How the "allies" betrayed the USSR in 1945


The reasons why the United States and Great Britain today have taken a clear course towards revising the results of World War II and denigrating the Soviet Union, which goes even as far as trying to declare him one of the culprits of this global catastrophe, should not be tried to explain only with today's geopolitical interests of the "collective West". In fact, everything is much worse, dirtier and meaner.


In no case should one even stutter that 75 years after May 1945, our “allies” in the Anti-Hitler coalition betray this alliance and our supposedly joint Victory with them! There were no allies! Never. And the Great Victory was won by our heroic people not thanks to, but contrary to the titanic efforts of London and Washington. We will talk about specific events confirming these shocking statements a little more than 100% today.

“Let's agree” - USA and Third Reich against Bolshevism


Human stereotypes are extremely tenacious. And if they are brought up to the degree of obsession, and in addition, multiplied by fanatical self-confidence and obstinacy - write is gone ... No matter how much is said about the more than dubious “contribution” of the USA and Great Britain to the defeat of Nazism, no matter how many specific facts and figures are brought up , documentary evidence - all the same, in our Fatherland those who continue, as usual, to repeat: “Without the Americans, we would never have defeated Hitler!” And one can cite real volumes and “value” of far from free and absolutely miserable in comparison with everything that was produced for the front in the USSR itself by Lend-Lease, comparing this with the size of the supplies of materials and raw materials necessary for the war, which were regularly received in the Third Reich from the same USA is useless. You can try to clarify the role of American and British financial and industrial assistance in reviving the power of Nazi Germany and the creation of the Wehrmacht - they will not hear. “On the fingers” to explain that with the opening of the “Second Front”, our “allies”, contrary to all the requests and requirements of the Soviet Union, pulled to the last and sank into Europe solely to stop the advance of the Red Army on it - to no avail. Although the number on the head is comic ... They will still say: "The Allies saved us from defeat!" Either they have such a sect, or simply a diagnosis - you can’t understand right away. Therefore, we will not repeat what has already been said a million times, but we will immediately proceed to the last stage of the Great Patriotic War, when the gentlemen of the Anglo-Saxons finally showed their true face without any embellishment.

The first attempts by the Germans to enter into separate negotiations with representatives of Britain, according to some sources, date back to 1942. However, most likely, it was not "sanctioned actions on the ground" not sanctioned by Berlin, so the British simply ignored it. There was no one to talk with ... In 1943, a British-American conference was held in Casablanca, proclaiming the complete and unconditional surrender of the Nazis as the only possible outcome of the war. Moreover, it was to this option, and on a completely non-alternative basis, that the “Big Three” came along with Stalin during a meeting in Tehran. Nevertheless, in the same year the situation changed in the most dramatic way, and on both sides. In the Third Reich after Stalingrad, the number of those who suddenly “saw the light” somehow sharply increased, realized that the damn Führer with his plan “Barbarossa” got into a puddle and dragged the country into a war that cannot be won. In any case, by the available forces. These people (representatives of industry and finance, policy and even some military men) in no case did not want peace with the USSR. Quite the contrary, they considered Hitler's main mistake that he attacked our country without having London and Washington in the allies. At a minimum - without securing their neutrality. All they wanted was the removal from power of the most odious and blood-stained Nazis to restore their own “handshake” and conclude an alliance with other Western countries in order to “resist the onset of Bolshevism on a united front.” The most unpleasant thing is that such impulses found the hottest response in the soul of the one who for many years was destined to become a symbol of American hatred and hostility towards our country.

Betrayal: Actors and Performers


In this case, we are talking about Allen Dulles - one of the founders and directors of the Central Intelligence Agency, the author of the famous plan for the decomposition and destruction of the Soviet Union, which, alas, has been successfully implemented. However, at the moment I described, Dulles was just the head of the European Center for the Office of Strategic Services of the United States (the predecessor of the CIA, who was engaged in the same dark and dirty affairs). This high-ranking intelligence officer began looking for contacts with the Nazis almost immediately after arriving in the Old World in February 1943. I must say that by this time in the inner circle of Mr. Dulles there was already an agent who worked for the SD and "drained" all the information into Berlin about his pathological hatred of the "advice" that he saw only as an implacable and deadly enemy against whom The United States will have to wage World War III. So there is nothing surprising in the fact that the Reich representatives, who were looking for peace and alliance with the USSR against the Americans, contacted him over and over again. Subsequently, Dulles will argue that he and his subordinates conducted active tricks with the Nazis solely in order to “achieve a bloodless surrender of the Wehrmacht” on certain sections of the Western Front. Sorry, doggy. The most promising American intelligence contact that has been outlined since the end of 1944 did not occur with the “army men”, but with representatives of the SS, an organization that at that time was already a symbol of the most terrifying crimes against civilians for the whole world. It was with them that Dulles began to negotiate quite seriously, in which matters of surrendering to the allies of Italy were a matter of third importance. It was actually about things much more serious.

The Obergruppenführer of the SS, Karl Friedrich Otto Wolf, who came into contact with the Americans, was, until a certain time, the “right hand” of the head of the SS, Heinrich Himmler, and stood at the origins of this truly satanic “black order” (up to the development of its symbolism and structure). To the fullest extent (as, practically, every SS man) had to do with the activity of concentration camps. For example, on his conscience the death in Treblinka of at least 300 thousand Poles and Jews from the Warsaw ghetto. And with this monster, Dulles, not at all tormented by doubts, easily sat down at the negotiating table. An American intelligence operation, code-named Sunrise, was launched (Crossword as other sources). The name says a lot: for Allen Dulles, the beginning of “fruitful cooperation” with the Nazis meant the sunrise of his hopes that the Red Army offensive and the victorious advance of the USSR in Europe could be stopped. However, the “sun” as it ascended, it rolled off - the employees of Lavrenty Pavlovich, unlike their American colleagues, didn’t slurp their soup. More than unsightly “dates” that took place in Zurich, Switzerland (it is absolutely certain that at least two meetings between Wolf and Dulles are known) became known in Moscow. The reaction, quite predictably, was extremely harsh. In an official diplomatic note, the USSR demanded that its representatives be immediately involved in negotiations - if it really is surrender negotiations. The "Allies" began to wag and bustle, stressing that it was "technically impossible." It is clear that such a turn brought the Supreme to the utmost degree of anger. The corresponding message, in which he directly accused the Americans and the British of double-dealing and attempts to separate the deal with Germany, was sent personally to US President Roosevelt. He in response began to make excuses and claim that Stalin was misinformed. Yes of course…

London takes the baton


Franklin Roosevelt, who died on April 13, 1945, has not received the next letter from Joseph Vissarionovich. Maybe it’s good (the person was still worthy, as for the President of the United States) - because in this letter the head of our state literally pokes the owner of the White House with his nose in the created dirty trick, as if he had impregnated a puppy. Oh, there were times ... I advise you to read - the document is quite accessible on the Internet. Stalin, preserving all the diplomatic framework, directly indicates to the American leader that his intelligence is either worthless or deliberately misleads the Allies. And he cites a concrete example when the “important messages” of General Marshall about the allegedly preparing attacks of the Wehrmacht in Pomerania and Poland turned out to be complete, excuse me, bullshit - the Nazis launched an offensive in Hungary, near Lake Balaton. But as regards his “informants”, as he streamlines, the Supreme asserts that they are all “honest and verified” people. Thus, Stalin did not just stop attempts to accuse Soviet intelligence of misinformation, but made it clear that it was better not to joke with her. And with him, even more so. This time it dawned on the Americans. And nothing even changed that the place of Roosevelt, who was not the worst in his attitude to the USSR, was taken by Harry Truman, known for his words uttered on June 23, 1941: “In the war of the USSR and Germany, the United States should help the losing side and let them kill each other as much as possible more!" The negotiations in Switzerland were quickly phased out without any results - to Dulles' great chagrin. Yes, and what was already said - in the yard was victorious May 1945. Italy surrendered to the Americans without a fight. Inveterate SS officer Wolf, whose appearance on the dock in Nuremberg Dulles was mortally afraid, instead of a well-deserved loop, he received ... 4 years of "labor camps", which he did not even leave completely!

