why not, of course, juggling.
    If we turn to the work of Comrade Hitler, we will see that the living space in the East for the German people included all of Poland, it is hard to believe that they did not know about it in Warsaw, and we were going to pull the USSR together with Germany.
    Variants of the alternative history of Comrade Neukropny breaks up into actual history, if France and England dreamed of participating in the defeat of the USSR together with Germany, then why they declared war on Hitler is not clear.
    In general, this point is circumvented in this article, why did France and England need it?
  4. Oleg Rambover Offline
    Oleg Rambover (Oleg Rambover) 25 August 2019 01: 17
    +2
    • 2
    • 0
    Now about the pact itself.
    As a preface, let us turn to the background of the First World War. The German war plan was called the Schlieffen plan (Lunch will be in Paris and dinner in St. Petersburg). In short, the plan was that while the Russian Empire was swinging (mobilizing) - to defeat France, and then throw all its forces against Russia. Then it did not work out. But the essence of this plan was realized already during the Second World War, with the help of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, although it also did not help. And yes, Hitler ordered an attack on Poland on the day the pact was signed.
  5. Bakht Offline
    Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 25 August 2019 07: 53
    +2
    • 2
    • 0
    “The dismemberment of Russia lies at the basis of Polish politics in the East ... Therefore, our possible position will be reduced to the following formula: who will take part in the section. Poland should not remain passive at this wonderful historical moment. The task is to prepare well in advance physically and spiritually ... The main goal is to weaken and defeat Russia. ”

    Report of the 2nd Division of the General Staff of the Polish Army (December, 1938)
  6. Bakht Offline
    Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 25 August 2019 07: 56
    +1
    • 2
    • 1
    Comrade Stalin knew the history of the First World War well. And he read literature on it, published in the 30s. Therefore, in 1939, he was not going to step on the same rake. Hence the signing of the Covenant. Everything is logical.
  7. Bakht Offline
    Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 25 August 2019 08: 01
    0
    • 1
    • 1
    In April, the headquarters of the Supreme Command of the Wehrmacht (OKW) prepared a draft "Directive on the uniform preparation of the armed forces for the war for 1939-1940." and a preliminary version of the war plan with Poland (Weiss plan). June 15, 1939 “Weiss Plan” - was approved by the OKH and intended to complete preparations for the war by September 1.
    -------
    Hitler ordered an attack on Poland at 4.30 a.m. on August 26. However, on the same day, he received a message from Chamberlain about supporting Poland in case of war. On August 25, Great Britain signed a mutual assistance agreement with Poland, which became known in Berlin. In addition, Italy, which had previously expressed concern about the threat of a new world war, announced the refusal to participate in it. All this led to the fact that approximately at 8 p.m. an order was given to cancel the attack on Poland.
    -------
    Early in the morning of August 31, Hitler signed Directive No. 1 on the attack at 4-45 in the morning on September 1, 1939.
  8. fevralsk.morev.75 (Sergey Morev) 25 August 2019 14: 08
    +2
    • 3
    • 1
    Judge a statesman by the final results. But the result is one - we won. So, the pact was signed correctly.
  9. DPN Offline
    DPN (DPN) 25 August 2019 20: 36
    0
    • 1
    • 1
    As they used to say: the steam train was already gone, these things were needed in the 90s, when the USSR fell. Then it was unprofitable for the Russian Federation, and now it is no longer interesting to anyone, they did the job - the USSR countries were gone. The same sanctions remained against the country, but instead of equality, oligarchs appeared.
  10. Oleg Rambover Offline
    Oleg Rambover (Oleg Rambover) 25 August 2019 23: 24
    +2
    • 2
    • 0
    The pact was much more profitable than Germany than the USSR. In the next commentary this thesis is expanded, but there are a lot of letters, not all will master.
    1. Oleg Rambover Offline
      Oleg Rambover (Oleg Rambover) 25 August 2019 23: 30
      +2
      • 2
      • 0
      Let us try to examine the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact from the height of today's knowledge.
      I have a negative attitude towards the pact, but maybe someone can bring convincing arguments in favor of this agreement.
      Let us leave aside the moral side of the matter, that the USSR divided several independent countries with Nazi Germany. Consider purely from a mercantile point of view, profitable - not profitable.

      Proponents of the pact cite two main advantages:
      1. The border moved 600 km from Moscow.
      It is difficult to argue on this point, the only moment that the USSR was not able to take advantage of this, the Nazis traveled this distance in less than a week and on June 28 took Minsk. After which, Stalin said: “Lenin left us a great legacy, and we, his heirs, shook it all ...” During this time, the USSR lost over 400 thousand soldiers and 3300 tanks in the acquired territories (German invasion forces amounted to 3700 tanks).

      2. The war was delayed by 2 years
      I do not agree with this point. Germany did not make plans to attack the USSR in the year 39. The Polish company began in the fall, and it is impossible to imagine that Germany attacked "in the winter." In 40, it is also difficult to imagine an attack until France was defeated. It seems that Joseph Vissarionovich did not expect an attack in 41, until England was defeated.

      Now the cons.
      1. The war was delayed by 2 years.
      Germany obviously used these two years better than the USSR, the Wehrmacht of 39 and 41 years - two big differences, in 39 the majority of the German tank fleet were machine gun wedges. The war with Poland consumed resources on the verge of Germany's capabilities. The Luftwaffe ran out of bombs in the Polish company. The USSR in 39 had more tanks than the rest of Europe (and maybe the world) combined, and they still did not have time to become obsolete.
      In addition, the economic power of Germany in 39 and 41 are two big differences, during which time Denmark, Norway, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, France, Yugoslavia, Greece were occupied.
      In 39, Germany had no allies. Even Italy was not eager to get into World War II, not to mention Finland, Romania and Bulgaria.
      During these two years, the Wehrmacht gained a reputation as invincible machines, the Red Army created the illusion of its weaknesses in an unsuccessful war with Finland.
      The main weapon of England was an economic blockade. Although there was an import substitution program in Germany, some products were not replaceable. The border between the USSR and Germany was a huge hole in this blockade.
      In short, by the summer of the 41st, the USSR was left face to face with Nazi Germany, which had significantly intensified and only at the cost of incredible efforts and sacrifices, was able to win. The pre-war foreign policy of the USSR can hardly be called successful.
      2. The pact was much more profitable than Germany, since it allowed Hitler to deal with his opponents one at a time, of course, he broke off with the USSR, but the price was monstrous.
      3. Reputation losses. The pact caused great disappointment among members of the left-wing parties of Europe. The conspiracy with Nazi Germany inflicted serious reputational losses on the USSR. An economic blockade was introduced against the USSR by Western countries.
      Conclusion: the minuses greatly exceed the pluses (my IMHO is clear)
  11. Bakht Offline
    Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 26 August 2019 08: 44
    0
    • 1
    • 1
    Have to write a lot of letters. I'm afraid that not everyone will master :-)
    The article is called: "The USSR left no choice." Let's look at a few points.
    In 1939, the USSR had three options. Sign an agreement with Western democracies, sign an agreement with Germany and stay away. Both sides - England and France, and Germany, were looking for an agreement with the USSR. So, the choice seemed to be. In reality, there was no choice.

    The agreement with Western democracies was ABSOLUTELY unequal and could not be signed. At least due to the fact that Stalin knew the history of the First World War well. The minutes of the meetings in Moscow clearly show what England and France wanted. The recording of General Dumenka’s speech is a talker’s masterpiece. After his speech, the contract could be forgotten forever.

    It was also impossible to stay away. The fact that the war would begin was very obvious. And the position of the USSR did not influence this at all. The Germans go to Minsk, and then, in the 41st, they would not have taken him in a week, but in a few hours. Details of the comparison of the Wehrmacht and the Red Army of the 1939 model are given later.
    The fact that the Germans ran out of bombs makes France's position even more vile. One hundred French divisions versus 20 German divisions, which have no ammunition.

    The third possibility is the signing of an agreement with Germany. The USSR does not enter the war. Has the ability to reorganize the Red Army. The number of the Red Army of 1939 - 1,5 million people. The Wehrmacht is about the same. Change the structure of compounds, prepare reservists, get back the lands captured during the period of Russia's weakness. And this is not only Western Ukraine and Belarus. These are the Baltic states and Karelia. This is the defense of Leningrad. And exit from the "marquise puddle". Today, Baltic Fleet is in the same puddle.

    And finally, why did the USSR have to sign a treaty with Western democracies? The USSR was thrown out of the political life of Europe in the 38th year, and when the rooster pecked - they wanted to be friends? In 2014, the Russian Federation was thrown out of the political life of Europe. And now they urgently needed Russia in the EU and G-7? It is a pity that there is no Stalin. In 2019, the Russian Federation should do the same as Stalin in 1939. But the pygmies have no steel will. Name at least one reason why it was NOT NECESSARY to sign an agreement with Germany ... In anticipation of a great war.

    The title of the article is absolutely correct - "The USSR did not leave a choice."
    1. Oleg Rambover Offline
      Oleg Rambover (Oleg Rambover) 28 August 2019 01: 01
      0
      • 0
      • 0
      There is always a choice.
      The goals of the main players in August 39th, in my opinion, are as follows:
      Germany, defeating Poland, while avoiding the pulling of Western powers into the war, if the West nevertheless gets drawn in, avoiding drawing the USSR and the war on two fronts. The pact provided the last point, and in Germany was considered a diplomatic victory.

      The West wanted to avoid war, but at the same time not to allow Germany to become too strong (Munich did not teach anything), perhaps to direct aggression to the East, but I did not see anything about this from credible sources, and the actual actions of the West are not consistent with this goal. The pact was a diplomatic defeat of the West.

      The USSR wanted, firstly, to direct Hitler’s aggression to the West, and secondly, hoped that a future war would weaken both the West and Germany. The pact made it possible to solve the first problem, but the second missed the mark, the lightning victories of Germany did not weaken it, but rather strengthened it. By and large, the pact became a diplomatic defeat of the USSR.

      What makes you think that the treaty with the Western powers was unequal? Did you read it?
      If this treaty was even unequal, but would have allowed meeting June 22 with an ally on the continent, then it was better than a pact. The very existence of this treaty could stop the outbreak of world war.

      Staying away is also a good solution. At the initial stage of the war, Germany needed a friendly USSR, if Stalin had not provided such guarantees, it is likely that Hitler would not have decided to attack Poland.

      Quote: Bakht
      What is one reason why it was NOT NECESSARY to sign an agreement with Germany ...

      The consequence of this pact was that the USSR was left face to face with the increased power of Germany.
      The pact strengthened Germany, while Stalin was preparing for war with Germany, it was strange to strengthen his future adversary.
      This, of course, is a debatable issue, but not the fact that without the pact Hitler would attack Poland.
      1. Bakht Offline
        Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 28 August 2019 07: 35
        +2
        • 2
        • 0
        I read the minutes of the meetings in Moscow. And already wrote that the speech of the head of the French mission was very revealing. As well as the performance of the English side. This is an exact repetition of the First World War. The conclusion of a pact with Western countries leaves the USSR alone with Germany. This is not speculation, but a fact that has been fully confirmed in the case of Poland. So, here you can not guess. We have a real picture. The Anglo-Polish agreement provided for immediate assistance to the victim of aggression. Have you completed it? Not. In the case of the USSR, NOT even this was provided for. The Western draft agreement said that everyone is fighting on his own front. No more.

        The conclusion of an agreement with Germany did NOT direct German aggression to the West. It was about Eastern Europe. And without the Pact, Hitler would have attacked Poland anyway. Imagine that there is no Pact, and the USSR remained on the sidelines. And what does this mean that the USSR and Germany are at war? Absolutely not. Hitler simply would have captured ALL of Poland. There was no ally on the continent. Poland had two allies on the continent. Did it help her much? France had every opportunity to end the war in September 1939. Why didn't she do that? Have you met any reliable sources that Germany was sent to the East? Do you not consider real events? Strengthening the military power of Germany is the direct work of the West. Failure to provide assistance to Poland is a direct indication of where Germany was heading. Sometimes there is no forest visible behind the trees.

