Attempt of the USSR to join NATO: a joke, a "clever move" or a betrayal?


The diplomatic demarche undertaken by the Soviet Union on March 31, 1954, when our country submitted an official application for membership in the North Atlantic Alliance, is one of those pages of Russian history that is rarely spoken about, little and extremely reluctantly.


Moreover, from a certain moment, for this episode, “canonical” interpretation and explanation have been developed, which do not allow for double interpretation. However, if you look at the issue not as straightforward and narrowly as is usually done, it becomes clear that not everything in the background of those events is as unambiguous and simple as they are trying to tell us.

If a joke, then a very unfortunate one.


We will begin, perhaps, by considering the generally accepted version of the seemingly strange act of the USSR, supported by official historiography and, in general, by the majority of those who speak out on this topic. So, submitting on March 19, 1954, the country's Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov, a draft memorandum to the Central Committee of the CPSU with a proposal to express the Soviet Union's desire to join the NATO military-political bloc created in 1949, his first deputy Andrei Gromyko proposed a kind of "win-win combination" ... They say, the capitalists-militarists will refuse - we will stigmatize them for isolationism, anti-Sovietism and "we will reveal the aggressive essence of the Alliance directed against the USSR and the countries of people's democracies." In a word - they will turn out to be scoundrels, and we are great ... Well, and as soon as the lop-eared Western leaders and generals "lead" to our proposal - then we will show them where the crayfish winter - we will "blow up this organization from the inside" until it "will not fundamentally change its own essence."

In all honesty, tell me - isn't it funny for you to read this ?! One could believe in the sincerity of the intentions of the one who wrote such rubbish, only assuming that the author is a complete fool. But someone who, and Gromyko, an excellent diplomat of the Stalinist leaven and school, was definitely not a fool or an amateur. As, however, and Molotov himself. Therefore, it was written by them for a fool! Yes, yes - the same one who had been in the Kremlin for about a year, replacing the clever Stalin there. Some, however, are trying to assert that it was such a joke - or, as it is fashionable to say now, "trolling". No wonder the application was filed exactly on the eve of April 1, widely celebrated in the West under the name "All Fools' Day." This is also unlikely, there are things that are fraught with joking, you know ...

And the attempts to pull by the ears allegedly "Stalin's desire to enter into a military alliance with the West" look absolutely ridiculous. As proof of their innocence, those who undertake them cite absolutely hilarious "arguments". For example, a note sent at the very beginning of 1949 to London by the then head of the Soviet Foreign Ministry, Andrei Vyshinsky. Yes, he suggested that the British consider the possibility of joining the USSR to the Defense Organization of the Western Union. In fact, it was about the very entity from which NATO subsequently "hatched". However, then Joseph Vissarionovich could still have some illusions about the Anglo-Saxons - despite Hiroshima, the "Fulton speech" and so on. After all, not so long ago (and the five-year plan had not passed), whether they were bad or poor, they fought shoulder to shoulder with us against the common enemy - the Nazis and Japanese militarists. The Supreme Commander, who piously observed the agreements of the Tehran, Yalta and other summits, counted on similar actions by London and Washington - at least on the main points. Moreover, at that time there was a communist faction in the British parliament, which, naturally, advocated the continuation of the military alliance between London and Moscow.

However, the refusal, which followed in response to our initiative, was regarded by Stalin quite soberly, calling the nascent "brotherhood in arms" of the Western countries, tightly closed for yesterday's allies, nothing more than "a digging under the UN." The leader, of course, looked into the water. And that is why his words, addressed to Vyshinsky already in 1952 after a conversation with the French ambassador in Moscow, who, without sparing eloquence, crucified before the master of the Kremlin about the exceptional “peace-lovingness” of the North Atlantic Alliance: “Shouldn't we join NATO in this case too? ! " should be regarded as a joke. However, very bitter, in the spirit of "black humor". At this time, Stalin was not only in full swing preparing the USSR for a new war against the West, but also managed to pretty much shake the sides of the same Americans in Korea. What kind of "enter" there ... He was going to smash them, that's what!

Another betrayal of Khrushchev?