However, the baton of betrayal from Washington immediately took London. In April 1945, at the same time that Dulles was talking intensively in Switzerland with Obergruppenführer Wolf, British Prime Minister Sir Winston Churchill gave instructions in the strictest secrecy to begin preparations for an attack on the USSR. The plan, code-named "The Unthinkable," was submitted for consideration on May 22. In accordance with this, a sudden and crushing blow to the “Russian barbarians” who were unsuspecting and celebrating the victory they had won at an indescribable price, was to be delivered on July 1, 1945. In addition to fifty divisions of the British and Americans in the offensive deployed in Germany, Austria, Czechoslovakia, from ten to a dozen divisions of the Wehrmacht were to take part, which, surrendering to the Allies, were not disbanded by order of the prudent Sir William, but only temporarily disarmed and were , in fact, on alert. Subsequently, the regiments and divisions recruited in Poland and Hungary, “freed from Bolshevik occupation” were to join the ranks of the united armada of the West, going to the last (as its initiators saw) crusade against communism. It is not known for certain whether Churchill informed the Americans about his own adventurous and cannibalistic plans, but he very much counted on their nuclear arsenal and the B-29 armada, which, according to his plan, would fall upon our cities. The British leader did not intend to dwell on the "expulsion of the Bolshevik hordes from Europe". At a minimum, to completely destroy and occupy the entire European part of the USSR, to capture Stalingrad and the Caucasus, on which the British have been grinding their teeth for several centuries.

The "unthinkable" did not come true for several reasons. First of all, Stalin did not exaggerate the capabilities of his “informants” - already in May, a message from London about a new savage, treacherous, truly unthinkable plan for the British lay on the Supreme’s table. Joseph Vissarionovich did not believe his intelligence, as some are trying to argue, and ignored her warnings? On June 29, 1945, the commander of the Group of Occupation Forces in Germany, Marshal Zhukov, having received instructions from the Kremlin, gives the units and formations a sudden order to completely regroup and advance to combat positions - in the West. It becomes clear to London: the plan is revealed, no sudden attack and a “blitzkrieg” will succeed. At the same time, their own military analysts and generals report to Churchill: an attack on the USSR in its current state will result in a bloody campaign with a completely unpredictable result. Yes, the West has an edge on the sea and in aviation. However, on land, the Russians will simply crush us ... The Americans are starting to play - they need the Red Army before the stab in the Far East. The Yankees themselves, who struggled to beat off tiny islands from the Japanese, were struggling with the XNUMX million Kwantung army, the gut was clearly thin. Only the mournful general Patton, who is harassed by Guderian’s laurels, is heading for the Russians ... Official Washington hates the USSR as much as London, but believes that there is no need to rush it - you need to give “advice” to relax, and yourself for it time to gain strength. The operation, which was supposed to be either a continuation of the Second World War, or the beginning of the Third, is canceled. Rather, it is postponed indefinitely.

In truth, I personally am deeply convinced that after all the Anglo-Saxons described above it was necessary to finish it off. Right there and then. Do not arrange joint parades with them in Berlin, to which their commanders disdain, but sweep away Europe with a filthy broom. Rather - "Katyushas" and tank armies. I’m directly hearing how some of the tipuses I mentioned at the very beginning will groan: “Well, yeah ... That would have happened! After all, they are the Americans ... They are invincible! ” I would be happy to heartily upset the "alternatively gifted", giving just one specific example: among other things, by the summer of 1945, the Red Army was armed with the IS-3 tank - a fifty-ton colossus with a 122-mm gun and armor up to 250 millimeters, effective means defeat which no army in the world, in fact, did not exist. Yes, yes, guessed - from the word "completely." The armies of the world's best tanks, under the leadership of the world's best commanders, would have wound on the tracks both traitors - "allies" and their Nazi henchmen. And those who would be very lucky were vividly floating in the English Channel, clinging to improvised means. The atomic bomb, you say? But how many were these bombs at that time ?! In addition, no one would give the Americans to dump them in Moscow or Leningrad - this is not Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Would roll in a thin pancake, they and "mother!" they wouldn’t have time to shout. Stalin, whom today's liberals are trying to make “a bloodthirsty maniac,” did not do all this solely because he did not want millions of new victims and a few more years of war. He wanted to give peace to his people, and not only to him, but to everyone else, including those who are turning their tongues today to call our soldiers "invaders." Then Joseph Vissarionovich seems to have reconsidered his decision, but it was too late ...

We had no allies - neither in our Great War, nor in our Great Victory. And what they are doing today is not a sharp turn of the course, but simply a logical continuation of Crossword and the Unthinkable.
Used photos: http://mil.ru/
Ctrl Enter

Noticed oshЫbku Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

64 comments
Information

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

  1. Dmitry S. Offline
    Dmitry S. (Dmitry Sanin) 30 May 2020 10: 01
    0
    • 1
    • 1
    I would also like to have links to sources - it is interesting to read the entire document itself.
    1. Arkharov Offline
      Arkharov (Grigory Arkharov) 30 May 2020 14: 16
      -6
      • 0
      • 6
      Yes, there are no reliable sources, and Ukropny, therefore, can’t present anything to you, and if it’s links, it’s mostly chewed up fakes from all kinds of Internet garbage dumps a thousand times over.
    2. Akuzenka Offline
      Akuzenka (Alexander) 2 June 2020 17: 45
      +1
      • 1
      • 0
      It's simple - type in a search engine - Operation "Unthinkable". A lot of stuff. And read and make up your mind. For me, "Neurocourse" still gently described the Anglo-Saxon betrayal.
      I will say more - without the Americans and the British, there would be no Hitler.
  2. Cyril Offline
    Cyril (Kirill) 30 May 2020 10: 02
    -3
    • 3
    • 6
    Saturday morning The author has another exacerbation. laughing He first read about the plan for Operation Unthinkable on Wikipedia. The author did not understand, it is true that he had read it, but he saw in the article the words “Churchill”, “offensive” and “USSR” - and here everything went in his head in

    specific events confirming these shocking statements a little more than 100%

    In this case, it is about Allen Dulles - one of the founders and directors of the Central Intelligence Agency, the author of the famous plan on the decomposition and destruction of the Soviet Union, alas, successfully implemented.

    Yeah, the author of a plan that never existed. laughing laughing

    And the author would have been silent about the "mean Anglo-Saxons" who were conducting secret negotiations with Hitler, because he was trying to negotiate the separate peace negotiations with Hitler and the USSR, trying to contact him through the Bulgarian ambassador. True, Germany simply rejected these attempts.
    1. Bakht Offline
      Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 30 May 2020 10: 29
      +1
      • 4
      • 3
      Besides some recollections, is there reliable information about Stalin's attempts to make peace with Germany in the 41st?
      1. Cyril Offline
        Cyril (Kirill) 30 May 2020 10: 59
        -2
        • 1
        • 3
        In addition to some memories

        I doubt that there are any printed documents. However, Zhukov, Khrushchev, Moskalenko, Sudoplatov have references to this.
        1. Bakht Offline
          Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 30 May 2020 11: 01
          +1
          • 3
          • 2
          Mention is not evidence. There is no evidence of attempts to conclude a separate peace.
          There are fakes of Karpov and also with the mention of Zhukov, Khrushchev and others.
          ----
          But there is evidence of attempts to conspire with Germany, General Anders. October 1941
          1. Cyril Offline
            Cyril (Kirill) 30 May 2020 11: 11
            -2
            • 1
            • 3
            Mention is not evidence.

            Why is this? Maybe this is not exhaustive evidence, of course, but it’s quite a testimony to itself.
            1. Bakht Offline
              Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 30 May 2020 11: 22
              +2
              • 4
              • 2
              If you want to believe, then I can’t forbid you. But there is no evidence or documents.
              In the end, God is also believed.
              1. Oleg Rambover Online
                Oleg Rambover (Oleg Rambover) 30 May 2020 14: 02
                -4
                • 1
                • 5
                But you must admit that in negotiations on a separate peace between Germany and the Allies, you can only trust. There is no evidence or documents either.
                1. Bakht Offline
                  Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 30 May 2020 16: 08
                  +6
                  • 6
                  • 0
                  There are letters, documents. Correspondence of Stalin and Roosevelt. If you search, you can find the necessary documents.
                  Perhaps in the fall of 1941, Stalin had such thoughts. Maybe. But there is no evidence. And the Germans, if only a drop of truth, would not fail to take advantage of for propaganda purposes.
                  For example, when in the fall of 41, Polish emissaries from General Anders led negotiations on peace, in Germany this was very widely covered in newspapers and on the radio.
                  And in this case, the Germans were silent like a fish on ice. And only now someone invented this bike. In principle, the legs grow from the same Khrushchev. He was the first to voice this idea. Only this fact alone raises doubts about the veracity.
                  I repeat. If there were such proposals, then the Germans would immediately publish information and then the front would collapse immediately. This is my firm belief.
                  ----
                  If more or less plausible documents appear, I will gladly look at them. You see, I know what was published. And I myself give you a link to them. But this is fake. Much has been written on this topic.
                  1. Bakht Offline
                    Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 30 May 2020 16: 14
                    +5
                    • 5
                    • 0
                    Roosevelt's letter to Stalin on April 12, 1945. A telegram was sent on the day of Roosevelt's death, despite Harriman's protest.

