Stalin-Hitler Pact: How to turn the triumph of Soviet diplomacy into its main defeat


Epigraph: “History is not a teacher, but a warden; history does not teach anything, but only punishes for unlearned lessons ... "(V.O.Klyuchevsky)


From the author: We continue to fight the Western falsifiers of history. This text is devoted to debunking their main myth about the fault of the USSR in unleashing the Second World War, the blame for which lies with both dictators, and the fact that the communist dictator won this war is no easier for the world. For all the delusional nature of this statement, it should be admitted that there is no smoke without fire, Stalin really took part in the partition of Poland (which is what the apologists of this version are saying). This text will shed light on why Stalin agreed to this, what preceded it and why I consider it a triumph of Soviet diplomacy in those years.

They died down with fireworks, parades marched the next Victory holidays. Its 76th anniversary passed like the previous ones. These days, supporters have once again crossed their swords to celebrate this holiday on May 8 as the Day of Remembrance and Sorrow, and the heirs of Soviet traditions to celebrate this holiday on May 9 as the Day of the Great Victory over Nazism. During these days, we heard the next accusations of the collective West that, they say, the Russians strongly militarized this holiday, turning it into a review of modern models of military equipment and the achievements of the Russian Military Industry, in a vain attempt to demonize the Russian Federation and the USSR once again, to belittle their contribution to the great victory, smearing it on a common allied plate.

What can I say here? It's not for you to tell us how to celebrate our national holidays! You, as the losing side in this war, can grieve and remember on this day, and we, as winners, will rejoice that we have won a victory over the universal Evil, having saved you on the way from it (now, I think it’s in vain!) ... As you remember, we can already see from the demolished monuments to the soldiers-liberators in Poland and similar actions in relation to the monument to Marshal Konev, the liberator of Prague in the Czech Republic. Winners write history. Apparently, some in the West decided that since he won the Cold War, which ended with the collapse of the Union, it was time to rewrite history.

In Ukraine, which has been under a state protectorate for the last 7 years, this has taken on extreme right-wing forms. In some places, the past holidays were overshadowed by the antics of neo-Nazis. In the hero city of Kiev, for example, on the eve of May 9, the current heirs and successors of the "glorious" traditions of the 14th SS Volunteer Grenadier Infantry Division "Galicia" marched through the streets of the Ukrainian capital. A couple of days later, in the hero city of Odessa, their local associates tried to disrupt the events dedicated to the 7th anniversary of the Odessa tragedy on May 2. And all this is happening with the complete connivance and even encouragement of the local authorities. What seemed impossible until quite recently is becoming commonplace. No one is surprised at the demolition of the memorial to Soviet soldiers in Lvov (under the pretext of transferring the monuments of the totalitarian regime to another place), renaming of streets and squares, banning Soviet symbols and turning the USSR and Stalin personally into a comrade-in-arms of Hitler's Germany in unleashing World War II.

Putin recently lamented that modern Russian history textbooks do not adequately reflect the Battle of Stalingrad everywhere; I can imagine how horrified he would be if he read modern Ukrainian history textbooks. If we say that they are shamelessly lying, then this is to say nothing. There, with a blue eye, it is asserted that the USSR attacked Ukraine in 1941, apparently, none of the authors of these textbooks are embarrassed by the fact that Ukraine was then part of the USSR as a union republic (according to their version, it turns out that the USSR attacked itself !). One could close our eyes to this nonsense, as to an obvious nonsense (like the ancient proto-ukrov - the progenitors of the ancient Romans who dug the Black Sea), but gentlemen, the curators of the Ukrainian project act much more subtly. In their work, they are guided by the motto of Joseph Goebbels, who declared 80 years ago: "Take history away from the people, and in a generation it will turn into a crowd, and in a generation into a controlled herd." They have already turned most of the Ukrainians into a crowd. And then the rule of Adolf Hitler comes into effect, in his conceptual opus "Mein Kampf" (in accordance with the federal law of July 25, 2002 "On Countering Extremist Activities" No. 114-FZ, the book is prohibited on the territory of the Russian Federation), who stated that "broad the masses have a limited capacity for understanding and an unlimited capacity for forgetting. " The Americans seem to have thoroughly studied this work. That is why in Ukraine they are so fiercely fighting all manifestations of our glorious "totalitarian" past, from the renaming of avenues and squares to a prison term threatening for the St. George ribbon and the Victory Banner. As you know, a people who do not honor and do not know their history has no future. But the bright future of Ukraine is not at all included in the plans of its Western puppeteers - according to their idea, it should burn in the flame of the struggle with Russia. Therefore, all their efforts are aimed solely at breaking the cultural and historical code of the population, who, by the will of fate, ended up in this territory forgotten by God.

And we must give them their due, they act thoroughly, for centuries. The grains they have sown now will still give their poisonous shoots. And you will not do anything about it, because professionals work. It is very difficult for an untrained layman to immediately figure out where the truth is and where the lie is, when a piece of truth is wrapped in rolls of lies and all this is provided with beautiful packaging and a label “Take my word for it! Made in the USA ”. How these shoots work, all those who disagree with me can be convinced by looking at Putin's protest electorate, which has grown over the years of his rule through the efforts of local agents of American influence. But these friends appeared just at the end of the Union, when the late USSR of the Gorbachev era was flooded with waste paper telling the gullible Soviet reader about the horrors of Stalinism, the Gulag and other joys of the totalitarian regime. Who has forgotten or did not know, I will remind you, "Children of the Arbat" by Anatoly Rybakov, "Kolyma Tales" by Varlam Shalamov, "The Gulag Archipelago" and "One Day of Ivan Denisovich" by Alexander Solzhenitsyn, and other revelations about the bloody gebny and the horrors of the recent communist past , which poured onto the ordinary Soviet citizen from the pages of such publications as Ogonyok by Vitaly Korotich, who then broke all circulation records, and other similar publications. It took a long time for Putin, who came to power in 1999, to wash away the blackened image of the Kremlin Georgian satrap, so that later, through the efforts of new generations of nevzorovs and Kasparovs, to be in his place. I showed you how this matrix works. Wormy grains always give their rotten shoots. And the Anglo-Saxons do nothing in vain, they work for centuries, for a long time, for the future. They know for sure that Russia can only be broken from within. And who said that the technologies worked out in Ukraine cannot be used in the Russian Federation?

The following statement is fundamental here: the Soviet Union, together with Hitler's Germany, unleashed the Second World War, the blame for which lies with both dictators, and the fact that the communist dictator won this war is no easier for the world. For all the delusional nature of this statement, it should be admitted that there is no smoke without fire (which is what the apologists of this version are saying). And in order to debunk it, you need to be well informed about the events of 1938-39, and even in the Soviet era, this period in world history was covered in the school curriculum extremely poorly, if not selectively. People, of course, have heard something about the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact (better known in the West as the Stalin-Hitler Pact), but the truth, as always, is hidden in details that no one will dig into, which allows new interpreters of history to assert that Stalin and Hitler unleashed World War II by attacking Poland. Indeed, on September 1, 1939, Wehrmacht troops entered Poland from the west, and on September 17, the Red Army did the same only from the east.

History teaches us only that it teaches nothing


And no one remembers any more, but what preceded it? Neither the March Anschluss of Austria in 1938, nor the September of the same year, the "Munich Agreement" of the great powers (Germany, Great Britain, France and Italy), which sanctioned the partition of Czechoslovakia in favor of Germany, according to which Hitler seized the Sudetes, inhabited mainly by ethnic Germans , which served as the beginning of the process of dismemberment of this sovereign state, which ended in March 1939 with the creation of the protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia under the rule of Berlin (on March 15, 1939, Hitler sent his troops there), the First Slovak Republic under the rule of Josef Tiso (Hitler's loyal ally in World War II ) and Subcarpathian Rus, which was immediately occupied by Hungary. No one remembers what role Poland played in this, as it took a predatory role in this process, announcing an ultimatum with claims to Cieszyn Silesia (the subject of their long-standing 1918-1920 territorial disputes), weakened by the internal and external problems of Czechoslovakia, and introducing its troops there simultaneously with Germany. ... On October 1, German troops crossed the Czechoslovak border and occupied the Sudetenland; on October 2, the Polish troops did the same, occupying, with the forced tacit consent of the Czechoslovak government, the Cieszyn region.