Between 1949, when the military-strategic confrontation between the West and the East could still be prevented, and 1954, when Moscow decided to knock on the doors of NATO, which was clearly hostile to it, as the classic wrote "a huge distance." In this short, according to historical standards, period of time, too much has fit - and, above all, the death of Stalin. When someone tries to present Gromyko and Molotov as the initiators of the USSR's attempt to join the Alliance, it sounds fake and ridiculous. No, such a "brilliant" idea could be born exclusively in one head - bald as a billiard ball. Having seized power in the USSR as a result of a military coup, Khrushchev at that time was just beginning his course towards the destruction of the Soviet Union as a state, but he initially strove towards this very goal. Few people remember today that the issue of our country's entry into the North Atlantic bloc was not closed completely and irrevocably. Yes, most often the words of the leaders of the West are quoted that the proposal of the USSR "has an" unreal nature "and, therefore, does not even" deserve discussion. " At the same time, the discussion was very lively and at the highest levels.

As a result, Moscow was not simply refused, but at the same time put forward a number of rather arrogant and humiliating conditions, after the fulfillment of which the West could "think". The USSR had to withdraw its troops from Austria, abandon military and naval bases in the Far East, sign "comprehensive disarmament agreements" and so on ... And what happened after? Yes, the USSR officially expressed "deep regret" about the decision made by the West, accusing it of hypocrisy, "double standards" and so on. Yes, in 1955, with a significant delay, a real counterbalance to NATO was finally created - the Warsaw Pact Organization ...

Everyone knows and remembers this. But a much smaller number of people realize something else - namely, that some time later, in parallel with the knocking of a boot on the UN rostrum and the proclamation of pathetic angry speeches against the West, Khrushchev slowly began to diligently fulfill his mocking conditions! And even overfulfill. Our army obediently withdrew from Austria. The most important in the military-strategic relation Port Arthur and the island of Dalny bald "genius" for a great life gave the Chinese (with whom at the same time he spoiled relations at an increased rate). And as for disarmament, then Kukuruznik had no equal. Let me remind you that this figure simply destroyed the Soviet army, systematically and purposefully. In 1955-1958, at his behest, it was reduced by almost a third. More than two million people were kicked out of the Armed Forces. This, by the way, was only the beginning - in 1960 a new reduction followed, by another half a million. Whole units and formations were disbanded, moreover thoughtlessly, haphazardly, without taking into account the degree of their combat readiness and importance for the country's defense. The bald idiot imagined that in the presence of an atomic bomb, everything else is not needed at all - neither tanks, nor artillery, nor, even more so, "some kind of infantry."

And here's what is extremely interesting, first of all, for some reason, he tried to get rid of "huge armies concentrated in Europe" - that is, from those forces that just opposed NATO directly. And this despite the fact that the North Atlantic Alliance was building up its power at a downright shock pace. And everything was not enough for the bald man - at a certain stage he expressed the idea that the Soviet army did not need combat aircraft at all - neither bomber nor fighter. "This is all - yesterday in the presence of missiles ..."

Good people don't join NATO ...


In 1957-1959, that is, when it was already completely and finally clear that the West was not going to turn from the course he had taken in 1949 towards military confrontation with the Soviet Union and all the countries of the socialist world, Khrushchev continued to carry the heresy of "general disarmament." Moreover, it was not at all about the rejection of atomic and hydrogen bombs with missiles! No, this balabol proposed to abolish the army as such on the planet Earth - leaving only "lightly armed police forces", just in case. It was this kind of game that he proclaimed, for example, from the rostrum of the UN in 1959. I can’t even imagine how the same Pentagon, which was rapidly increasing the number of aircraft carriers, strategic bombers, and military bases in all corners of the world, grumbled about this. And Khrushchev bent his own - at about the same time, he was crucified in all seriousness before the delegates of the session of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR and his colleagues in the Central Committee about the need to transfer the Soviet army from the personnel to the territorial-militia principle of formation. That is, to throw it back to that miserable and wretched level from which it was raised by the efforts of Stalin and Voroshilov by 1935. And there it would be possible to ask for a new NATO membership - perhaps, they would accept, yes, you see, and they would bring in the troops, having come up with a suitable excuse ...