        The main question is whether the Pact influenced the beginning of World War II. No effect. It was a non-aggression pact between the USSR and Germany. Exactly the same as all other Covenants. On the Internet there is an interrogation of witness Dalerus at the Nuremberg Tribunal. The events of August 1939 are examined there. It was about shuttle diplomacy. There is London, Berlin, Rome, Warsaw. But the position of Moscow is not considered at all. For the simple reason that this position had no effect on decision making. Moscow was excluded from European politics by Europe itself. Search Halifax's letter (as agreed with Chamberlain) for Goering on the Internet. On August 25, England sold offal to Poland. Therefore, Hitler canceled the attack on August 26. Warsaw rested and did not want to go to the second Munich. Therefore, the war did not begin on August 26, but on September 1.

        Of course, the Moscow Treaty was a political defeat of the West. It was not possible to draw the USSR into the war against Germany one on one. I had to harness ourselves for Poland. This is absolutely not a debatable issue. An attack on Poland would be anyway. I just don’t understand why the USSR had to fight for a hostile Poland? Having a war in the Far East (we have already discussed Khalkhin Gol and, I believe that there was a war). This did not understand Stalin. I do not see a single reason why the USSR had to assume obligations to protect Poland. Despite the fact that Poland itself refused this help. But Western countries were not going to help.
        1. Bakht Offline
          Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 28 August 2019 10: 30
          +1
          • 1
          • 0
          Record of the meeting of military missions in Moscow on August 14, 1939

          Gene. Dumenk:
          - I will try to answer this question. It is very easy for me to answer him, because, it seems to me, the Marshal and I understand each other well.
          General Gamelin thinks, and I, as his subordinate, think the same way our first task is to each hold fast to our front and to group our forces on these fronts. As for the countries mentioned above, we believe that their business is to defend their territory. But we must be ready to help them when they ask for it. And in this case, we must provide ways of communication that they have not developed enough. I have prepared a rough outline that can clarify my thoughts. (General Dumenk, in his scheme, gives an explanation to Comrade K. E. Voroshilov.)
          - These countries are defending their territory, but we are helping them.

          Marshal K.E. Voroshilov:
          - And if they do not require help?

          Gene. Dumenk:
          “We know that they need this help.”

          Marshal K.E. Voroshilov:
          - ... {{* The ellipsis in the document.}} If they do not promptly ask for this help, it will mean that they raised their hands up, that they are giving up.

          Gene. Dumenk:
          “That would be extremely unpleasant.”

          Marshal K.E. Voroshilov:
          - What then will the French army do?

          Gene. Dumenk:
          France will then keep on its front the forces that it considers necessary.


          Is there something about a joint fight with the aggressor?

          Adm. Drax:
          - If Poland and Romania do not require assistance from the USSR, they will soon become simple German provinces, and then the USSR will decide what to do with them. If, on the other hand, the USSR, France and England are allied, then the question of whether Romania and Poland will ask for help becomes completely obvious.

          Marshal K.E. Voroshilov:
          - I repeat, gentlemen, that this question is a very cardinal issue for the Soviet Union.

          Adm. Drax:
          “Once again, I repeat my answer.” If the USSR, France and England will be allies, then in this case, in my personal opinionThere can be no doubt that Poland and Romania will ask for help. But that's my personal opinion, and to get an accurate answer that leaves no doubt, you need to ask Poland.

          As you know, Poland became a German province and the USSR acted with it as it saw fit. And finally. The personal opinion of Admiral Drax did not mean anything, since Poland refused to help the USSR.

          The question is - did it make sense to sign this agreement?
  12. Bakht Offline
    Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 26 August 2019 09: 23
    +1
    • 2
    • 1
    The next question is the blockade of Germany. Whether there was a Pact or not, but between Germany and the USSR there was a trade agreement. And it did not depend on the Pact. Rather, the dependence was inverse. First a trade agreement, then a political one. The USSR was not obliged to impose a blockade on Germany precisely because it did not participate in the war. And due to this, in two years I received a lot of machine tools, equipment and samples of military equipment from Germany. So, trade with Germany was beneficial to the USSR.
    If England and France wanted to introduce a complete blockade of Germany, then they had to declare war and occupy the USSR. There were plans. To deprive Germany of Soviet oil, it was planned to bomb Baku and Grozny.
    Comparing with the present. Europe imposes sanctions against the Russian Federation and then cries, which incurs losses from this. If Europe wants energy independence, then let it switch to dung or buy everything in the States.
    I simply don’t see the reasons why the USSR should have introduced the economic blockade of Germany in order to please Western democracies.
    1. Oleg Rambover Offline
      Oleg Rambover (Oleg Rambover) 28 August 2019 19: 52
      0
      • 0
      • 0
      There would be no trade agreement, there would be no pact. You could say a trade agreement is part of the pact. I do not consider the blockade from the point of view - obligated - not obligated. I consider from the point of view - profitable - not profitable, it was the USSR. You claim that the pact and the trade agreement with Germany were part of the preparation of the USSR for the war with Germany. In theory, in anticipation of the war, we must weaken the enemy, and not help develop his economy. It is unlikely that Germany was trading at a loss. It turns out that the advantages that the USSR received from trade with Germany were leveled by the advantages that Germany received from trade with the USSR. If the result is zero, what is the point of this trade agreement in terms of a future war? And the transit of goods for Germany through the territory of the USSR directly damaged the country's defense capabilities, strengthened Hitler’s power and brought nothing to Stalin.

      Quote: Bakht
      If England and France wanted to introduce a complete blockade of Germany, then they had to declare war and occupy the USSR.

      The blockade weakened the power of Germany, in fact, the Entente defeated during WWII. Do you think the weakening of Germany was not in the interests of the USSR during the first two years of the war?
      The USSR was not supposed to impose a blockade to please Western democracies, the USSR was in its interests to weaken its future adversary by imposing a blockade, because according to your own words, no one in the country's leadership doubted the war with Germany.
      1. Bakht Offline
        Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 28 August 2019 20: 25
        +2
        • 2
        • 0
        You claim that the pact and the trade agreement with Germany were part of the preparation of the USSR for the war with Germany.

        I do not state this. The USSR was not going to fight Germany. Why do you think so? The USSR wanted to trade with Germany, and this trade was beneficial to both countries. The trade agreement and the PACT were precisely the events that were supposed to prevent the war.
        Just like now. The increase in combat effectiveness of the RF Armed Forces does not mean that the Russian Federation is going to attack Europe. If Nord Stream-2 is now under construction and the Russian Federation enters into some kind of agreement with Germany, will this mean that countries are preparing for war?
        These facts tell me about the desire to protect themselves. And also, as then, and always - the best type of defense of the country is to build up offensive weapons systems (hypersonic weapons and the latest models of armored vehicles and aircraft). Not to the detriment of the defensive (S-300,400 and possibly 500). So what? Does someone seriously believe that modern Russia threatens Europe?
        In the country's leadership, opinions varied depending on the situation. The same Molotov or Stalin said:

        You have to be an idiot to attack us.

        They could not know that Hitler was really an idiot, and with his attack he drove himself into complete blockade.
        The turning point for Hitler was the negotiations with Molotov in November 1940. Prior to this, planning a war with the USSR was carried out just in case. Despite all the legends that Soviet official propaganda wrapped around these negotiations, Stalin agreed with Hitler to divide the spheres of influence. But Hitler did not like the price.
        About trade. An analysis of trade transactions has long been carried out. The USSR supplied raw resources, and in return received materials with a high degree of processing. Trade is such a thing that you buy what you need, and sell what you have. So this is a mutual process.
        You can, of course, say that Hitler was so poor that you couldn’t know him. But this is all the afterlife. Before the war itself, Chamberlain, Daladier, and Halifax communicated with Hitler. They wrote letters, met at conferences. Polish Foreign Minister J. Beck traveled to Goering. They hunted together, agreed on alliances and joint actions. Why did Stalin blame it? And the USSR was NOT OBLIGATED to terminate trade relations with Germany only because there was a war between England, France and Germany. This is their internal showdown. I am sure that the USSR at that time also traded with Western democracies. It was profitable - they traded.
        1. Bakht Offline
          Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 28 August 2019 20: 38
          +1
          • 1
          • 0
          Here is the OFFICIAL position of the USSR of that time. Molotov’s letter in response to German proposals on August 15, 1939:

          Until recently, the Soviet government, taking into account the official statements of individual representatives of the German government, which were often unfriendly and even hostile in relation to the USSR, proceeded from the fact that the German government was looking for reasons for clashes with the USSR, preparing for these clashes and often justifying the need to increase its armaments the inevitability of such clashes. We are no longer talking about the fact that the German government, using the so-called anti-Comintern pact, sought to create and created a united front of a number of states against the USSR, with particular perseverance involving Japan ...

          . If, however, now the German government makes a turn from the old policy towards a serious improvement in political relations with the USSR, then the Soviet government can only welcome such a turn and is ready, for its part, to rebuild its policy in the spirit of its serious improvement towards Germany ...

          ... The USSR Government believes that the first step towards such an improvement in relations between the USSR and Germany could be the conclusion of a trade and credit agreement.

          The Government of the USSR believes that the second step in a short time could be the conclusion of a nonaggression pact or confirmation of the neutrality pact of 1926, with the adoption of a special protocol on the interest of the contracting parties in certain foreign policy issues, so that the latter represents the organic part the pact. ”

          Hitler has planned to fight and knows that they will impose a blockade. So a trade agreement is needed first of all in Germany. And the USSR? Of course, the USSR is also needed. Who will sell us high-tech equipment? Who will sell the press on which towers for the T-34 were stamped throughout the war? Or the latest cruiser Petropavlovsk, which shot at the Germans. And besides the trade, it was a loan agreement. 200 million Reichsmarks. Tell me, today credit lines for the Russian Federation are blocked. It’s impossible to break through this financial blockade. But Stalin did it.
          Both trade and the Pact were clearly beneficial to the USSR. Another thing is that, unfortunately, they did not last long.
        2. Bakht Offline
          Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 28 August 2019 20: 49
          0
          • 0
          • 0
          An analysis of the trade agreement is here.
          A lot has been written, but informative. Who was profitable and who armed whom.

          https://secrethistory.su/1083-torgovo-ekonomicheskie-svyazi-germanii-i-sssr-pered-vtoroy-mirovoy-voynoy.html
        3. Oleg Rambover Offline
          Oleg Rambover (Oleg Rambover) 29 August 2019 10: 37
          0
          • 0
          • 0
          Quote: Bakht
          I do not state this. The USSR was not going to fight Germany. Why do you think so? The USSR wanted to trade with Germany, and this trade was beneficial to both countries. The trade agreement and the PACT were precisely the events that were supposed to prevent the war.

          Hmm ... And what, prevented the pact war? That is, in your opinion, the goal that the USSR pursued when signing this agreement was not achieved? That is, was it useless? What is the essence of our dispute then? Why are you so violently defending this pact?
          You can say anything about Stalin, but he was not an idiot, it is hard to believe that he had illusions about a treaty with Hitler, whose political program included the seizure of "living space" on the territory of the USSR, which created an "anti-Comintern" alliance against the USSR.
          And what, what is afterglow? Stalin, the greatest leader of all time, was to foresee.
          So I don’t argue that I don’t have to, I say that the blockade was beneficial to the USSR in the light of June 22, 41. The USSR also fell under the blockade, as it refused to join it and the West described that its goods would go to Germany through the USSR.
          1. Bakht Offline
            Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 29 August 2019 13: 17
            +2
            • 2
            • 0
            Consent is a product of non-resistance of the parties. That there was no war, the consent of both parties is necessary. If one side wants to fight, then how to prevent this very fight?
            The pact was needed, and I tried to prove its benefit. You question its usefulness, I try to prove its usefulness. The Anti-Cominter Pact is also quite an interesting thing. In April 1941, Stalin told Dimitrov that the Comintern should be dissolved and that documents should be prepared for its dissolution. We didn’t have time before the start of the war. They dissolved the Comintern in 1943. But Stalin made the decision before the war.
            I defend this Covenant because many lies are wrapped around it. I know that it was impossible to sign an agreement with England and France. You could either not sign anything at all and stay with your own, or sign the Pact and get a lot of goodies.
            If you refuse the Covenant, there is no trade agreement. No loans, no machines. The Germans are 60 km from Minsk. The Germans already have Klaipeda. They will have the whole Baltic, and the Germans will be a hundred kilometers from Leningrad. And from the north - the Finns.
            In the interests of the USSR was the signing of the Pact. What Stalin did. And got the time. To reorganize the army, to obtain machine tools, licenses and training reservists. To create a material base in the Urals. And much more has been done in these two years.
            Did Poland, the Baltic states, Finland and Romania suffer? Their safety was not a priority for the USSR. Everything that was done was done in the interests of the Soviet Union. This is the difference between Stalin and other rulers. By the way, this is exactly what the States are doing now. They break any agreements, press any competitors and wouldn’t care about international law. The main thing is the greatness of America. As Vice President George W. Bush said:

            I will never, ever, apologize for the United States of America. Despite all the facts. "

            And he became president of the United States.
            Stalin made a mistake in November 1940. This is just my personal opinion. Sending stubborn Molotov to Berlin and waving at what Germany considered her prize. But this is just my opinion. This is a completely different and big topic that no one is considering. Uninteresting, probably.
            The signing of the non-aggression pact with Germany in August 1939 was in no way the reason for the outbreak of war. The signing of a non-aggression pact with Germany was a completely legitimate and legal decision of two sovereign states. Recognized all over the world. Both Hitler and Stalin were completely handshake heads of state.
            I just don’t understand why you are stubbornly blaming him for the USSR? Poland was doomed. As an American journalist wrote at the time:

            It is possible to insure a powder factory if safety precautions are followed. But insuring a gunpowder factory when crazy people run it is crazy.