It should be noted that the Soviet government was ready to fulfill the conditions of the Prague Treaty and to side with Czechoslovakia in the event of its war with Germany, even if France refuses to do so, contrary to the Soviet-French pact, and Poland and Romania will not be allowed to pass through their territory parts of the Red Army. And then Poland showed itself in all its glory, declaring that it would not interfere and, moreover, would immediately declare war on the Soviet Union if it tried to send troops through its territory to help Czechoslovakia. And if Soviet planes appear over Poland on their way to Czechoslovakia, they will immediately be attacked by Polish aviation. And these people forbid us to pick our noses and sing something about Stalin, on a par with Hitler who unleashed World War II ?! Especially for them, I inform you that on September 23, 1938 (almost a year before the Soviet troops entered Poland), the Soviet government made an official statement to the Polish government that any attempt to occupy a part of Czechoslovakia would annul the Soviet-Polish non-aggression pact. What did Poland do? What are your complaints against us? We warned in advance. Poland had a whole year to "think".

Hungary did not behave in the best way either, simultaneously with Poland and Germany, presented its claims to Czechoslovakia in the southern part of Slovakia and Subcarpathian Rus (then they were still part of Czechoslovakia), and already on November 2, 1938, by the decision of the First Vienna Arbitration, it received the southern (plain) regions of Slovakia and Subcarpathian Rus (modern Transcarpathian region of Ukraine) with the cities of Uzhgorod, Mukachevo and Beregovo in their complete possession. In March 1939, all this culminated in the capture of the northern part of Subcarpathian Rus (Carpathian Ukraine, which proclaimed itself after the collapse of Czechoslovakia on its territory, did not live a week). The process of its occupation by Hungary was accompanied by a series of bloody clashes with local paramilitaries, which went down in history under the name "Carpathian Sich" (but the UPA soldiers and their commander-in-chief Roman Shukhevych, who later smeared himself with Hitler's service, will tell you about this better).

And against the backdrop of all this, on August 23, 1939, the Non-Aggression Pact was concluded between Germany and the USSR, better known as the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, according to which the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany became allies for 22 months. On June 22, 1941, with the German attack on the USSR, it all ended. A random play of numbers, tell me, but the situation there was by no means linear. And Stalin went to an alliance with Hitler not at all from a good life.

22 honeymoons in the life of tyrants


Just a week after the conclusion of the "Hitler-Stalin Pact", as it is commonly called in the FRG, the Second World War began with an attack by Germany on Poland, and two weeks later Soviet troops entered Polish territory. The victorious campaign ended with fraternization of units of the Wehrmacht and the Red Army and a joint parade in Brest-on-Bug. On the podium, brigade commander Krivoshein stood next to General Heinz Wilhelm Guderian, whose tank corps would almost reach Moscow in just two years.

Hitler's tasks when concluding this agreement were clear, he did not want to fight on two fronts and wanted to secure himself with the supply of oil products, grain, ore and some other articles of critical imports for the period of possible economic the blockade that the collective West could arrange for him after its attack on Poland (and did it, but it was too late!). And what tasks did Stalin pursue? And the "mustachioed tyrant", realizing that war was inevitable, tried to delay it and manage to re-equip the Red Army during this time, which he partially succeeded in, but still the war caught him and the army by surprise. Half of the aviation was destroyed right at the base airfields in the very first hours of the war, and the purge of the top commanding staff of the Red Army, which he initiated, led to a complete collapse of control, when we rolled back, surrendering our territories, almost to Moscow precisely in the first most difficult months of the war that Hitler had hoped for. finish before the cold weather. And I would have finished if it were not for the heroism of the Soviet people, who rose up to defend the Fatherland with their bosom, defended their independence and cowardly Europe with millions of lives, and the very right to life.

The devil is in the details


Critics of this project insist that the Non-Aggression Pact was concluded between powers that have no common borders, which supposedly suggests that both tyrants were preparing for a territorial redistribution of Europe. Yes, we did indeed prepare. Only a blind man could not notice Hitler's preparations for this. And what was Stalin supposed to do in this situation? Close your eyes and wait for an attack? Or, maybe, crawl on your knees to France and Great Britain with a request to conclude an allied agreement on mutual assistance in the event of an attack on one of the signatory parties by a third party (it is clear which third party we are talking about)? By that time, on May 22, 1939, Hitler had already concluded with Mussolini the "Steel Pact", a German-Italian treaty of alliance and friendship, which finally formed the backbone of the Hitlerite coalition states. Three years earlier, on November 25, 1936, Germany and Japan had concluded something similar called the Anti-Comintern Pact, the spearhead of which was directed against the USSR. With the conclusion of the "Steel Pact", the clouds over the Union really closed up. It was clear what Hitler was preparing for. Stalin acted outside the box, simultaneously negotiating with Hitler, and with Chamberlain, and with Daladier, and not believing any of them, he tried, playing on their mutual insurmountable contradictions, to stay away from the coming European war, or at least , to delay the USSR's involvement in it for as long as possible. Considering the possible risks of the parties, he quite accurately assessed that the risk of an attack from the gaining strength of the Third Reich is much higher, so it would be wiser to neutralize it (and Hitler himself was striving for this, fearing to fight on both fronts at once) than to hope for help from Britain and France. How right he was was shown already in September 1939 and the events that followed it, which unfolded during the so-called Strange War, when France and England were only simulating a war against Germany, which attacked Poland, with which they were bound by mutual protection treaties. We all know how it ended for them (France fell under the pressure of Hitler's troops a year later, in 1940, and Britain experienced the full horror of the German bombing). Stalin, having concluded a "Non-Aggression Pact" with Hitler, thus gained time and created a buffer from the annexed territories of western Ukraine, Bessarabia, northern Bukovina, the Baltic states and western Belarus, which, being annexed to the USSR, slowed down the advance of the Wehrmacht's tank wedges in the direction to Moscow 22 months later, when Hitler decided on his blitzkrieg.

It doesn't matter who outwitted whom, Hitler's Stalin or Stalin's Hitler. Hitler, having attacked the USSR, found his death here (in the figurative sense of the word), and the great European powers, trying to incite the Reich against the USSR that they hated, in the end did not escape their war with it. And only the entry into the war of the Soviet Union saved them from the sad fate that Germany had in store for them, if it were not for Hitler's foolishness to get involved in the war with the USSR. I am not trying to whiten the "mustachioed tyrant" here, he was still that beetle, but how pure the British and French were in their thoughts, only one fact speaks. On July 23, 1939, the Soviet side proposed to start negotiations of military missions in Moscow, without waiting for a political agreement between the three countries. On July 25, the British, and on July 26, the French sides agreed. At the same time, British Foreign Minister Halifax said that the delegation will be able to leave in 7-10 days, but its composition has not yet been determined. As a result, the British and French missions left for Moscow only on August 5, choosing the longest way of travel - by sea to Leningrad and further by train. The missions arrived in Moscow only on 11 August. The parties were obviously playing for time, conducting parallel negotiations with Hitler. The British generally agreed to negotiations with the USSR only in order to complicate Soviet-German contacts and to strengthen their positions in negotiations with Germany. They assumed that their military negotiations with Moscow would prevent Soviet-German rapprochement and would drag out the time until autumn, when Germany, due to weather conditions, would not dare to start a war with Poland. Time has shown how wrong they were. Hitler outplayed them all. Who is more to blame for the fate that befell Poland, Stalin, Hitler or European political rogues, let historians judge. Only objective, not current falsifiers.

