Russians have no habit of losing wars: What does the Munich agreement teach

A great number of times it has been said and written that the main purpose of studying history is the ability to analyze the various experiences of our predecessors in order to use their positive achievements in the future and, on the contrary, try to avoid mistakes made by them in the past. But the achievement of this goal is possible only if you study this very history as comprehensively, impartially as possible, based on truly proven facts and not tearing individual events out of the general temporal context. Unfortunately, it is these principles of studying the past that are constantly being violated for the sake of someone’s short-term political interests, propaganda, various interstate debates, and so on and so forth ... Certain events and entire periods of history are interpreted, distorted and interpreted almost without shame from exactly the opposite. And that is precisely why, unfortunately, conclusions cannot be drawn from such a neutered history that are adequate and instructive for our contemporaries.



Here is one of these recent examples. More recently, the world and Europe in particular recalled the next anniversary of the conclusion of the so-called “Munich Agreement” of 1938, often also called the “Munich Agreement”, an event that many modern historians call Europe’s first step into World War II. And this first, and by the way a very successful step, the German Reich Chancellor Adolf Hitler directly helped the leading democracies of Western Europe - Great Britain and France, with the full support of fascist Italy and the tacit consent of the overseas United States. Apparently this is why, in order to divert possible international attention from the shameful role of Western democracies in all of this, immediately after the end of World War II, the day of the German attack on Poland, September 1, 1939, was proclaimed the official day in the West. And Soviet historiography, for reasons not very clear to me, recognized this date and supported it in that capacity.

To those who are not very well oriented, I remind you: according to the Munich Agreement on September 30, 1938, representatives of the four leading European powers - German Chancellor Adolf Hitler, Italian Prime Minister and leader of the fascist party Benito Mussolini, as well as French and British Prime Ministers Eduard Daladier and Neville Chamberlain, respectively - decided that it was necessary to meet the requirements of Germany and simply take and transfer to the latter neither more nor less, but rather a large part of the territory of another European democratically go state - Czechoslovakia. This territory was the so-called "Sudetenland", then inhabited by the vast majority of ethnic Germans. Moreover, under this agreement, some territorial claims of its other neighbors, Poland and Hungary, should also have been satisfied from the territory of Czechoslovakia, albeit in a much smaller volume. Moreover, representatives of Czechoslovakia who were present at the venue were simply not allowed to negotiate, they were only announced at the very end a result that was no longer subject to any discussion. Here is such a democracy. For some reason, Western leaders were convinced that by “feeding” Czechoslovakia to Hitler, they would thus divert the threat of war from themselves. What happened next we all know - the war that soon began and thus quickly turned into the world ... But all this is only one “side of the coin”, moreover, it’s well-known, and there is another, less advertised, but no less important, a little about it Further.

By itself, the "Munich Agreement" has already become a "talk of the town" and over the years, all and sundry, as usual, used it for various propaganda, recruitment political points and so on, recalling this historical fact to the place and not very much for a variety of reasons. The last such reason known to me was the events in Ukraine in 2014 with the subsequent transition of the Crimean peninsula to the Russian Federation. For the first time, a comparison of the events in Crimea with the capture of the Sudetenland, and in this context, the Russian President V.V. Putin, respectively, with Hitler, I heard from the lips of the Czech politician Karl Schwarzenberg, who is also a member of the Masonic lodge and an Austrian prince, who actually got into politics solely thanks to the inherited princely title and considerable wealth. Unfortunately, nothing else was passed on to him from his great ancestors, because apart from idiotic and shameful statements to European and Czech politics, this citizen has not yet brought anything else. Further, this idea has already been picked up by the Western press and other figures like Schwarzenberg. And on the Square itself, some did not stand aside. Everyone, especially at first, seemed to sympathize with Ukraine, while at the same time they publicly called Putin Putler and even published the corresponding cartoons (which, from my point of view, is an insult to the head of state, but there were no reactions of the relevant authorities in either Europe or Russia), and then the Sudeten parallels began to be projected onto the Donbass, and Russia, accordingly, to scare the rest of Europe - so, they say, the seizure of defenseless Eastern European countries by evil Russian aggressors is already beginning. (And then, you see, the Western ones ...) Everything seems to look exactly the same as how vile and criminally Hitler's Germany behaved towards them ... Hold on! Defend yourself! Call almighty America and NATO for help!