All these moments, if we consider them in conjunction with the rest of Khrushchev's actions, completely unequivocally aimed at the collapse of the USSR, make one think that with the attempt to join NATO in 1954, everything was far from as unambiguous as it seems. It seems that there was no smell of "propaganda" alone. An indirect confirmation of this conclusion may be the fact that new attempts to "become related" with the Alliance were made by the leaders of the USSR and Russia, in relation to which there are also many questions.

In 1983, quite specific steps in this direction were taken by Yuri Andropov. As far as is known, the question of the Soviet Union's entry into NATO was raised by him to the Politburo of the CPSU Central Committee. There was a "probing" of the West's position on this issue at the level of diplomats and intelligence officers ... However, here the well-known incident with the South Korean Boeing "turned up" as badly as possible. all the more so, rapprochement with NATO was out of the question in principle. The desire to join the Alliance was expressed by a man who, in fact, was one of the main "architects" of the "perestroika" that followed soon after, and then the collapse of the USSR, for the sake of which it was started. After all, it was Andropov who brought to the heights of power all the future "leaders" who led the Soviet Union to collapse. So it is unlikely that in this case we are dealing with a simple coincidence. Rather, with the next triggering of a kind of "litmus test" that irrefutably testified that any Soviet leader who took to consider the possibility of joining the Alliance was no longer Soviet in essence. The next, as we remember, was Boris Yeltsin to get ready in the North Atlantic direction. He even reached the level of signing the Partnership for Peace program, where, fortunately, everything stalled. Well, there is even nothing to comment on about this character. Everything that the Russian authorities did next was no longer an expression of a desire to join the ranks of NATO on its terms, but only attempts to somehow normalize relations with this military-political bloc. However, they did not have the slightest success - and they could not have.

The USSR, as well as Russia, which is its legal successor, in its current form and status, were and are for the North Atlantic alliance not only the most probable adversaries, but precisely those "natural enemies" who, in fact, give some meaning to its existence. Therefore, to quote a good British poet, they will never get along. Only face to face on the battlefield. But it would be better if it didn't come to that.
19 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. steelmaker Offline steelmaker
    steelmaker April 3 2021 10: 57
    +2
    Everything is convincing. And there is no reason to disagree.
  2. zzdimk Offline zzdimk
    zzdimk April 3 2021 13: 24
    +1
    The dig has become a tunnel / tunnel. Moreover, an overpass in eight lanes. It's time to bring it down, the flyover, and fill up the holes.
  3. Oleg Rambover Offline Oleg Rambover
    Oleg Rambover (Oleg Pitersky) April 3 2021 16: 55
    -6
    For example, a note sent at the very beginning of 1949 to London by the then head of the Soviet Foreign Ministry, Andrei Vyshinsky. Yes, he suggested that the British consider the possibility of joining the USSR to the Defense Organization of the Western Union. In fact, it was about the very entity from which NATO subsequently "hatched". However, then Joseph Vissarionovich could still have some illusions about the Anglo-Saxons - despite Hiroshima, the "Fulton speech" and so on.

    That is, if Khrushchev proposes this, then he d ..., and if the same is Stalin, then clever? There are no double standards here?

    The Supreme Commander, who piously observed the agreements of the Tehran, Yalta and other summits, counted on similar actions by London and Washington - at least on the main points.

    I think the British would disagree with the statement that the agreements are being respected.

    At this time, Stalin was not only in full swing preparing the USSR for a new war against the West, but also managed to pretty much shake the sides of the same Americans in Korea. What kind of "enter" there ... He was going to smash them, that's what!

    Dadada ... The Third World War is what was needed for the post-war USSR. The country is big, another 30 million easy.

    Having seized power in the USSR as a result of a military coup, Khrushchev at that time was just beginning his course towards the destruction of the Soviet Union as a state, but he initially strove towards this very goal.

    Where was Stalin looking when introducing Khrushchev into the Central Committee?

    Yes, in 1955, with a significant delay, a real counterbalance to NATO was finally created - the Warsaw Pact Organization ...

    And who created the Warsaw Pact? Really clever?

    The bald idiot imagined that in the presence of an atomic bomb, everything else is not needed at all - neither tanks, nor artillery, nor, even more so, "some kind of infantry."

    I would like to remind you that there were 1 people in the Red Army as of June 1941, 3, and after Khrushchev's reduction, 380.