Summary


“It is not only possible to be proud of the glory of your ancestors, but it should be. Not to respect it, there is a shameful cowardice "(A. Pushkin).

In conclusion, to summarize, I will only say that the USSR was the penultimate state to sign such a bilateral document with Germany, after Poland, Great Britain, France, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia (the last was Turkey). Why don't you scold them? They, it turns out, also contributed to the beginning of the Second World War? In addition to everything, the non-aggression pact was concluded during the hostilities on Khalkhin Gol between the USSR and Japan, Germany's ally in the Anti-Comintern Pact. Why is this moment not taken into account? Germany was an ally of Japan, and, according to the above pact, could take her side. Stalin minimized this threat. According to the Soviet-German agreement, the parties to the agreement pledged to refrain from attacking each other and to maintain neutrality in the event that one of them became the object of hostilities by a third party. The parties to the agreement also renounced allied relations with other powers, "directly or indirectly directed against the other side."

The signing of the treaty ended the period of cooling of Soviet-German political and economic relations caused by the coming to power in Germany of the NSDAP and Adolf Hitler. Having received in the autumn of 1938 in Munich another clear evidence that the great powers were not ready to take into account the opinion of the USSR in European politics, the Soviet leadership was extremely interested in disrupting the trend of European consolidation, which did not take into account Soviet interests. In this sense, the continuation of German expansion at the beginning of 1939 was in Moscow's interests, since it sharply increased the interest of both European military-political groups in an agreement with the USSR, while the Soviet leadership could choose with whom and on what conditions it would negotiate, taking into account its interests ... We are talking about the Germany-Italy group opposing the Britain-France group.

Thus, this "Non-Aggression Pact" can be viewed as a significant victory for Soviet diplomacy, which was able to use the European crisis in its own interests, outplay British diplomacy and achieve its main goal - to stay out of the European war, while gaining a significant free hand in Eastern Europe. wider space for maneuver between the warring factions in their own interests and at the same time shifting the responsibility for disrupting the Anglo-French-Soviet negotiations to London and Paris. As a result, the Soviet-German non-aggression pact looked like a forced step taken when the unwillingness of Britain and France to conclude an effective treaty on counteracting aggression became obvious.

PS By the way, does it bother anyone that the Franco-Soviet "Non-Aggression Pact" concluded in 1935 was concluded between countries that do not have common borders? It was thanks to him that France should have intervened on the side of the USSR if he had come out in defense of Czechoslovakia after the entry of German and Polish troops into its territory in October 1938 after the well-known "Munich Agreement". But she didn't interfere. Moreover, she personally took part in the division of Czechoslovakia. This once again proves all the far-fetched accusations of the USSR, which signed a similar pact with Nazi Germany. At that time, such pacts were the usual procedure for regulating bilateral relations.

I wanted to end with the words of Winston Churchill:

Only totalitarian despotism in both countries could decide on such an odious unnatural act. It is impossible to say to whom he inspired more disgust - Hitler or Stalin. Both were aware that this could only be a temporary measure dictated by the circumstances. The antagonism between the two empires and systems was deadly. Stalin no doubt thought that Hitler would be a less dangerous enemy for Russia after a year of war against the Western powers. Hitler followed his "one by one" method. The fact that such an agreement was possible marks the depth of the failure of British and French politics and diplomacy over the years.

In favor of the Soviets, it must be said that it was vital for the Soviet Union to push the initial positions of the German armies as far west as possible so that the Russians would have time and be able to gather forces from all over their colossal empire. In the minds of Russians with red-hot iron, the catastrophes that their armies suffered in 1914, when they launched an offensive against the Germans before they finished mobilization, were imprinted. And now their borders were much more east than during the first war. They needed to by force or deception occupy the Baltic states and most of Poland before they were attacked. If their policy was coldly prudent, then it was also at that moment highly realistic.
Ad
We are open to cooperation with authors in the news and analytical departments. A prerequisite is the ability to quickly analyze the text and check the facts, to write concisely and interestingly on political and economic topics. We offer flexible working hours and regular payments. Please send your responses with examples of work to [email protected]
63 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Bulanov Offline Bulanov
    Bulanov (Vladimir) 20 May 2021 09: 09
    -1
    Victory on May 9 is a tradition of Russians from the Slavic tradition of celebrating the New Year from the Creation of the World.
    The Creation of the World should be understood as the conclusion of peace in the Star Temple in the great battle of the two peoples. The Great Race (Slavic-Arians) defeated the Great Dragon (Chinese or Arimami). The year is now 7529 from the Creation of the World in the Star Temple.
    Now this knowledge is deliberately distorted by the enemies of the Slavs and Russia.
    1. Leontrotsky Offline Leontrotsky
      Leontrotsky (Leon) 20 May 2021 09: 54
      0
      How is it? It turns out that all immortal shelves are a celebration of the new year from the creation of the world?)))
      1. Bulanov Offline Bulanov
        Bulanov (Vladimir) 20 May 2021 10: 00
        -1
        Do you, Leon, know what traditions are?

        Tradition (from Lat. Trāditiō "tradition", custom) is an anonymously developed system of norms, ideas, rules and patterns, which is guided in their behavior by a fairly extensive and stable group of people. Traditions are passed down from generation to generation and act as one of the regulators of social relations.

        The people have a tradition to celebrate Great Holidays publicly. May 9 is a great holiday for Russia, as for their ancestors - the holiday of the Creation of the World in the Star Temple - the previous New Year.
  2. Bakht Offline Bakht
    Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 20 May 2021 09: 42
    +1
    Adm. Drax. If Poland and Romania do not demand assistance from the USSR, they will soon become simple German provinces, and then the USSR will decide what to do with them.

    14 August 1939 year
  3. GRF Offline GRF
    GRF 20 May 2021 10: 03
    +1
    As long as in Russian textbooks they will thank not the Mongols for free help, but the state workers for lend-lease (credit is not help), then the parade of oppressors will continue ...
    1. Oleg Rambover Offline Oleg Rambover
      Oleg Rambover (Oleg Pitersky) 20 May 2021 12: 51
      -6
      Quote: GRF
      As long as in Russian textbooks they will thank not the Mongols for free help, but the state workers for lend-lease (credit is not help), then the parade of oppressors will continue ...

      Oh, don't worry, you can thank the Americans for Lend-Lease with a clear conscience. According to the lend-lease agreement, materials, equipment, weapons, foodstuffs, etc., spent or lost during the war, were not subject to payment from the word at all, that is, they were free of charge. An interest-free loan was provided for equipment and equipment left over from the war and suitable for peaceful use (the USSR did not repay it due to the outbreak of the Cold War).
      In total, only about 7% of the amount of deliveries was paid, and then most of the amount was paid by the Russian Federation. Moreover, the amount was not recalculated to take into account inflation. In fact, the USSR-RF paid less than 1% of the amount supplied.
      You can still thank Britain, since they supplied only weapons, no payment was envisaged at all, then most of the supplies were free of charge.
      1. GRF Offline GRF
        GRF 20 May 2021 14: 46
        -1
        Do not lie

        Negotiations between the USSR and the USA regarding the Lend-Lease debt took place in several rounds. The Americans put forward the amount of debt at $ 2,7 billion. During negotiations in 1948, Soviet representatives agreed to pay a small amount. Naturally, this caused a refusal from the Americans. In 1949, negotiations also came to nothing. In 1951, the US government twice cut the debt to $ 800 million, but the USSR agreed to pay only $ 300 million.
        It was not until 1972 that the United States and the USSR reached an agreement on the payment of debts. According to the document, the USSR pledged to pay $ 2001 million by 722, including interest. In 1973, the USSR made payments in the amount of $ 48 million, but the payment of the debt was suspended due to unfavorable trade measures for the USSR (Jackson-Vanik amendment). Only in 1990 did the parties return to discussing the debt again. They set a new lend-lease maturity date of 2030 and a final amount of $ 674 million.
        After the collapse of the USSR, the Russian Federation signed bilateral agreements with the former republics on the "zero option", according to which the Russian Federation takes over all the debts of the USSR. In exchange for this, the former republics of the Soviet Union gave up a share of the assets of the USSR. So, on April 1993, 21, the Russian Federation assumed the debts of the USSR, including the lend-lease obligations. Debts were divided into government debts (Paris Club) and debts to banks (London Club). The US lend-lease debt was finally paid and closed as part of the settlement with the Paris Club on August 2006, XNUMX.