Bullshit, of course, you cannot say otherwise. But at the same time, the Czech-Austrian Freemason Prince Schwarzenberg, who was not respected by me, apparently didn’t even understand how close he was to the truth, comparing the situation in 2014 in Crimea and Ukraine in general with the events of the Sudeten crisis of 1938. The truth is close from the very other side - from one of the main root causes of the then crisis situation. He really does not know the history of his own country. And therefore, neither he, nor all those who codified and continue to him in this, are not able to draw adequate conclusions from this. They again pulled a piece out of context, not having considered the whole event. But there are parallels. And it was possible to draw conclusions from them earlier, in order to avoid something. Yes, and you can still, to prevent the development of events in the worst direction, for Ukraine first of all. You just need to consider everything in a complex - and what happened in 2014 and beyond, but matured in fact much earlier, since 1991, and what spilled onto the surface in 1938, but started exactly a hundred years ago, in 1918.

Before the First World War, on the map of Europe there was a huge (by European standards) and multinational state - the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Austria belonged to its Austrian part in its present form, as well as Northern Italy, the Czech Republic, Moravia, Slovakia, Silesia, part of Poland and part of modern Ukraine, including today Galicia (or Galicia) as an unkind word, and also something and some -where else. The Austrian monarchical family of the Habsburgs was ethnically of German descent, respectively, the main state language in the empire was German. Under the monarch in Austria there was also a parliament, composed of representatives of various nationalities, and from about the middle of the XNUMXth century in the provinces, national, mostly Slavic, languages ​​were introduced into official use. Thus, the citizens of the country, in the presence of their own languages, also had state-wide German, on call they served in the same Austrian army, they could work and receive education freely throughout the entire Austrian empire, and the borders between individual provinces were, in principle, purely nominal within one state.

As in other states, including territories inhabited by various ethnic groups, and in Habsburg Austria at that time, various nationalist movements existed, but within the framework of a strong and unified government of the country they did not have any special significance, and the national interests of specific peoples in the country's parliament represented deputies. For a long time (in fact a couple of centuries) of such joint coexistence of several peoples within the framework of one state and natural migration of the population, the initial borders of the provinces have already ceased to correspond to the real distribution of people in what was then Austria according to national and linguistic principles. But within the framework of one country, no one naturally paid any attention to it, and this, in general, was quite understandable: the state had more pressing problems than nobody needed and, essentially, changing nothing on the internal geographical map. That is, if within a monarchy a particular piece of a certain territory belonged to one or another subject, essentially nothing changed for the inhabitants of these territories - they remained Austrian subjects with all the ensuing rights and obligations, civil servants and the military should have been sufficiently speak the official national German language, for everyone else it was essentially voluntary to use, although it was studied in schools as part of the compulsory program.

Does this situation resemble former citizens of the Soviet Union?

Further, as you know, in 1914, in alliance with Germany, the Austro-Hungarian monarchy entered the First World War, in which, together with the same Germany, it was on the losing side by the end of the conflict four years later. The consequences of the defeat for both states turned out to be fatal: Germany was completely defeated from a military point of view, as well as politically and economically in ruins, and the Treaty of Versailles, signed under pressure from the victors, effectively deleted it from a number of great European powers, while also imposing on it gigantic cash indemnities in favor of the winning countries; in Austria-Hungary, against the backdrop of a lost war, the monarchy actually fell, from which all non-German peoples who inhabited the empire immediately refused to pay for some rash decisions of their once great emperor, who dragged them into a military adventure. Against this background of the general collapse of the multinational state and all the structures of its central authority, naturally, various figures appeared on the scene in their full glory, whose real purpose was to snatch their piece of a decaying empire under the slogans of national self-determination, the empire was to confront them in this the moment is no longer able. And here the most interesting thing began. The fact that the country will be divided was already clear, but first, it was necessary to divide on the basis of something more or less legitimate; secondly, this division would have to be recognized by the world community; and thirdly, in order to avoid possible chaos on the territory of the former monarchy, the separation had to be carried out as quickly as possible. Seeing what was happening on the territory of another empire that had collapsed at that time - the Russian one, the representatives of the then international community, or rather just the victorious countries of the Great War, also made sure that the next such bloody massacre did not even unfold under their nose - right in center of Europe.