            Poland could save only the help of the USSR. Just like now, only the Russian Federation can save Ukraine from collapse. But then in Warsaw, and now in Kiev, crazy people are sitting.
            1. Oleg Rambover Offline
              Oleg Rambover (Oleg Rambover) 30 August 2019 00: 18
              0
              • 0
              • 0
              Once again, you said:

              Quote: Bakht
              I do not state this. The USSR was not going to fight Germany. Why do you think so? The USSR wanted to trade with Germany, and this trade was beneficial to both countries. The trade agreement and the PACT were precisely the events that were supposed to prevent the war.

              In your opinion, Stalin hoped that the pact was supposed to prevent a war. Prevented? We know not. Why then do you consider it a successful and correct agreement?
              PS Hoping that the pact will prevent the war is a complete naive that, judging by the NKVD reports, even ordinary citizens of the USSR did not believe.

              Quote: Bakht
              I just don’t understand why you are stubbornly blaming him for the USSR?

              I believe that this pact was disadvantageous for the USSR and was a mistake of Stalin, which led to monstrous losses on June 22.
              1. Bakht Offline
                Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 30 August 2019 08: 16
                +2
                • 2
                • 0
                Again.
                This Pact prevented the war in 1939 and gave time for the reorganization of the country and the army. What will happen in two years, no one can predict. Can you now say with confidence what the situation will be in two years, in 2021? The fact that Hitler would attack the USSR was one of the probabilities. Optional.
                And how do you like this option? Germany attacks Poland, France smashes Germany and the Pact ceases to exist. Ask yourself why the USSR began military operations only on September 17? The Germans demanded that the USSR attack Poland immediately, but Stalin was waiting. And in substantiation he cited, as an argument, the defense of Belarusians and Ukrainians. What infuriated both Hitler and Ribbentrop. Ambassador Schulenburg stated that this is contrary to the terms of the treaty.
                Fulfill France its obligations - and there would be no war at all. So not the USSR was involved in the 50 million dead, but France and England. And the donkey stubbornness of Poland.
                Since childhood, I was interested in World War II. At first it was a boyish interest in battles, dates, equipment, then it became interesting how decisions were made. Many answers lie in the First World War. I had to study and Zayonchkovsky, and Takman, and Denikin, and many others. For us, this is a story a hundred years ago. But at that time for the politicians of that time it was their youth. Stalin knew very well that no one would come to help Poland. Just waiting to finally make sure. Read and analyze how France and England fulfilled their obligations to Russia in 1914 and subsequent years. In the 20s, memoirs of many military and politicians of that time were published. This was not a secret either then or now.
                Your confidence is based on the fact that without the Pact Hitler would not have attacked Poland. Not a single document and not a single fact speaks about this. Your opinion is based on these words:

                I believe that this pact was not beneficial to the USSR and was a mistake of Stalin, which led to June 22

                That is our BASIC disagreement. Not the Pact led to the war, but the inevitability of the war led to the Pact.
                1. Oleg Rambover Offline
                  Oleg Rambover (Oleg Rambover) 2 September 2019 09: 55
                  0
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  Quote: Bakht
                  Again.
                  This Pact prevented the war in 1939 and gave time for the reorganization of the country and the army.

                  Well, thank God, otherwise I thought that I would have to prove that there was no Stalin.
                  In the 39th, the war between the USSR and Germany was impossible. As long as Poland existed, there was no common border. The Polish company of the Wehrmacht took a month. If not for the help of the Soviet brothers in arms, the war could drag on for another couple of weeks. Yes, even if not, this is October. We will not even take the fact that the German troops need to regroup, replenish, and tidy up the materiel. We assume that they were ready to attack the USSR on the fly. It is necessary to make another assumption that Hitler did not dare to step into the autumn thaw, especially in Russia. We also remember that the Wehrmacht was not ready to fight in the winter. Not only in the 39th, but also the 41st and 42nd years showed that even after three years is not capable. That is, a war in the 39th was impossible, with or without a pact.

                  Quote: Bakht
                  What will happen in two years, no one can predict. Can you now say with confidence what the situation will be in two years, in 2021? The fact that Hitler would attack the USSR was one of the probabilities. Optional.

                  Hm. It was enough to read the works of Hitler and understand that he would look for living space in the USSR, after Germany was strengthened.

                  Quote: Bakht
                  Ask yourself why the USSR began military operations only on September 17?

                  Did the Germans demand directly? Asked. Found the answer in the correspondence of Schulenburg with the German Foreign Ministry.

                  Stalin replied that he did not doubt the good intentions of the German government. His concern was based on the well-known fact that all military men hate the return of captured territories.

                  Stalin was afraid that German troops would occupy the territories departing under the USSR treaty and refuse to leave them.

                  Quote: Bakht
                  Read and analyze how France and England fulfilled their obligations to Russia in 1914 and subsequent years.

                  And How. As far as I remember, just Russia went to a separate world.

                  Quote: Bakht
                  Your confidence is based on the fact that without the Pact Hitler would not have attacked Poland. Not a single document and not a single fact speaks about this. Your opinion is based on these words ...

                  Here you are mistaken, there are documents.

                  http://istmat.info/node/24800

                  ... as Hitler added, if the Soviet government did not meet me and I could not conclude a friendly treaty with the Soviet Union, I would be forced to put the whole Polish question in a long box.

                  Our enemies also counted on Russia becoming our enemy after the conquest of Poland. Enemies did not take into account my determination. Our enemies are like little worms. I saw them in Munich. I was convinced that Stalin would never accept the British proposal. Only reckless optimists could think that Stalin was so stupid that he did not recognize their true purpose. Russia is not interested in preserving Poland ... Litvinov’s resignation was a decisive factor. After that, I instantly realized that in Moscow the attitude towards the Western powers had changed.
                  I have taken steps aimed at changing relations with Russia. Political negotiations began in connection with the economic agreement. In the end, the Russians received a proposal to sign a non-aggression pact. Four days ago, I took a special step, which led to the fact that Russia yesterday announced its readiness to sign the pact. Established personal contact with Stalin. The day after tomorrow Ribbentrop will conclude a contract. Now Poland was in the position in which I wanted to see her ... The beginning of the destruction of the hegemony of England was laid. Now that I have made the necessary diplomatic preparations, the path for the soldiers is open.
                  1. Bakht Offline
                    Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 2 September 2019 12: 33
                    +2
                    • 2
                    • 0
                    Too many points.
                    When it comes to World War I, it refers to 1914 and 1915. But not in 1918. Despite the Entente pact, neither England nor France were going to fight over Russia. I will say more. England was not going to fight even over France.
                    I have said many times and now it will just be a repeat. The fact that the war began, the Western democracies are to blame. And the trigger was Munich.
                    As for the fact that without a treaty in the USSR, Hitler would not have started a war. The decision was made in April 1939, the final plan was adopted at the end of June 1939. These are not just someone’s words (even if Hitler is in someone else’s retelling). I can quote a dozen quotations from Hitler that Poland should be done away with immediately.
                    This is an official document signed in April 1939, where everything is said quite frankly:

                    Germany’s relations with Poland should continue to be built taking into account the undesirability of all friction. But if Poland changes its policy in relation to Germany, which is still based on the same principles as our policy towards Poland, and takes a position that poses a threat to the empire, then, in spite of the existing agreement, it may be necessary to solve the problem of Poland completely.

                    The goal in this case will be: to break up the Polish armed forces and create in the east a situation that would meet the needs of the country's defense. The free state of Danzig will be declared a part of the German Empire no later than at the time the conflict begins.

                    The political leadership considers it their task to achieve, as far as possible, an isolated solution to the Polish question, i.e. limit the war exclusively to Polish territory.

                    In view of the development of events in France approaching the crisis point, and the resulting restraint of England, a situation conducive to the solution of the Polish question may arise in the near future.

                    Poland’s assistance, if it could prove to be capable of it at all, could not be accepted by Poland, since that would mean its destruction by Bolshevism.

                    The position of the limitrophic states will be determined solely by the military needs of Germany. With the development of events, it may be necessary to occupy the limitrophic states to the borders of the old Courland and include these territories in the empire.

                    The most important thing - what Hitler wanted was:

                    The political leadership considers it their task to achieve, as far as possible, an isolated solution to the Polish question, i.e. limit the war exclusively to Polish territory.

                    Everyone knew that it would be autumn, and then winter. That is not the question. The question was that the USSR was not going to participate in this war. The maximum is to regain its territory. Western regions, the Baltic states and Karelia. It was then, in the 40th, Stalin swung at more. That was his mistake.
                    You yourself write "as long as Poland existed." And if she is not? France and England betrayed Poland the same way they betrayed Russia in 1915. And they were going to repeat it in 1939. The defeat of Poland was not dictated by the intentions of Stalin, but by the intentions of Hitler to solve the problem of Danzig. On August 30, England and France agreed to German conditions for the transfer of Danzig, Silesia, and the holding of a plebiscite in Poland. They also began to demand that Beck arrive in Berlin for negotiations.
                    Who said what, of course, it’s interesting. But the documents are much more eloquent.

                    Once again, I can repeat it. You think that the Pact unleashed the Second World War. I do not agree with this. France had every opportunity to stop Hitler - and in the 38th, and in the 39th. They didn’t want to.
                    1. Oleg Rambover Offline
                      Oleg Rambover (Oleg Rambover) 2 September 2019 23: 19
                      0
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      I agree that there are too many points. Let's get one. You claim that the pact prevented wars between Germany and the USSR in the 39th year. At least one fact, at least one document exists in support of the fact that Germany was preparing to attack the USSR in the 39th year?
                      1. Bakht Offline
                        Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 2 September 2019 23: 48
                        0
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        There are no such documents. But there was such a possibility.
                        Is there at least one fact that the Pact led to war?
                        PS I felt funny. You just quoted me quotes that

                        ... Germany can find land in the East.

                        But apart from statements, there are no documents for 1939.
                      2. Oleg Rambover Offline
                        Oleg Rambover (Oleg Rambover) 3 September 2019 11: 18
                        0
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        Quote: Bakht
                        Is there at least one fact that the Pact led to war?

                        There are no such documents (except for the above). But there was such a possibility. wink

                        PS I felt funny. You just quoted me quotes that ...

                        But I did not say that she would look at 39.
                        Something I don’t remember saying that the pact led to war, okay.