        The statesmen are thanked only by masochists, fools or traitors ...

        In normal businesses, sellers usually write "thank you for buying".
        1. Oleg Rambover Offline Oleg Rambover
          Oleg Rambover (Oleg Pitersky) 20 May 2021 15: 36
          -6
          And what's the lie? It was delivered for 11 billion, paid for 722 million, and the main amount of 674 was already paid by the Russian Federation. By this time, the dollar had depreciated 15 times.
          Did you get this quote from here?
          https://russian7.ru/post/kogda-rossiya-nakonec-to-rasschitalas/l
          You missed a couple of paragraphs

          After the collapse of the USSR, the lend-lease debt was reissued to Boris Yeltsin. Thus, of the total supply of $ 11 billion, the USSR (later the Russian Federation) pledged to pay $ 722 million, that is, 7% of the $ 11 billion supply.

          The total volume of US shipments amounted to about 11 billion US dollars. According to the Lend-Lease Law, only what had survived during the war had to be paid. Agreements on the final amount of the payment began in 1948.

          How much did you pay?
          By 1973, 3 payments worth $ 48 million. Three mandatory payments were negotiated: $ 3 million on October 12, 18, $ 1972 million on July 24, 1, and $ 1973 million on July 12, 1. By agreement with the United States, the remainder - 1975 million - was to be paid by 674. In 2001, under a new agreement, the Soviet side pledged to pay $ 1990 million by 674 - adjusted for inflation. only $ 100 million of the 1946 model.

          You would ask the question before writing any nonsense.
          1. GRF Offline GRF
            GRF 20 May 2021 19: 36
            +1
            Nonsense - these are your tales about this "help".
            Lend Lease is a forced bribe to the Anglo-Saxons so that they do not enter the war on the side of the Nazis, whom they so kindly sheltered after the war, and before and during the war they fed them very well (Germany is still obliged to the Americans for this). Lend-lease really started working only when it became clear that the Germans would not win. Lend Lease was not a deferred loan, it was paid for immediately with raw materials at greatly reduced prices with "respected American businessmen." If the United States had fulfilled its promise and opened a second front on time, no lend-lease would have been required, but money cannot be made on blood like that, money doesn’t smell, and now they are sniffing us about their "help." Mongolia has supplied us with meat for FREE more than the rich USA and you hear how they shout about this real help?

            When the USSR was in power, he sent them, especially when he realized that good relations did not shine, and weakened Russia paid this tribute. in vain ...
            1. Oleg Rambover Offline Oleg Rambover
              Oleg Rambover (Oleg Pitersky) 20 May 2021 21: 46
              -5
              Quote: GRF
              Nonsense - these are your tales about this "help".

              This is not nonsense, but a historical fact not disputed by any serious historian.

              Quote: GRF
              Lend Lease is a forced bribe to the Anglo-Saxons so that they do not enter the war on the side of the Nazis, whom they so kindly sheltered after the war, and before and during the war they fed them very well (Germany is still obliged to the Americans for this).

              This is somehow nonsense, the Lend-Lease started working before July 22, 41, when the USSR was still driving grain and oil to Nazi Germany.

              Quote: GRF
              Lend Lease was not a deferred loan, it was paid for immediately with raw materials at greatly reduced prices with "respected American businessmen."

              Yes, according to the agreement, the USSR undertook obligations to supply the necessary raw materials to the United States as far as possible. The amount of reciprocal deliveries is estimated at $ 2, $ 155 million or $ 912 billion, let me remind you that the United States supplied the USSR for $ 2,16 billion.

              Quote: GRF
              If the United States had fulfilled its promise and opened a second front in time, no lend-lease would have been required, but you cannot make money on blood like that, money doesn’t smell, and now they are sniffing at them about their "help".

              What is such a promise?

              Quote: GRF
              Mongolia has supplied us with meat FREE OF CHARGE more than the rich USA and you hear how they shout about this real help?

              I repeat, the United States also supplied food free of charge. Can you link to the treaties between the USSR and Mongolia?
              The fact that Mongolia has put more is a lie. And by the way, are you sure that Mongolia supplied it for free?
              https://istmat.info/files/uploads/46317/rgae_413.12.9539_eksport_import_vov.pdf
              During the war years, the United States supplied 761,9 thousand tons of meat products, "eastern countries", which includes Mongolia and 5,9 thousand tons. Also from the "eastern countries", probably mainly Mongolia, they supplied 847 thousand heads of cattle alive, I doubt that this is more than 300 thousand tons of meat, another 6568 thousand heads of small livestock, I can not imagine how much meat it is.

              Quote: GRF
              When the USSR was in power, he sent them, especially when he realized that good relations did not shine, and weakened Russia paid this tribute. in vain ...

              Only for what they agreed on, oil refineries, industrial equipment, ships, what is suitable for peaceful life.
              Those who do not pay off their obligations are usually reluctant to give new loans.
              1. Fourth Horseman Offline Fourth Horseman
                Fourth Horseman (Fourth Horseman) 21 May 2021 06: 58
                -3
                Maybe this nonsense that you are talking, no one disputes. Because this is nonsense !!!
                And you have a lot of such nonsense ...
                1. Oleg Rambover Offline Oleg Rambover
                  Oleg Rambover (Oleg Pitersky) 21 May 2021 09: 56
                  0
                  What a reasoned, with links to sources, answer. Surprisingly, patriots often have this level of argumentation.
  4. George W. Bush - medium (George Bush - average) 20 May 2021 11: 21
    0
    The leaders of the West greeted Hitler by the hand. Is Stalin to blame?
    http://www.kp.ru/daily/26487.5/3356860/
    1. Igor Berg Offline Igor Berg
      Igor Berg (Igor Berg) 20 May 2021 11: 38
      -9
      They greeted the Nazis, and taught military affairs in the USSR well too. One parade on May 1, 1941 -Nazis at a parade in Moscow- what is worth.
      1. George W. Bush - medium (George Bush - average) 20 May 2021 11: 43
        -2
        Why don't you, not very educated Herr Berg, remember what preceded it?

        Neither the March Anschluss of Austria in 1938, nor the September of the same year, the "Munich Agreement" of the great powers (Germany, Great Britain, France and Italy), which sanctioned the partition of Czechoslovakia in favor of Germany, according to which Hitler seized the Sudetes, inhabited mainly by ethnic Germans , which served as the beginning of the process of dismemberment of this sovereign state, which ended in March 1939 with the creation of the protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia under the rule of Berlin (on March 15, 1939, Hitler sent his troops there), the First Slovak Republic under the leadership of Josef Tiso (Hitler's loyal ally in World War II ) and Subcarpathian Rus, which was immediately occupied by Hungary. No one remembers what role Poland played in this, as it took part in the process predatory by announcing an ultimatum with claims to Cieszyn Silesia (the subject of their long-standing 1918-1920 territorial disputes), which was weakened by the internal and external problems of Czechoslovakia, and introduced its troops there simultaneously with Germany. ... On October 1, German troops crossed the Czechoslovak border and occupied the Sudetenland; on October 2, the Polish troops did the same, occupying the Cieszyn region with the forced tacit consent of the Czechoslovak government.