                    “Thank you for your sincere explanation of the Soviet point of view regarding the Berne incident, which now seems to have faded and become a thing of the past without any benefit. In any case, there should be no mutual distrust, and minor misunderstandings of this nature should not arise in the future ... ”

                    As you can see, Roosevelt did not deny the fact of negotiations and asked to consider this an incident.
                    1. Oleg Rambover Online
                      Oleg Rambover (Oleg Rambover) 30 May 2020 18: 16
                      -2
                      • 0
                      • 2
                      So no one denies the fact of negotiations. Moreover, the Allies immediately informed the USSR about them. But one can only believe that a separate peace was discussed there, especially from the Allies.
                      1. Bakht Offline
                        Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 30 May 2020 18: 35
                        +4
                        • 4
                        • 0
                        The negotiations in Bern are a separate issue.
                        Yes, the Allies informed Stalin, but categorically objected to the participation of the Soviet representatives. The official note to the Soviet Government looked like this:

                        However, in view of the fact that the German proposals relate to the surrender of the armed forces on the US-British front, Field Marshal Alexander, as the supreme commander of this theater, will be alone responsible for negotiating and making decisions.

                        Let's take one thing. In Bern, a separate surrender is being decided only on the US-British front. What was Stalin's reaction to be?

                        The Soviet government insists that henceforth the possibility of separate negotiations by one or two allied powers with German representatives without the participation of a third allied power be excluded.
                      2. Oleg Rambover Online
                        Oleg Rambover (Oleg Rambover) 30 May 2020 22: 51
                        -2
                        • 0
                        • 2
                        Stalin’s reaction is understandable. "Separate surrender" - what is it? The surrender of Paulus in Stalingrad, is it separate? Or are attempts to persuade the Budapest garrison of 44 to surrender - is it also "separate"? Or the surrender of Konigsberg?
                        As far as I remember, it was about a group in Italy. Or about parts of the SS in Italy. There was no talk of a separate world. You can only believe in the opposite.
                      3. Bakht Offline
                        Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 30 May 2020 23: 09
                        +2
                        • 2
                        • 0
                        Yes, according to the official version, it was about the grouping of German troops in northern Italy. But Donovan (or Dulles) spoke of surrender on the US-English front.
                        All this was covered with a copper basin, because Kesselring refused to go to the meeting.
                        In the correspondence of Roosevelt and Stalin, this question was reflected. Stalin wrote that he welcomed the surrender in Italy and understood Roosevelt’s desire to save the lives of American soldiers. But we can only talk about surrender in "separate sections of the front." The quoted words are a quote from Stalin.
                        No need to be more naive than it really is. Not to bring me all the telegrams of Roosevelt and Stalin. Roosevelt wrote that there was a misunderstanding and Stalin agreed with him. With the condition that all negotiations should be in the presence of representatives of the three powers. There was no response. Roosevelt died, but Truman did not consider answering.
                      4. Oleg Rambover Online
                        Oleg Rambover (Oleg Rambover) 30 May 2020 23: 59
                        -1
                        • 0
                        • 1
                        Then it is not clear to me what respected Neukrokny or are you blaming the allies? Is a third-rate officer Dulles having two meetings with four-grade SS officer Wolf? AND? Did Dulles talk about the surrender of the Germans on the western front or is it from the realm of faith (is this a good statement to quote)? America needed the forces of the Red Army to defeat Japan, the Third Reich lived out the last weeks and quarreling with the USSR did not meet US interests. What would the US get from such a “separate surrender”? And it would be very strange to inform the USSR about such negotiations. Therefore, one can only believe in some kind of US maliciousness in these events.
                      5. Bakht Offline
                        Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 31 May 2020 09: 40
                        +2
                        • 2
                        • 0
                        I do not blame. I just say that there was a separate negotiation. And what they agreed on is not entirely clear.
                        You probably have not read the telegram exchange between Stalin and Roosevelt.
                        ----
                        Let's move away from Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin. And move on to the specifics.
                        You are the head of the company and you have a partner. And suddenly you find out that your partner is negotiating with a competing company. You ask him what’s the matter? What are you agreeing to? In response, you get - This does not concern you, it concerns me personally.
                        Will you be satisfied with this answer or will you doubt your companion?
                        -----
                        For some reason, people think that big politics is very different from everyday life .... The fact of negotiations and refusal to allow Soviet representatives to them means a split and distrust between the allies. That is what Stalin wrote to Roosevelt.
                      6. Oleg Rambover Online
                        Oleg Rambover (Oleg Rambover) 2 June 2020 23: 39
                        -2
                        • 0
                        • 2
                        Quote: Bakht
                        Let's move away from Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin. And move on to the specifics.
                        You are the head of the company and you have a partner. And suddenly you find out that your partner is negotiating with a competing company. You ask him what’s the matter? What are you agreeing to? In response, you get - This does not concern you, it concerns me personally.
                        Will you be satisfied with this answer or will you doubt your companion?

                        Let's. Just do not suddenly find out, but your partner informs you. And the negotiations are not conducted by the partner himself, but by his subordinate, for example, your partner’s handyman with the janitor of your competitor. Moreover, there have already been cases when your subordinates negotiated with subordinates of the same competitor without involving your partner.

                        Quote: Bakht
                        For some reason, people think that big politics is very different from everyday life .... The fact of negotiations and refusal to allow Soviet representatives to them means a split and distrust between the allies. That is what Stalin wrote to Roosevelt.

                        I understand this, they are all people and Stalin’s suspiciousness is known to all. From the book of Dallas:

                        March 9, 1945 - Field Marshal Alexander announces to the Joint Chiefs of Staff that he intends to send two officers with the rank of general (Lemnitzer and Airy) to Switzerland to familiarize themselves with the German proposals for surrender. On March 11, the American and British governments decided to inform the Soviets about the development of the situation. To Ambassador Harriman, after he transmitted the information to the Soviet Foreign Minister, Molotov, the next day, March 12, it was announced that the Soviet government did not object to the negotiations, but wished to send three Soviet officers to participate in them.
                        March 13 - Major General Dean, head of the US military mission in Russia and Assistant Ambassador Harriman for military affairs, discussing with Washington the requirement of the Soviets to participate in the negotiations, proposed nonetheless that it be rejected, since, in his opinion, this is only will slow things down and create an unpleasant precedent. He noted that we did not participate in local German surrenders on the Russian front..
                        March 15 — The State Department telegraphed Ambassador Harriman with instructions to inform Molotov that the Soviet representatives would be happy to be received at Field Marshal Alexander’s headquarters when surrender becomes a reality. Negotiations in Switzerland are only a trial one. In addition, since the German proposal refers to surrender on the Anglo-American front, only Americans and British can be responsible for the course of negotiations.

                        You see, the Americans had the same motivation that they did not invite allies to such events on the Soviet-German front.
                        Can you explain the difference between the negotiations on the surrender of the 6th army and the group in Italy?
                      7. Bakht Offline
                        Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 3 June 2020 18: 18
                        +2
                        • 2
                        • 0
                        There is a difference between local surrender on the Soviet front and surrender in the North. Italy. If you are so familiar with the documents, then you should know what caused Stalin's indignation. Without any suspiciousness.
                        Negotiations in Bern caused disagreement between the Allies and there was no suspicion. Roosevelt wrote that Stalin had the wrong informants, and Stalin answered rather sharply.