Therefore, the only quick and more or less legitimate decision to divide the Austrian Empire to all the players, both inside and outside the country, was to see the division according to the then existing official intrastate borders of the provinces. But they, as already mentioned earlier, at that time did not at all correspond to the real distribution of ethnic groups on earth. Moreover, in the majority of the territories of the national provinces of Austria-Hungary, state-forming peoples — Germans and Hungarians — lived in varying numbers. In some such territories, such as about a third of modern Bohemia, the so-called Sudetenland, the German population was the vast majority. But, nevertheless, due to the fact that it was the Germans and Hungarians who were considered to be the culprits and the losers in the World War, nobody was going to listen to their claims, and the attempts of the Austrian Germans to seek help from the once powerful Germany and even unite the so-called Germany Austrian German territories were unsuccessful as a result of the ban on this very "international community". Germany itself at that time was far from being in a condition to stand up for compatriots - it itself was threatened by internal collapse, chaos and a revolutionary situation. Thus, Habsburg Austria was still divided almost along the old borders of its internal provinces. The Czechoslovak Republic became one of the new states that arose in this way, the first president of which was actually set up by a highly nationalist former member of the Austrian parliament, Tomasz Garik Masaryk.

Neither Hungarians nor Austrian Germans, who in the already Czechoslovak territory ended up with more than three and a half million people as a result of this division, did not want to put up with the situation. Therefore, from the very beginning of its existence, the new republic under the leadership of President Masaryk and its newly formed armed forces from the remnants of the Czech units of the Austrian army entered into military conflicts both on their own territory with those who did not want to obey the Czechoslovak authorities and tried to form their own independent republic, the Sudeten Germans, and with neighboring Hungary, where the battle was mainly for Subcarpathian Russia (these are modern Transcarpathian regions of Ukraine). With the full moral and material support of the West and the absence of help from Germany, by the end of 1919 the rebellious Sudeten Germans were forced to become citizens of Czechoslovakia by military force, and Transcarpathia also became part of the newly formed state of Czechs and Slovaks. T.G. Masaryk, having become the president of the new state from a not very prominent Austrian deputy, suddenly discovered strong pro-Slavic inclinations bordering even chauvinism. He did not forgive either the Germans or the Hungarians for their disobedience, and perhaps the former position of the “main” peoples of the empire, making them in fact “second-class” citizens in the new state. Throughout the country, the Czech / Slovak language was established as the state language, in which all official negotiations and documentation were mandatory, was instituted as the state language in an orderly manner and without any transitional period. And no one paid attention to the fact that more than a third of the population of the republic at that moment simply did not speak these languages ​​for completely objective reasons, but not because these people did not want this. In all regions with an ethnic German population, all public servants, including the police, customs, border services, personnel of railways, post offices, notaries, judicial instances, etc. were replaced by Czech or Slovak cadres. And if the locals were not able to come to an agreement with them, it was their own problem, disobedience to power was punished severely, any manifestations of civil protests or disobedience, including demonstrations, were suppressed by force of the troops. German broadcasting in the country was eliminated, the German-language press was limited in circulation and was narrowly regional.

Almost all major government contracts in the “German” regions were received by firms from the so-called “internal”, that is, Czech territories (the German population lived mainly in large cities and along the borders with Austria and Germany, along the perimeter of the country). The result was a very high unemployment rate in the Sudeten regions and, as a natural consequence, the growing impoverishment and discontent of the local population. And this is in a situation where it was in German-speaking lands that the level of technology and development of both agriculture, industry, crafts and the mining industry expanded in these places was generally much higher than the national average, and the overwhelming majority of the population was educated and very well professionally prepared. Moreover, the non-Slavic peoples of Czechoslovakia, cut in this way in their rights, were obliged to fulfill civil duties, including the obligatory service of men in the army. But the then Czechoslovak authorities, with all their chauvinism and a clear negative attitude towards their German and Hungarian fellow citizens, still did not reach the prohibitions of books, theatrical productions or school instruction in the native language of national minorities (in contrast to the authorities of modern Ukraine who lost all adequacy ) The Sudeten-German parties were represented in the republican parliament, of course, provided that they spoke Czech, but their various initiatives to improve the living conditions of the people they represented, as a rule, did not find understanding among the parliamentary majority and the country's authorities.