        It should be noted that the Soviet government was ready to fulfill the conditions of the Prague Treaty and to side with Czechoslovakia in the event of its war with Germany, even if France refuses to do so, contrary to the Soviet-French pact, and Poland and Romania will not be allowed to pass through their territory parts of the Red Army. And then Poland showed itself in all its glory, declaring that it would not interfere and, moreover, would immediately declare war on the Soviet Union if it tried to send troops through its territory to help Czechoslovakia. And if Soviet planes appear over Poland on their way to Czechoslovakia, they will immediately be attacked by Polish aviation. And these people forbid us to pick our noses and sing something about Stalin, on a par with Hitler who unleashed World War II ?! Especially for them, I inform you that on September 23, 1938 (almost a year before the Soviet troops entered Poland), the Soviet government made an official statement to the Polish government that any attempt to occupy a part of Czechoslovakia would annul the Soviet-Polish non-aggression pact. What did Poland do? What are your complaints against us? We warned in advance. Poland had a whole year to "think".
        Hungary did not behave in the best way either, simultaneously with Poland and Germany, presented its claims to Czechoslovakia in the southern part of Slovakia and Subcarpathian Rus (then they were still part of Czechoslovakia), and already on November 2, 1938, by the decision of the First Vienna Arbitration, it received the southern (plain) regions of Slovakia and Subcarpathian Rus (modern Transcarpathian region of Ukraine) with the cities of Uzhgorod, Mukachevo and Beregovo in their complete possession. In March 1939, all this culminated in the capture of the northern part of Subcarpathian Rus (Carpathian Ukraine, which proclaimed itself after the collapse of Czechoslovakia on its territory, did not live a week). The process of its occupation by Hungary was accompanied by a series of bloody clashes with local paramilitaries, which went down in history under the name "Carpathian Sich" (but the UPA soldiers and their commander-in-chief Roman Shukhevych, who later smeared himself with Hitler's service, will tell you about this better).

        And against the backdrop of all this, on August 23, 1939, the Non-Aggression Pact was concluded between Germany and the USSR, better known as the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, according to which the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany became allies for 22 months. On June 22, 1941, with the German attack on the USSR, it all ended. A random play of numbers, tell me, but the situation there was by no means linear. And Stalin went to an alliance with Hitler not at all from a good life.
      2. Bakht Offline Bakht
        Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 20 May 2021 23: 22
        +1
        For reference.
        The Nazis in the USSR were NOT trained in military science.
  5. George W. Bush - medium (George Bush - average) 20 May 2021 11: 48
    -1
    Hmm, I think not, I'm sure this Herr Berg and other similar "experts" will not understand anything.

    Just a week after the conclusion of the "Hitler-Stalin Pact", as it is commonly called in the FRG, the Second World War began with an attack by Germany on Poland, and two weeks later Soviet troops entered Polish territory. The victorious campaign ended with fraternization of units of the Wehrmacht and the Red Army and a joint parade in Brest-on-Bug. On the podium, brigade commander Krivoshein stood next to General Heinz Wilhelm Guderian, whose tank corps would almost reach Moscow in just two years.
    Hitler's tasks in concluding this treaty were clear, he did not want to fight on two fronts and wanted to secure himself with the supply of oil products, grain, ore and some other articles of critical imports for the period of a possible economic blockade that the collective West could arrange for him after his attack on Poland ( and arranged it, but it was too late!). And what tasks did Stalin pursue? And the "mustachioed tyrant", realizing that war was inevitable, tried to delay it and manage to re-equip the Red Army during this time, which he partially succeeded in, but still the war caught him and the army by surprise. Half of the aviation was destroyed right at the base airfields in the very first hours of the war, and the purge of the top commanding staff of the Red Army, which he initiated, led to a complete collapse of control, when we rolled back, surrendering our territories, almost to Moscow precisely in the first most difficult months of the war that Hitler had hoped for. finish before the cold weather.

    And I would have finished if it were not for the heroism of the Soviet people under the leadership of Stalin, who rose up to defend the Fatherland with their bosom, defended their independence and cowardly Europe with millions of lives, and the very right to life.
  6. Oleg Rambover Offline Oleg Rambover
    Oleg Rambover (Oleg Pitersky) 20 May 2021 13: 01
    -4
    Thus, this "Non-Aggression Pact" can be seen as a significant victory

    There was such a plan by Schlieffen. Germany's strategic plan in WWI, how to defeat its opponents one by one.
    Kaiser Wilhelm II described it as follows:

    We will have lunch in Paris, and dinner in St. Petersburg.

    The bottom line was that Germany, until Russia mobilized and did not seriously enter the war, would defeat France with all her might, and then throw all her forces on Russia. It didn't work out then.
    But in 39-41 the Germans managed to brilliantly bring this plan to life, largely thanks to this pact.
    Germany used these 22 months clearly more productively than the USSR.
  7. Oleg Rambover Offline Oleg Rambover
    Oleg Rambover (Oleg Pitersky) 20 May 2021 17: 47
    -5
    It took Putin, who came to power in 1999, a long time to launder the blackened image of the Kremlin Georgian satrap

    Amused
    https://www.interfax.ru/photo/38/5138

    There can be no justification for these crimes, in our country a clear political, legal, moral assessment of the atrocities of the totalitarian regime has been given ... And such an assessment is not subject to any revisions

    Repression took place to be - this is a fact. Millions of our fellow citizens suffered from them. And such a way of governing the state and achieving results is unacceptable. It's impossible. And, of course, during this period we were faced not just with a personality cult, but with massive crimes against our own people - this is also a fact. And we must not forget about this either. Any historical events can be analyzed in their entirety, that’s what I wanted to say.

    https://rg.ru/2007/10/31/putin.html
    https://ria.ru/20200130/1564063840.html
    https://vz.ru/politics/2007/10/30/121266.html

    One can endlessly speculate on the tragedy of the Chechen people during the period of their eviction from Chechnya by the Stalinist regime. But was it only the Chechens who were the victims of these repressions? Yes, the first, the largest victim of these repressions was the Russian people, most of all suffered from this. This is our common history.
    Stalinism is associated with the cult of personality and with massive violations of the law, with repressions and camps. There is nothing of the kind in Russia, and I hope it will never happen again. Our society is simply different and will never allow this. But this does not mean that we should not have order and discipline.
  8. trampoline instructor (Bazil Bazil) 20 May 2021 18: 57
    +3
    Lots of ashypok... I don't even dare to list everything. In the end, I will be told like "don't like it, don't read it." Or: "I write what I want, I have every right."
    Therefore, I will not say anything.
    1. Volkonsky Offline Volkonsky
      Volkonsky (Vladimir) 20 May 2021 19: 33
      -2
      at least one ashipka is possible?
      1. The comment was deleted.
        1. Volkonsky Offline Volkonsky
          Volkonsky (Vladimir) 20 May 2021 21: 38
          -1
          I already wrote about all this here -
          https://topcor.ru/18715-istorija-nichemu-ne-uchit-rossija-sobstvennoruchno-podderzhivaet-agressivnuju-ukrainu.html
          what is ashipka, do not understand? !!
      2. trampoline instructor (Bazil Bazil) 20 May 2021 20: 29
        +2
        The victorious campaign ended with fraternization of units of the Wehrmacht and the Red Army and a joint parade in Brest-on-Bug. On the podium, brigade commander Krivoshein stood next to General Guderian.