                        The note of April 12 clearly states that it was a question of surrender on the Anglo-American front.
                      8. Oleg Rambover Online
                        Oleg Rambover (Oleg Rambover) 4 June 2020 18: 25
                        -2
                        • 0
                        • 2
                        Quote: Bakht
                        There is a difference between local surrender on the Soviet front and surrender in the North. Italy.

                        What?

                        Quote: Bakht
                        If you are so familiar with the documents, then you should know what caused Stalin's indignation. Without any suspiciousness.

                        As for my military colleagues, they, on the basis of the data available to them, have no doubt that there were negotiations and they ended with an agreement with the Germans, by virtue of which the German commander on the western front, Marshal Kesselring, agreed to open the front and let the English American troops, and the Anglo-Americans promised to facilitate the truce for the Germans for this.
                        I also do not understand the silence of the British, who provided you to correspond with me on this unpleasant question, and they themselves continue to be silent, although it is known that the initiative in the whole story with the negotiations in Bern belongs to the British.

                        And so it turns out that at this moment the Germans on the western front actually ended the war against England and America. However, the Germans continue the war with Russia - with an ally of England and the United States.

                        From the point of view of today's knowledge, which of Stalin’s accusations was true? Nothing, but say there was no suspiciousness.

                        What is the note of April 12th?
                        In short, what is the violation by the Americans of allied debt in this story? That they did not invite Soviet representatives to preliminary consultations in Bern? It's all?
                      9. Bakht Offline
                        Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 4 June 2020 19: 39
                        +2
                        • 2
                        • 0
                        Stalin Roosevelt March 29:

                        “I figured out the question that you asked me in a letter dated March 25 of this year, and found that the Soviet government could not give another answer after the Soviet representatives were refused participation in negotiations with the Germans in Bern about the possibility of German surrender troops and the opening of the front of the Anglo-American forces in northern Italy.
                        ... For your information, you should be informed that the Germans had already used negotiations with the Allied command and managed to transfer three divisions from Northern Italy to the Soviet front during this period.
                        The task of coordinated operations with a strike on the Germans from the west, south and east, proclaimed at the Crimean Conference .., is carried out by the Soviet command. This task is violated by Field Marshal Alexander. This circumstance unnerves the Soviet command, creates the basis for mistrust.
                        ... I must tell you that if similar conditions were created on the Eastern Front somewhere on the Oder for the possibility of the capitulation of the Germans and the opening of the front to the Soviet troops, I would not fail to immediately inform the Anglo-American command about this and ask him to send his representatives to participate in negotiations, because the allies in such cases should not have secrets from each other. "

                        Roosevelt to Stalin April 1

                        In Bern, there were only contacts, and “not negotiations of any kind. There can be no question of negotiating with the Germans so that this allows them to transfer their forces somewhere ... I believe that your information about the time of the transfer of German troops from Italy is erroneous ... This whole thing arose in the result of the initiative of a German officer who is supposedly close to Himmler, and it is very likely that the only goal he pursues is to sow suspicion and distrust between the allies ... ”

                        Stalin Roosevelt April 3

                        “You are saying that there have been no negotiations yet. It must be assumed that you have not been fully informed. As for my military colleagues, on the basis of the data available to them, they have no doubt that there were negotiations and they ended with an agreement with the Germans, by virtue of which the German commander on the Western Front, Marshal Kesselring, agreed to open the front and let the English American troops, and the Anglo-Americans promised to facilitate the truce for the Germans.
                        ... And so it turns out that at this moment the Germans on the Western Front actually ended the war against England and America. At the same time, the Germans continue the war with Russia, an ally of England and the USA. ”
                        ----
                        "... I personally and my colleagues would never have taken such a risky step, realizing that the momentary benefit, whatever it may be, pales before the fundamental benefit of maintaining and strengthening trust between the allies." These words contain a kind of warning that such actions pose a threat to agreements reached earlier with the Soviet Union.

                        Roosevelt to Stalin on April 5.

                        “Frankly, I cannot but feel extreme resentment towards your informants, whoever they may be, in connection with such a vile, incorrect description of my actions or the actions of my trusted subordinates.”

                        Stalin Roosevelt April 7

                        "1. My message is not about honesty and reliability ... I am talking about the fact that during the correspondence between us there was a difference in views on what an ally can afford with respect to another ally and what he should not allow himself ... I already wrote to you and I think it is not superfluous to repeat that the Russians in a similar situation would by no means deny the right to participate in such a meeting for the Americans and the British.
                        2. It is difficult to agree that the lack of resistance from the Germans on the Western Front is due only to the fact that they were defeated. The Germans have 147 divisions on the Eastern Front. They could, without prejudice to their cause, remove 15-20 divisions from the Eastern Front ... However, the Germans did not and do not. They continue to fiercely fight the Russians for some little-known station ... but without any resistance they surrender such important cities in the center of Germany as Osnabruck, Mannheim, Kassel. Agree that this behavior of the Germans is more than strange and incomprehensible.
                        3. As for my informants, I assure you that they are very honest and modest people who carry out their duties carefully and do not intend to offend anyone. These people are repeatedly tested by us in practice. Judge for yourself".

                        After this message, Roosevelt was silent for five days. He sent the last telegram on the day of his death on April 12 and requested that this incident be considered in the past.

                        It was about the transfer of at least three divisions to the Eastern Front as a result of negotiations in Bern.
                      10. Oleg Rambover Online
                        Oleg Rambover (Oleg Rambover) 4 June 2020 19: 59
                        -2
                        • 0
                        • 2
                        Roosevelt to Stalin April 1

                        I believe that your information about the time of the transfer of German troops from Italy is wrong. According to our reliable information, three German divisions left Italy after January 1 of this year, and two of them were transferred to the eastern front. The transfer of the last of the three divisions began on or around February 25, that is, more than two weeks before anyone heard of any possibility of surrender. Therefore, it is clear that the appeal of the German agents in Berne took place after the last transfer of troops had already begun, and it could in no way affect this transfer

                        Quote: Bakht
                        There is a difference between local surrender on the Soviet front and surrender in the North. Italy.

                        You never answered what the difference is.
                      11. Bakht Offline
                        Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 4 June 2020 20: 02
                        +2
                        • 2
                        • 0
                        Need to chew the obvious? As a result of capitulations on the Eastern Front, German divisions were not sent to the West. They were destroyed.

                        Do not make yourself naive.
                        -------------
                        Addition.
                        General Karl Wolf survived the war safely and died in Germany in 1984. He was interviewed by the famous Soviet historian Lev Bezymensky (my personal attitude to L. Bezymensky is quite complicated). But the fact is that L. Bezymensky and N. Yakovlev, well-known historians, thoroughly studied and covered this issue.

                        https://military.wikireading.ru/20308
                      12. Oleg Rambover Online
                        Oleg Rambover (Oleg Rambover) 5 June 2020 15: 44
                        -2
                        • 0
                        • 2
                        Quote: Bakht
                        Need to chew the obvious? As a result of capitulations on the Eastern Front, German divisions were not sent to the West. They were destroyed.

                        And as a result of surrender in the west went to the east? Which for example?

                        Quote: Bakht
                        Do not make yourself naive.

                        Why are you doing this? Are you not satisfied with Roosevelt's explanation? So refute.
                        I do not remember seeing Roosevelt's letters to Stalin in blatant lies. But in the letters of Stalin Roosevelt came across.

                        Quote: Bakht
                        General Karl Wolf survived the war safely and died in Germany in 1984. He was interviewed by the famous Soviet historian Lev Bezymensky (my personal attitude to L. Bezymensky is quite complicated). But the fact is that L. Bezymensky and N. Yakovlev are well-known historians and thoroughly studied and covered this issue.

                        https://military.wikireading.ru/20308

                        Some kind of weird text. Was it written by a professional journalist? It is not clear what he wanted to say. Why did Wolf drag him in? Do you agree with the author that these consultations were a conspiracy of Dulles and his boss secretly from the president?
                      13. Bakht Offline
                        Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 5 June 2020 16: 14
                        +3
                        • 3
                        • 0
                        Do you even read what they write to you? Did you find a lie in the letters of Stalin? Give at least one example. By the way, Bezymensky has a paragraph saying that Roosevelt’s telegrams were not written by him. Given the condition of a terminally ill person, this can be agreed. It is hard to believe that on the eve of his death, Roosevelt carefully studied everything related to the war.
                        You have a look at events through the Anglo-Saxon glasses. It would be necessary to remove them.
                        In these events, Churchill behaved in the most decent manner (oddly enough). He imposed his resolution on the report and then categorically repeated his demand. There should be no negotiations without representatives of the USSR. Roosevelt agreed with this.