    The next, as we remember, was Boris Yeltsin to get ready in the North Atlantic direction. He even reached the level of signing the Partnership for Peace program, where, fortunately, everything stalled.

    The author has forgotten the successor of Boris Nikolaevich

    1. Bakht Offline Bakht
      Bakht (Bakhtiyar) April 4 2021 10: 11
      +1
      The number of the Red Army in 1941 was about 5 million people.
      3,8 million is the number in the Western Counties.
      1. Oleg Rambover Offline Oleg Rambover
        Oleg Rambover (Oleg Pitersky) April 4 2021 10: 51
        -3
        https://encyclopaedia-russia.ru/article/vooruzhyonnye-sily-sssr/
        It says here that 3 380 000. It is also written in the Wiki about the Armed Forces of the USSR. But I confess honestly, I did not find the original source. In any case, under Stalin there were periods when the size of the armed forces was below Khrushchev's 3,6 million, including when WWII was already underway. So Neukropny's claims are incomprehensible.
        1. Bakht Offline Bakht
          Bakht (Bakhtiyar) April 4 2021 12: 49
          +2
          I did not find the number of the Red Army under your link.

          At 1 January 1940 years - 3 851 700 people.
          On February 1 1940 of the year - 4 229 954 people.
          On April 1 1940 of the year - 4 416 600 people.
          On 1 of May 1940 of the year - 3 990 993 people.
          On 1 June 1940 years - 4 055 479 people.
          At 1 September 1940 of the year - 3 423 499 people.
          On October 1 of 1940 of the year - 3 446 309 people.
          By January 1941 of the year - 4 200 000 people.
          On 22 June 1941 years - 5 080 977 people.

          The article is correct. And your remarks, from my point of view, are groundless. The USSR TRIED to apply for NATO membership three times. From a political point of view, this was correct only the first time. The other two were not even considered serious.
          1. Oleg Rambover Offline Oleg Rambover
            Oleg Rambover (Oleg Pitersky) April 4 2021 13: 11
            -2

            Follow my link like this. Even according to your fall 40th (less than a year before the start of the Second World War, when WWII is already in full swing) less than after Khrushchev's reduction. Therefore, it is not clear what Khrushchev did wrong by reducing the army. Either both do ... or both are smart. Otherwise, double standards are obtained. Moreover, during the reign of Khrushchev, the war did not start and there was no catastrophe 41.

            Quote: Bakht
            From a political point of view, this was correct only the first time. The other two were not even considered serious.

            Was the first one considered serious? On what basis do you think so? NATO was created from the outset to counter the USSR, and it is not clear why the first attempt was correct.
            1. Bakht Offline Bakht
              Bakht (Bakhtiyar) April 4 2021 16: 58
              +3
              Your two quotes

              The Third World War is what the post-war USSR needed. The country is big, another 30 million is easy.

              NATO was originally created to counter the USSR

              So why was the NATO bloc created? For protection from the USSR (despite the fact that the USSR did not need a war). Or to attack the USSR?
              The first attempt was to probe the intentions of the West. And he gave an unambiguous answer. NATO is an aggressive bloc designed to attack the USSR. Other attempts were already stupidity or betrayal. This is what the article says.
              By number. At the beginning of the war, there were 3,8 million people in the Western Districts. About 1 million were in the Far East. The total number of the Red Army on June 22, 1941 was about 5 million people. If we accept your numbers, then in the Western direction the Red Army was twice inferior to the Wehrmacht.
              One more note on the number of troops. This figure is not taken from the ceiling. It is calculated at the General Staff. In the 90s (and even now) there are discussions about the contract army and other creative ideas. The General Staff is categorically against it. That is, the General Staff of the Russian Federation does not mind having contract units, but I strongly disagree to refuse the draft. The minimum strength of the RF Armed Forces must be at least 1,2 million people. At present, with the increasing aggressiveness of the NATO bloc, this figure will certainly be revised upwards.
              In the 30s, the situation was different and the Red Army of the 1935 model could not even fight against Poland. So Stalin was clearly a genius. Whether you like it or not, I'm not interested.
              1. Oleg Rambover Offline Oleg Rambover
                Oleg Rambover (Oleg Pitersky) April 4 2021 21: 33
                -2
                Quote: Bakht
                Your two quotes

                My. And what confuses you about them? The first is sarcasm.