Thus, in fact, one fairly small and far from the most powerful European people decided to forcibly integrate into itself the numerous representatives of then one of the most advanced, powerful and independent nations on the continent, who appeared on its nominal territory. And that was a huge mistake. Over the next two decades of the existence of the Czechoslovak Republic, relations, of course, “crushed”, people in the Sudetenland got used to a new reality, began to learn the Czech language, etc. Although the reality itself around them and for them has not changed for the better. But in the beginning of the 30s, right under their nose, behind a not far border, Germany began to literally “reborn from the ashes” again, to which the Sudeten Germans oppressed their views and oppressed at home again. German civilian radio transmitters freely “finished off” far enough over Czech borders, and the press “from the big Motherland” was also in great demand in the Sudetenland. “Czech Germans” from the border regions soon gained the right to work in Germany, and the local Sudeten German Workers' Party began to receive strong support from the NSDAP, which had come to power in the neighboring state. Also, from the second half of the thirties, large German industrial investments also went to the Sudetenland. That is, the ethnic minority simply oppressed at home (at that time consisting of about a quarter of the population of the whole country) began to receive from the ethnically close neighboring state everything that they so lacked in their country. But the short-sighted and self-confident then-Czech political leadership, instead of using adequate means to try to resolve the already clearly emerging "German" problem, simply began to increase restrictive and forceful pressure. In the second half of the 30s, even cases of the use of army armored vehicles against demonstrators in the Sudetenland were recorded. And the reaction of local Germans, already actively supported from abroad, was not long in coming - the first armed clashes of local activists with Czech ordinances appeared. Calls for the separation of the Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia sounded openly. And then there was a well-known scheme: the “elder brothers”, who were not indifferent to the torment of their compatriots, decided to stand up for them in the international arena. The result is Munich in 1938.

Now let's look at our present and at the same "rake" of the post-Soviet space. One can argue about whether the USSR lost the Cold War. Opinions are different. But judging by what happened to the country in 1991, he apparently lost - it is extremely difficult to call such a result a victory. The regime has fallen. Again, the multinational country had to be divided and as quickly as possible. And again, our Western “partners” stood at the helm of the whole process outside, and inside the country were people whose goals at that time were precisely anything but the prosperity of certain peoples of the former Soviet Union. And again, previously insignificant nominal lines on the internal map of the country suddenly turned into state borders, often far from fairly separating literally separate families or settlements, or entire nations. Moreover, the history and reason for the emergence of these same lines once no one particularly remembered, unfortunately. And more recently, high-ranking leaders of the common state leadership suddenly abruptly became preoccupied exclusively with their national interests, again not without active support from abroad, of course. And again, as in the previous described case, the most divided and powerless in these newly formed states was the state-forming people and the bearer of the recently unified official language of a huge power - Russians, as well as those who considered themselves as such. It was precisely the Russians, dispersed throughout the vast alliance (and once also the Russian Empire), who suddenly unexpectedly found themselves in the position of the largest "national minorities" in some newly formed states, which, with rare exceptions, from the very beginning, as if they would like to then take revenge on those who until recently were called fraternal people. In some places, it even reached incidents of mass bloodshed. And Mother Russia herself was at this very critical moment so weakened by all this and torn apart by actively fanned (all from the same, from abroad) internal contradictions and conflicts that she simply could not provide any real help to the compatriots left behind .

It seems that somewhere all this has already happened? Yes, I think so. Move on. Fortunately, in most post-Soviet states, that is, in the former republics of the USSR, the power of common sense and understanding of the importance of a joint history and the prospects for further joint development prevailed over the frenzied manifestations of nationalism shortly after the passing of the first euphoria from gained independence. Also, understanding soon came of how important it is to have a connecting language in which several different peoples can communicate with each other - in this case, historically, it turned out that Russian became this language. But such enlightenment did not happen everywhere. The Baltic republics and, it would seem, Ukraine so close to us, decided to take the slippery slope of building mono-ethnic states. And in them, the national minorities who turned out to be of their own free will, according to the plan of the new authorities, had to go through the process of full integration into the new state-forming nation, regardless of whether they want it or not. History in these countries was apparently poorly studied and experience, for example, the collapse of Austria-Hungary, did not teach them anything. And again, some far from the largest and most powerful European nations decided to try forcible integration on their territory, but this time one of the most powerful, capable, combat-ready and independent peoples in the world in general - the Russians. Moreover, right on the border with Russia itself. Can you imagine an even higher measure of state idiocy? And Russia itself, to the displeasure and horror of its many enemies and sworn “partners,” also did not stay long in the ruins of the collapse of the Soviet Union. One of the most viable peoples in the world once again proved its strength to everyone, and the country again began to regain the lost position of one of the world leaders. The growing power of the new Russian state also inspired some new hope in the hearts of compatriots located in the near abroad. But even this “bell” did not wake up some of our neighbors' historical memory.

