To come in
Logopedic portal
  • Puzzle of predictions or why yellowstone will blow up
  • And Who actually unleashed the Second World War?
  • Predictions about the third world began to come true
  • Real Vanga predictions by year
  • The true prophecies of Vanga about Russia
  • Vanga's predictions about Russia
  • Mukhin Yu. And Who actually unleashed the Second World War? Who Started World War II Who Starts Wars

    Mukhin Yu. And Who actually unleashed the Second World War?  Who Started World War II Who Starts Wars

    Look for someone who benefits. So, let me remind you, Roman lawyers advised to identify the perpetrators of crimes with a shortage of direct evidence. Even more than in jurisprudence, this approach is applicable to the sphere of politics, in which the decisions made, as well as the actors in their adoption, are not of a public nature. Crimes in politics have a disproportionately greater number of victims than those crimes dealt with in jurisprudence. Such obvious crimes - crimes against humanity include the unleashing of war. Especially when it comes to war on a global scale. But organized crime must obviously have a customer. Hence the question - who ordered the first world war? Look for someone who benefits...

    The fact that the war was not a tangle of random circumstances is evidenced by its foresight with an accurate description of the implemented scenario even before the Sarajevo incident. Such a prediction, down to the details, was a note addressed back in February 1914 addressed to the tsar by former Foreign Minister Pyotr Durnovo. Even recently a book was published in which he is referred to as "Russian Nostradamus". Durnovo assigned the initiating role in unleashing the coming world conflict to Great Britain, which was losing its economic and military hegemony in the world and was trying to prevent this. The main theses of the note boiled down to the following provisions: “Even a victory over Germany promises Russia extremely unfavorable prospects ...

    This war will require such huge expenses, which will many times exceed the more than dubious benefits ... We will fall into financial economic bondage to our creditors ... Russia will undoubtedly be plunged into anarchy, which she experienced during the memorable period of unrest in 1905-1906 ...

    In case of failure, the possibility of which, in the fight against such an adversary as Germany, cannot but be foreseen,

    social revolution, in its most extreme manifestations, is inevitable here... Germany, in case of defeat, will have to endure no less social upheavals than Russia...”. But if the consequences in the form of geopolitical and economic losses, anarchy and social revolution for Russia in the event of a war were obvious to the former Russian minister, then they were obvious to Russia's counterpart. It follows from this evidence that when designing the war, its planners counted on a corresponding catastrophic outcome, both for Germany and for Russia. Accordingly, it was by no means Russia that was interested in the world military conflict.

    The main stratagem of the United States, and before that of the British Empire, was to prevent the very possibility that anyone could throw down a geostrategic challenge to American world hegemony. Such a challenge was articulated in the twentieth century by Germany and Russia (USSR). Economically, this was expressed in their reaching the second position in the share of world GDP and reducing the backlog from the United States. After that, a geopolitical blow was dealt to the competing countries. The results of World War I, World War II and the Cold War were the overthrow of the American enemy. Actually, for the sake of this, they, apparently, were started.

    Now a new challenge to American hegemony is being articulated by China. Viewing China as the main rival of the United States in the struggle for hegemony in the world is now a commonplace of futurological discourse. According to polls, the majority of the population of a number of Western countries believe that China will win the global rivalry. Up to a third of Americans themselves believe that it is not the United States, but China that will play the role of world hegemon in the future.

    How will the US respond to this challenge? There is no doubt that they will not allow China to take the lead. The severity of the call implies the severity of the response. Based on historical experience, the method of counteraction is obvious - a large-scale war.

    The contradictions associated with the challenge of Germany were supplemented by internal contradictions within the Anglo-Saxon world. It is today that the United States and Great Britain are considered in the world almost as a single entity. But it was not always so. The American-British alliance that still exists today was formed at the final stage of the First World War. Before the war, relations between the United States and Great Britain were of a confrontational nature. Anti-British sentiment in the United States in 1914 was even stronger than anti-German. There was a change of the world economic and financial leader. Great Britain was losing its leadership position. The USA took the first place in the world economy. The clash of the former leader of Great Britain with another potential competitor in the struggle for leadership, Germany, and a third contender in the longer term, Russia, was, of course, into the hands of American capital. The First World War summed up the world inversion that had taken place.

    Both world wars were correlated with the process of changing the mechanisms of the global financial system. The US Federal Reserve System, as you know, was established just six months before the Sarajevo assassination. After the victory of the Entente in the First World War, instead of the previous gold parity, a regime of floating managed exchange rates was established. The dollar and the pound sterling became the universal reserve currencies. The de facto financial hegemony of the Anglo-Saxon world was established. However, the global crisis and the emergence of geopolitical actors challenging Anglo-Saxon hegemonism led in the 1930s to the collapse of the established system. And then - World War II, Bretton Woods and the establishment of the dollar-gold principle as the basis of international monetary circulation. Will the new financial transition involve comparable geopolitical upheavals? The likelihood of such a scenario, as current events show, is increasing. The Jamaican financial system is bursting at the seams. Challenges are being articulated in relation to the global hegemony of the dollar. For the United States, such a revision would obviously have the character of a systemic collapse. Therefore, they will do everything possible to prevent it. And the arsenal of these possibilities is well known.

    The First World War led to the collapse of the former polycentric world-system based on the balance of power of a number of Western colonial powers competing with each other. It clearly set the logic for the transition to a unipolar world. After the war, the United States becomes the No. 1 economic and financial power. But the revolution in Russia that took place at the final stage of the war creates the prospect of putting forward an alternative world order paradigm.

    The next step in this logical chain is associated with the Second World War. Its result was the establishment of a model of a bipolar world. The defeat of the USSR in the Cold War leads to the actual establishment of a unipolar American-centric system. For its final establishment, with appropriate institutionalization (“world government”), a request for a new global military conflict may arise. The main interest of the war turns out to be, in fact, the same as a hundred years ago.

    Answered by: Deputy Head of the Center for Scientific Political Thought and Ideology, Doctor of History. Vardan Baghdasaryan

    Image copyright PA Image caption "Lunar landscape", trenches, huge casualties - this is how the First World War went down in history

    As Europe prepares to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the start of World War I, there is a raging debate in academic circles about which country is to blame for starting the war.

    These disputes have already gone beyond the scope of strictly scientific discussions. In Britain, there is a lot of discussion about how this issue is covered in school textbooks.

    All the main countries participating in the conflict appear in these versions: Serbia, Austria-Hungary, Germany, Russia, France and Great Britain.

    The BBC has asked 10 leading historians for their opinion on this.