                Quote: Bakht
                So why was the NATO bloc created? For protection from the USSR (despite the fact that the USSR did not need a war). Or to attack the USSR?

                I think we have already argued about this. At the time of the creation of NATO in Europe, there were no combat-ready armies capable of not only attacking, but even offering no matter how serious the resistance of the Soviet army. And judging by Kennan's "long telegram", which formed the basis of the doctrine of relations between the "West" and the USSR, they were not going to attack in the future either.

                Quote: Bakht
                The first attempt was to probe the intentions of the West. And he gave an unambiguous answer. NATO is an aggressive bloc designed to attack the USSR. Other attempts were already stupidity or betrayal. This is what the article says.

                It is not necessary to make fools of the Soviet leadership, they could not understand the purpose of NATO (and even after Churchill's Fulton speech, but not only). The goals of Stalin's demarche, in my opinion, were no different from Khrushchev's. If you have any evidence to the contrary, I would love to hear it. And what is the betrayal here at all is not clear.

                Quote: Bakht
                By number. At the beginning of the war, there were 3,8 million people in the Western Districts. About 1 million were in the Far East. The total number of the Red Army on June 22, 1941 was about 5 million people. If we accept your numbers, then in the Western direction the Red Army was twice inferior to the Wehrmacht.

                Do you know what a BEAD is? They called for 800 thousand by June 22. June 1 and June 22 are slightly different dates. I'm not ready to argue about the number on June 1, I gave you where it came from. But even according to your figures, by the fall of 40, the army was reduced by 1 million people and this is on the eve of the war, but this does not raise any questions for you, and such actions of Nikita Sergeevich cause in absolutely peacetime.

                Quote: Bakht
                One more note on the number of troops. This figure is not taken from the ceiling. It is calculated at the General Staff. In the 90s (and even now) there are discussions about the contract army and other creative ideas. The General Staff is categorically against it. That is, the General Staff of the Russian Federation does not mind having contract units, but I strongly disagree to refuse the draft. The minimum strength of the RF Armed Forces must be at least 1,2 million people. At present, with the increasing aggressiveness of the NATO bloc, this figure will certainly be revised upwards.

                Moreover, I do not understand why Khrushchev's 3,6 million are not satisfied. This ratio is more than 1,2 in the RSFSR.

                Quote: Bakht
                In the 30s, the situation was different and the Red Army of the 1935 model could not even fight against Poland. So Stalin was clearly a genius. Whether you like it or not, I'm not interested.

                But on the other hand, she could defeat the Wehrmacht at 39. That Stalin was a genius is your personal opinion, which is no more interesting to others than mine. Although I agree that in the conquest and retention of power, he is undoubtedly a genius, for so many years among his comrades-in-arms it is not just living, surviving, genius is what is needed. Although there are rumors that he was poisoned, I don’t believe it. In foreign policy, judging by the catastrophe of 41 years, when the USSR was left alone with Germany, it seems not very good. Internally, judging by the colossal human losses, it is also below average. The results of his reign still resonate with demographics. In the selection of personnel, if you and the respected Necropny are to be believed, that Khrushchev is not a smart person and a traitor, is also not very good. In state construction, judging by the fact that the state he created did not live and 40 years after his death, too, not very good. And in the retention of power until old age, yes, no doubt.
                1. Bakht Offline Bakht
                  Bakht (Bakhtiyar) April 4 2021 22: 21
                  +2
                  The whole problem is that you firmly believe that no one was going to attack the USSR. But the USSR was not going to attack either. I understand what sarcasm is. Then explain the meaning of the creation of NATO? This is the point of bringing your quotes. Do you believe that in 1949 the USSR was going to attack Europe? Was there an urgent need to create a defensive alliance? Europe is full of occupation troops. And you write that the West had no troops? Where did you study history? As of 1949, the number of Soviet troops in Europe was comparable to the number of Western occupation forces in Germany.
                  In terms of the size of the Red Army again. You found one link and rush with it. According to other sources, your numbers do not agree.
                  Stalin is scolded for oversleeping the beginning of the war. And Khrushchev is a fine fellow, that in the face of a clear threat, he began to reduce the country's Armed Forces.
                  My assessment of Stalin's activities is based on facts. And most of his detractors simply do not want to understand the simple truth that without Stalin, they would not have been born at all, because their parents would have turned into a bar of soap for supermen. Take a look at his activities from this point of view. And compare his activities in ten pre-war and 8 post-war years, with 30 years of friendship with common people. The current democrats' hatred of Stalin is caused precisely by the fact that there is something to compare with.
                  1. Oleg Rambover Offline Oleg Rambover
                    Oleg Rambover (Oleg Pitersky) April 5 2021 12: 54
                    -2
                    Quote: Bakht
                    The whole problem is that you firmly believe that no one was going to attack the USSR.