        In short, there was no joint parade in Brest.
        For the first time I hear about some kind of "fraternization".
        1. Volkonsky Offline Volkonsky
          Volkonsky (Vladimir) 20 May 2021 21: 41
          -2
          I see no links! these are your words! but the video chronicle of those years -

          1. trampoline instructor (Bazil Bazil) 20 May 2021 23: 11
            +4
            There was no "joint" parade in Brest. There was a German parade, at which only one person from the Red Army was present - Krivoshein, who at that time was negotiating with Guderian about the withdrawal of German troops from Brest. The Germans held their parade in the center of Brest and by 18-00 had completely left the city and drove across the bridges to the other side of the river. At this time, the units of the Red Army closest to Brest were located far outside the city. The only Soviet unit, a tank reconnaissance company, stood on the railway tracks at the exit from the Station and blocked the railway so that the Germans could not take steam locomotives, wagons, weapons and supplies from the warehouses to their side. The railway station is located a few kilometers from the center of Brest, where the Germans staged their parade.
            Therefore, our troops did not take any part in the parades and physically could not do this - they simply were not in the city at that time. Only at 21-00, after 3 hours, as not a single German remained in Brest, the scouts received an order to advance to the city of Brest itself. An hour later, at 22-00, orders for the occupation of Brest began to be received by the linear units of the Red Army - sappers, signalmen, tankmen, motorized riflemen. The occupation of Brest by the Red Army lasted all night. Of course, the Germans remained on the other side of the river and our troops did not meet with their troops. By morning, posts were posted on the bridges. Ours are on our side of the river. The Germans are on their side of the river.
            Now how is the fake about the alleged "joint" parade mounted? The cut shows alternately shots of German equipment with German soldiers and completely different shots of Soviet equipment with Soviet soldiers. But pay attention - in not a single shot with the Germans there are no Soviet soldiers or Soviet equipment nearby. (Except for the notorious one single person - Krivoshein, who is negotiating with Guderian). Likewise, there is not a single shot with Soviet equipment - there is not a single German soldier. If we analyze the surrounding buildings, it becomes obvious that the Soviet part of the shots was shot on completely different streets and has nothing to do with the place where the Germans ride in the parade. This is how unpretentiously alternating shots of different filming, the fakomets are trying to create the impression that German and Soviet troops are at the same time in one place.
            1. Oleg Rambover Offline Oleg Rambover
              Oleg Rambover (Oleg Pitersky) 21 May 2021 02: 33
              -3
              Quote: Trampoline area instructor
              There was no "joint" parade in Brest. There was a German parade, at which only one person from the Red Army was present - Krivoshein, who at that time was negotiating with Guderian about the withdrawal of German troops from Brest. At this time, the units of the Red Army closest to Brest were located far outside the city.

              You are mistaken, the Soviet military was present at the parade


              On the left, Soviet tankmen from the 29th Tank Brigade are clearly visible.
              1. trampoline instructor (Bazil Bazil) 21 May 2021 09: 10
                +4
                On the right, Krivoshein is clearly visible, raising his hand to the visor of his cap, clearly not German.
                On the left, some men in uniform, probably tankers, are "clearly visible". Their nationality, as well as their belonging to the 29th tank brigade of the Red Army, purely visually, in the photo, I personally cannot determine for sure.
                1. Oleg Rambover Offline Oleg Rambover
                  Oleg Rambover (Oleg Pitersky) 21 May 2021 13: 29
                  0
                  Well, there are a lot of pictures






                  There are memories of Krivoshein, he refused to pass in formation with the Germans, citing the fatigue of the troops after the march, Guderian insisted, referring to the agreement of the command. It was agreed that the Soviet units would salute the departing units of the Wehrmacht.
                  1. trampoline instructor (Bazil Bazil) 21 May 2021 14: 36
                    +3
                    Now, this is better.
                    I’m ready to admit that I was not accurate in my presentation. Soviet military personnel in small numbers attended the parade.
                    No more.
                    1. Oleg Rambover Offline Oleg Rambover
                      Oleg Rambover (Oleg Pitersky) 21 May 2021 14: 47
                      0


                      I don’t understand at all that everyone is so worried about this parade.
                      1. trampoline instructor (Bazil Bazil) 21 May 2021 15: 44
                        +3
                        It was agreed that the Soviet units would salute the departing units of the Wehrmacht.

                        Despite the fact that there are "a bunch of photos" on them, I do not see the Soviet servicemen depicted on them "saluting the departing Wehrmacht units." They stand at attention.

                        I wonder where our wonderful author Volk-Volkonsky has so suddenly disappeared.
            2. zenion Offline zenion
              zenion (zinovy) 29 May 2021 19: 26
              0
              Stalin knew the Germans and Hitler well, so there was a Jew by nationality Krivoshein.
  9. Binder Offline Binder
    Binder (Miron) 20 May 2021 21: 16
    -8
    The author is clearly at odds with the logic. He argues that the Pact is "a significant victory for Soviet diplomacy." We can speak about victory only if there are certain positive results for the country, but where are they here? After 22 months, the Nazis attacked the USSR, defeated the Red Army in record time, reached the outskirts of Moscow, captured 3,8 million Soviet servicemen - and in the author's opinion, can this be considered a victory? The author may object - in May 27, the Soviet army was in Berlin and a red banner was fluttering over the Reichstag. But 1939 million perished citizens of the USSR (according to some researchers, significantly more), a devastated country and horrible living conditions after the war - is this the result of a diplomatic victory? And if we compare today the standard of living in Russia and in Germany, then even the most dense aboriginal of the tundra becomes clear that there can be no question of any victories in this case. You should call a spade a spade, in XNUMX. there was a conspiracy in which they tried to deceive each other, then the unsuccessful artist managed to cheat the half-educated seminarian, and as a result we have what we have ...
    1. Volkonsky Offline Volkonsky
      Volkonsky (Vladimir) 20 May 2021 21: 32
      0
      Do you regret not drinking Bavarian now? Toko grave will fix you! what option did Stalin have? conclude a pact with Britain, which sent military advisers to negotiations with Moscow without the right to sign documents? How did Britain help Poland in 1939? and france how? they would also help the USSR! and so Stalin at least left Hitler on the distant approaches to the USSR, creating a buffer from the newly acquired lands. Do you know that we have already agreed as the Germans for Lviv? and we had losses! if the 17 September 1939 RRKA would not have entered eastern Poland - there would be the Germans!
      1. Binder Offline Binder
        Binder (Miron) 20 May 2021 21: 52
        -8
        In the event of a Nazi victory for me. as a Jew, you wouldn't have to drink Bavarian - definitely. As for the assessment of the Pact and its consequences for history, a lot has been written and said on these topics by objective researchers such as V. Suvorov, M. Solonin and others, I will not retell their arguments here, read it yourself.

        Quote: Volkonsky
        Do you know that we have already agreed as the Germans for Lviv? and we had losses! if the 17 September 1939 RRKA would not have entered eastern Poland - there would be the Germans!

        I know that that famous joint parade in Brest was held on the occasion of the transfer of the city by the Wehrmacht units that took it to the Red Army troops in strict accordance with the terms of the Pact. And I also know that if Stalin had not forbidden the German communists to participate in the elections in a bloc with the Social Democrats, then Hitler would not have come to power in 1933.
        1. Bakht Offline Bakht
          Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 20 May 2021 21: 55
          +3
          Suvorov and Solonin can be considered "objective researchers" only by those who are absolutely not in the subject.
          1. Binder Offline Binder
            Binder (Miron) 20 May 2021 22: 01
            -6
            Well, where can we ... lol Now you will begin to talk verbatim and awkwardly about Stalin's genius, the meanness of the collective West and the feat of the peoples of the USSR. The feat is undoubtedly real, everything else is nonsense and propaganda, so it's not worth it ...
            1. Bakht Offline Bakht
              Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 20 May 2021 22: 02
              +2
              Of course not worth it.
              I just gave information and once again made sure that you will not write anything here except nonsense.
              You can debate with those who know the situation at least a little.
        2. Bakht Offline Bakht
          Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 20 May 2021 21: 55
          +2
          There is complete nonsense about the bloc of communists and social democrats. Do you repeat the yellow press agitation?
          The Communists of the KKE have proposed a joint front against the Nazis four times. It was the Social Democrats who refused.
        3. Bakht Offline Bakht
          Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 20 May 2021 21: 59
          +2
          For some reason no one publishes a photo of the joint parade of Germans and Poles in Cieszyn.