    Sir Max Hastings, military historian

    - Germany

    Only she alone had enough strength to stop the development of the conflict in July 1914. She could take her "carte blanche" - the support of Austria during the invasion of Serbia. I am afraid I will not be very convinced by the argument that Serbia was at that time a pariah country and therefore deserved to be punished by Austria.

    I do not believe that Russia wanted a European war in 1914 - its rulers believed that the country would be much better prepared for it two years later, having completed the rearmament program of the army.

    Whether Britain should have entered the war that became inevitable after August 1 is a separate question. In my personal opinion, neutrality is not the best position, since German victories on the continent did not suit Britain, which at that moment dominated the seas and the world financial system.

    Sir Richard Jay Evans Professor of History, Cambridge

    - Serbia

    Serbia bears the greatest responsibility for the outbreak of the First World War. Serbian nationalism and expansionism were deeply destructive forces, and Serbian support for Black Hand terrorists was extremely irresponsible.

    But Austria-Hungary bears only slightly less responsibility for its panicked and overreacting to the assassination of the heir to the Habsburg throne.

    Image copyright getty Image caption Crossroads in Sarajevo where Archduke Ferdinand was assassinated

    France in every possible way encouraged Russian aggressiveness towards Austria-Hungary, and Germany encouraged Austrian intransigence.

    Britain failed to mediate, as it did in the previous Balkan crisis, fearful of German ambitions in Europe and around the world. This fear was not entirely rational after the victory of Britain in the naval arms race in 1910 became apparent.

    The general positive attitude of European statesmen to the war, due to their notions of honor, hopes for a quick victory and enthusiasm for the ideas of social Darwinism, became the main factor.

    It is especially important to study the initial period of the war in a general context, without analyzing what happened in July-August 1914 in the context of subsequent events (for example, the September program of Germany - determining the initial goals and objectives of the war).

    Dr. Heather Jones, London School of Economics

    - Avstro-Hungary, Germany, Russia

    World War I was provoked by a small handful of militant high-ranking politicians and military men in Austria-Hungary, Germany and Russia.

    Until 1914, the murder of a member of the royal family did not usually lead to war. But the hawks of the Austro-Hungarian military establishment - the main culprits of the war - took the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand and his wife in Sarajevo by a Bosnian Serb as a legitimate reason to seize and destroy Serbia, an unstable neighbor that was trying to expand beyond its borders into the territory of Austria-Hungary. .

    Serbia, devastated by the two Balkan wars of 1912-13 in which it played a key role, did not want to fight in 1914.

    Image copyright getty Image caption British soldiers at the front near Ypres

    The fact that the conflict grew to the size of Europe was due to the fact that the German military and politicians were pushing Austria-Hungary to war with Serbia.

    This alarmed Russia, which supported Serbia, and she announced mobilization before all the possibilities for a peaceful resolution of the conflict were exhausted.

    And this, in turn, pushed Germany to a preventive declaration of war on Russia, her ally France, and then to a decisive offensive, partly on Belgian territory, which also involved Britain, which acted as a guarantor of Belgium's security and a supporter of France, into the conflict.

    John Rohl, Emeritus Professor of History, University of Sussex

    - Austria-Hungary and Germany

    The First World War did not start because of an accident or a diplomatic mistake. It was the result of collusion between the governments of Imperial Germany and Austria-Hungary, who sought to start a war in the hope that Britain would stay out.

    After 25 years of the reign of Kaiser Wilhelm II, an aggressive, domineering, warlike man, with his faith in the sagacity of royalty, contempt for diplomats, the conviction that the German god leads him and the whole country to greatness, those 20 people whom he appointed to determine the policy of the Reich, in 1914 they chose war, considering the circumstances for it the most favorable.

    The German generals and admirals who dominated the Kaiser's retinue were prone to an irresponsible militarism that made war inevitable. Like their Austrian counterparts, they believed it was better to go to war than to show patience, which they felt humiliated them.

    In the spring of 1914, these people in Berlin decided to take a chance, realizing what a whirlwind their support for an Austrian attack on Serbia could produce.

    Reich Chancellor Theobald von Bethmann-Hollweg fell on the task of "managing" the crisis - he had to undermine the efforts of diplomats so that the war began under the most favorable conditions.

    He wanted, in part, to reassure his people that Germany was under attack and at the same time keep Britain out of the conflict.

    Gerhard Hirschfeld, Professor of Modern and Contemporary History, University of Stuttgart

    Long before the outbreak of hostilities, the Prussian-German conservative elites were convinced that a European war would satisfy Germany's colonial ambitions and strengthen its military and political authority in the world.

    Image copyright RIA Novosti Image caption Austrian (left) and Russian (right) soldiers exchange cigarettes

    The very decision to go to war after the not so serious international crisis caused by the assassination in Sarajevo was taken as a result of political miscalculations, fear of losing credibility, and a complex system of allied obligations of European states.

    Historian Fritz Fischer cites precisely military objectives, in particular the famous September 1914 program, which laid out economic and territorial demands, as the main reason for the German decision to enter the war. However, modern historians consider this approach too narrow.

    They prefer to view Germany's military objectives, as well as those of other belligerents, in the context of the course of hostilities and the political situation during the war.

    Dr. Annika Mombauer, Open University, UK

    - Austria-Hungary and Germany

    Entire libraries are devoted to the search for a solution to the riddle of 1914. Was the war the result of chance or a plan? Was it inevitable or was it planned? Did crazy or prudent arsonists set it up?

    I believe that it did not happen by chance, and that it could have been avoided in July 1914. In Vienna, the government and the military wanted war with Serbia.

    The immediate reaction to the assassination of Franz Ferdinand on June 28, 1914, was to demand compensation from Serbia, which was believed in Vienna to be behind the assassination attempt and threatened the positions of Austria-Hungary in the Balkans.

    It is important that at the same time a diplomatic victory was considered senseless and unacceptable. In early July, Austrian politicians chose war.

    But in order to unleash this war, they needed the support of their main ally - Germany. Without the support of Germany, the decision to start the war would have been impossible.

    The government in Berlin gave the ally carte blanche, promising unconditional support and pressuring Vienna to seize the opportunity.

    Both countries understood that Russia would most likely stand up for Serbia, and this would turn a local conflict into a pan-European one, but they were ready to take the risk.

    Germany's guarantees made possible the implementation of Vienna's plans - a "no" from Berlin would have stopped the crisis.

    This was done because Austria-Hungary was already leaning towards war, instigated by Germany.

    The situation seemed ideal to them, victory - possible, because if they had waited a few more years, Russia and France would have become invincible.