                    Nenenene. Do you believe that Stalin performs miracles. I am then based on facts. One of which is that there was no attack. The second is the very Kennan telegram with the doctrine of containment. Third, the American contingent in Europe has never been strong enough to attack. Fourth, there is an elementary logic that any large-scale war is not profitable for the "West", as hucksters, especially with the use of nuclear weapons, especially if these nuclear weapons can land on the White House lawn. I cannot imagine the goals for which the "West" could arrange a third world war.

                    Quote: Bakht
                    Then explain the meaning of the creation of NATO? This is the point of bringing your quotes.

                    I said this to the thought expressed by the respected Neukropny that:

                    At this time, Stalin was not only in full swing preparing the USSR for a new war against the West, but also managed to pretty much shake the sides of the same Americans in Korea. What kind of "enter" there ... He was going to smash them, that's what!

                    You see, not only in the West they feared the USSR, but the respected Neukropny is sure that they were going to attack. I think that even from the internal political point of view, the USSR of those times was not ready to attack, and therefore expressed my disagreement with the author's opinion with sarcasm.

                    Quote: Bakht
                    Do you believe that in 1949 the USSR was going to attack Europe?

                    I am not interested in matters of faith. There are no documents on this score, which means it is unlikely. But it is not important. In my opinion, Putin said about missile defense that the main thing is not intentions, the main thing is opportunities. The USSR possessed such capabilities. Plus reputation. Not long ago the Comintern set the goal of creating a world Soviet Union. Plus Poland, the Baltic States, Finland, Bessarabia and Bukovina before the Second World War forced the neighbors to look at the USSR with apprehension. Plus, territorial claims to Turkey and the pestilence among the political opponents of the communists in Poland after the war did not exactly dispel these fears.

                    Quote: Bakht
                    Europe is full of occupation troops. And you write that the West had no troops? Where did you study history? As of 1949, the number of Soviet troops in Europe was comparable to the number of Western occupation forces in Germany.

                    And how many of those troops were there?
                    https://tass.ru/info/4137574
                    In 45g 1,9 million, in 46g 290 thousand, in 53g 103 thousand Americans. How long will it take to transfer troops from America to Europe and how much from the USSR to Germany?
                    And by the way, yes, 2,9 million Soviet soldiers for 49 years in the 18 millionth GDR.
                    https://archive.svoboda.org/ll/polit/0605/ll.061305-3.asp

                    Where did you study yourself? If you are trying something that is sarcastic, ventilate the question at least a little.
                    1. Bakht Offline Bakht
                      Bakht (Bakhtiyar) April 5 2021 13: 44
                      +1
                      Do you count only American troops? NATO was not only American.
                      You don't know history well. But Stalin knew her well. Moreover, for him it was not history, but reality. In the second half of the 30s, the USSR tried to create a system of collective security. The West ditched it under the pretext of containing the aggressiveness of the USSR. In the end, it was the West, not the USSR, who unleashed the war. And now, 4 years after the war, the term Soviet threat appeared again and a bloc directed against the USSR was created. How should the USSR react? The correct solution is to revive the idea of ​​collective security. The West again refused. The result was the Warsaw Pact.
                      You are quoting Kennan's long telegram again. Kennan later wrote that he wrote his telegram while seriously ill and was not sure that everything was written there correctly. Hot delirium of a patient with influenza. By the way, later, he repeatedly wrote that the confrontation with the USSR was unproductive and his political career was quickly over.
                      So, NATO was originally created as a bloc directed against the USSR, although there were no feet of aggression on the part of the USSR. The Soviet leadership saw the creation of a new aggressive bloc to attack the country and took adequate measures. Khrushchev reduced the Armed Forces in the face of the threat of attack. What else do you need to know to understand the situation?
                      History is an applied science. These are not theoretical studies. At present, NATO troops are being activated near the borders of Russia. War is being prepared. What will be Russia's response? Building up a military grouping in the western direction, conducting exercises, increasing combat readiness. But by no means a reduction in the sun
                      1. Oleg Rambover Offline Oleg Rambover
                        Oleg Rambover (Oleg Pitersky) April 6 2021 12: 04
                        -1
                        Quote: Bakht
                        Do you count only American troops? NATO was not only American.