          The Moscow Treaty (that is its official name) is the greatest victory for Soviet diplomacy and a complete failure of Western diplomacy. That is why there are so many attacks on him from the West.
          The USSR fully used the time allotted for the reorganization of the Red Army. But those who read only Solonin and Suvorov will not be able to understand this in principle.
          1. Binder Offline Binder
            Binder (Miron) 20 May 2021 22: 05
            -8
            Quote: Bakht
            The USSR fully used the time allotted for the reorganization of the Red Army.

            The results of this reorganization were fully manifested in the summer and autumn of 1941, when the Wehrmacht smashed the superior forces of the Red Army. Dear, you should not sing here old fake through and through songs.
            1. Bakht Offline Bakht
              Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 20 May 2021 22: 10
              +2
              Dear, do you know what a triple deployment division is? Solonin does not have this, especially since Suvorov does not. You know what the structure of a rifle division is, or the methods of using tank formations. To do this, you need to read a lot. And read it again. Moreover, different authors. And then think for yourself. You do not have any of this at all.
              And what kind of "superior forces" were crushing the Wehrmacht? Are you aware that the Germans had superiority in forces along the entire front? The number of tanks and aircraft matters, but even now the territory is captured and held by the infantry. Plus the organization of connections.
              Why did the Germans have 1939 tanks in their tank divisions in 400, and only 1941 in 200? Why did the German tank divisions remain combat-ready in the absence of tanks, while the Soviet ones went out of action even with 50% of the tanks?
              Questions into the void. I do not expect an answer.
              1. Binder Offline Binder
                Binder (Miron) 20 May 2021 22: 18
                -7
                Quote: Bakht
                Questions into the void. I do not expect an answer.

                Questions from the void. There will be no answer. I wish you good health!
                1. Bakht Offline Bakht
                  Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 20 May 2021 22: 23
                  +1
                  I am not waiting for an answer because you are incompetent in this matter.
                  I asked specific questions, not "out of the void."
                  To get started, read about the deployment of the army between 1939 and 1941. Check the number of troops on the border. Which front did the Red Army divisions run on. What were the Mechcorps needed for, and why didn't they complete the task?
                  In addition, read about the political structure of Germany in the early 30s and the relationship between the communists and social democrats in Germany. And why did Stalin forcefully push through the Comintern the alliance of communists and social democrats (in fairness it should be noted that it was already too late).
                  So far, I've seen old rehash from the 90s and not a single reasonable argument in favor of my words.
        4. Volkonsky Offline Volkonsky
          Volkonsky (Vladimir) 20 May 2021 23: 57
          0
          I had a better opinion about the Jews, consider Suvorov-Rezun a historian, only very alternatively gifted individuals can, I did not hear the answer to the question - what was Stalin to do?
          1. Binder Offline Binder
            Binder (Miron) 21 May 2021 06: 00
            0
            Quote: Volkonsky
            what was Stalin to do?

            Finish a seminary and become a priest of some rural parish in Georgia.
            1. Volkonsky Offline Volkonsky
              Volkonsky (Vladimir) 21 May 2021 06: 08
              -3
              and we will write it down - left the answer, pretended to be d * cancer
              1. zenion Offline zenion
                zenion (zinovy) 29 May 2021 19: 57
                -1
                He did not pretend, he was born that way.
      2. Oleg Rambover Offline Oleg Rambover
        Oleg Rambover (Oleg Pitersky) 21 May 2021 00: 15
        -1
        Quote: Volkonsky
        Do you regret not drinking Bavarian now?

        Have you met at least one person in your life who said something like that?
    2. Fourth Horseman Offline Fourth Horseman
      Fourth Horseman (Fourth Horseman) 21 May 2021 07: 08
      -2
      And what do we have as a result?
      And the result is this:
      Undercooked soap, and unfinished lampshades, fall for their soap makers and hate those who prevented them from becoming glamorous lampshades.
    3. zenion Offline zenion
      zenion (zinovy) 29 May 2021 19: 24
      0
      The victory was in the fact that the Soviet borders were pushed back in the main directions by 200 km. to the west. And these 200 km. the Germans had to go through with battles. Was there a conspiracy? What benefit did the USSR have from the collusion? The USSR had a benefit after 1945, when countries that were allies of the USSR appeared between the West and the USSR. Miron - you probably took it from the movie "His Excellency's Adjutant", who shot his childhood friend and robbed everyone.
      1. Binder Offline Binder
        Binder (Miron) 29 May 2021 19: 39
        0
        Your understanding of history, as well as the assessment of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact at the level of a vocational school student, forgive my frankness. bully As for the name, I was named in memory of my maternal grandfather, a war veteran, who died shortly before my birth.
  10. Bakht Offline Bakht
    Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 20 May 2021 22: 06
    +2
    Commemorative medal for the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia


    Less than a year later, World War II began. But for some reason no one accuses Daladier that after 20 months France was defeated.
    For those who do not understand the difference between surrender and Victory, there is nothing to explain.
  11. Bakht Offline Bakht
    Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 20 May 2021 23: 18
    +3
    During all these years of discussing the notorious Pact, I have not seen the next version of events.

    Much has been written about why Stalin went to sign the non-aggression pact. There were no alternatives. It was necessary to avoid war at all costs. The only reasonable alternative was that the USSR should not sign anything at all. Neither Western democracies nor Germany. But that means going into complete isolation. And the border with Germany, 40 km from Minsk. Plus German troops in the Baltics, 50-60 km from Leningrad. There was no doubt that Germany would attack Poland. But no one could have imagined the defeat of France in 40 days. And the USSR found itself face to face with a united Europe. The fact that he found himself in such a position in 1941 is connected not with Stalin's miscalculation, but with the shameful surrender of France.

    So, the logic of signing the Pact could be as follows. If Poland sees that it is left alone with Germany, then it can make concessions and there will be no war. But who knew that Poles' ambition exceeded all reasonable limits? As the Polish ambassador to Paris said, "not the Germans, but the Polish cavalry will break into Germany. And in a week the Poles will water their horses in Berlin." And the ambassador in Moscow Grzhibovsky went even further and aroused Potemkin's anger. He said that Poland will ask for help when it sees fit. Potemkin replied that the Red Army was not a reserve of the Polish army and ended the conversation.

    This was the reality at the end of August 1939. England and France were not going to go to war with Germany. This was stated on the very first day of the conference. The protocols of the negotiations were published 40-50 years ago. This is an almost complete repetition of the First World War. And Stalin knew too well how the First World War ended for Russia. Thus, negotiations with the Anglo-French made no sense.

    The treaty with Germany, for all its moral rejection, had enormous purely pragmatic goals. The USSR does not participate in the inevitable war. The USSR receives the old lands of the Russian Empire. Eastern Belarus, Eastern Ukraine, the Baltics and possibly Finland. The border has been pushed back hundreds of kilometers. Time is won for the deployment and reorganization of the army. And if Germany gets bogged down in a war with France, then the USSR will not participate in the war at all. Plus, in exchange for raw materials, the USSR receives high-tech products from Europe.