                        That is, we summarize. There is no evidence that the war between Germany and the USSR in the 39th could begin, no. And about its probability ... Until the end of September, it was, in principle, impossible. After September, as I said, the war became unbelievable because of the autumn thaw and the onset of winter. That is, Germany did not intend to attack the USSR in the 39th and could not. Do you have anything to object to?
                2. Bakht Offline
                  Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 2 September 2019 12: 41
                  +2
                  • 2
                  • 0
                  More about the position of poor Poland. In 1933, Hitler came to power in Germany. And Germany left the League of Nations. In order to review the terms of the Treaty of Versailles. Poland took its place in the League of Nations. Germany introduces a law on universal conscription (violation of Versailles). Poland supports Germany.
                  Germany introduces troops into the Rhine region (violation of Versailles). In the League of Nations, Poland supports Germany.
                  1938, Anschluss of Austria. Poland is on the side of Germany.
                  1938-39 years. Sudetes and section of Czechoslovakia. Poland does not just support, but actively participates in these events.
                  January 1939 Y. Beck with Goering. We must jointly participate in the war against the USSR. Poland claims to have access to the Black and Baltic Seas. Ukraine and Lithuania should belong to Poland.

                  And I have to endure this dog for another ten years?

                  This hyena of Europe dug its own grave.
                  1. Oleg Rambover Offline
                    Oleg Rambover (Oleg Rambover) 2 September 2019 23: 22
                    0
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    And then we are surprised that nobody around us loves us. It can also be said that the USSR is itself an evil Pinocchio and is guilty on June 22, the 41st. Maybe you're right, karma.
                    1. Bakht Offline
                      Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 2 September 2019 23: 50
                      0
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      How does this statement relate to the topic?
                3. Bakht Offline
                  Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 2 September 2019 16: 12
                  +2
                  • 2
                  • 0
                  This is my thousandth post on the site :-) I congratulate myself. Although I do not know with what.
                  Now I just want to ask a question. Without any documents, knowledge or aftertaste. You have said so many times that if there hadn’t been a Pact, there would have been no war. Therefore, just a personal question. Are you seriously convinced that if you didn’t sign the agreement on August 23, Molotov and Ribbentrop, then the performance scheduled for August 26 would be canceled? That Germany would carry out demobilization, return troops to the barracks, leave alone the question of Danzig, the violation of the rights of Germans in Poland? Would Hitler back down and abandon the Versailles liquidation program? Would he give up all his campaign promises and go in for "growing cabbage"?
                  I just want to know your PERSONAL opinion. Do you really believe that?
                  1. Oleg Rambover Offline
                    Oleg Rambover (Oleg Rambover) 3 September 2019 00: 15
                    0
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    I think that a politician is weighing his decisions. Even as obsessed as Hitler. Munich was a kettlebell on a war cup, the pact was a smaller kettlebell, but also on a war cup. England put a weight on the cup of peace - an agreement with Poland. This did not even outweigh Munich. Yes, the pact was not an absolute factor in the war, a trigger - perhaps. Could England, France and the USSR throw a weight on the cup of the world? Could, no doubt. Could England, France single-handedly put weights on the cup of peace? After Munich - hardly. Could the USSR have done this alone? Quite possibly.
                    1. Bakht Offline
                      Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 3 September 2019 17: 33
                      +2
                      • 2
                      • 0
                      Our argument went into a dive without any sense. We must live in that time and have the information of that time. And not the information that we have today.
                      Have to write a long post. And I hope the last one.
                      1. I didn’t just refer you to 1914. Then there was also an agreement that when mobilizing one side, the Allies declare mobilization without any discussion. But there were no specific military plans. And what happened?
                      July 30, 1914 Germany announces mobilization. Russia declared it the 29th only against Austria-Hungary. What is France doing? July 30, the French army receives an order to move 10 km from the border in order to avoid provocations. In the case of General Foch, the order was sent personally. The general was too hot. Izvolsky rushes to President Poincaré and receives the answer: "France will act on the basis of its own interests."
                      The German ambassador to France, Schön, asks President Poincare: “I know that there is a convention between Russia and France. Therefore, my question seems naive. What will be the actions of France in the event of a conflict between Germany and Russia?” And he receives exactly the same answer: "France will act on the basis of its interests."
                      In England, in general, out of 18 cabinet members, 12 spoke in favor of neutrality. "Cases on the continent do not concern England." But on August 1, French Ambassador Cambon almost shouted "England has betrayed us." When asked what he was waiting for, Cambon replied, "I'll wait to find out if it's time to cross out the word" honor "from the English dictionary."

                      Why go to battle with me,
                      Since this fight is not mine at all?
                      Clear the whole of Europe map,
                      And fight in a foreign war.
                      - That's what the Entente is for,
                      And not one, but two at once.


                      This was written in the English newspapers of the time.
                      England entered the First World War not because it had agreements with France or Russia. England entered the war based on her interests. Because of Belgium. The deployment of German troops on the English Channel (Belgian coast) - this is the reason for the entry of England into the war. When German troops entered Belgium, already 15 ministers (the same as two days ago) spoke in favor of the war.
                      The fact that the Paleologue registered in the Russian General Staff in August and almost pushed Zhilinsky to a suicide attack is a well-known fact for a long time. In 1914, Russia sacrificed an army to save Paris. In 1915, France did not sacrifice a single soldier to save her ally Russia. In 1916, Russia threw all its troops on the offensive to pull the Germans away from Verdun and save Italy from defeat. In 1917, the Russian front could still hold on, but the Germans went to Paris. 30 km merely. And Big Bertha shoots at Paris. The French demand a Russian offensive immediately. And the Russian army is pushing for a mortal offensive. According to Denikin and Alekseev, without the June offensive, the Russian front could hold on for a long time. But after June, it just crumbled.
                      All this was published in the 20s. And Stalin was not going to step on the same rake in the 39th. Without a firm military convention, he was not going to sign anything with France and England. So when General Dumenk declared that "everyone will be on their own front," then he could pack his suitcase and go to Paris.
                      This is the main reason why England, France and Russia could not sign the agreement in 1939.
                    2. Bakht Offline
                      Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 3 September 2019 17: 46
                      +2
                      • 2
                      • 0
                      There are only two possibilities left. Sign an agreement with Germany or not sign anything at all.
                      Consider first that the USSR does not sign anything. No one doubts that Germany will attack Poland. The fact that the Polish army will be defeated, there are also no questions. When the Germans are 60 km from Minsk and, quite possibly, they will leave on the coast of the Baltic Sea. All the Baltics will be with them. We assume that Moscow did not know about German plans. It is unlikely that Stirlitz stole documents from the safe of the German General Staff. But do not forget that in the 39th year in Europe there were no democratic states. All Baltic were almost fascist. Romania, Hungary, Slovakia, Finland - almost everywhere dictatorial regimes. And everyone gravitates towards Germany.
                      What does the USSR know about the Wehrmacht? The same as in England. In both countries it was said that in the 39th Wehrmacht had 10 tanks and 000 aircraft. The Soviet Union believed that 20 divisions would be thrown against Poland and another 000 would remain in the West. 90 divisions - in the center of the country. Ironside, the chief of the Imperial Staff, thought the same thing. Germany will attack immediately or next year - is unknown. If it doesn’t attack, then the possibilities are greatly curtailed. The USSR must stand and wait for mercy from Hitler. In very, very limited defense capabilities. There is practically no room for maneuver. Leningrad within the fire of the artillery of the time. This is not an option. This is a direct path to defeat.
                      There is only one possibility left - the signing of an agreement with Germany in the hope that the situation may change. There are many more advantages. I already wrote this. By the way, under the agreement, Lithuania retreated to Germany. Stalin simply bought it from Hitler for gold. As well as bought and Lviv for oil.
                    3. Bakht Offline
                      Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 3 September 2019 17: 56
                      +2
                      • 2
                      • 0
                      It remains to solve the question - could the USSR in the 39th year abandon its army against Germany and win the war? The answer is negative.
                      Politically, this meant pouring water onto a mill in England and France and protecting Poland. All three countries are hostile to the USSR. No one has a question why the USSR did not start a war with Poland in September 38th over Czechoslovakia? After all, Moscow had an agreement with Prague. And Moscow firmly stated that it would provide assistance to Czechoslovakia, regardless of the position of France. On the border with Poland, 60 divisions were concentrated. But Stalin did not dare to fight with all of Europe. Where is the guarantee that in the 39th you will not have to face all of Europe again?
                      From a military point of view. The USSR had in the western regions only 50 divisions, with a total number of 700-750 thousand people. And it was believed that Hitler had 90 divisions in Poland. We now know that there were only 1500 tanks and 50 divisions. And then they were sure that Germany threw about 10 tanks into battle. This is the main reason why France has not thrown into battle its 000 divisions against 100 German. Intelligence provided incorrect information.
                      So, the USSR had neither political nor military reasons to rush into the war. Stalin had no weights.
                      And the main thing. You do not consider Munich in vain as the MAIN cause of the war. Munich and earlier the Anschluss are dozens of divisions in the Wehrmacht. These are tanks and artillery. These are Skoda factories - the main arsenal of Europe at that time. Munich armed the German army and made it a decisive force on the continent. Without Munich, there would have been no war at all.
                    4. Bakht Offline
                      Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 3 September 2019 18: 01
                      +2
                      • 2
                      • 0
                      And at the very end. We will transfer the bridge from 1939 to 2014. The Russian Federation had every reason not to interfere in the conflict and the coup in Ukraine. Leave Crimea as part of Ukraine, leave the Russians in the Donbass. Who will say after 50 years that Ukraine then had no plans to wage war against the Russian Federation? Does anyone remember that Crimea would become the base of the US Navy? After all, there are no such documents. Now tell me why they criticize Putin (I do not want to use the word scolded). For the fact that he did not finish the job. No analogy with the 39th suggests itself? I am not at all surprised that the same people pouring crocodile tears across Poland demand that they give Crimea. Not at all surprised.
                      I can once again say: History is an applied science. And Putin got a deuce on it.
                    5. Oleg Rambover Offline
                      Oleg Rambover (Oleg Rambover) 4 September 2019 00: 53
                      0
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      Quote: Bakht
                      You do not consider Munich in vain as the MAIN cause of the war.

                      I kind of said that Munich is the main cause of the war (but not the only one). We seem to be considering a pact.
                      You wrote this long text to show that the French and the British are some kind of wrong people, and you can’t agree with them so much that it’s better to agree with Hitler? I disagree.
                      And about the WWI, I don’t know much about her, but I remember that RI was the first to enter the war and France came to the rescue. And the fighting on the western front was many times larger than on the eastern.
                      All these topics are very voluminous, and I am not ready to write sheets on them here.

                      Still, returning to our sheep.
                      I gave arguments about the impossibility of the German attack on the USSR in the year 39, you did not give any counterarguments. We consider this question closed? Do you agree that an attack at 39 was impossible?
                    6. Bakht Offline
                      Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 4 September 2019 07: 27
                      +1
                      • 2
                      • 1
                      It was possible. Without the Pact, an attack was possible.
                      Based on the data that the leadership of the USSR had. Weather conditions are not decisive. The war between the USSR and Germany was possible in 1939 too.
                      But you in vain focus on one point: is war possible or not. The pact was necessary for the USSR for many reasons. It was beneficial to the USSR.
                      I am trying to prove that:
                      1. The pact was not the reason for the outbreak of war
                      2. The pact was beneficial to the USSR.
                      I already wrote that without the First World War, it is impossible to understand the origins of the Second.
                    7. Oleg Rambover Offline
                      Oleg Rambover (Oleg Rambover) 4 September 2019 23: 42
                      0
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      Quote: Bakht
                      But you in vain focus on one point ...

                      My plan was to consider the issues of the pact point by point. First move on to consensus on this issue, then move on to another point. You yourself said that there are too many points. I suggested considering this item.

                      Weather conditions are one of the determining factors. I don’t remember a single major Wehrmacht operation carried out in winter, and I don’t even remember a single operation of the Red Army, carried out during the muddy season. Blitzkrieg knee-deep in mud is not possible. Winter-autumn is also a short day, which means that you can use less aircraft.
                      Why do you think it is June 22nd? Or how did you choose Day Day? Or why did the French company start in the spring? Or why did the Finnish war begin in winter?