And again, instead of finding on their territory some civilized ways and solutions for mutual comfortable coexistence with the Russian-speaking minority, which also comprises from one fifth to one third of the total population in these countries, they have taken the path of tightening nationalist rules, open pressure, and even repression. And they decided to insure their safety and impunity by joining or striving to join another Western and “democratic” military bloc, this time NATO, which is under the full patronage of the United States. And if by the end of 2013 we all believed that the situation of the Russian minority was the worst in the Baltic states, then after the “Maidan” events, Ukraine simply “surpassed” it all at once, and then lost the real pearl of its territory, populated mostly by Russian-speaking people - Crimean peninsula. And as a result of the bloodshed, the east also populated by ethnic Russians, so far only Donetsk and Lugansk regions, got in line to leave this country. And then it suddenly occurred to someone to compare this with the Munich crisis of 1938! And the president of Russia with Hitler! That really is neither mind nor fantasy! But then I would suggest that these citizens carefully re-read in historical documents what preceded this Munich Pact itself, who and with whom it was concluded, and what happened afterwards ... After all, Czechoslovakia was also a member of a military alliance of “Western democracies”, a distant analogue of modern NATO, whose main members just then in Europe were Britain and France, who so gracefully surrendered their small ally to Hitler in exchange for their imaginary calm. And also Poland was one of these “allies”, who did not forget to “bite” a slice of its already defenseless neighbor under the guise. But soon after the Czech Sudetenland became part of Germany, the rest of Czechoslovakia, then Poland, and France, and the British Empire did not, and the British Isles off the European coast essentially saved only a miracle from the capture of Hitler’s troops and the USSR entered the war first, and then the USA.

History is said to evolve in a spiral, periodically repeating itself. The example of the post-war collapse of Austria, the Munich conspiracy and the ensuing events very well, in my opinion, shows what happens to those who try to engage in malicious and violent "integration" of strong and freedom-loving peoples, taking advantage of their temporary weakness. And also with those who contribute to this from the outside and for the sake of their own selfish interests.

Anticipating in advance that on the basis of this article some may accuse me of comparing modern Russia and its actions or intentions to act with Hitlerite Germany of the 30s-40s, that is, for fools and provocateurs I explain: smart people learn from the mistakes of others, you prefer that on their own own; this is not about Germany and Czechoslovakia, as such, and not about the document signed in Munich once, but about the principles of international and interethnic politics, which operate always and everywhere the same way as the laws of physics. And in order to draw the right conclusions from history and not repeat the mistakes made by someone already, it, like physics, must be studied comprehensively and impartially. Taken out of context or specially tailored to specific short-term interests, facts will never lead to the right conclusions - an example from physics: if an apple falls on your head from a tree, this does not mean that you have a special magnet in your cranial crab that attracts apples, and this just because you got in the way of one of the millions of objects that fall every second under the influence of gravity. Nevertheless, many, apparently, are still convinced that in this particular case it is precisely in intracranial apple magnetism. Otherwise, it is simply impossible to explain such hopeless ignorance by these very people of conclusions from known historical events. Or how can one explain the comparison of Russia's actions towards Ukraine with the aggression of Nazi Germany, when people with torches and Nazi symbols walk in the streets of Ukrainian cities, the Ukrainian Waffen-SS symbols are used in the Ukrainian armed forces, and the frenzied Nazis are in the government of this country ? And it is precisely this of all that people and territories are trying to escape to Russia and under its protection? And what kind of aggression is the Baltic afraid of, where campaigns of SS veterans also take place, and collaborators with the Hitler regime are now considered, like in Ukraine, national heroes?