                        Why Alexander refused, this is precisely the story that we are discussing. Stalin said that according to his information, the three divisions had left Sev. Italy and categorically confirmed that this was true information. And in his telegram he gave an example when Alexander slipped the Soviet desu about the German offensive in the spring of 1945.
                        -----
                        L. Bezymensky is the author of many books about the Second World War. Moreover, about not the most famous and advertised events. But he is not a journalist. He is a historian.
                      14. Oleg Rambover Online
                        Oleg Rambover (Oleg Rambover) 6 June 2020 02: 58
                        -1
                        • 0
                        • 1
                        Quote: Bakht
                        Do you even read what they write to you?

                        Yes, and you?

                        Quote: Bakht
                        Did you find a lie in the letters of Stalin? Give at least one example.

                        Stalin Roosevelt April 21, 1943.

                        The behavior of the Polish Government in relation to the USSR recently, the Soviet Government considers completely abnormal, violating all the rules and norms in the relations between the two union states.
                        The slanderous campaign hostile to the Soviet Union, launched by the German fascists over the murdered Polish officers in the Smolensk region, in the territory occupied by German troops, was immediately picked up by the Sikorsky government and inflamed in every possible way by the Polish official seal. The Sikorsky government not only did not resist vile fascist slander against the USSR, but did not even consider it necessary to turn to the Soviet Government with any questions or for clarifications on this subject.

                        But we all know that Joseph Vissarionovich personally put the resolution FOR on the proposal of Comrade Beria. That is, he obviously lied.

                        Quote: Bakht
                        By the way, Bezymensky has a paragraph saying that Roosevelt’s telegrams were not written by him. Given the condition of a terminally ill person, this can be agreed. It is hard to believe that on the eve of his death, Roosevelt carefully studied everything related to the war.

                        First of all, so what?
                        Secondly, this can only be believed. Roosevelt died of a stroke resulting from overwork, I suppose that he worked until the stroke.

                        Quote: Bakht
                        You have a look at events through the Anglo-Saxon glasses. It would be necessary to remove them.
                        In these events, Churchill behaved in the most decent manner (oddly enough). He imposed his resolution on the report and then categorically repeated his demand. There should be no negotiations without representatives of the USSR. Roosevelt agreed with this.

                        Well, it's high time you took off the glasses of Soviet propaganda. You a priori attribute some malice to the British and Americans, and Stalin is either a saint or a demigod without fear and reproach, which the Allies constantly deceive. But this is not so, because of their insidiousness, they at least stand each other, but at the same time, the blood of millions of their fellow citizens is not in the hands of the leadership of the United States and England, unlike you know who.

                        Quote: Bakht
                        Why Alexander refused, this is precisely the story that we are discussing. Stalin said that according to his information, the three divisions had left Sev. Italy and categorically confirmed that this was true information.

                        What did Alexander refuse? Stalin said one thing, Roosevelt said the opposite, but Stalin, as we have discussed above, could have lied. Roosevelt could probably have, but I did not meet Stalin with obvious lies in his letters. Accordingly, an independent source is needed. Do you have information from independent sources about the transfer of German divisions in connection with Wolf’s talks (I won’t even quibble over your words about surrender) or do you just believe?

                        Quote: Bakht
                        And in his telegram he gave an example when Alexander slipped the Soviet desu about the German offensive in the spring of 1945.

                        First, you are confusing something, probably General Alexander with General Marshall.
                        Secondly, so what? What does this prove to us?
                        Thirdly, you again believe in the insidiousness of the allies and do not allow the thought, for example, about Abwehr's successful game.

                        PS I always try to analyze such events, asking the question "for what?" Why could allies need such tricks? For the Germans to transfer three divisions? This is rather modest, and the possible negative consequences of such games for the allies (especially for the USA) significantly exceed the possible positive effects.
                      15. Bakht Offline
                        Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 6 June 2020 08: 25
                        +2
                        • 2
                        • 0
                        What Stalin wrote about Katyn is still refuted. That documents are falsified, tons of books are written. So, we did not find out that Stalin was lying. You wishful thinking.
                        Why Americans (not everyone) needed this is written by Bezymensky. Why the British still kept the German divisions unformed for three more months after the surrender, you will also find a "plausible" explanation.
                        About the "Soviet propaganda." You put a negative meaning in this term, and I see "Western propaganda", which many have poisoned the ability to adequately perceive the facts. The Soviet school gave enough knowledge to think independently, unlike "Western propaganda"
                        ----
                        Thank you for the discussion. Then just crush the water in the mortar. The fact of the negotiations was that they didn’t want to see the Soviet representatives there, the "capitulation" in northern Italy was strange, Churchill demanded the participation of the Soviet representatives, and Roosevelt asked to consider this incident in the past. These facts are enough for me.
                      16. Oleg Rambover Online
                        Oleg Rambover (Oleg Rambover) 6 June 2020 11: 05
                        -2
                        • 0
                        • 2
                        Quote: Bakht
                        What Stalin wrote about Katyn is still refuted.

                        Quote: Bakht
                        The fact of the negotiations was that they didn’t want to see the Soviet representatives there, the "capitulation" in northern Italy was strange, Churchill demanded the participation of the Soviet representatives, and Roosevelt asked to consider this incident in the past. These facts are enough for me.

                        So I say, you can only believe in it. In the first case, the facts are full and it is officially recognized, but you ignore the facts and simply believe. In the second, you have no facts and you also just believe.
                      17. Bakht Offline
                        Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 6 June 2020 11: 14
                        +3
                        • 3
                        • 0
                        From my point of view, there are facts. Do you deny the fact of negotiations in 1945? And what the Soviet representatives did not want to see there?
                        In Katyn there are a lot of dubious documents and just fakes. By the way, as in the Covenant. A detailed analysis has already been published by books.
                        So, there are no facts (reliable facts) that Stalin lied. Perhaps the Poles were shot. But all this is very, very doubtful. Up to the point that a few "shot" showed up in Canada. But their names are on the memorial.
                      18. Oleg Rambover Online
                        Oleg Rambover (Oleg Rambover) 6 June 2020 15: 20
                        -2
                        • 0
                        • 2
                        Quote: Bakht
                        Do you deny the fact of negotiations in 1945? And what the Soviet representatives did not want to see there?

                        No, I do not deny it. I deny that these negotiations led to any consequences, especially to those that could be presented as a violation of allied debt. In addition to a letter from Stalin, there is no information about the transfer of German divisions in connection with these negotiations.

                        Quote: Bakht
                        So there are no facts (reliable facts) that Stalin lied. Perhaps the Poles were shot. But all this is very, very doubtful

                        This is doubtful for alternatives. As I understand it, professional historians have reached a consensus on this issue. There is a document signed by Stalin.
                      19. Bakht Offline
                        Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 6 June 2020 18: 25
                        +2
                        • 2
                        • 0
                        When the question of Katyn is raised again, show me this document.
                        There is just no consensus. I say - there are a lot of books and studies.
                        ------
                        I gave you an example with a private company. Your explanations did not satisfy me at all. If the subordinate of your partner will negotiate behind your back, then you can continue to work with this partner. He will surrender you without fail.
                      20. Oleg Rambover Online
                        Oleg Rambover (Oleg Rambover) 7 June 2020 02: 36
                        -1
                        • 0
                        • 1
                        Quote: Bakht
                        When the question of Katyn is raised again, show me this document.
                        There is just no consensus. I say - there are a lot of books and studies.

                        https://ria.ru/20100428/227752658.html

                        Only desperate conspiracy theorists can argue that all this is a conspiracy to discredit the honest name of Stalin.

                        Quote: Bakht
                        I gave you an example with a private company. Your explanations did not satisfy me at all. If the subordinate of your partner will negotiate behind your back, then you can continue to work with this partner. He will surrender you without fail.