                      In short, I correctly understand that you have no arguments in support of the version of the attack on the USSR of Germany in the year 39, except for your own faith?
                    8. Bakht Offline
                      Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 5 September 2019 09: 24
                      +2
                      • 2
                      • 0
                      You choose those items that you think are beneficial to you. But I do not see such points.
                      I will tell you my understanding of our differences.
                      1. You argued that without the Pact, there would have been no war at all. I asked you a question and did not receive an answer. If the Pact had not been signed, would Hitler carry out demobilization, return the troops to the barracks and refuse to solve the Danzig problem? The pact was not the cause of the war. The cause of the war was the unjust Versailles Treaty. Do you agree or disagree?
                      2. Your second point is that the USSR had “weights” that could stop Germany. I tried to prove that the USSR did not have any military arguments capable of stopping the war in 1939. The army is not deployed, the main divisions are triplets, are not combat-ready. Aviation is in terrible condition. Since May 1939, at the Khalkhin Gol, the Japanese have virtually defeated the Soviet Air Force. I had to assemble a group of Heroes of the Soviet Union, and led by Smushkevich to send to the Far East. The Red Army is divided into two groups. And in the West there are only 50 divisions. True, Voroshilov claimed that he could set up 120 divisions, but this was after full mobilization. In addition to the amount of equipment, I do not see any advantages with the Red Army. I strongly doubt that the Red Army had at least the slightest chance of victory.
                      3. The third paragraph of your statements that in 1939 the threat of war for the USSR did not exist. This is not true. The threat of war has always existed. And the weather is not the factor to focus on. The attack on France was planned for the fall of 1939 and in January 1940. In the summer of 1940, Hitler ordered the preparation of an attack on the USSR. The performance begins in October 1940. Why did these performances not take place? Yes, the weather conditions were taken into account, but the main reason was the unavailability of the theater of operations and difficulties with the regrouping of troops. Kharkov operation - March 1943. Korsun-Shevchenko - winter of 1944. Warsaw operation - January 1945. The Red Army came both in winter, and in summer, and in autumn, and in spring. The Germans launched an attack on Moscow (Operation Typhoon) on October 2, 1941. It is knee-deep in the mud. There were difficulties. But the operations were carried out.
                      ------
                      You have now moved to the point on the likelihood of a war against the USSR in 1939. Rather, about her incredibility. To begin with, I repeat that such a threat has always existed. And now let's get back from reconstruction to reality. September 2019 Is there now, at the moment, the likelihood of war? Why is the RF Armed Forces being strengthened? Cut the dough or in the manual suggest that war is possible? And what is the role of the Baltic states and Ukraine in this case?
                    9. Oleg Rambover Offline
                      Oleg Rambover (Oleg Rambover) 9 September 2019 00: 20
                      0
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      There are only a couple of points on the issue of the pact. They pushed the war aside, which helped prepare for war and acquired territory, so the Germans had six days longer to go to Moscow. On the second point what to argue about - it is not clear, so I chose the first.
                      1. Where did I say this? Could Hitler abandon the attack on Poland under the threat of war on two fronts? Very likely, if not him, then his generals. Could he refuse under the threat of a blockade by the USSR? The probability is less, but it is not zero. Yes, the main reason Hitler came to power and war is Versailles (fair or not). And also the great depression. And also Munich. And also a pact.
                      2. But the amount of equipment is an order of magnitude larger. Everything that you say about the Red Army is debatable, and judging by the year 41, nothing has fundamentally changed. In addition, there has not yet been a Finnish war, which cast doubt on the capacity of the Red Army. And, in fact, what the greatest leader of all times and peoples did in the pre-war decade. Germany started in this race much later.
                      3. What was this threat expressed by? What forces made plans for an attack on the USSR in 39? England after the attack on Finland? Why did the pact stop Germany at 39? Can you explain the logic of the process? After all, you will not convince me that some signatures on some piece of paper stopped Germany.
                      So what when they attacked France? Do you know why?
                      When did Hitler give instructions for the October attack? Initially, it was planned for May 41 (thanks to our Greek brothers).
                      Kharkov operation - February, ended in March, and you know why? In the mud everyone got stuck.
                      You read my comments inattentively, I never said that the Red Army did not conduct active actions in the winter.

                      Yes, the German offensive near Moscow began in October. And how are they doing? But when it rained, it got up. In November, it froze, and the offensive resumed, but the Red Army has already tightened reserves. And the Wehrmacht was completely unprepared for the cold.
                      This operation was a step of despair.

                      Now the probability of war is close to zero. The West, as then, does not need war. If you compare the Russian Federation with Germany of the 30s, then I hope this is not so, and our leadership also does not need a war.
                    10. Bakht Offline
                      Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 15 September 2019 09: 09
                      +2
                      • 2
                      • 0
                      Yes, the German offensive near Moscow began in October. And how are they doing? But when it rained, it got up. In November, it froze, and the offensive resumed, but the Red Army has already tightened reserves. And the Wehrmacht was completely unprepared for the cold.
                      This operation was a step of despair.

                      Success was tremendous. According to the results, perhaps more significant than the defeat of the Southwest Front. And that was not a step of despair. Operation Typhoon was a common operation for the Wehrmacht. And October did not scare them. At the end of September 1941, the most intelligent of the German field marshals (Rundstedt) wrote a report in which he substantiated that the goals of the war in the East had been achieved. There is no point in fighting anymore, and it is necessary to withdraw troops to the border of the Desna and Dnieper, and begin peace negotiations.
                      Here is a lengthy quote from a German author:

                      The military - as it turned out, their point of view was secondary - expressed different opinions on the issue of war with Russia. In this case, only the opinion of Rundstedt is of interest to us. He, unlike others, did not believe that the center of gravity should fall on his Army Group South. In his opinion, the center of gravity was in the north, on the group of armies of von Leeb. The main goal, according to Rundstedt, was the Leningrad region. A blow in the direction of Leningrad would completely cut off the Russians from the Baltic. The second phase of the operation, in the vision of Rundstedt, consisted of an offensive from the Leningrad Region in a southeast direction, towards Moscow.

                      Expressing his point of view, Rundstedt, like any soldier, did not take into account the political and economic aspect, but, being an instrument of politicians and economists, was forced to compromise. As you know, Field Marshal was one of the most active opponents of the Russian campaign. He was a supporter of expectant tactics, offering to take a defensive position. But as soon as a decision was made in higher political spheres, in spite of the fact that he adhered to the opposite point of view, there was no choice but to obey. Rundstedt was absolutely clear that the war with Russia would drag on indefinitely. Such a colossus cannot be destroyed in a few months; there can be no talk of any blitzkrieg. The war with Russia may last several years.

                      Rundstedt believed that in order to solve the problem, one should advance from north to south, that is, from Leningrad to Moscow and further to the southeast. Only in this way and nothing else. Moreover, this plan will only succeed if it is possible to achieve victory in the first stage. If during the first year it becomes clear that the "adventurers" grabbed a piece that they can’t chew, then, according to Rundstedt, they should hastily retreat and retreat to prepared positions farther to the West.

                      Paulus planned the operation just like that. But we were lucky that Guderian and Bock turned out to be such stubborn dupeks (however, I already wrote about this).
                      This quote is given in order to make it clearer why I clung to the Baltic States so much.
                      Regarding winter or autumn:

                      I had many telephone conversations with Keitel, from which I realized that he had no fears regarding the Russian winter, the conditions at the front, and the ability of the troops to carry out the tasks assigned to them.

                      Of course, we can say that Keitel was far from the front. But this was the opinion of the High Command of the Wehrmacht.
                      PS Your thesis that at present the war against the Russian Federation seems to be zero is erroneous. But this we can dive indefinitely. In any case, neither Shoigu nor Putin, your opinion is unlikely to be shared.
                    11. Oleg Rambover Offline
                      Oleg Rambover (Oleg Rambover) 17 September 2019 12: 59
                      0
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      Quote: Bakht
                      Success was tremendous. According to the results, perhaps more significant than the defeat of the Southwest Front. And that was not a step of despair. Operation Typhoon was a common operation for the Wehrmacht.

                      This operation was not ordinary, it ended in the defeat of the Wehrmacht. Was this success achieved before the October Thaw or later? Gudarian claimed in his notes that the Wehrmacht was not ready for war in winter conditions, and that losses from frostbite exceeded losses from everything else. Despair was due to the fact that the blitzkrieg failed, the red army could not be defeated in one company and the war passed into a protracted stage, into a war of attrition, in which the chances of winning were much less.
                    12. Bakht Offline
                      Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 17 September 2019 16: 39
                      +1
                      • 1
                      • 0
                      Guderian is interesting to read, but you must always keep in mind that he often lies. They tried not to carry out operations in the mud. I will not deny the obvious. But they were held and the Germans did not see anything special in them. Let's say you cited the Kharkov operation in the spring of 1943 as an example. How did it end? The victory of the Germans, who launched a counterattack precisely in the mud. That is, the mud was interfering with the Soviet troops, but not with the Germans? Moreover, the Germans did not defend themselves, but delivered counterattacks. Success Typhoon was achieved not only in the early days. The destruction of the encircled troops went on throughout the first half of October.
                      But this is all interesting, but unproductive. Operations in the spring and autumn were carried out. Held at any time. Of course, weather played a role. Like other factors.
                      Let's get back to the main topic. The USSR could be at war already in the fall of 1939. And not the fact that he would have allies. I have already said that we do not feel the situation of that time. Do you want an official document about what the Soviet Government was afraid of?

                      The Soviet government takes note of the statement of the German government about its real desire to improve political relations between Germany and the USSR, transmitted by Count Schulenburg on August 15.
                      Due to the often unfriendly and even hostile towards the USSR nature of the statements of certain official representatives of the German government from the Soviet government, until very recently it seemed that the German government was preparing the ground for the justification of the clash with the USSR, was preparing itself for such a clash, and was basing the need to constantly increase its armament on the inevitability of such a clash. We will not recall that the German government tried to create against the USSR through the so-called "anti-Comintern pact" united front of a number of states and with particular obstinacy tried to draw Japan into him.
                      It is clear that such a policy of the German government forced the USSR to take serious measures to strengthen its defense in case of possible aggression of Germany against the USSR, as well as take part in organizing a defensive front of a group of states directed against such aggression.

                      This is the official position of the USSR regarding the possibility of war directly with Germany and, most importantly, this did not cause a sharp denial from the German Foreign Ministry.
                      But the opinion of a contemporary of those events. And enough informed

                      Disputes about this have been going on since that time. The fact that, as a result of the deal with Hitler, Stalin received a respite, just as Tsar Alexander I got it in Tilsit in 1807, having agreed with Napoleon, and Lenin in Brest-Litovsk in 1917, having agreed with the Germans, is obvious. This allowed the Soviet Union to strengthen its borders for a short time in anticipation of the German attack, to establish bases on the Baltic Sea in the Baltic republics and in Finland - at the expense of the interests of Poles, Latvians, Estonians and Finns. But the most important thing, which was later emphasized in the officially published History of Diplomacy, was that the Kremlin had increased confidence that if Germany attacked Russia, then Western democracies would already be at war with it and the Soviet Union would not have to confront it in alone, which Stalin feared in the summer of 1939.
                      This is certainly true.

                      William Shearer wrote all that you write. Nothing new. But I read Shearer a long time ago and came to the conclusion that his arguments may be interesting, but hardly true. Believe that everything you wrote about was published long ago. And about the weather and about two years of respite. Personally, the arguments of W. Shearer did not impress me. It is unlikely that you will be able to say something.
        4. Bakht Offline
          Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 4 September 2019 07: 46
          +1
          • 1
          • 0
          The third option. This option provides for the case when the main aggressor, using the territory of Finland, Estonia and Latvia, directs his aggression against the USSR. In this case, France and England must immediately go to war with the aggressor or bloc of aggressors.