By the way, there’s something else about the historical conclusions, today's NATO and the deplorable experience of the same Hitler Germany: this western North Atlantic “defensive” alliance has recently been actively engaged in dragging more and more new ears into its ranks. members, for the most part, countries with highly dubious military value. At one time, during the Second World War, the Germans had the same and often even the same allies on their side, but it’s worth remembering what happened to all these allies as soon as things went wrong with Germany on the fronts well - these "allies" at best simply got out of the war, and at worst even went directly to the side of Hitler’s opponents, as soon as it became clear that the latter had finally seized the initiative in hostilities .. And in battles against the German army by these former allies used more often about Germany itself they recently provided weapons. Like this. And if today some experts in NATO think that they are better, smarter and more successful than the German leadership of the forties of the XX century, and their dwarf "allies" are more reliable and loyal, then this is a big mistake, which can become fatal if a certain development of events. Also, as history shows and teaches, the big mistake is the hopes of some dwarf and simply not very large NATO and / or their allies that all the main forces of the alliance will immediately rush to defend them if they by their own stupidity get involved in some dangerous a gamble with a much stronger enemy. Once again, you can look at the Munich conspiracy and the fate of Czechoslovakia, which, by the way, was then the most highly developed, most democratic and far from the smallest Eastern European country with a not-so-weak army. And this country was moving exactly in the way that its Western partners directed. The end of this story is known to all, the actions of partners and allies, too.

Hope the conclusion is clear. Or again, not everyone else? ... Some still have hopes for a mutual attraction of the head and apples? More like to compare Russia with Nazi Germany? Well ... Fools, as they say, the law has not been written ... But even in this case, open books and read history - Russia is not Germany, and Russians have no habit of losing wars. Whatever it costs.

Thanks to everyone who read to the end.
9 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. beeper Online beeper
    beeper 2 November 2018 11: 47
    +5
    Sensible and very relevant Article! good A little "twisted", but I liked it.
    hi I thank the distinguished author for the raised topic!
  2. Almaz Shavkatovich (Diamond) 2 November 2018 11: 51
    +3
    After the US withdraws from the INF Treaty, nothing will prevent a war with NATO led by the US except for the fear of NATO generals of a military alliance between Russia and China. It is not clear why such a military alliance will not be concluded by our "leaders", perhaps they are afraid like fire that in the west "they will suddenly say something." "The United States today is in a direct confrontation with China, since President Trump, in fact, launched a trade war" - it is high time to conclude a Treaty of Friendship and Mutual Assistance. The Warsaw Pact collapsed at the suggestion of the traitor Gorbachev, get another bloc opposing NATO. What a soft MFA, no hardness. Favorite expressions: "Some politicians in the West accuse us ...", "It seems that ..." and so on and so on. And as Western leaders do not hesitate: "Russia is to blame, Putin ...". And we answered again: "They tell us ..." It seems as if ... "And the audience no longer listens, because it is sick ...
    1. A.Lex Offline A.Lex
      A.Lex (Secret information) 2 November 2018 21: 57
      +2
      Diamond ... The problem is not in us, not in Russia. China considers itself self-sufficient and capable of its own ... well, etc. etc. ...
      You do not think so. that Russia will beg and beg?
      And Russia will be able to give a RESPONSE (I do not say that to win, but to answer in such a way that it doesn’t seem to be accurate - it will not be possible to live there (where the answer will come)) to someone who has a desire to improve their financial and financial situation at the expense of us. Namely, the catastrophic financial and economic situation of the Anglo-Saxons on the eve of almost all wars is the true cause of these very wars.
  3. Almaz Shavkatovich (Diamond) 2 November 2018 13: 26
    +1
    Two quotes: "read history - Russia is not Germany, and Russians do not have a habit of losing wars. Whatever the cost." And the second: "It is possible to argue about whether the USSR lost the Cold War. There are different opinions. But judging by what happened to the country in 1991, apparently lost - it is extremely difficult to call such a result a victory." Most of all I liked the expression: "History, as they say, develops in a spiral, periodically repeating itself." And this is indeed the case. One hundred years have passed since the First World War. Then Germany initiated Russia's withdrawal from the war by helping Lenin with money, who, after the Revolution, immediately issued the very first decree - the decree on peace. And now the same Germany has driven a wedge between Russia and Ukraine, "called" the US for help. In those days, the reasons for the outbreak of wars were questions of territorial ownership. And now this question is at the forefront. My father (JOB, a pilot) told me, I remember how before the start of the war there was talk only about the approaching war. And now everyone is just talking about it. There is one difference - then the USSR had allies, now there are no serious military allies. The expression of the author: "and their dwarf" allies "are more reliable and loyal, then this is a big mistake, which can become fatal in a certain development of events." - may well relate primarily to present-day Russia itself. And in this very dangerous situation, do not create an alliance of Russia and China as a counterweight to NATO with a mandatory line in the charter (like NATO): an attack on one of the parties to the treaty would mean an attack on all countries of the treaty ", and so not to create such a Union can be regarded as a major fatal historical mistake.
    1. A.Lex Offline A.Lex
      A.Lex (Secret information) 2 November 2018 22: 24
      +1
      And immediately I will answer you:
      1. About helping "Lenin with money" - why don't you remember how the Provisional Government (yes, there was also the tsar's identity noted) - loans, raked up? The very loans that France almost forcibly siphoned into Nikolai, and then the VP. And the fact that "cousin Willie" offered Nikolai to cover the debts to the Entente with a loan (on very good terms), if only Russia would not get involved in the redivision of the world ... probably not together ... Like the fact that "foreign aid from the world community" financial and military against the young Soviet Republic RENEGATED COLLOBORANTS who promised creditors TAKOOOE (!!!) that just the hair on the head (and on the whole body) stands on end - a FULL PAC4 COUNTRY LENNY - how do you like that, why don't you mention ??? Not good, citizen ... not good - if we have already begun to cut the truth, let's go to the end ...
      2. Regarding soyuznichki ... And Russia does not rely on anyone - anyone, even the most loyal ally, can betray. (history is a witness to this, and Russia itself has more than once betrayed and betrayed her ... such is political life - East Germany is an example of this - have we betrayed her? Have you betrayed! Times are constantly changing and yesterday's ally may be tomorrow's enemy. And therefore: do not get an ally - you will not bitterly regret tomorrow's betrayal (by the way, the GDR is the most consistent and loyal ally ... it was ... until we, the Russians, surrendered them to the West ...)
  4. gorbunov.vladisl (Vlad Dudnik) 2 November 2018 14: 36
    +3
    Thanks to everyone who read to the end.