                        Yours me too not really. You cannot give evidence of the malicious intent of the Americans, you just believe it. In addition to the letter of Stalin, which you cannot confirm with independent sources, you could not bring a single argument.
                      21. Bakht Offline
                        Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 7 June 2020 09: 07
                        +2
                        • 2
                        • 0
                        Is this the same document that Poles periodically lose and find? And which is printed on different typewriters? The page with the signatures is printed on another typewriter. And in which there is a "troika", which was liquidated in 1938?
                        Archive workers recognized this document long ago as fake.
                        -----
                        Only the most desperate anti-Stalinists claim that this document is genuine.
                      22. Oleg Rambover Online
                        Oleg Rambover (Oleg Rambover) 7 June 2020 11: 56
                        -2
                        • 0
                        • 2
                        Quote: Bakht
                        Archive workers recognized this document long ago as fake.

                        Can a link be found where the employees of the Russian archives recognize them as fake?

                        Quote: Bakht
                        Is this the same document that Poles periodically lose and find?

                        How Poles periodically lose them and find them in Russian archives.
                      23. Bakht Offline
                        Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 7 June 2020 12: 23
                        +4
                        • 4
                        • 0
                        No you can not. I am not going to discuss the Katyn case here. There are many studies and books devoted to this matter. I admit that some Polish officers were shot. But it is Katyn that causes great doubts. And besides the documents, there is plenty of other evidence that this is the work of the Nazis.
                        This and other documents were handed over to the Polish side by Yeltsin. In 2008, a scandal erupted that the Polish Archive lost these documents. Contacted the administration of the President of Poland. They stated that they did not have these documents. When the director of the Archive appeared in print (Polish archive). And immediately from the presidential administration of Poland they said that the documents were found.
                        This "evidence" is worthless. I wrote reports to my management. Believe me, mistakes in grammar (even in grammar) were not allowed at the level of the head of the company. And in the document you quoted, the authors did not know how to spell the name of Kobulov. Do you believe that a document with errors was submitted to the Politburo for signature to Stalin?
                        And - a cherry on the cake. The Poles categorically refuse to conduct a text analysis on the conformity of the machines. A sheet with the signatures of Stalin and others is printed on another typewriter.
                      24. Oleg Rambover Online
                        Oleg Rambover (Oleg Rambover) 7 June 2020 15: 09
                        -2
                        • 0
                        • 2
                        There is a mass of documents, there are testimonies, burial places were found, including in the territory on which the leg of the Nazi invaders did not enter. But the Stalinophiles are not appeasing. And compare with the evidence base your idea of ​​American betrayal, in addition to Stalin’s letter to Roosevelt, nothing at all. The documents were posted by the Russian archive, what does Poland have to do with it? If everything is sewn with white thread, why did the current Russian authorities recognize this? For what? Conspiracy?
                        Do you believe that, please. But do not try to refute the obvious. It's impossible.
                      25. Bakht Offline
                        Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 7 June 2020 15: 41
                        +3
                        • 3
                        • 0
                        This is not a matter of faith. You wrote to me that you believe only official data. Without any lyrics. Katyn is sewn with white thread. Notice, I'm talking only about Katyn. Not about other burials.
                        The negotiations in Bern are a matter of trust between the allies. Stalin wrote that he welcomed the surrender of the Germans in northern Italy. But it must be arranged so that the Germans do not transfer troops to other sectors of the front. Once again, this is a matter of trust. The Allies do not negotiate behind each other. And it’s impossible to compare, say, the surrender of the Germans in Stalingrad or Budapest with Bern. There the Germans were not released, but captured. If you do not understand the difference, then I can not help.
                        -----
                        And one moment. We will never understand each other. Because I love my former homeland, and you hate your former homeland. This is visible to the naked eye. Remember one thing.

                        “I will never apologize for the United States - I don't care what the facts are.” - Comments during an Aug. 2, 1988

                        This phrase is also questioned. But I took it from the official CNBC website. Even if he did not say this, the phrase is absolutely true.
                      26. Oleg Rambover Online
                        Oleg Rambover (Oleg Rambover) 8 June 2020 23: 57
                        -2
                        • 0
                        • 2
                        Quote: Bakht
                        You wrote to me that you believe only official data.

                        Are there much more official data on Katyn? Recognized at the state level.

                        Quote: Bakht
                        The negotiations in Bern are a matter of trust between the allies. Stalin wrote that he welcomed the surrender of the Germans in northern Italy.

                        Well, too, do not portray naivety. There was never trust between allies. Churchill and Stalin were especially suspicious. Roosevelt in this regard was even somewhat naive.

                        Quote: Bakht
                        But it must be arranged so that the Germans do not transfer troops to other sectors of the front.

                        Why not? You are not able to name at least one division deployed to the eastern front. You believe in it, on health, but you have no evidence.
                        For what could the Americans do this? Due to natural hazards?

                        Quote: Bakht
                        There the Germans were not released, but captured. If you do not understand the difference, then I can not help.

                        I understand the difference.
                        Once again, where and when did the evil Americans of the Germans release rather than capture them? If you cannot understand the difference between your belief that such an event took place and a reasoned position with reference to sources, then I can not help you either.

                        Quote: Bakht
                        And one moment. We will never understand each other. Because I love my former homeland, and you hate your former homeland. This is visible to the naked eye.

                        Your eyes fail. I don’t have hatred for the Homeland (as a matter of fact, for anyone or even less for anything). I probably understood what it was. For you, the homeland is the USSR, the state, Stalin, industrialization, etc. For me, the homeland is people with whom I have a linguistic, cultural, historical community. Accordingly, I do not have a former homeland, although I was born in the USSR. And the state is just a tool to meet the needs of these people. For you, apparently, the state is everything. And accordingly, we evaluate historical events and personalities differently. For you, Stalin is the creator of a strong state (which is certainly true), for me an ineffective manager who paid an exorbitant price for this with the lives of Soviet citizens, and a considerable part without any wars.
                        The only thing that bothers me is that such a person does not come to power in our country again, for which people's lives are a resource that can be spent. Although I am almost sure that this is impossible.

                        Quote: Bakht
                        This phrase is also questioned. But I took it from the official CNBC website. Even if he did not say this, the phrase is absolutely true.

                        He spoke, but not about the plane. I do not quite understand why you said this. That all Americans are like one bastards and scum, and you can’t deal with them? Or should we take an example from them and not ask for forgiveness for the actions of the USSR or the Russian Federation?
                      27. Bakht Offline
                        Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 9 June 2020 08: 42
                        +4
                        • 4
                        • 0
                        What is recognized at the state level does not make it true. Recognized by people who, like you, did not have a homeland. I said that Katyn does not have a clear evidence base. A lot of doubt. There is evidence (also archival) that the Poles from the Ostashkovsky camp worked on the Belomor Canal in 1941. Some of them were shot in the Kalinin region. And Katyn is the work of the Germans. There were about 1 documents in folder No. 30, but only three were handed over to the Poles. The rest did not fit into the Polish-German version.
                        And the negotiations in Bern are a matter of trust between the allies. If they refuse to participate in the negotiations, then this is already in doubt.
                        The perniciousness of the Americans and the British has always existed and exists now. About Roosevelt's naivety, tell tales to someone else. Especially this "naivety" was experienced by Churchill.
                        For you, the Anglo-Saxons are always white and fluffy, and the USSR is the "empire of evil." I said that we will never find a common language. For me, Homeland is people, a country, and yes, a state too. Because without a state there is no homeland. There is a territory on which enemies rule. And people with whom you have a common linguistic and other commonalities can be enemies. How am I with you.
                        The CNBC website attributes these words precisely in relation to the airplane. For me, this is a proof of love for the motherland. And to the state.
                      28. Oleg Rambover Online
                        Oleg Rambover (Oleg Rambover) 11 June 2020 12: 28
                        -2
                        • 0
                        • 2
                        Quote: Bakht
                        What is recognized at the state level does not make it true. Recognized by people who, like you, did not have a homeland.

                        Regarding the Motherland, once again, I had and, unlike you, the motherland did not disappear anywhere. I don’t know (and you don’t know) how people from the authorities have a homeland, but most certainly we all come from the USSR. This is especially noticeable for people from power. Undoubtedly, recognition at the state level is not exhaustive evidence, but it is not the only one. I believe that Vladimir Vladimirovich and Co., although people are likely to be subject to impulse and emotions, they are nevertheless the leaders of the country and must act out of some considerations and interests. And what kind of sane motive could the Russian authorities take the blame for someone else’s crime?