    In this atmosphere of despair and arrogance, the statesmen of Germany and Austria-Hungary went to war to maintain and expand their empires. The war that led to their collapse

    Sean McMeekin, Koç University, Istanbul

    - Austria-Hungary, Germany, Russia, France, Britain and Serbia

    It is human nature to look for simple and understandable answers to complex questions, which is why the thesis that Germany was the only culprit for the outbreak of the First World War turned out to be so tenacious.

    Image copyright RIA Novosti Image caption The offensive of Russian troops on one of the sectors of the South-Western Front

    Without German support for the tough position of Austria-Hungary towards Serbia after Sarajevo, "carte blanche", the First World War obviously would not have started. Accordingly, Germany is to blame.

    But it is also true that without the terrorist plot in Belgrade, the Germans and Austrians would have had no reason to make this terrible choice.

    Politicians in Berlin and Vienna tried to localize the conflict in the Balkans. However, it was Russia, having received its "carte blanche" from Paris, that inflated this Austro-Serbian conflict to the size of Europe.

    First, Europe flared up, and after Britain joined the war, the whole world.

    But it was Russia, not Germany, who announced the mobilization first. And the war against the two Central Powers, in which Russia and Serbia were supported by France and Britain, was the desire of Russia, not Germany.

    No country can escape the blame. All five great powers, together with Serbia, organized Armageddon.

    Gary Sheffield Professor of Military Studies, University of Wolverhampton

    - Austria-Hungary and Germany

    The war was started by the leaders of Germany and Austria-Hungary. Vienna seized the opportunity that the assassination of the Archduke presented to her to try to destroy her Balkan rival Serbia.

    This was done with the full knowledge that Serbia's ally Russia is unlikely to stand aside, and this, in turn, could lead to a European war.

    Image copyright getty Image caption German artillery in Africa

    Germany guaranteed Austria unconditional support - again, fully understanding where this would lead. Germany, seeking to destroy the French-Russian alliance, was fully prepared to take the risk that this would lead to a big war.

    Some in German ruling circles welcomed the prospect of an expansionist war on foreign soil.

    The reaction of Russia, France, and later Britain was reciprocal and defensive.

    Dr Catriona Pennel, Senior Lecturer in History, University of Exeter

    - Austria-Hungary and Germany

    In my opinion, it is politicians and diplomats in Germany and Austria-Hungary who should bear the burden of responsibility for the spread of a local conflict in the Balkans to European and then global dimensions.

    Germany, suffering from the "youngest child" complex in the family of European empires, saw an opportunity to change the balance of power in its favor with the help of a war of conquest. On July 5, 1914, she handed over "carte blanche" to the Austro-Hungarian Empire, which was trying to restore dominance over rebellious Serbia.

    Germany promised her support - despite the high likelihood of war with Russia, an ally of France and Great Britain.

    But the role of Austria-Hungary should not be underestimated either. The Serbian ultimatum of July 23 was drafted in such a way that the likelihood of its acceptance was negligible. And Serbia's refusal gave Austria-Hungary the opportunity to declare war on July 28.

    David Stevenson, Professor of International History, London School of Economics

    - Germany

    The greatest responsibility lies with the German government. The rulers of Germany made the Balkan War possible by encouraging Austria-Hungary to invade Serbia, knowing full well what such a conflict could turn into. Without German support, it is unlikely that the position of Austria-Hungary would have been so tough.

    They also began hostilities in the great European theater, sending ultimatums to Russia and France and declaring war when those ultimatums were rejected - in fact, fabricating the pretext of an alleged French bombing of Nuremberg.

    Finally, they violated international treaties by invading Luxembourg and Belgium, knowing that this would draw Britain into the conflict.

    This, however, does not exclude the possibility that there were extenuating circumstances, and does not mean that Germany alone is responsible.

    Serbia staged a provocation against Austria-Hungary, since both countries wanted an armed conflict.

    Although the Central Powers initiated the conflict, the Russian authorities, encouraged by France, responded readily.

    Britain may have been able to prevent conflict by clarifying its position beforehand. This position, even taking into account the difficult domestic political situation, was more passive than active.

    The question of who started the Cold War, the Americans or the Soviets, has been debated since the beginning of the conflict, and historians still cannot agree.

    Historians' approach to the question of the origins of the Cold War, both in the United States and in Russia, has changed over time. At first, both sides stubbornly blamed each other. Then they tried to compromise on something. However, in the 1990s, the US returned to a post-war orthodox position.

    Chief Cold War Specialist

    Yale University professor and winner of many awards, including the Pulitzer Prize, John Lewis Gaddis is considered "one of America's leading historians."
    It was Gaddis who began to argue that too much blame was placed on the United States in the cold war fomentation case. He stated that he considered Soviet leader Joseph Stalin to be the main driving force behind the conflict.
    In his view, the US had no choice after being confronted with Stalin's "ambitious plans and paranoid fears".


    John Lewis Gaddis

    According to Gaddis, Roosevelt and Churchill allowed the possibility of finding common interests even in a situation of competing systems, while Stalin sought to "ensure his own security and the security of his country by encouraging rivalry between capitalist countries." With such a position of Stalin, there could be no question of cooperation and peaceful coexistence.
    The historian also contrasts the USA and the Soviet Union.
    "...citizens of the United States could well claim in 1945 that they live in the freest society on earth."
    On the other hand, “at the end of World War II, the USSR was the most authoritarian society on earth.”
    The Cold War is presented as a confrontation between freedom and authoritarianism, which is the culprit responsible for the conflict. Two Trends in American Politics On the Russian side, the most comprehensive and consistent account of the Cold War was presented by Valentin Falin, a historian and Soviet diplomat. Although he placed the blame on the US government, he did not view American policy as hostile from the start.


    Valentin Falin

    Falin traced the conflict's origins back to World War II and noted two trends in American policy towards the USSR. The first concerned concerns about the growing power of Moscow during the fight against the Nazis. The second supported the "Yalta approach", aimed at peaceful cooperation between the US and the USSR, as President Franklin Roosevelt wanted.
    The historian cited the words that Roosevelt said in his speech to Congress on March 1, 1945 after the signing of the Yalta agreement between the United States, Great Britain and the USSR: “The world that we are building cannot become an American or British world, Russian, French or Chinese world. It cannot be a world of large or small countries. It must be a peace based on the joint efforts of all countries…”.