                        Let's see who joined NATO:
                        Belgium, I doubt that there was a large army
                        Denmark, Iceland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal are the same
                        Italy is a losing country, whose army was defeated and even during WWII its number was in the region of 1 million people, at the time of entry I do not think that it had an efficient army.
                        Canada fielded 1,1 million people for the war, with a population of two Moscow, also could not have had a large army in peacetime and there is no contingent in Europe.
                        France ended the war with armies of 70 thousand bayonets
                        Great Britain is the largest army in Europe. I didn't find the numbers, the wartime army was 4,5 million, after the end at least 2/3 were demobilized, the maximum was 1,5 million people, and not a small part in the colonies.
                        Well, and the United States with 100-200 thousand in Europe.
                        If you have specific numbers, please share.

                        Quote: Bakht
                        You do not know the story well.

                        Apparently not worse than you.

                        Quote: Bakht
                        But Stalin knew her well. Moreover, for him it was not history, but reality.

                        I think the neighbors also knew the history well, I have already listed the acts of aggression of the USSR before the Second World War.

                        Quote: Bakht
                        The West ditched it under the pretext of containing the aggressiveness of the USSR.

                        Can I talk about this in more detail?

                        Quote: Bakht
                        In the end, it was the West, not the USSR, who unleashed the war.

                        Now you are engaged in falsification of history (is this already criminalized?), The Nuremberg trial accused Germany of unleashing a war.

                        Quote: Bakht
                        The result was the Warsaw Pact.

                        By the way, who created this Warsaw Pact? Is it really clever Stalin?

                        Quote: Bakht
                        You are quoting Kennan's long telegram again. Kennan later wrote that he wrote his telegram while seriously ill and was not sure that everything was written there correctly. Hot delirium of a patient with influenza.

                        How weak the USSR was if the doctrine created in feverish delirium allowed it to be defeated.

                        Quote: Bakht
                        So, NATO was originally created as a bloc directed against the USSR, although there were no feet of aggression on the part of the USSR.

                        I have already listed for you the facts of the USSR's aggression before the war, there was already the Berlin crisis with an armed confrontation. It is not necessary to present the USSR as white and fluffy, it is not so. And the "west" is not white and fluffy. This is like a family, both sides are to blame for the litter. There was no trust between the parties.

                        Quote: Bakht
                        The Soviet leadership saw the creation of a new aggressive bloc to attack the country and took adequate measures. Khrushchev, facing the threat of an attack, reduced the Armed Forces. What else do you need to know to understand the situation?

                        I understand your position. In my opinion, you have a prejudiced attitude towards Khrushchev and Stalin. Khrushchev's reduction did not bring any negative consequences for the USSR, only positive ones.
                        I asked you what is the difference between the Stalinist reduction of the army in 40, when Hitler had already decided to attack the USSR, and Khrushchev's reduction, when there are no plans to attack the USSR? Why did Stalin do the right thing while Khrushchev did not?

                        Quote: Bakht
                        History is an applied science. These are not theoretical studies. At present, NATO troops are being activated near the borders of Russia. War is being prepared. What will be Russia's response? Building up a military grouping in the western direction, conducting exercises, increasing combat readiness. But by no means a reduction in the sun

                        Some argue that history is not science. Where do you see this preparation? Is there a mobilization? Are NATO countries increasing their armies? Defense spending? How is this preparation to be expressed? Now the American contingent is minimal since 45, Trump planned to reduce it, I don't know about Biden. Most European countries have practically no army. Only a friend of Erdogan's.
                        Watching history does not teach anything. The history of the USSR has shown the perniciousness of excessive military spending. Want to repeat.
                        As long as the Russian Federation has nuclear weapons, no one in their right mind will attack. Defense spending should not exceed 2%, one should take an example from China.
                      2. isofat Offline isofat
                        isofat (isofat) April 8 2021 10: 47
                        0
                        Quote: Oleg Rambover
                        As long as the Russian Federation has nuclear weapons, no one in their right mind will attack.