                        Quote: Bakht
                        And Katyn is the work of the Germans. There were about 1 documents in folder No. 30, but only three were handed over to the Poles. The rest did not fit into the Polish-German version.

                        One can only believe that the Germans did this. Are you not from the negative Holocaust? There, too, there are inaccuracies and inconsistencies, contradictions, as indeed in any historical event. Concerning folder No. 1, you are probably confused with special folders, there really are 33 storage units, including documents on Katyn, there is also a secret protocol to the Molotov-Ribbentrop package and documents on other issues. Again a conspiracy?

                        Quote: Bakht
                        And the negotiations in Bern are a matter of trust between the allies. If they refuse to participate in the negotiations, then this is already in doubt.

                        OK. I already understood your idea. In my opinion, if the Allies were planning something against the USSR, they simply would not report the talks to the Soviet leadership. And they acted on the principles of reciprocity, since the Soviet leadership of the allies also did not invite such events. Just do not repeat about the transfer of troops to other fronts, you do not know about this.

                        Quote: Bakht
                        The perniciousness of the Americans and the British has always existed and exists now.

                        No more than the mischief of the Chinese, Chukchi, or Russians.

                        Quote: Bakht
                        For you, the Anglo-Saxons are always white and fluffy, and the USSR is the "empire of evil." I said that we will never find a common language.

                        This is not true, for me they are not white and fluffy, unlike you, for whom the USSR is a shining city on a hill. For me, in foreign policy, all participants in those events are more or less worthy of each other. Yes, probably, the division of Europe with Hitler is beyond, but the Munich conspiracy balances this to some extent. I do not think that you will find any action by the allies so that something like this does not happen by the Stalinist USSR. In domestic politics - yes, Stalin, without any competition, has plagued so many people ... Only the great Mao has surpassed.

                        Quote: Bakht
                        For me, Homeland is people, a country, and yes, a state too. Because without a state there is no homeland. There is a territory on which enemies rule.

                        Do you think Stalin was a communist? Not by party card, but by conviction? The Communists, however, proclaimed the goal of building a communist society, a society without the dictatorship of the state, that is, rejection of the state (they took this idea from their ideological fathers, libertarians). Do you think Stalin shared these ideas? And the idea that the state is everything is professed by people from the completely opposite ideological camp.

                        Quote: Bakht
                        You have common linguistic and other commonalities, can be enemies. How am I with you.

                        AND? White and red had a different homeland?
                        Hmm ... You are not my enemy, we just have different points of view that everyone has the right to have and express. And what are you going to do with me as an "enemy"?

                        Quote: Bakht
                        The CNBC website attributes these words precisely in relation to the airplane. For me, this is a proof of love for the motherland. And to the state.

                        I thought I was a joke, and you really offer to be equal to the American president. Where is the world heading?
                      29. isofat Offline
                        isofat (Sergei) 11 June 2020 13: 42
                        +1
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        Oleg Rambover
                        Do you want me to prove that you are not friends with History? Perhaps after that, your insignificant verbal flow will run dry. smile
                      30. Oleg Rambover Online
                        Oleg Rambover (Oleg Rambover) 11 June 2020 13: 46
                        -2
                        • 0
                        • 2
                        No I do not want to. If you read my stream, then you are interested in it.
                      31. isofat Offline
                        isofat (Sergei) 11 June 2020 13: 53
                        +2
                        • 2
                        • 0
                        Quote: Oleg Rambover
                        No I do not want to. If you read my stream, then you are interested in it.

                        Oleg Rambover, I leaf through you, and read the comments of your opponent. His comments, unlike yours, are interesting and informative.
                      32. Oleg Rambover Online
                        Oleg Rambover (Oleg Rambover) 11 June 2020 15: 29
                        -2
                        • 0
                        • 2
                        Well, OK. As the saying goes, a flag in hand, a drum around the neck. But for some reason you answer me, and not respected Bakht.
                      33. isofat Offline
                        isofat (Sergei) 11 June 2020 16: 05
                        +1
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        Quote: Oleg Rambover
                        But for some reason you answer me, and not respected Bakht.

                        Oleg Rambover Question. I asked you a question that you did not want to answer.

                        Quote: Oleg Rambover
                        No I do not want to. If you read my stream, then you are interested in it.
                      34. Oleg Rambover Online
                        Oleg Rambover (Oleg Rambover) 11 June 2020 16: 36
                        -1
                        • 1
                        • 2
                        Previous experience with you has shown that besides stupid rudeness and ridiculous threats, you have nothing to say. In addition to the monuments for the 1000th anniversary of Russia (the presence of which you cannot explain the great princes of Lithuania), you could not bring any arguments. And in this discussion, you immediately began with rudeness. And I am reluctant to lead a discussion at your level. Learn communication from the same Bakht.
                      35. isofat Offline
                        isofat (Sergei) 11 June 2020 17: 23
                        +2
                        • 2
                        • 0
                        Oleg Rambover, if I convicted you of illiteracy, this does not mean that I am a boor. smile
          2. Bakht Offline
            Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 11 June 2020 21: 17
            +3
            • 3
            • 0
            I will not discuss everything. Just one comment. In my personal opinion, Stalin was not a communist. This is another big topic. But the fact that Stalin was not a communist was claimed by such different people as Mussolini, Churchill and Solzhenitsyn.
            He spoke some kind of communist slogans. But he was clearly not building a communist state.
            Oh yes, I completely forgot. Trotsky also considered Stalin to be a traitor to the Revolution and Communism.
            Here are completely different people with different beliefs. But why did they think so. I agree with them.
          3. Oleg Rambover Online
            Oleg Rambover (Oleg Rambover) 13 June 2020 12: 25
            -1
            • 0
            • 1
            And yet, what are you going to do with me, as with an "enemy"?

            Quote: Bakht
            In my personal opinion, Stalin was not a communist.

            And who was he?

            Everything in the state and nothing human or spiritual exists, and even more so, has no value outside the state.

            Does this correspond to the Stalinist worldview (and yours)?
            PS When the party leader does not believe in the ideas that he preaches, it is sad. Then it is clear why the Soviet Union collapsed if the country's leadership did not believe in communist ideas, what to ask ordinary citizens?
          4. Bakht Offline
            Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 13 June 2020 14: 28
            +4
            • 4
            • 0
            Stalin believed in those ideas in which he believed. And purposefully pursued a national policy. By the way, like Trump. But this must be considered the whole policy of Stalin. And you will not read my links. They do not suit you.
            The other day, we were discussing attitudes toward the state. Look out the window and look at the States. Without a strong state, the States will fall apart and there will be territory. By the way, I sincerely wish them not to fall apart. It will be a disaster for everyone.
            I’m not going to shoot you personally. I just know that we are enemies. Call it what you want. Opponents, partners, enemies. We have a different ideology, different life experiences and different priorities. We will never understand each other. And I did not set the task of pulling anyone else and I do not set it.
            PS The funny thing is that the most inadequate are the fighters for personal freedom. Novodvorskaya, Chubais, Tymoshenko. These are ready to shoot without hesitation.
          5. Oleg Rambover Online
            Oleg Rambover (Oleg Rambover) 16 June 2020 01: 28
            -1
            • 0
            • 1
            Quote: Bakht
            Stalin believed in those ideas in which he believed. And purposefully pursued a national policy.

            And what were these ideas? You must admit that it is funny and strange that the Secretary General of the CPSU Central Committee, who claimed to be the chief communist of the entire planet through the Comintern, did not share communist ideas.

            Quote: Bakht
            And you will not read my links. They do not suit you.

            Why do you think so?

            Quote: Bakht
            I’m not going to shoot you personally. I just know that we are enemies. Call it what you want.

            For me you are an opponent with whom it is interesting to debate. Enemies, in my understanding, are those who look at each other in the overlap of the sights. The word "enemy" requires some action, I ask what - in your understanding.

            Quote: Bakht
            The funny thing is that the most inadequate are the fighters for personal freedom. Novodvorskaya, Chubais, Tymoshenko. These are ready to shoot without hesitation.