    Thank you for the article. good
  5. A.Lex Offline A.Lex
    A.Lex (Secret information) 2 November 2018 21: 50
    +3
    Haha! Comrade Alexey is right !!! History teaches NOTHING! She punishes for not learned! History definitely taught nothing to the Nazis and their followers ... soldier
  6. Volodimimir Offline Volodimimir
    Volodimimir (Vladimir) 3 February 2019 13: 57
    -1
    The 1938 Munich Agreement, often also called the Munich Agreement, is an event that many modern historians call Europe’s first step into World War II.
    What about separate negotiations between Hitler and Stalin (secret protocols)? Is not Russia, after 1923, involved in the vile, secret reanimation of the Wehrmacht, teaching in our (German) schools on the territory of the USSR officers of the Wehrmacht, tankmen (Kazan), pilots (Lipetsk)? Is it not this “fraternal assistance of Soviet rashists to German fascists that led to World War II?” And when in September, embracing, they tormented Poland, stormed the Brest Fortress and held joint parades - is this not a merger in ecstasy of two totalitarian countries? And when the Germans bombed London in 2 and the USSR sent heavy bombs to German planes to Germany? And after that they were hysterical for a long time that the British did not open the 1940nd front for a long time ...

    ... historically, it became Russian.
    And Russification, and the ban on publishing textbooks, books, newspapers in Ukrainian? And the persecution of the national cult in Ukraine in the beginning. XX century ? But the extermination of the Ukrainian people, and the deportation of Ukrainian families after the suppression of mass uprisings and riots throughout Ukraine? And tens of thousands of “come along” Russians after the occupation of Zap. Ukraine since September of the 39th year? Historically ... Behind this phrase are seas of blood, millions of deaths and devastation to the ground, and then ...

    ... events in Ukraine in 2014 with the subsequent transfer of the Crimean peninsula to the Russian Federation. For the first time, a comparison of events in Crimea with the capture of the Sudetenland, and in this context, of Russian President V.V. Putin, respectively, with Hitler, ..
    And do not you see the difference in the occupation of the Sudetenland and the Crimea? Is it not known how Putin lied, declaring “ichthamnet,” that is, the Russian army is not there and was not. But the Buryats, Yakuts, Muscovites, another military riffraff "just passed by"? Yes, the whole Crimea, long before the occupation and theft of Crimea, was awash with Russian special forces, regular troops, weapons and all sorts of Russian weapons that were not in service with the Ukrainian army. The occupation of Crimea has been preparing for 10 years (since 2004). Therefore, the expression of the will of the Crimean (Russian come in large numbers) people looks ridiculous in the eyes of the world community, while the Ukrainians evoke only an squeamish attitude towards “myo-brothers”.