    The Big Three at the Yalta Conference. Pictured: (from right to left) Joseph Stalin, Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill

    According to Falin, "the peace that Franklin Roosevelt spoke of did not meet the expectations of the reactionary faction in Washington, which was growing stronger," and when Roosevelt died, his successor, Harry Truman, did not want to take into account the interests of other nations. As early as April of the same year, he declared that “cooperation between Moscow and Washington must be severed…” To illustrate the new hostile course of the US administration towards Moscow, Falin mentioned the military plans of the Pentagon. He refers to Memorandum 329 of the American Joint Intelligence Committee dated September 4, 1945, which set the following task for the US military:
    "Select approximately 20 of the most important targets suitable for strategic atomic bombing in the USSR and in territory controlled by it."
    Who actually unleashed the Second World War? Mukhin Yury Ignatievich

    Mukhin Yu. And Who actually unleashed the Second World War?

    Mukhin Yu. I

    Who actually unleashed the Second World War?

    "States perish when they cease to distinguish the bad from the good."

    Antisthenes, 5th century BC

    Foreword

    About the Katyn case - about the search for the one who executed about 10 thousand Polish officers who surrendered in the war of 1939 - hardly anyone in Russia heard anything at all, but hardly many people know why this episode of World War II wars are inflated in Poland to the extent of the global flood.

    On September 1, speaking in Gdansk at a ceremony dedicated to the 70th anniversary of the outbreak of World War II, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin humiliated Russia by saying that “these mistakes must be acknowledged. Our country has done it. The State Duma of the Russian Federation, the Parliament of the country condemned the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. We have a right to expect that in other countries that have made a deal with the Nazis, this will also be done. And not at the level of statements by political leaders, but at the level of political decisions.” Putin humiliated Russia because there is nothing humiliating for Russia in this Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, there is nothing for which it would be worth condemning this pact. But Putin went to this humiliation of Russia in order to improve relations with Poland. He said that an abnormal situation was created when Russia's relations with Germany, with which the USSR fought, are better than with Poland, which the USSR liberated. I don't like Putin, but in this case he did everything to reconcile our countries.

    And the Poles, in response to this proposal, spat in the face of Russia. On September 23, the Sejm in Warsaw accused the USSR of genocide of the Polish people.“On September 17, 1939, the troops of the USSR, without declaring war, committed aggression against the Commonwealth, violating its sovereignty and violating the norms of international law. The basis for the invasion of the Red Army was given by the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, concluded on August 23, 1939 in Moscow between the USSR and Nazi Germany. Thus the fourth partition of Poland was carried out. Poland fell victim to two totalitarian regimes - Nazism and Communism", - says the document of the Diet. The Poles are stubbornly trying to get a monetary tribute from Russia now for an imaginary genocide and are using the Katyn case like a club to get this tribute.

    I give two points of view in these two books. In essence, I give an argument between two investigative teams. When this business began to unwind in 1943, Joseph Goebbels directly supervised this unwinding in Germany. He can and should be hated, but it is necessary to treat him with understanding: after all, he led the German propaganda troops. And each of his propaganda battles, and the Katyn case is just such a battle, saved the lives of German soldiers and inflicted losses on Germany's opponents. He was a soldier and did everything for the good of his Motherland, the way he understood it and wanted to see it.

    In The Katyn Detective, I attributed everyone who fabricates a case in the spirit of Goebbels to his brigade, calling them "goebbels brigade investigators." I don’t think that the patriot Goebbels was delighted with such “general people”, but let him endure - he used scum during his lifetime, let him accept their company even after death. I leave the same name in this book, I will not list them, they themselves will come up in the text, and those who I miss will be found in due time.

    Those who defend the version of the USSR, that is, that the captured Poles were shot by the Germans, I called "Stalin's brigade" and for this book I leave this name in force.

    So, dear readers, be the judges in this case - sit back and begin to analyze the evidence that both of these teams will begin to present to you for consideration.

    From the book Who made Hitler attack Stalin author Starikov Nikolai Viktorovich

    Why England and France did not want to prevent the Second World War The main reason for the stability of our currency are the concentration camps. Adolf Hitler ... Any significant war is prepared in advance. V. I. Lenin Many years of historians and

    From the book Myths of Soviet History author

    Feature Eight So when did the USSR enter World War II? According to the textbooks, the USSR entered World War II on June 22, 1941, because it was attacked by Germany. But if you believe the myth-makers, then Stalin sought to conclude an alliance with Hitler, pushing with all his might

    From the book The Great Civil War 1939-1945 author Burovsky Andrey Mikhailovich

    Chapter 5 A NEW TYPE EMPIRE, OR WHO WON THE SECOND WORLD WAR? Pyrrhic victory. A proverb about a victory that came at too high a price; victory equals defeat. The Fate of Empires Stalin and Hitler sought to expand their territorial empires. victory in the world

    From the book Icebreaker the author Suvorov Viktor

    Chapter 6 WHEN THE SOVIET UNION ENTERED THE SECOND WORLD WAR Only one country - Soviet Russia - can win in the event of a general conflict. Hitler, November 15, 1937 Everything related to the beginning of World War II is shrouded in impenetrable darkness in the Soviet Union

    From the book Score of the Second World War. Who and when started the war [compilation] author Shubin Alexander Vladlenovich

    Who started World War II and when? From the editor-in-chief A detailed and free from ideological clichés assessment of the events that took place in the world on the eve of the war, which became for us the Great Patriotic War, is long overdue. The historical truth is that

    author Martirosyan Arsen Benikovich

    Myth No. 1. Stalin planned and prepared the Second World War in fulfillment of the precepts of the classics of Marxism-Leninism about the need to make a world revolution Frankly, this is just shameless stupidity, which is desperately imposed on public opinion due to

    From the book On the Road to World War author Martirosyan Arsen Benikovich

    Myth No. 4. Having provoked the Soviet-Polish war in 1920, V. I. Lenin again tried to unleash the Second World War to ignite a world revolution. -Polish war

    From the book On the Road to World War author Martirosyan Arsen Benikovich

    Myth No. 13. Stalin deliberately pursued a militaristic course in the policy of industrialization and built up the armed forces, as he planned to provoke the Second World War to ignite a world revolution Centuries ago, the great François de La Rochefoucauld used to say that

    From the book Why did Stalin lose World War II? author Winter Dmitry Frantsovich

    Dmitry Winter Why did Stalin lose World War II? Two countries, the USSR and the USA, have the necessary resources for world leadership. It is these countries that will decide the outcome of the war. (I.V. Stalin. Secret speech to graduates of military academies on May 5, 1941) Chapter I So who

    From the book Conspiracy against the world. Who started World War I author Bryukhanov Vladimir Andreevich

    Vladimir Bryukhanov Conspiracy against the world. Who unleashed the First World War. Despite the abundance of works on world history published in Europe and the United States over the past 100 years, there are no books in any language that reveal the causes of wars. /.../ Sometimes it seems that historians see their own

    From the book New anti-Suvorov author Veselov Vladimir

    Chapter 13 COULD THE SOVIET UNION WIN THE SECOND WORLD WAR And all because Comrade Stalin had nothing to celebrate and there was no reason to rejoice. World War II was lost. Stalin knew this. And all his closest associates knew and understood this. V. Suvorov.