          This is the minutes of the meeting of August 15, 1939. Speech by Marshal Voroshilov. As you can see, the option of attacking the USSR in 1939 was considered.
        5. Oleg Rambover Offline
          Oleg Rambover (Oleg Rambover) 5 September 2019 00: 06
          0
          • 0
          • 0
          What makes you think that we are talking about the 39th year? And if you think carefully, it was rather an attempt to divide Europe with the West. We all know that for an unbelievable coincidence, if the Red Army enters a country, the population of this country strives to join the friendly family of the peoples of the USSR in a single impulse, however, then crowds of forest brothers run and crowds of volunteers join the SS legions but these are trifles.
          And in fact, explain to me why the pact stopped Germany in the 39th, stopped it in the 40th, and suddenly stopped acting in the 41st?
        6. Bakht Offline
          Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 5 September 2019 09: 30
          +2
          • 2
          • 0
          It was about the 39th year. I already wrote my opinion. In November 1940, Hitler proposed to Stalin a plan for the reconstruction of the world order. Stalin made a mistake. He decided that he could continue the expansion of the Soviet Union in Europe. He demanded from Hitler Finland, Romania, Bulgaria and Turkey. For Hitler, this was unacceptable. Therefore, in November, Hitler instructed to complete the preparation of the plan of attack on the USSR. Paulus collected the plan of Marx and Lossberg in the folder of Barbarossa and created his own, which went down in history under the directive 21 - the plan of Barbarossa. In all plans, emphasis was placed on the capture of Leningrad in the first place. Through the territory of the Baltic states.
          This is the reason why the Covenant ceased to function in 1941. But that's my personal opinion. I do not insist. But I can bring the documents. First you need to read the protocols of negotiations Molotov in Berlin.
        7. Oleg Rambover Offline
          Oleg Rambover (Oleg Rambover) 9 September 2019 12: 17
          0
          • 0
          • 0
          Yes, this is your opinion, and you certainly have rights to it. But I would like to hear the justification of this opinion about the threat of attack in the year 39. The decision to attack was made in July 40, immediately after the defeat of France. I agree with you that the blame for June 22, 41 lies with Stalin, but I do not agree that his Wishlist were causal. The decision had nothing to do with Stalin's dreams of the Turkish Straits and Finland, Hitler wanted to force England to peace by defeating the last major player on the continent. And we see that Hitler did not care about the pact in the summer of 40 years. So why do you think that in the fall of 39 he did not care?
        8. Bakht Offline
          Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 10 September 2019 17: 43
          +2
          • 2
          • 0
          Your main mistake and misunderstanding of the essence of things lies in this phrase:

          The blame for June 22, 41 lies with Stalin.

          And on whom lies the blame for October 1, 1938, for August 1, 1939, April 10, 1940, May 10, 1940, and so on.
          So I want to kick Stalin that facts are not facts.
          The blame for June 22 lies with Hitler.
          Until you acknowledge this OBVIOUS fact, I see no reason to even discuss something. Stalin made a mistake (but this is my opinion). But the blame for the war lies not with him.
        9. Oleg Rambover Offline
          Oleg Rambover (Oleg Rambover) 11 September 2019 00: 18
          0
          • 0
          • 0
          Something I do not understand your indignation. You yourself wrote -

          Quote: Bakht
          In November 1940, Hitler proposed to Stalin a plan for the reconstruction of the world order. Stalin made a mistake.

          I agreed with you that Stalin made a mistake that led to June 22. What's wrong?
        10. Bakht Offline
          Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 11 September 2019 00: 42
          +2
          • 2
          • 0
          The outrage is caused by the fact that people do not understand cause-effect relationships. Then we can say that the mistake of Yu.Bek led to September 1, 1939. And then what? Blame for the start of the war lies with the Polish leadership?
          If Poland supported Germany in foreign policy throughout the 30s, concluded pacts with Germany, and seized and destroyed other states with Germany, then admit that Poland is guilty of unleashing the Second World War.
          Do you want to know if there was a threat of war in the 39th year against the USSR? It was. We must live in the meantime and read those documents. Hitler said that after the Rhine, he has no claim to changing borders in Europe. Then there was the Anschluss of Austria and Hitler said that he no longer had any territorial requirements in Europe. Then came the Sudetenland, and Hitler (along with Goering) announced that there would be no more border changes in Europe. Then followed Danzig and the German-Polish war. Nobody believed Hitler anymore. Neither Chamberlain, nor Daladier, nor Stalin.
          The threat of war against the USSR has always been - and in the 38th, and in the 39th, and 41st. (By the way, why did I write the 38th? This is serious). And I did not write in vain about the Barbaross plan and the sketch of Lossberg. In all German plans (and Polish, by the way, too) of the war, against the USSR, emphasis was placed on the Baltic states. Better transport opportunities, no binding to bad roads and bad weather. War planning always included a strike across the Baltic. So there was a threat of war. And the option through the Baltic states was considered quite seriously.
          Stalin's mistake in the 40th? That he sent Molotov. But after this, he (either by himself or through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs - We must look at the documents for sure) adopted the German plan and agreed to German domination in Europe (the war in Yugoslavia and the operation against Greece are proof of this). Stalin never risked it. And he would not go to war with Germany for anything. And to provoke Germany, too. When he received Hitler's refusal, he withdrew his demands. But Hitler had his own cockroaches in his head. And he began to consider the war with the USSR from the point of view of the war with England and the final victory in Europe. So, nothing depended on Stalin’s position.
          This must be written and written. And I'm not a writer. I am a reader. I will look in my archive what is on the negotiations of Molotov and Hitler. And, most importantly, what is AFTER the negotiations of November 1940.
        11. Bakht Offline
          Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 11 September 2019 01: 03
          +2
          • 2
          • 0
          25 November 1940 g. Schulenburg was given the answer of Stalin to Hitler following the results of the November negotiations of Molotov in Berlin, which read:

          The USSR agrees to accept basically the draft pact of the four powers on their political cooperation and economic mutual assistance, set forth by Mr. Ribbentrop in his conversation with V.M. Molotov in Berlin on November 13, 1940 and consisting of 4 points, under the following conditions:

          1. If the German troops are now withdrawn from Finland, representing the sphere of influence of the USSR, according to the Soviet-German agreement of 1939, and the USSR is obligated to ensure peaceful relations with Finland, as well as the economic interests of Germany in Finland (export of timber, nickel);

          2. If the security of the USSR in the Straits is ensured in the coming months by concluding a pact of mutual assistance between the USSR and Bulgaria, which is geographically located in the sphere of security of the Black Sea borders of the USSR, and organizing a military and naval base of the USSR in the Bosphorus and Dardanelles on a long-term basis rent;

          3. If the center of gravity of aspiration (lat. Blowing, breathing) of the USSR will be recognized as the area south of Batum and Baku in the general direction to the Persian Gulf;

          4. If Japan renounces its concession rights for coal and oil in Northern Sakhalin under conditions of fair compensation ”
      2. Bakht Offline
        Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 11 September 2019 07: 54
        +2
        • 2
        • 0
        A mistake in intent does not always mean war. There are negotiations, diplomacy, ultimatums, after all. Hitler needed peace with England. In the "Wishlist" of Stalin, he saw the influence of London. Halder's diary is valuable because it was written in hot pursuit without a conjuncture. Need to search. He seems to have written that Hitler decided to attack the USSR precisely because the USSR was England's hope. I will look for where there is such a statement.
        Stalin might want something, but he would not go to war over the straits or Finland. But his consent to access to the Indian Ocean meant a 100% probability of a war with England. But he agreed to this !!!! So, he believed in the victory of Germany.
        June 22 happened because of Hitler's intention to end the war. He considered the USSR the most suitable target because of the weakness of the Red Army. The landing in England and the defeat of it, he considered completely inexpedient for political reasons and consequences. In principle, the logic in his decisions was.
        I can repeat that we know little about the real events of that time. And the most interesting is hidden not in the Soviet archives, but in the western ones. And they will never be shown to us. Documents of 1939-1941 were closed in England until 2039. The documents of the Dalerus case in Sweden are classified indefinitely. The Hess case is closed for how many years.
      3. Bakht Offline
        Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 11 September 2019 08: 20
        +2
        • 2
        • 0
        13 July 1940.

        ... The Fuhrer is most concerned with the question of why England is still not seeking peace. He, like us, sees the reason for this in the fact that England still hopes for Russia. Therefore, he believes that he will have to force England to peace. However, he is somewhat reluctant to do so. Reason: if we defeat England, the entire British Empire will collapse. But Germany will not benefit from this. The defeat of England will be achieved at the cost of German blood, and Japan, America, etc. will reap the benefits.
        --------------
        July 27 1940 year.

        ... Greifenberg and Feyerabend: Report on operational capabilities in the East. Proposal to create a strong southern group. The total need for force is 100 divisions. I prefer a strong northern group. In this case, the main idea of ​​the operation will be to quickly force the south of the enemy to flip the front with a quick strike from Moscow to the south ...
        --------------
        31 July 1940 year

        It would be better to start this year, however, this is not suitable, since it is necessary to carry out the operation with one blow. The goal is the destruction of the life force of Russia. The operation falls into:
        1-th strike: Kiev, exit to the Dnieper; aviation destroys the crossing. Odessa.
        2nd strike: Through the Baltic states to Moscow; later a bilateral strike - from the north and south; later - a private operation to seize the region of Baku ...
        ---------------
        December 13 1940 year.

        ... The intentions and plans of England .... If you manage to drag Russia into this matter, the ring of the [German] blockade will close ...
        ...Russia. Despite England’s attempts to prevent the formation of a new order in Europe by creating interference in the periphery, this task is being fulfilled ...
        ... Meeting at the Fuhrer: Russia is a difficult factor. Example with Bulgaria. “Any weakening of the positions of the Axis countries leads to a gain for Russia. Russia is not able to impose its will on us, however, it takes every opportunity to weaken our positions ...
        ... negotiations with Molotov allowed us to make our assessment of the situation clearer, especially with regard to Finland and the Balkans. There are no sharp disagreements. The solution to the question of hegemony in Europe rests in the struggle against Russia. Therefore, it is necessary to prepare for that. to oppose Russia if the political situation requires it ...
        ... we are not looking for a conflict with Russia, but we must be ready, starting in the spring of 1941, to fulfill this task ...
        ...East! The construction of fortifications after the construction of roads. Transport difficulties: Do not take anything superfluous, only absolutely necessary. In some cases, replace the buildings for the deployment of troops with tusks. June!..

        This is just a small part of the notes. The war against the USSR is considered only from the point of view of the hegemony of Germany in Europe and the end of the war with England. The position of the USSR is practically not taken into account. There is a point that the attack in the fall did not bother Halder at all. There were difficulties with logistics, so they moved to 1941. Offensive through the north was beneficial. This is Marx’s plan - to force the Russians to fight with a "turned front". Roads are not so important, because transport can be provided through the Baltic ports and Leningrad. In general, in this regard, the USSR was very lucky that Bock, Guderian and Leeb were in the German army. They did everything so that Germany lost the war :-) But this is also my personal opinion.
      4. Oleg Rambover Offline
        Oleg Rambover (Oleg Rambover) 12 September 2019 14: 45
        0
        • 0
        • 0
        Too many points, I was directly confused what to answer.
        That the leadership of Poland bears its part of the responsibility for WWII - is news for you?

        You have proved so convincingly that Hitler’s promises of 39 could not be trusted. But then it is not clear why you propose to believe this pact? Where is the logic? After all, a pact is the same promise. What prevented him from breaking it back in 39? What is the use of an agreement that cannot be trusted?

        I didn’t understand you, was Stalin’s mistake in the autumn of the 40th or not? And what, in your opinion, Molotov was carrying a gag in negotiations with Hitler?

        You brought a bunch of quotes, but almost all of them relate to the summer of 40. Honestly, I did not understand what you wanted to say. Of these, I only saw that in the summer of 40 Germans did not care about the pact.

        You all tell me about the importance of the Baltic states. Probably, to show the need for its occupation, I will not even argue. The only thing that bothers us is that the Armin group "North" was the smallest and was the most passive in that war.

        It would be better to start this year, however, this is not suitable, since it is necessary to carry out the operation with one blow.