    It is good that the modern denunciators of the Pact have never run a state or even a seedy laboratory. The choice was either to fight Germany one-on-one (this is the proposal of the Anglo-French delegation) or not to fight at all and get territory and industrial goods.
    After August 23, the Poles showed a little common sense and there might not have been a war at all.
  12. Bakht Offline Bakht
    Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 20 May 2021 23: 52
    +2
    The treaty is not demonized because it contributed to the war. After Munich and the Anschluss of Austria, it was inevitable anyway, and Hitler was going to capture the mouth of the Scheldt (Belgium) - a strategic point against Britain. The treaty changed her schedule, and therefore the post-war configuration., making it impossible for the Anglo-Saxons to enter Eastern Europe both at the beginning of the war, since it was necessary to defend Western Europe, and after the victory to remove it from the USSR's orbit.

    The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of 1939 is the biggest failure of British strategy in the entire XNUMXth century and will always be demonized.

    Today, however, neither Munich nor the Anschluss, namely the Hitler-Stalin Pact, are called the European prelude to World War II and attack the text of the secret protocol on the division of spheres of influence. G. Kissinger also repeats the cliché that "Russia played a decisive role in unleashing both wars." But the section of his book on the "Nazi-Soviet pact" refutes his own "verdict" and displays a mixture of frustration and involuntary admiration.

    Recognizing, nevertheless, that Hitler had plans of conquest both in the West and in the East, Kissinger also acknowledges "the measure of Stalin's accomplishments is that, even temporarily, he reversed Hitler's priorities." But this is the maximum possible, and cannot be assessed otherwise as an outstanding success of diplomacy. Actually, G. Kissinger assesses this pact in this way, calling it "the highest achievement of funds that could be borrowed from a treatise on the art of government in the XNUMXth century."

    N. Narochnitskaya "For what and with whom we fought"
  13. aquarius580 Offline aquarius580
    aquarius580 21 May 2021 00: 59
    0
    The following statement is fundamental here ...

    - yes, that is exactly what Molotov said in his speech on October 31, 1939. What is there to refute?
  14. Bakht Offline Bakht
    Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 21 May 2021 08: 26
    +3
    For reference.
    Lend-lease deliveries in financial terms amounted to $ 11 billion. But only $ 2,6 billion was payable. This amount was named by the Americans themselves in 1946.
    They paid for everything in gold and blood.
    By the way, other countries have written off lend-lease debts. But not the USSR.
    1. Oleg Rambover Offline Oleg Rambover
      Oleg Rambover (Oleg Pitersky) 21 May 2021 12: 33
      -1
      Not certainly in that way. The amount of payments was to be determined after the war through negotiations. 2.3 billion was the first American proposal. The USSR refused to agree on such an amount and offered it like 100 million. During the negotiations, they agreed on 722 million (already in the 70s). The Americans ceded to the USSR, which insisted not on actual deliveries, but on a precedent (Britain paid 7% of the amount of deliveries). The USSR actually paid less than 50 million and refused to pay further because of someone's Broom amendment there. The rest of the amount was already extinguished by the Russian Federation.

      Quote: Bakht
      They paid for everything in gold and blood.

      There is no gold, they paid in green bills mainly in the Russian Federation. Do you think if it were not for these blood supplies, there would be less?

      Quote: Bakht
      By the way, other countries have written off lend-lease debts. But not the USSR.

      To whom is it to others? Britain finished paying off in 2006 too, I think. The USSR wrote off the debt itself, refusing to pay.
      1. Bakht Offline Bakht
        Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 21 May 2021 12: 57
        +2
        The deliveries of 11 billion were the whole amount. But having returned the unused, the remainder remained 2,6 billion. This amount was announced by the Americans themselves.
        So talking about 11 billion is incorrect.
        The USSR began to pay during the war. And he paid in gold. The famous epic with the cruiser Edinburgh. There was also a reverse lend-lease. So we can only talk about 2,6 billion.

        The USSR began payments in 1946 and suspended them due to the outbreak of the Cold War. Then he started paying again and stopped paying in the 70s due to the discriminatory Jackson-Vanik amendment. So the USSR did not forgive itself for anything. By mutual agreement, the USSR was supposed to pay until 2030. But he paid everything that was due in 2006. The stoppages in payments were related to the political situation and the reason was the position of the United States.

        Lend-Lease helped a lot. But this was not selfless help. And I don't understand what is the problem? They helped in the common struggle. The USSR paid for everything. How much blood there would be, Mikoyan said. Lend-Lease shortened the war by a couple of years.
        1. Oleg Rambover Offline Oleg Rambover
          Oleg Rambover (Oleg Pitersky) 22 May 2021 17: 23
          -2
          Quote: Bakht
          The deliveries of 11 billion were the whole amount. But having returned the unused, the remainder remained 2,6 billion. This amount was announced by the Americans themselves.
          So talking about 11 billion is incorrect.

          Hmm, you want to say that the USSR returned 8,4 billion? This is really incorrect. Half of the supplies were weapons, most of it was lost in battles, what was left, except for the ships, was disposed of in the USSR
          this really includes vehicles
          15% of the products, do you really think you got them back?
          10% industrial equipment, the USSR did not return it.
          8% of the metals that went to Soviet technology, do you think it was picked out and sent back?
          4% textiles, I doubt that the USSR sent back worn overcoats?
          2% rubber and rubber products
          1,6% petroleum products
          The USSR was physically unable to return 75% of the supplies.

          Quote: Bakht
          The USSR began to pay during the war. And he paid in gold. The famous epic with the cruiser Edinburgh. There was also a reverse lend-lease. So we can only talk about 2,6 billion.

          Reverse lend-lease is estimated at $ 2,2 million, I want to emphasize not a billion, but a million.
          The USSR did not have so much gold, and in the epic with the English cruiser Edinburgh the key words are English. You are repeating legends that are irrelevant to reality.

          Quote: Bakht
          The USSR began payments in 1946 and suspended them due to the outbreak of the Cold War. Then he started paying again and stopped paying in the 70s due to the discriminatory Jackson-Vanik amendment.

          No, until the 70s the USSR did not pay a cent. in the seventies $ 48 million.

          Quote: Bakht
          But he paid everything that was due in 2006. The stoppages in payments were related to the political situation and the reason was the position of the United States.

          In the 70s, probably, but in the 40s, the United States considered the proposal of the USSR to pay 100 million to be unacceptable. The funny thing is that if we take into account inflation, then the USSR actually paid 100 million.
          https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1949v05/d425

          Quote: Bakht
          Lend-Lease helped a lot. But this was not selfless help. And I don't understand what is the problem? They helped in the common struggle. The USSR paid for everything. How much blood there would be, Mikoyan said. Lend-Lease shortened the war by a couple of years.

          The problem is the distortion of history. In relations between countries, it is generally difficult to believe in disinterestedness, but Lend-Lease was not a commercial project. The lion's share of the expenses for lend-lease deliveries to the USSR (93 or 99%, as you count) was borne by the American government. Accordingly, the USSR, and then the Russian Federation, paid 7% or 1% of the supplies, again how to calculate.
          1. zenion Offline zenion
            zenion (zinovy) 29 May 2021 19: 59
            -1
            Suddenly from the contract rushed to Lend-Lease! Was this also in the agreement between the USSR and Germany?
  15. Michael1950 Offline Michael1950
    Michael1950 (Michael) 4 June 2021 03: 18
    -2
    Quote: GRF
    Do not lie

    - You just can't imagine how many more millions of inhabitants would have died in the Soviet Union during the Great Patriotic War if there hadn't been a Lend-Lease.
    http://www.solonin.org/article_pushki-maslo-zoloto/print
  16. Michael1950 Offline Michael1950
    Michael1950 (Michael) 4 June 2021 03: 31
    0
    Vladimir Volkonsky, imagine that you could travel a year in a time machine to 1936 and, without consequences for yourself, be able to give advice to Comrade Stalin - without telling him about the future of the USSR in the current reality, and he would just know that you are from the future, that "something went wrong"- What plan would you propose to him for the next 10 years? What would the USSR have to do for its best benefit?