    From the book "Cannon Fodder" by Churchill author Usovsky Alexander Valerievich

    Chapter One From the ultimatum of September 3, 1939 to the Atlantic Charter, or Who turned the German-Polish war into World War II

    From the book Truth Against Lies. About the Great Patriotic War author Ognev Alexander Vasilievich

    From the book The Emperor Who Knew His Fate. And Russia, which did not know ... author Romanov Boris Semyonovich

    Chapter 9 Who unleashed the First World War As you know, the immediate cause for the war was the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand by the Serbian nationalist Gavrilo Princip in Sarajevo. It is also generally accepted that this event was only a pretext, the reasons were

    From the book Crusade to Russia author author unknown

    VI Baryshnikov, E. Salomaa INVOLVING FINLAND IN THE SECOND WORLD WAR While Germany was preparing to attack the Soviet Union, a number of small European countries were involved in this "crusade" in various ways. Some countries were occupied without

    From the book The Secret, in which the war was born ... (How the imperialists prepared and unleashed the Second World War) author Ovsyany Igor Dmitrievich

    Chapter VII. The Nazi Reich unleashes World War II

    On June 1, 1939, the French ambassador in the Nazi capital, Coulondre, told Foreign Minister Bonnet that Hitler “would risk starting a war if he did not have to fight Russia. If he knows that he will have to fight with Russia, he will retreat so as not to expose the country, the party and himself to death.”

    Kulondre added that two of Hitler's top military leaders, OKW Chief of Staff Keitel and Commander-in-Chief of the Ground Forces Brauchitsch, told the Fuhrer that if Germany had to fight Russia, she would have little chance of winning the war.

    Initially, the success of the military campaign against Poland planned in the "Weiss" plan was directly linked by the German leader with whether it would be possible to achieve the political isolation of Poland: ""The goal of our policy is to localize the war within Poland.""

    In Russian history, a myth is now popular that the USSR was very afraid of a war with Germany and therefore concluded a pact (Molotov-Ribbentrop) in order to better prepare for this war. But this is a blatant lie. Now we can cite data on the Red Army: after the 1939 mobilization of the year. In September 1939, the payroll of the Red Army increased to 5.3 million people; it was armed with 43,000 guns, 18,000 tanks, and 10,000 aircraft.

    Data for the German Army as of September 1939, after mobilization: the entire army numbered 4,528 thousand people (of which 3.7 million were in the ground forces), there were 3195 tanks, including tankettes without guns and training vehicles (of which: 1145 - T-I, 1223 - T-II, 98 - T-III, 211 - TIV), there were also 4,500 aircraft, 27,000 artillery pieces and mortars. I won’t compare tanks and artillery now, but I speak with confidence in the USSR they are better, for example, one fact, the German T-I tank had no gun at all, the T-II tank had such a weak gun that it could not hit the Soviet at all armored vehicles, and only 300 T-III and T-IV tanks (about 10% of the total) were relatively combat-ready.

    So, at the time of the signing of the pact and the attack on Poland, the USSR had a superiority in people over Germany, in tanks more than four times, in artillery by 63%, in aircraft more than two times. In addition, Poland was between Germany and the USSR with an army of almost a million, and therefore, as of August 1939, the German invasion of the USSR did not threaten.

    On August 23, Hitler's plan to partially isolate Poland was a success, the USSR and the Nazis signed a non-aggression pact, along with the non-aggression pact, a secret protocol was also signed according to which, when reorganizing the regions that make up the Polish state, the border of the spheres of interest of Germany and the USSR will approximately run along lines of the rivers Pissa, Nareva, Vistula and San.

    This marked the beginning of the aggressive war against Poland and the Second World War as a legal fact. But the signing of the non-aggression pact was also important because it removed the threat of war for Germany on two fronts. According to Article 3 of the Polish-Soviet non-aggression pact, the USSR undertook not to take part in any agreements that, from an aggressive point of view, are clearly hostile to the other side. Undoubtedly, the secret agreements concluded by the USSR and Germany regarding Poland in August-October 1939 were of a nature that clearly contradicted this article.

    According to V.M. Molotov, uttered by him during negotiations in Berlin on November 12, 1940, the agreements of August 1939 were primarily "" in the interests of Germany "", which was able to "" get Poland "", and later seize France and start a serious war against Great Britain, having a "strong rear in the East".

    Later, in 1946, recalling this event at the Nuremberg Trials, Ribbentrop said: “When I arrived in Moscow in 1939 to Marshal Stalin, he discussed with me not the possibility of a peaceful settlement of the German-Polish conflict within the framework of the Briand-Kellogg pact, but made it clear that if he does not get half of Poland and the Baltic countries without Lithuania with the port of Libava, then I can immediately fly back.

    Many accuse Britain and France also of supporting Hitler's aggressive plans in 1938, referring to the Munich Agreement of 1938 regarding Czechoslovakia's peaceful transfer of the Sudetenland to Germany. But there are cardinal differences here, firstly, England and France did not commit actions that could be interpreted as military aggression, secondly, they did not participate in hostilities on the side of the Nazis, and thirdly, they did not participate in the dismemberment of another state , with the addition of a part of it.

    They tried to make concessions to Germany in terms of joining it with ethnically German territories unfairly taken from the German nation, and preventing another world war in Europe. It was England and France that declared war on Germany after the German attack on Poland, but already on September 17 the USSR officially entered the war on the side of Germany, and on September 28 it began to publicly threaten its entry into the war against England and France if they did not stop all operations against the German army in the West. Now the passive war of the allies against Germany in the fall of 1939 is called strange, although if you look, everything is understandable, because they hoped that the military alliance between Germany and the USSR would quickly fall apart, which, in principle, happened.

    Starting a war against Poland, Hitler wanted to return only the original German lands occupied by the Poles, according to the Treaty of Versailles. On the remaining territory, he allowed the existence of Poland as an independent state, even taking into account the transfer of Western Ukraine and Belarus to Russia. It would be a buffer between Germany and the USSR.

    But Stalin insisted on the complete liquidation of Poland. It was thanks to this decision of Stalin that Germany and the USSR received a common border. So, concluding a pact with Germany and a secret protocol on the division of Poland and the Baltic states, Stalin acted not for defense purposes, but solely to seize new territories and unleash a war in Europe and its subsequent Sovietization.