        Is this your argument about the possibility of a German attack in the fall or winter? When is it written? It is written in black and white that a war of 40 is not possible due to the approach of autumn. Thank you for the argument in favor of my words about the impossibility of war in the year 40. And how does 39 differ in this regard?
      5. Bakht Offline
        Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 12 September 2019 17: 04
        +2
        • 2
        • 0
        Yes, there are many points. To begin with, the impossibility of an attack in the fall was not due to the weather. And because of the unpreparedness of the theater of operations. I can’t quote the whole diary of Halder. Lacked 10 relay battalions of communications and the unpreparedness of the railways. It was unrealistic to concentrate reserves for 100 divisions before the fall. Etc. Trucks, tires, re-equipment of the fleet. Reorganization of tank divisions. Lots of points. And about the weather. You wrote somewhere that May 1940 (attack on France) was originally planned. This is not true. The attack was planned for the fall of 1939 and was carried forward either 17 or 20 times. The Germans were not afraid to fight in the fall and winter. Neither in the West nor in the East.
        I bring the Baltic states because this was the main direction. Was the Army North group small? Well, let's put it this way. In the strip of the Baltic Region, 2 TGr of the 4 that the Germans had operated. Half of the German tanks hit the Baltic. Plus the 8th air corps. And this is an elite compound of dive bombers. Read the Barbarossa plan - which direction was considered a priority?
        Stalin's mistake was that he decided to spread his influence outside the former Russian Empire. Perhaps Hitler would have attacked the USSR anyway. Or maybe not. In any case, Molotov is not a diplomat. He simply stupidly repeated these instructions. And he kept repeating about the tasks that had been set for him. You could not send him to Berlin.
        And finally, about the 39th year. I still believe that war was possible. We must calculate the options. What if Hitler doesn’t hit Poland? What if he decides to agree with Warsaw on a joint campaign to the East? Plus the Baltic countries, plus Finland. Was such an option possible? Assuming such a probability, the Pact destroyed it to the ground and prevented the war of all Europe against the USSR. Try to consider this option.
      6. Oleg Rambover Offline
        Oleg Rambover (Oleg Rambover) 13 September 2019 01: 14
        0
        • 0
        • 0
        Quote: Bakht
        To begin with, the impossibility of an attack in the fall was not due to the weather. And because of the unpreparedness of the theater of operations.

        That is, in the autumn of the 39th, the Germans were ready, but in the summer of the 40th they suddenly became not ready?
        You read the quote again. It says that this year it is impossible to carry out an operation with ONE blow. What, the lack of battalions of communications did not allow the operation in one blow?

        Quote: Bakht
        Well, let's say this. In the strip of the Baltic Region, 2 TGr of the 4 that the Germans had operated.

        Yes you are right. The first two days of the war, the 3rd Panzer Group (part of the Center army group) operated in the Baltic Front, after the fall of Vilnius, this group turned to Minsk against the Western Front on June 25.

        From Wikipedia.

        June 22nd:
        Army Group North - 29 divisions (including 3 tank and 3 motorized). The offensive was supported by the 1st Air Fleet, which had 1070 combat aircraft.
        Army Group Center - 50 divisions (including 9 tank and 6 motorized) and 1 brigade. The offensive was supported by the 2nd Air Fleet (1680 combat aircraft).
        Army Group South consists of 57 divisions (including 9 tank and motorized) and 9 brigades (including 2 motorized). The offensive was supported by the 4th Air Fleet (800 combat aircraft) and the Romanian Air Force (500 aircraft).


        Quote: Bakht
        You wrote somewhere that May 1940 (the attack on France) was originally planned.

        I wrote somewhere that the attack on the USSR was originally planned in the spring.

        Quote: Bakht
        Stalin's mistake was that he decided to spread his influence outside the former Russian Empire. Perhaps Hitler would have attacked the USSR anyway. Or maybe not. In any case, Molotov is not a diplomat.

        I never thought that I would justify Stalin ... You yourself brought a bunch of quotes from the summer of the 40th with the intentions of the Germans. By November 40th, a decision had already been made. And the fact that Molotov was itching there about Finland did not change anything. Let me remind you that in Hitler's programmatic work, the territory of the USSR is considered as a living space for the German nation.

        Quote: Bakht
        And finally about the 39th year. I still believe that war was possible. We must calculate the options. What if Hitler doesn’t hit Poland? What if he decides to agree with Warsaw on a joint campaign to the East? Plus the Baltic countries, plus Finland. Was such an option possible? Assuming such a probability, the Pact destroyed it to the ground and prevented the war of all Europe against the USSR. Try to consider this option.

        And why not the arrival of aliens, as an option, not to consider? Or the USA will try to seize the Far East. Approximately the same probability. Not a single document supporting your theory exists. At negotiations in Moscow with Western countries, the defense of Romania was discussed. Poland fears Germany no less than the USSR. And it’s hard to believe that they allowed German troops into their territory. The Baltic states and Finland are more inclined towards Western countries. Even if you are right (and this is not so), France, Norway, Greece, Yugoslavia are not yet occupied. It would not be a war against all of Europe. But in the summer of 41 it was a war, practically, against the whole of Europe.

        And you did not answer why you think that in the fall of the 39th Hitler did not give a damn about the pact in the 39th. Before that, he repeatedly violated the contract. After that too. Yes, in fact, in the summer of 40, preparations began for a violation of the pact. Why did the miracle happen in the autumn of the 39th and the pact acted on Hitler?
      7. Bakht Offline
        Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 15 September 2019 08: 45
        +2
        • 2
        • 0
        My circumstances have changed, and I will no longer be able to actively participate in the discussion.
        Although the discussion turned, in fact, into a clarification of the moment, could the war have begun in the 39th year? You have a poor idea of ​​the intentions of countries in the late 30s. The union of Poland and Germany to attack the USSR is not the arrival of aliens, but reality. All pre-war planning of Poland consisted in a joint attack together with Germany on the USSR. Until March 1939, Poland had only one plan of military operations - the "East". In March, hasty planning began on the West plan. Since 1934, Poland has consistently severed all relations with Western democracies and has begun an active rapprochement with Germany. So, the threat of war for the USSR in 1939 existed. And the union of Poland and Germany is not an invention of charlatans, but quite a POSSIBLE reality.
        According to the Barbarossa plan, I advise you to read not Wikipedia (it is good as the original source), but the Barbarossa plan itself. It clearly states that an attack on Moscow is possible only after the capture of the Leningrad region. And according to the plan, the mobile units of Army Group Center had to turn north after Smolensk.
        All the hype surrounding the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact is connected with Poland’s desire to divert attention from its sins. The conclusion of the Covenants is a normal practice of those years. Hungary had the pact. Moreover, Hungary had a secret protocol to the Covenant. The pact was in Poland. No secret protocol was found, but only because no one was looking for it. Unprofitable. I do not consider the position of Hungary, because modern Hungary is at least silent in a rag - the cat knows whose meat has eaten. And the Poles are completely insolent. Therefore, I am only considering Polish issues.
        Regarding Halder's notes, "in one stroke." The plan of war against the USSR suggested rout of the Red Army in one hit. A second strike was planned for the spring of 1942. That is, the war against the USSR was not planned for 6-8 weeks. The second blow is the direction to the Caucasus and Baku.
        In Hitler's programmatic work, "living space" is defined as land in the East. First of all, those that were under the control of the German race. That is, the Limitrophs and the land of SE Europe. The USSR was the second item.
        You ask how the 40th year was different from the 39th? The presence of war. The situation has changed dramatically. After all, Hitler believed that France and England would not harness for Poland. In the 40th, the situation was different. Therefore, the Pact did not already matter to Hitler. Of course, not a signature on any piece of paper stops the leaders. A REAL situation at a given time. And in the 39th, and in the 41st, the USSR would have fought against all of Europe. The armies of France, Norway, Belgium, and whoever it was, would not have come to the aid of the Red Army.
      8. Oleg Rambover Offline
        Oleg Rambover (Oleg Rambover) 17 September 2019 12: 21
        -1
        • 0
        • 1
        Quote: Bakht
        You have a poor idea of ​​the intentions of countries in the late 30s. The union of Poland and Germany to attack the USSR is not the arrival of aliens, but reality. All pre-war planning of Poland consisted in a joint attack together with Germany on the USSR.

        Will it not be difficult for you to translate the points of the Vostok plan, where it is said about the joint attack of Poland and Germany on the USSR? Protocols of negotiations between Poland and Germany on a joint attack? Anything? Just do not need about the negotiations in Berlin in January 39. After them Polandakakira and began to develop a plan Zapal. As far as I know, the Vostok plan was defensive; within its framework, defensive structures were built on the border. And the West’s lack of a plan is connected, never guessed, with Germany’s lack of an army. Tales of Poland’s aggressive plans against the USSR are akin to tales of Finland. Very exciting, but absolutely not realistic due to the preponderance of forces by an order of magnitude.

        Quote: Bakht
        Since 1934, Poland has consistently severed all relations with Western democracies and has begun an active rapprochement with Germany.

        In your opinion, not smart people controlled Western democracies? They were introduced into the war for a country that was practically an ally of Germany.

        Quote: Bakht
        According to the Barbarossa plan, I advise you to read not Wikipedia (it is good as the original source), but the Barbarossa plan itself. It clearly states that an attack on Moscow is possible only after the capture of the Leningrad region. And according to the plan, the mobile units of Army Group Center had to turn north after Smolensk.

        And what, the plan was fulfilled? As far as I remember, either in August or in September, it was decided not to take Leningrad. And I don’t remember something, that a group of armies would turn north after Smolensk.

        Quote: Bakht
        The pact was in Poland. No secret protocol was found, but only because no one was looking for it. Unprofitable.

        Yes Yes Yes. From the movie DNB

        You see the gopher, and I do not. But he is.

        Quote: Bakht
        The plan of war against the USSR implied the defeat of the Red Army with one blow.

        And I’m talking about the same thing, and why, in your opinion, did the Germans decide not to smash 40/41 with one blow in the winter?

        Quote: Bakht
        In Hitler's programmatic work, "living space" is defined as land in the East.

        We National Socialists consciously put an end to the entire foreign policy of the pre-war era. We want to return to the point at which our old development of 600 was interrupted years ago. We want to stop the eternal German aspiration to the south and west of Europe, and we are definitely pointing our finger towards the territories located in the east. We are finally breaking with the colonial and trade policies of the pre-war era and consciously move on to the policy of conquering new lands in Europe.
        When we talk about the conquest of new lands in Europe, we, of course, can have in mind, first of all, only Russia and those marginal states that are subordinate to it.

        Quote: Bakht
        You ask how the 40th year was different from the 39th? The presence of war. The situation has changed dramatically. After all, Hitler believed that France and England would not harness for Poland. In the 40th, the situation was different.

        I want to remind you that the war began on September 1, 39, a week after the signing of the pact, and on September 3 it became world. That is, in your opinion, the pact was valid for 10 days?

        Quote: Bakht
        Of course, not a signature on any piece of paper stops the leaders. A REAL situation at a given time

        I completely agree, and the REAL situation of the year 39 was that Germany could not attack the USSR.

        In short, you can give at least some evidence of your point of view on Germany’s plans to attack the USSR in the year 39. Otherwise, it's just your fantasies.

        Quote: Bakht
        The armies of France, Norway, Belgium, and whoever it was, would not have come to the aid of the Red Army.

        And so they came to the rescue? What has the pact changed here? But I would like to consider this topic separately.
      9. Bakht Offline
        Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 17 September 2019 17: 07
        +1
        • 1
        • 0
        Our dispute moves to a new plane. I’m tired of proving to you that if the USSR had signed the treaty with England and France, the war would have started anyway. And then the USSR was supposed to help Poland and fight against Germany. With the complete inaction of the "allies." Therefore, Stalin went to sign the Pact with Germany. What reflected the interests of the USSR. You are all trying to connect the Pact and the start of the war. This is not true. No connection exists. The pact was concluded between the USSR and Germany. He had no influence on the beginning or cancellation of the war (I already said that the war was planned for August 26th and was postponed for September 1st due to news from Rome and London). He just made it possible to avoid the war of the USSR against Germany. You do not know that in the summer of 1939 all the Baltic countries signed the Pact with Hitler?
        You operate with the aftertaste that I see not for the first time. Tell me, what did the Poles say about the war with Germany? The Poznan army was aimed at Berlin. "In two weeks we will be in Berlin." The Red Army Polish military ouwen very, very low.

        On August 18, after the first Anglo-French attempt to open the eyes of the Poles, Polish Foreign Minister Beck told the French Ambassador Leon Noel that the Russians “did not deserve military attention,” and General Stachevich, chief of the Polish General Staff, supported him, noting that Poland will not receive “any benefits from the fact that the Red Army will act on its territory”

        Your statement:

        absolutely not realistic in view of the superiority of forces by an order of magnitude

        - absolutely wrong. In any case, the Poles did not think so.
        Again. The USSR could be at war with Germany in the complete absence of "allies" in Europe. And not the fact that at the last moment Germany and Poland could agree. Heads of state should focus not on the plans of the opposing side (which they do not even know reliably), but on the real situation of a particular moment. At that time, the Germany-USSR agreement was beneficial to both countries.
      10. Oleg Rambover Offline
        Oleg Rambover (Oleg Rambover) 20 September 2019 13: 22
        0
        • 0
        • 0
        Quote: Bakht
        I’m tired of proving to you that if the USSR had signed the treaty with England and France, the war would have started anyway.