            The funny thing is that this can be argued if you look only in one direction and completely ignore such statements of people with other political views. Even judging by this forum, and even by our communication with you, you have written me down as enemies, this is your statement about inadequacies that does not correspond to reality.
            Who is Tymoshenko? And what did Chubais say, do they attribute a lot to him? And not quite healthy Valeria Ilinichna what did she find?
  • Cyril Offline
    Cyril (Kirill) 2 June 2020 18: 43
    -1
    • 0
    • 1
    There is a fact (established) that the USSR and Germany, before the war in 1940-41, were negotiating the USSR's accession to the Union of Axis countries. The Soviet side sent certain proposals of Germany on the division of spheres of influence and territories in Europe. The fact that these negotiations did not succeed is another matter.

    But if such negotiations were conducted before the war, then this can serve as an indirect confirmation that the USSR did not necessarily perceive Germany as a blood enemy.
    1. Bakht Offline
      Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 2 June 2020 23: 03
      +3
      • 3
      • 0
      And what does this have to do with this topic?
      Until 1939, no one in Europe perceived Germany as an enemy. Unlike Stalin, both Daladier and Chamberlain met and greeted Hitler. And they were negotiating a redrawing of the borders of sovereign states. And even without the participation of representatives of these states. Hitler for ALL European leaders was a completely handshake ruler of Germany.
      Until 1941, Germany was not perceived in the USSR as an enemy. By the way, this statement is just very controversial. But we will assume that officially Germany was not considered an enemy. As well as for many European countries.
      Let's say Germany has never been considered an enemy for Spain, Portugal, Sweden, Switzerland, Hungary, Romania.
      -----
      Tell me what was your statement about? Does the fact that the Soviet government was negotiating with the German government somehow speak of the guilt of the USSR?
      1. Cyril Offline
        Cyril (Kirill) 2 June 2020 23: 57
        -2
        • 0
        • 2
        Until 1939, no one in Europe perceived Germany as an enemy.

        And I'm not talking about the period until 1939, but about the period of 1940 - the first half of 1941. The war in Europe then was already underway, and at full speed, France, Britain fought with Germany, since 1940, first indirectly (in the form of technical and economic assistance), and then the United States enters the war against the Germans more and more actively. At the same time, the USSR is still quite actively interacting with the Germans and is negotiating accession to the OSI Bloc.

        Yes, the USSR at that time was not an ally of Britain and the United States, but he saw very well that there was a war. Therefore, his negotiations with Germany on joining the Axis Block, the future Western allies should have perceived? And if they were fought before the war (the Great Patriotic War, meaning), then why during the war they could not have been talking about peace, or at least a truce?

        Let me remind you that after the unsuccessful Battle of Britain for the Germans, Hitler sent Britain a peace proposal. I do not remember exactly under what conditions, but the capitulation of the Empire did not exactly enter there. That is, this, in principle, made it possible for Britain to conclude peace with the Germans, or at least a truce on more or less favorable conditions. What has Britain done? Refused.

        Until 1941, Germany was not perceived in the USSR as an enemy. By the way, this statement is just very controversial.

        Negotiations were ongoing between the USSR and Germany on joining the AIS unit. So Germany was perceived, perhaps, as a potential adversary (in fact, all countries always perceive each other that way), but certainly not as an unambiguous and implacable enemy.

        Does the fact that the Soviet government was in negotiations with the German government somehow speak of the guilt of the USSR?

        No. In politics, there are no guilty or innocent at all. Each country does and is obliged to do first of all what is beneficial for it. That is why the angry statements of the author of this article about the "betrayal of the Western allies" are childish naivety and stupidity.

        If we talk about "nobility", we recall that the USSR did not render any help to Britain itself before Hitler attacked him. Although Britain fought, and fought hard, she was in a naval blockade. However, immediately after June 22, 1942, Britain itself came up with an initiative for military assistance to the USSR. Moreover, she herself desperately needed resources.

        Did Britain do this because of altruism? Of course not. The British understood that at this particular moment the communist USSR was less dangerous for them than frankly blundered Germany. And, therefore, it is possible to conclude a temporary alliance with him against a common enemy. This did not mean that now Britain and the USSR - brothers do not spill water.

        But were the motives of Britain and the USA so important when they helped the USSR? They helped us with equipment, resources, food, which were very, very, very lacking. Someone from the Soviet leaders of that time (it seems, even Stalin himself) directly admitted that he was not sure that the USSR would have survived without this help.

        In short, as a result. Politics is not an interpersonal relationship. There is no place for friendship, there are the interests of their country, and each country has priority. Allies led secret negotiations with Hitler? Veli. Did they conclude an alliance with Hitler against the USSR as a result? No. They fought, and fought to the very end. That is what should matter to us, not secret negotiations, which in the end did not lead to anything.
      2. Bakht Offline
        Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 3 June 2020 18: 30
        +2
        • 2
        • 0
        Everything is mixed with you. With what fright was the USSR supposed to render assistance to Britain until 1941? Was he supposed to declare war on Germany because Britain is fighting? Like Sweden, the USSR was outside the war and had embassies of England and Germany in Moscow.
        Great Britain and Germany have concluded a treaty on redrawing borders in Europe. And this led to the Second World War.
        Hitler sent a proposal for peace to Great Britain not after the battle for England, but before. In 1939 and in 1940. After the battle, he did not make peace proposals, but simply sent Hess to England in May 1941.
        What is the problem? The USSR pursued a sovereign policy and sought not to participate in the war. The fact that Hitler would attack the USSR was not obvious. Why he made such a decision is his problem. But Moscow had normal relations with Germany, and with Romania, and even with Hungary. This indicates the sovereignty of the country.
        I do not see a problem in the fact that the USSR negotiated with the legitimate government of Germany in 1940. These were quite normal negotiations with the legal government of the country.
        What exactly do not suit you in these negotiations?
  • Bakht Offline
    Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 30 May 2020 11: 10
    +3
    • 4
    • 1
    About the documents




    This is a fake posted by Karpov.
    1. Cyril Offline
      Cyril (Kirill) 30 May 2020 11: 14
      -2
      • 1
      • 3
      Who says it's fake?
      1. Bakht Offline
        Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 30 May 2020 11: 21
        +3
        • 4
        • 1
        All. In particular, the leaders of the archive. Karpov himself refused to confirm the authenticity of the documents.
  • Akuzenka Offline
    Akuzenka (Alexander) 2 June 2020 17: 47
    0
    • 0
    • 0
    Yes, Wikipedia is another source of knowledge! She only introduces the Anglo-Saxon point of view. Others from there are instantly deleted.
  • Sergey Latyshev Offline
    Sergey Latyshev (Serge) 30 May 2020 10: 19
    -1
    • 3
    • 4
    Late, late, the author wrote an article.
    We declared the Angles, Amers, Franks to be the culprits of the war even earlier, in the 60s.
    And the White Poles themselves are to blame, they themselves attacked - back in the 39th.

    Personally, I am deeply convinced - after everything described above, the Anglo-Saxons had to be finished off. Right there and then.

    - here is a supporter of the plan The Unthinkable formed.

    We had no allies - ....

    - repeated regularly, even by kings. Like, we will not look for allies. We’ll thunder money into the army and navy, then we’ll flood it ourselves, and the women will give birth ...
  • Oleg Rambover Online
    Oleg Rambover (Oleg Rambover) 30 May 2020 13: 57
    -4
    • 1
    • 5
    And one can cite real volumes and “value” of far from free and absolutely miserable in comparison with everything that was produced for the front in the USSR itself by Lend-Lease, comparing this with the size of deliveries of materials and raw materials necessary for the war, which regularly entered the Third Reich from the same USA is useless.

    Dear Neukropny threatened so many times, but never once brought a link to the "real" volumes. And he repeats the lie about the "far from free" Lend-Lease from time to time. Once again, the USSR paid nothing for materials and equipment lost and expended during the war. All that remained after the war had to be either returned or paid. It was delivered in the amount of more than 10 billion. After the war, they agreed to pay about 750 million, of which the USSR paid 40 in the 70s. The rest was already paid by the Russian Federation. And they paid without inflation.
    And in more detail, what kind of deliveries from the USA to the Third Reich, all the more comparable to Lend-Lease? Another lie?
  • Arkharov Offline
    Arkharov (Grigory Arkharov) 30 May 2020 14: 10
    -2
    • 1
    • 3
    Most, many times denied lies.
  • Dear sofa expert. 30 May 2020 21: 00
    +4
    • 4
    • 0
    Alexander, your articles from the first two lines can be found. Good analysis. Beautiful syllable. Everything is consistent and logical.