    On September 1, the Minsk radio station began to be used as a radio beacon to support Luftwaffe raids. This was a direct violation of the 5th Hague Convention on the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers and Persons in the Event of a Land War of 1907, ratified by Russia. That is, already on the 1st day of the war, the USSR was not neutral, but supported the Nazis in the war against Poland.

    September 3rd. Ribbentrop sends telegram No. 253 to the German Ambassador in Moscow
    Please discuss this with Molotov immediately and see if the Soviet Union does not consider it desirable that the Russian army should move at the right moment against the Polish forces in the Russian sphere of influence and, for its part, occupy this territory. In our opinion, this would not only help us, but also, in accordance with the Moscow agreements, would also be in the Soviet interests.

    4 September. All German ships in the North Atlantic were ordered "to proceed to Murmansk, adhering to the most northerly course possible." On September 8, Moscow gave permission for German ships to enter Murmansk and guaranteed the transportation of goods to Leningrad. In total, in the first 17 days of September, 18 German ships took refuge in a Soviet port.

    8 September. Telegram from the German ambassador in Moscow, no. Please convey my congratulations and greetings to the government of the German Empire." Moscow gave permission for German ships to enter Murmansk and guaranteed the transportation of goods to Leningrad. In total, in the first 17 days of September, 18 German ships took refuge in a Soviet port.

    September 14th. Telegram from the German ambassador in Moscow No. 350, sent to the German Foreign Ministry: “In response to your telegram No. 336 of September 13, Molotov called me today at 4 pm and said that the Red Army had reached a state of readiness sooner than expected.

    Given the political motivation of the Soviet action (the fall of Poland and the defense of the Russian "minorities"), it would be extremely important [for the Soviets] not to start acting before the administrative center of Poland, Warsaw, fell. Molotov therefore asks that he be informed as precisely as possible when he can count on the capture of Warsaw.

    September 17th. The Soviet grouping of about 600,000 people, about 4,000 tanks, more than 5,500 artillery pieces and 2,000 aircraft hit the rear of the Polish army fighting the Nazis, which was a direct violation of the non-aggression pact between the USSR and Poland (later Stalin would call it a treacherous violation of non-aggression pacts, actions Germany in June 1941). There were more than 300,000 Polish troops in the offensive zone of the Soviet troops.

    September 25th. In telegram No. 442 from the German ambassador, he writes to the German Foreign Ministry: “Stalin and Molotov asked me to come to the Kremlin today at 8 pm. Stalin stated the following. In the final settlement of the Polish question, everything must be avoided that in the future may cause friction between Germany and the Soviet Union.

    From this point of view, he considers it wrong to leave the remnant of the Polish state independent. He proposes the following: from the territories to the east of the demarcation line, the entire Lublin Voivodeship and that part of the Warsaw Voivodeship that reaches the Bug should be added to our portion. For this, we renounce claims to Lithuania.

    September 28, 1939. The Treaty of Friendship and Border between the USSR and Germany was concluded, by which the territory of Poland was divided between the two aggressors in accordance with the previously signed secret protocol of August 23, 1939. At the time of the conclusion of the treaty, Germany was militarily almost completely exhausted, almost all ammunition and fuel were used up in the troops.

    Germany had no opportunity to wage even a defensive war on the Western Front. In order to save his ally, Stalin speaks openly in support of Germany and threatens France and England with the support of the Nazis if the war continues. It was the possibility of a war against Germany and the USSR that kept France and England from attacking Germany in the autumn-winter of 1939 (Strange War).

    The results of the military aggression of the USSR against Poland.

    The combat losses of the Red Army during the Polish campaign of 1939, according to the Russian historian Grigory Krivosheev, amounted to 1173 people killed, 2002 wounded and 302 missing. Losses in the equipment of tank and mechanized brigades of the Red Army (including irretrievable) amounted to 42 armored units - of which 26 on the Belorussian front and 16 on the Ukrainian.

    Estimating the combat losses of the Polish Army in battles with the Red Army, the Russian historian Mikhail Meltyukhov gives figures of 3,500 killed, 20,000 missing and 454,700 prisoners. According to the Polish Military Encyclopedia, 250,000 servicemen were taken prisoner by the Soviets. Almost the entire captured officer corps was subsequently shot by the NKVD, including about 14,000 captured officers were destroyed by Soviet executioners near Katyn.

    In a statement made in October 1939, Molotov gave the following figures for the captured military property: “over 900 guns, over 10 thousand machine guns, over 300 thousand rifles, over 150 million rounds of ammunition, about 1 million shells and up to 300 aircraft.” So the Soviet invasion of Poland was an aggressive military operation, not a liberation campaign.

    JOINT STATEMENT OF THE SOVIET AND GERMAN GOVERNMENTS OF SEPTEMBER 28, 1939
    After the German government and the government of the USSR, by the treaty signed today, finally settled the questions that arose as a result of the collapse of the Polish state, and thus created a solid foundation for a lasting peace in Eastern Europe, they mutually agree that the elimination of a real war between Germany, on the one hand, and by England and France, on the other hand, would meet the interests of all peoples.

    Therefore, both governments will direct their common efforts, in case of need, in agreement with other friendly powers, in order to achieve this goal as soon as possible. If, however, these efforts of both governments remain unsuccessful, then the fact will be established that Britain and France are responsible for the continuation of the war, and in the event of a continuation of the war, the governments of Germany and the USSR will consult each other on the necessary measures.

    If we turn to the notes of the conversation with Ribbentrop and Stalin dated September 28, 1939, then Stalin in his (first after long reasoning by Ribbentrop) statement (according to the German record) stated his point of view as follows: “The point of view of Germany, which rejects military assistance, is worthy of respect .

    However, a strong Germany is a necessary condition for peace in Europe - therefore, the Soviet Union is interested in the existence of a strong Germany. Therefore, the Soviet Union cannot agree to the Western Powers creating conditions that could weaken Germany and put her in a difficult position. This is the commonality of interests between Germany and the Soviet Union.

    September 30, 1939. Ribbentrop's statement was published in the newspaper Pravda: “... Both states want peace to be restored and that England and France stop the absolutely senseless and hopeless struggle against Germany. If, however, warmongers take over in these countries, then Germany and the USSR will know how to respond to this.