        No wonder you are tired. You took on the Sisyphus labor. It is impossible to prove. As in the other and the opposite. For me, the probability of war was greatly reduced, since no one really wanted a world war. In Germany, too, the danger of a war on two fronts could turn many away from Hitler in Germany. You are not convincing arguments, you never know what anyone said. Even military plans do not determine the future. There, the USSR made plans in the 40th new war against Finland, but the situation was not favorable and the plans were not implemented.

        We soldiers sighed in relief when the news of the conclusion of a pact reached us at the end of August. Thanks to this pact, we felt that our rear was free, and we were happy that we managed to get rid of the danger of waging a war on two fronts, which in the last world war incapacitated us for a long time.

        Quote: Bakht
        You operate with the aftertaste that I see not for the first time. Tell me, what did the Poles say about the war with Germany? The Poznan army was aimed at Berlin. "In two weeks we will be in Berlin." The Red Army Polish soldiers rated very, very low.

        And what, what is afterglow? You want to say that Stalin did not correctly assess the situation due to lack of information? Does this somehow distort him? Politics like chess, a talented politician must anticipate the actions of his opponent several steps forward. So he is the greatest leader of all times and peoples, or hr ... who knows?

        Do you recall a little blood in a foreign territory? I do not know how the Poles evaluated the Red Army there, but the main Polish defenses were built in the east.

        You dragged me to write sheets, but I only wanted to talk about the significance of the pact for the USSR.

        Let's get back to the pact.
        Summarizing the reasons for the possibility of a German attack on the USSR in the autumn and winter of 39 40.
        You did not inculcate any convincing arguments that the pact stopped such an attack (I would be surprised if they translated, as far as I know they do not exist). No preparations were made for an attack in 39, not one country. A possible alliance of Germany and Poland with unconfirmed fantasies. The quotes you cite do not indicate Germany’s readiness to attack the USSR, or even the fear of such an attack in 39 of the Soviet leadership.
        And also about the winter of summer ...

        Report of the Commander of the Western Special Military District Colonel-General of Tank Forces D. G. PAVLOVA

        So, in the end [the mechanized corps] will need up to 10 - 12 hours of daylight. This is the amount of daylight we have from February, when the day lasts 11 hours 15 minutes, through October, when the longitude of the day is 12 hours. Thus, these 8 months give the mechanized corps full opportunity to carry out all combat work to a depth of 50-60 km, and depending on the enemy’s resistance, there may be more.

        The worst thing is if a breakthrough is made today, and the mechanized corps begins to be introduced [into it] in the morning of the next day. The enemy will immediately throw all available reserves at night to the breakthrough site and can create strong minefields that will cause the mechanized corps to “creep”, clearing their way not so much in battles with the enemy’s manpower as in the “war” with the barrage service.

        Do you think the Germans didn’t have such problems?

        Regarding the possibility of war with Japan ...

        Small episodes in Manchuria, near the lake. Hassan or in Mongolia - this is nonsense, this is not war, these are individual episodes on the spot, strictly limited. Japan was afraid to start a war, we didn’t want this either, and some test of strength on the patch showed that Japan had failed. They had 2-3 divisions and we have 2-3 divisions in Mongolia, the same number on Hassan. Our army has not yet waged a real, serious war.

        Who do you think?

        Now I would like to move on to the next item. Consider France.
        You say that the French are such bad people, such optional, born traitors, etc., In short, from your words I realized that it is better to conclude an agreement with Nazi Germany than with such bad people like the French. We will not argue about the moral qualities of the French. Let's consider what position of France is the most favorable to the USSR.
        1 option. France and the USSR conclude a treaty and how to fully fight on both sides with Germany in the First World War.
        Option 2. France and the USSR enter into an agreement, but the French declare war, but do not want to fight, wage a "strange" war, all the burden falls on the USSR, but Germany still holds several dozen divisions in the west.
        3 option. France does not stand up for Poland and remains neutral. The whole burden of the war rests with the USSR, but Germany still holds a significant contingent on the border with France.
        4 option (implemented). Germany first defeated France, and then set about the USSR. The whole burden of the war again lies with the USSR, but Germany is no longer afraid of an attack from the west, it only keeps occupying police units in France. In addition, Germany gets rich trophies. More than a million trucks were confiscated in France (Lend-Lease in the USSR delivered 400 thousand). The developed industry of France now works on the Wehrmacht. 41 million Frenchmen are now working on the power of Germany, extracting minerals, supplying food and producing various products at French plants (for example, another 100 thousand cars, the USSR produced about 250 thousand during the war).

        Well, honestly, which option is the worst for the USSR? Let’s throw off the first option, as you say that the French are such bad people that they would never do that. Of the remaining three, which is the best and worst?
      11. Bakht Offline
        Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 20 September 2019 16: 01
        +1
        • 1
        • 0
        Limited to options
        Option 1. It was not implemented in reality. The USSR is holding the front against Germany, while France is waiting, as in WWI. As is the case with Poland. If France did not harness for Poland, then why would it fight for the USSR? Unprofitable primarily for the USSR.

        Option 2. So it was in the case of Poland. Only now, Germany held in the West not "several dozen divisions", but only 20. Moreover, not the most militant ones. And not a single tank. It was implemented in reality in the case of Poland. So the USSR again holds the front against Germany without any allies.

        Option 3. Repeat the second, but with great shame for France. Again, the USSR was drawn into the war without any allies.

        Option 4. The one that happened in reality. The whole burden lies with the USSR, but it has two powerful allies. In the first three variants there would be no allies.

        You can pay attention that in the first three versions you acknowledge that the war for the USSR could begin in the 39th year. Germany does not have to have plans and attack the USSR. It is enough that, by virtue of the events of the USSR, it would have been drawn into the war against Germany precisely in 1939. It is due to the absence of the Covenant. The Pact prevented this. So of the options you have proposed, the 4th is the most favorable.
      12. Oleg Rambover Offline
        Oleg Rambover (Oleg Rambover) 24 September 2019 12: 45
        0
        • 0
        • 0
        I asked what position of France is most advantageous to the USSR. That is, occupied France is beneficial to the USSR? Do you really believe that? The USSR could have one more ally. From the military and economic points of view, the fourth worst option and it is foolish to deny it.
        What is the connection between the fall of France and the emergence of allies in the USSR? If France had not fallen, would there be no allies? Something is not visible causal relationship. And what, the USSR received from the allies more than Germany from the occupation of France?

        Quote: Bakht
        You can pay attention that in the first three versions you acknowledge that the war for the USSR could begin in the 39th year.

        Well, if the USSR joined the anti-Hitler coalition in 39, then yes, it could. But he could be in the 40 ohm.

        Quote: Bakht
        It is enough that, by virtue of the events of the USSR, it would have been drawn into the war against Germany precisely in 1939.

        But he could have been embroiled on his own terms, owning the initiative and imposing his will in unfavorable conditions for Germany. And not as it turned out, absolutely passively, at the time of the highest power of Germany, without allies. It’s hard to imagine a worse situation.

        PS What did France do in WWII? Is something worse than a separate peace with the enemy?
  13. Bakht Offline
    Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 17 September 2019 17: 10
    +1
    • 1
    • 0
    The course of hostilities is difficult to consider. But from the 3rd TGr of Gotha, Leeb was transferred to the 39th motorized corps. And it was transferred in August after Smolensk. It was he who closed the ring around Leningrad. It’s just that Goth was much smarter than Guderian and transferred only one corps. Guderian led the whole TGr to the south. I say that the general in the Wehrmacht was not the smartest.
  • Bakht Offline
    Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 26 August 2019 11: 15
    0
    • 1
    • 1
    Purely military component of that time.
    The Red Army of August 1939 was not the army that met 1941. The number of 1,5 million people. There is no system of compulsory appeal, therefore - there are no trained reservists. The Wehrmacht threw over 50 divisions to Poland. The total number of the Wehrmacht is about 3,5 million people (all together the Wehrmacht, Air Force, Navy and SS troops). Probably 1,5-2,0 million acted against Poland. The USSR sent about 50 divisions to the liberation campaign. That's just the number was less than 700 thousand people.
    The basis of the red army divisions of the time were territorial divisions of the "triplets". Zero combat efficiency. The fighting on July 7-8, 1939 at Khalkhin Gol.

    “The rested enemy attacked again on the night of July 7-8, and you had to repel the enemy at the main line of defense. Instead, on July 9, you went on a general offensive, despite my warning not to. I also warned you not to bring into battle the lead regiment of the 82nd Infantry Division directly from the march; you didn’t fulfill this, although you agreed with my instructions. I understand your desire to wrest the initiative from the enemy, but the desire to "take the attack and destroy the enemy," as you often write about this, is not resolved. "
    Here Zhukov faced the realities of the rapidly growing Red Army. He was sent a fresh formation from the Ural Military District - the 82nd Infantry Division. He tried to bring the division into battle in order to turn the tide in his favor, and was faced with its low combat efficiency. Formed in June 1939, the 82nd Infantry Division was deployed on the principle of "triad", that is, its core was a peacetime regiment. The quality and level of discipline of such a connection were rather low. It is not surprising that the commission of G.I. Kulik decided on July 27, 1939 to switch to a single deployment system. Kulik was on Khalkhin Gol during the debut of the 82nd Infantry Division and could see with his own eyes all the flaws of the triple deployment system, which completely diluted the personnel with storage tanks and people who had never held weapons in their hands.
    Shaposhnikov’s telegram directly and unequivocally said: “Welcome to the real world!” He pointed out to Zhukov: “You are complaining about the unpreparedness of the 5th Motorized Brigade and the head regiment of the 82nd Infantry Division, but you didn’t do anything to gradually bring them into battle,“ fire ”, and let the command and control personnel“ sniff ”the battle, setting. You threw these parts along with the others into the attack, made a bet on them and wanted to “destroy” the enemy with their help ”

    By June 1941, the triad divisions were over. All divisions became single deployment. True, they did not reach the wartime states, but were already at least a little combat ready. It took time. And two years gave the signing of the Covenant.
  • Bakht Offline
    Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 26 August 2019 11: 28
    +1
    • 2
    • 1
    The staff of the army.
    The Wehrmacht declared universal military service in 1935. But keep in mind that the Reichver was the 100th thousandth PROFESSIONAL army. Each (!) Soldier was a ready-made non-commissioned officer or even an officer who had served for at least 5 years. Any Reichswehr soldier could take at least a platoon under command. Result? In 1938, the annexation of Austria. Some regiments got lost and had to be sought with the help of the local police. 1938 and 1939. The capture of the Sudetenland and the Czech Republic. The roads were clogged with abandoned equipment of tank divisions. By the way, in September 1939, Poland’s roads were clogged with broken Soviet tanks. The supply system is practically zero. Eremenko said at the All-Army meeting that his mechanized corps entered the designated area without fuel and had to be supplied with the help of aviation. Which is ABSOLUTELY unacceptable.
    Almost the entire Wehrmacht was literate. They could read a map, use a telephone or a radio station. In the Red Army of 1939, only 7% had secondary education (graduated from high school). And in the USSR, universal military service was announced only in 1939.

    According to the 1937 census, almost 30 million (!) Illiterate citizens over the age of 15, or 18,5% of the total population, lived in the USSR. In 1939, only 7,7% of the USSR population had education of 7 classes or more, and only 0,7% had higher education. For men aged 16 - 59 years, these indicators were significantly higher - 15% and 1,7%, respectively, but still they were unacceptably low.

    Two years of the Pact made it possible to replenish the army with graduates of military schools. All the same, they were not enough, but it is better than it was in 1939.
  • YATWIAG. BY Offline
    YATWIAG. BY (Cheslav) 26 August 2019 22: 42
    0
    • 1
    • 1
    Tales of the Vienna Woods ...