                        In their right mind, and wars do not start, my dear. The mind is not the cause of wars, it is time, dear one, to be imbued with this truth. I'm ashamed of you, by God ...

                        Oleg Rambover, here you, for example, can you really be called a person of sound mind? If you deny the obvious, no!
                2. Oleg Rambover Offline Oleg Rambover
                  Oleg Rambover (Oleg Pitersky) April 5 2021 13: 31
                  -2
                  Quote: Bakht
                  In terms of the size of the Red Army again. You found one link and rush with it. According to other sources, your numbers do not agree.

                  I have been referring to your figures for a long time. According to them, from April to September 40, almost 1 million people were fired and the number of armed forces was 3 423 499 people, which is less than the number of Soviet armed forces after Khrushchev's reduction. I just do not understand what the complaint is against Khrushchev.

                  Quote: Bakht
                  Stalin is scolded for oversleeping the beginning of the war. And Khrushchev is a fine fellow, that in the face of a clear threat, he began to reduce the country's Armed Forces.

                  I just don't understand what the complaint is. The army is an expensive pleasure, and even those 3,6 million were not feasible for the USSR. Judging by the fact that no one attacked after the reduction, his actions are adequate. But Stalin is good for you, although on the eve of the war he also reduced the army. What is the difference? And by the way, "clever" Brezhnev did not begin to increase the army back.

                  Quote: Bakht
                  And compare his activities for ten pre-war and 8 post-war years, with 30 years of friendship with common people. The current democrats' hatred of Stalin is caused precisely by the fact that there is something to compare with.

                  What to compare, before the war, 10 million citizens of the USSR died, after another from 0,5 to 1,5, mainly from hunger. And over the past 20 years, Russians have lived as well as never before in history. Even the Khrushchev era in this regard compares favorably with the Stalinist era.
                3. Oleg Rambover Offline Oleg Rambover
                  Oleg Rambover (Oleg Pitersky) April 5 2021 13: 44
                  -2
                  Quote: Bakht
                  My assessment of Stalin's activities is based on facts. And most of his detractors simply do not want to understand the simple truth that without Stalin, they would not have been born at all, because their parents would have turned into a bar of soap for supermen. Take a look at his activities from this point of view.

                  My claim is in its monstrous inefficiency, in the use of human resources. In the process of preparing for the war, he lost 10 million citizens, all this breakthrough of weapons, riveted at the cost of such victims, was lost in a catastrophe of 41 years in a place with a cadre army, which he could not prevent and lost another 27 million, and after the war he also managed to arrange famine. Dictatorships, in principle, are not effective, but Iosif Vissarionovich is among the leaders. Only Mao can argue with him in this regard.
              2. isofat Offline isofat
                isofat (isofat) April 4 2021 22: 22
                -1
                Quote: Oleg Rambover
                And what confuses you about them? The first is sarcasm.

                Oleg Rambover, could you immediately clarify where in this comment of yours sarcasm and jokes?
  • Miffer Offline Miffer
    Miffer (Sam Miffers) April 3 2021 17: 35
    0
    ... a bald "genius" ... a corn-man ... a bald idiot ...

    Opus did not read: I am not a fan of digging in manure, looking for "grains of truth" in it. And here is the style of street punks, only swearing squiggles are not enough. I read about this event on other resources, since there is such an opportunity.
    The usual diplomatic games, not worthy of special attention. At that time, all the major international players were "fighting for peace", which they understood as turning the enemy into radioactive ash.
  • Sergey Latyshev Offline Sergey Latyshev
    Sergey Latyshev (Serge) April 6 2021 11: 28
    0
    And, indeed, the style of the punks.

    And about the desire of Yeltsin and Putin to join the same NATO - no, no ...
    "a joke, a tricky move, or a betrayal?"