    The USSR, not only in word, but in deed, helped the Nazis not only in September 1939, hitting the rear of the Polish army, which accelerated the transfer of German units to the West. The “anti-fascist” socialist state did everything to weaken the trade blockade of Nazi Germany and help it as much as possible in the war against England and France, for which on February 11, 1940, an economic agreement between the USSR and Germany was signed in Moscow. It provided that the Soviet Union would supply Germany with the following goods:

    1,000,000 tons of feed grains and legumes, worth 120 million Reichsmarks
    900,000 tons of oil worth about 115 million Reichsmarks
    100,000 tons of cotton worth about 90 million Reichsmarks
    500,000 tons of phosphates
    100,000 tons of chromite ores
    500,000 tons of iron ore
    300,000 tons of iron scrap and pig iron
    2,400 kg of platinum

    "Commodity turnover between Germany and the USSR in the first year of the agreement will reach a volume exceeding the highest levels ever achieved since the World War" [Pravda, 02/13/1940].

    In 1940, open pro-Nazi propaganda was also conducted in the USSR. Articles published in the Soviet press, including in the official Soviet newspapers Pravda and Izvestiya, were used by Dr. Goebbels' department for his propaganda purposes. Propaganda speeches were reproduced in the German press, including Hitler's direct speeches.

    At the same time, a special place was occupied by information messages from the front of the war in the West, mainly about the successes of the Luftwaffe in the "battle for England". According to radio broadcasts in the "Latest News" programs, the losses of British aviation and the destruction of English cities were called a feeling of deep satisfaction. Every day, radio stations played Wagner's music, which was very popular among the NSDAP leadership.

    The following facts are also in no way incompatible with the neutral status of the state: the transit through the entire territory of the USSR from the Far East to Germany of a large group of officers from the German cruiser Graf Spee sunk in the Pacific Ocean.

    No circumstances can justify the consent of the Soviet leadership to serve Nazi warships in Soviet ports in the Barents Sea basin (in October 1939, the Soviet Union agreed to the use by the German Navy of the port of Teriberka east of Murmansk as a repair base and ship supply point and submarines operating in the North Atlantic).

    Molotov's note on Stalin's meeting with the British Ambassador Stafford Cripps in July 1940: "Stalin does not see any threat to hegemony from any country in Europe, and he is even less afraid that Europe might be absorbed by Germany. Stalin follows the policy of Germany and is well knows several figures in Germany. He did not detect any desire on their part to swallow the European countries. Stalin does not consider that Germany's military successes pose a threat to the Soviet Union and its friendly relations with it ... ".

    It is no coincidence that already after the Second World War, at the end of November 1945, the list of issues not subject to discussion at the Nuremberg trials, approved by the Soviet delegation at the Nuremberg trials, in order to prevent counter-accusations of defense against the governments of the countries of the anti-Hitler coalition, the first paragraph provided for a ban on discussing the attitude of the USSR to the Treaty of Versailles , and the ninth point - the question of Soviet-Polish relations.

    With the defeat of Poland by German and Soviet troops, only the first act of World War II ended. Almost immediately after the end of hostilities in Poland, the "peaceful" socialist state begins a war against Finland. Military operations, which were a completely failed blitzkrieg attempt with huge losses and ended after 3.5 months of fierce fighting with a Pyrrhic victory (on the Soviet side, up to 960 thousand people participated in them, and the irretrievable losses of the Red Army amounted to over 131 thousand, and according to Russian military historian

    Krivosheev, the total sanitary losses amounted to 264,908 people. That is, the loss of a neutral state, which allegedly did not participate in the outbreak of the world war, many times exceeded the irretrievable losses of the Wehrmacht in the first two years of World War II.

    Many argue that the USSR did not carry out military aggression against Poland in September 1939, but carried out some kind of liberation campaign with the aim of reuniting Belarusians and Ukrainians or even restoring the historical borders of the Russian Empire. But these arguments are without foundation.

    Firstly, Belarusians and Ukrainians in the territories that are part of Poland did not ask the USSR for such a liberation campaign, moreover, 400 thousand people were repressed in the first two years after the Soviet occupation. Secondly, according to existing international treaties, the invasion of the territory of a foreign state was aggression.

    According to Art. 2 of the Convention on the Definition of Aggression, concluded in London on July 3, 1933 by the USSR with other states, aggression is recognized not only as a declaration of war on another state (this case is provided for in paragraph 1 of Article 2), but also an invasion of armed forces, even without a declaration of war , on the territory of another state (paragraph 2 of article 2), an attack by land, sea or air armed forces, even without a declaration of war, on the territory, sea or aircraft of another state (paragraph 3 of article 2).

    At the same time, according to Art. 3 of the said convention, no considerations of a political, military, economic or other nature can excuse or justify the attack provided for in article two 3. As an example of such "" considerations "" the signatories of the convention, in paragraph three of the Annex to article 3 of the convention called the internal situation of any state, the imaginary shortcomings of its administration.

    In a conversation with the chairman of the Comintern, Dimitrov, Stalin declared: “The destruction of this state [Poland] in the current conditions would mean one less bourgeois fascist state! What would be bad if, as a result of the defeat of Poland, we extended the socialist system to new territories and populations. (Diary of G. Dimitrov, entry 09/07/1939).

    The attack on Finland led to the fact that in December 1939 the USSR, as a military aggressor, was expelled from the League of Nations. The immediate reason for the expulsion was the mass protests of the international community over the systematic bombing of civilian targets by Soviet aircraft, including with the use of incendiary bombs.

    Between June 15 and June 20, 1940, the “peace-loving” Soviet Union takes decisive steps and forces the Baltic countries to create pro-Soviet governments by threatening military force, violating previously signed agreements. After suppressing the press, arresting political leaders, and outlawing all parties except the Communists, the Russians staged mock elections on July 14 in all three states.

    After the "elected" parliaments thus voted for the accession of their countries to the Soviet Union, the Supreme Council (parliament) of Russia accepted them into their fatherland: Lithuania - August 3, Latvia - August 5, Estonia - August 6.

    But how did it happen that between the two allies - the Nazis and the Communists in June 1941, a military conflict began, which grew into the so-called Great Patriotic War.

    The Chief of the General Staff of the Ground Forces (OKH), Colonel-General F. Halder, analyzing the situation in 1940 after the war, believed that at that time Hitler believed it was possible to avoid a war with Russia if the latter did not show expansionist aspirations in a western direction. To do this, Hitler "considered it necessary to divert Russian expansion to the Balkans and Turkey, which would certainly lead to a conflict between Russia and Great Britain."

    In early 1940, Romania agreed to transfer to the use of the Germans its oil fields in Ploiesti (the only explored fields in Europe at that time) in exchange for political and military protection. On May 23, in the midst of the battle for France, the Romanian General Staff sent an SOS signal to the OKW, informing the Germans that Soviet troops were concentrating near the Romanian border.