    ... the most divided and powerless in these newly formed states was before that the state-forming people and the bearer of the recently unified official language of a huge power - Russians, as well as those who considered themselves to be such.
    This is an outright lie in relation to Ukraine. I and all my acquaintances and strangers spoke Russian and this never caused any concern. This invented horror story in the Kremlin raised all the separate shit and cotton wool to the surface of events inspired by Russia. As, however, and everywhere it all started with provocations. How Russia organized provocations in Abkhazia, in South Ossetia, and earlier in Chechnya - all this is one scenario from the Kremlin offices.

    ... after the "Maidan" events, Ukraine simply "surpassed" all of this at once, and immediately lost the real pearl of its territory, populated for the most part by Russian-speaking people - the Crimean peninsula. And as a result of the bloodshed, the east also populated by ethnic Russians, so far only Donetsk and Lugansk regions, got in line to leave this country.
    Dear author, is it known where the "ethnic Russians" came from to the originally Ukrainian lands in the Donbass? And when and whose occupied the houses in the late 20s and early 30s after the bloody extermination of the Ukrainians who raised more than 200 uprisings in the East and North-East of Ukraine? Or it may remind you how many millions the "fraternal" Soviet people in Ukraine destroyed during the Holodomor of 1932/33 and why they depopulated, emptied entire regions, which were later settled by "ethnic Russians." And, of course, in these territories there could be no talk of any Ukrainian language, culture, written language.
    And quite enchanting! ... Russians have no habit of losing wars. Whatever it costs.
    If it were not for the help of the Allies in World War II, then the USSR would still be at war with fascist Germany. And the fact that human life has never cost anything is well known from the early Middle Ages. Like the lives of other nations.
    It is a shame to the author (Alexei Pishenkov) of such a multi-letter opus not to know the outcome of the Crimean War, the Japanese, Finnish War, the Vietnam, Afghan Wars and a bunch of others. The war in Ukraine will be the same, since the Ukrainian people do not want and will not live in the next Soviet Gulag. As the former Baltic countries, the countries of Eastern Europe, do not want.
    Live yourselves in your rashist swamp, but don't spread the stench and red plague in the 21st century.
    Thanks to everyone who read to the end ...
    1. Vitaliy Yakovlevich (Vitaly Yakovlevich) 6 February 2019 17: 55
      +1
      --- VolodyaMiMir, probably choking on its own saliva, began to stutter, confusing the "garden elder with a Kiev uncle" ... Everything in a heap - the Crimean, Japanese and Vietnamese wars ..... Better tell us when and how they dug the Black Sea (to the descendants come in handy ...). I would love to listen to you in a civilized atmosphere, with documents, with analysis .... And so - nonsense of a gate dog !!! "The post-Maid bloodshed in the Crimea" ... Even the United States recognized the passage of the Crimea as BRILLIANT, without firing a single shot ... Is it possible to seize territory without the use of weapons? Donbass and Lugansk showed Ukraine - CAN'T !!!!! And the Crimea has PASSED to us! And - with great pleasure! And if he had NOT crossed over, YOUR "trains of friendship" would have reminded him of the 91st year ... Do you personally remember them? And the Crimeans - they remember, that's why they met these trains in 14 at their border, they didn't let them go further, and the Donetsk and Luhansk people - they realized late who they were dealing with ...
      --- For each item, paragraph, you can poke the nose of the disrespectful VolodyaMiMir, but this is useless! The world recognizes that there was no Holodomor, a similar situation in those years was in Europe, Mequica, America, .... RSFSR, but - there was a "genocide of the Ukrainian people"! Tell me - who separated the Ukrainians in the villages from other nationalities and ... genocidal?
      --- I sat and thought ... and who am I talking to ??? And I doubted that there was ONE person who was looking from the profile picture !!! Doubted because this scribble is an ABSTRACT from Russian talk shows with the participation of Kovtun, Okhrimenko, Yali and others like them !! You just need to endure until you, in your aspiration "to Europe", will not reach .... orgasm and, perhaps, adopt your experience !!! Only here is how to explain to you more popularly that the Earth is our common home and you and I are neighbors on it, we live practically in the same entrance ... And if you, wishing to live better, drag a gas cylinder into your apartment, we SHOULD follow, so that you do not violate (God forbid!) security measures ...! to isolate this balloon from you !!!
      --- Thank you if you read and understood correctly !!!