    The next day, Jodl summed up the reaction to this message at Hitler's headquarters: "The situation in the East is becoming threatening because of the concentration of Russian forces near the borders of Bessarabia." However, the USSR, threatening with military aggression, forced Romania to cede Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina, and the latter was not included in the circle of areas of Soviet interests agreed with Germany. Under the influence of these steps, a threat was created for the Romanian region of Ploiesti, the only serious source of oil supplies for Germany, which could paralyze the economy and the German army.

    German Foreign Minister I. Ribbentrop: “On June 23, 1940, a telegram from our ambassador in Moscow arrived in Berlin: the Soviet Union intends to occupy the Romanian province of Bessarabia in the coming days, and they are only going to inform us about it. Adolf Hitler was then amazed by the rapid Russian advance without prior consultation with us. The fact that, at the same time, the predominantly German-populated Northern Bukovina, the original land of the Austrian crown, was subject to occupation, especially stunned Hitler.

    He took this move by Stalin as a sign of Russian pressure on the West. The large concentration of Soviet troops in Bessarabia aroused serious fears in Adolf Hitler from the point of view of the further conduct of the war against England: under no circumstances could we refuse the Romanian oil that was vital to us. If Russia had advanced further here, we would have found ourselves in the further conduct of the war dependent on the good will of Stalin. During one of our conversations in Munich, he told me that, for his part, he was considering military measures, because he did not want to be taken by surprise by the East.

    So let's give another word to the second person in Nazi Germany, Joseph Goebbels, the imperial minister of public education and propaganda:
    06/25/40 Stalin informs Schulenburg that he intends to act against Romania. This again contradicts our agreement.
    06/29/40 Romania lost to Moscow. Bessarabia and S. Bukovina will go to Russia. For us, this is by no means pleasant. The Russians are taking advantage of the situation.
    5/07/40 Slavism is spreading throughout the Balkans. Russia seizes the moment.
    07/11/40 There is some unease in the [German] people about Russia.
    07/17/40 Russians continue to gather troops [to Romania]. We are no less. King Carol wants a German military occupation. It doesn't matter when and where. Fear of Moscow.
    07/19/40 The Russians have become quite cocky."

    And, finally, the Fuhrer of the German people himself, Adolf Hitler (in a conversation with Mussolini on 01/19/41): "Previously, Russia would not have posed any danger to us at all, because it was unable to threaten us. Now, in a century aviation, the Romanian oilfields can be turned into smoking ruins as a result of an air attack from Russia or the Mediterranean region, and yet the very existence of the Axis powers depends on these oilfields "(B. Liddell-Gart." World War II "M. AST 2002).

    German Foreign Minister I. Ribbentrop: “... Molotov's visit to Berlin (November 12-13, 1940 - Comp.) did not stand under a lucky star, as I wished. From these conversations with Molotov, Hitler finally got the impression of a serious Russian desire for the West. The next day, Jodl summed up the reaction to this message at Hitler's headquarters: "The situation in the East is becoming threatening because of the concentration of Russian forces near the borders of Bessarabia."

    From a speech by Stalin to graduates of military academies in May 1941 “... Our policy of peace and security is at the same time a policy of preparing for war. There is no defense without attack. We must educate the army in the spirit of the offensive. We must prepare for war." (Diary of G. Dimitrov, entry 05/05/1941).

    Politburo member Andrei Zhdanov at a meeting of the Main Military Council of the Red Army on June 4, 1941, said: “We have become stronger, we can set more active tasks. The wars with Poland and Finland were not defensive wars. We have already embarked on the path of an offensive policy... There is only one step between peace and war. That is why our propaganda cannot be peaceful... We had an offensive policy before. This policy was determined by Lenin. Now we are only changing the slogan. We have begun to implement Lenin's thesis."

    Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union N. G. Kuznetsov (in 1941 - Admiral. People's Commissar of the Navy of the USSR, member of the Central Committee, member of the Headquarters of the High Command from the moment it was created): "For me, one thing is indisputable: J. V. Stalin not only did not rule out the possibility of war with Nazi Germany, on the contrary, he considered such a war ... inevitable ... I.V. Stalin conducted preparations for war - extensive and versatile preparations - based on the dates he had outlined ... Hitler violated his calculations "(On the eve. P. 321).

    A small touch to the big picture. 13-14/05/40. Moscow. Meeting on military ideology. Chief of the General Staff Meretskov speaks: "We can say that our army is preparing for an attack, and we need this attack for defense. Based on political conditions, we must attack, and the Government will tell us what we need to do."

    So, after all, Hitler was the "icebreaker" of the world socialist revolution for the communists, who had been arming Germany since the 20s. It was the fighting of the Nazis that gave grounds for the subsequent entry into Western Europe of the red liberators. And you can't get away from it. But he dealt a preemptive blow to Bolshevism, this blow, despite the defeat of Germany and the temporary victory of the Communists, turned out to be fatal for Communism.

    I think that sooner or later we will take an impartial look at the actions and policies of Nazi Germany and come to the obvious conclusion that Hitler saved the modern world from the red plague, and the Holocaust is a primitive invention of the communists and Jewish bankers, whose expansion the Germans tried to stop.

    So far, no one has found a single gas chamber or mass graves of Jews allegedly killed by the Germans. The Red Cross in official information indicated that less than 400 thousand people died in German concentration camps in 12 years, but Jews continue to tell us tales about millions of victims in Nazi concentration camps. It was the Germans who first proposed to the world to build a state for white people (now Europe and the USA contain more than 100 million black and colored dependents from the third world, who are the main source of crime and terrorist attacks), who eat hundreds of billions annually, which should have been scientifically -technical development of civilization.

    The Germans, by their example, demonstrated simply fantastic rates of economic growth, which no one in the world could surpass. In addition, it was Nazi Germany that gave the world an incredible amount of breakthrough technologies that were absolutely dishonestly appropriated by the USSR and its Western allies.

    For comparison, the USSR managed to organize three famines on the territory of Ukraine in 1921, 1933 and 1947, in peacetime, while during the German occupation during the war there was no famine, as well as large-scale repressions. To be honest with the facts, so far not a single evidence of mass repressions or murders committed by the Germans on the territory of Ukraine has been found, not a single mass grave of the dead has been found.

    All we have is a bunch of communist myths. Having honestly and impartially looked at the facts, we will understand that the Ukrainians and the West fought on the side of their enemy - the Stalinist USSR, which really brought evil and destruction to the world. And all the economic and social problems of modern Ukraine and the United States, Britain and the West as a whole are connected precisely with this civilizational choice.