Did Stalin Need Europe?

2024 Author: Seth Attwood | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-16 15:55

Part 1

In the abyss of upside-down facts, it is difficult to prove who is right and who is wrong. But to understand whether everything is really how they write and say, it remains to use common sense and irrefutable facts and evidence.

As we know, the map of Europe after the Second World War has not changed much, and if changed, then only slightly. Countries subjected to Nazi hegemony were able to recover and gain independence. But in the period from 1938 to 1945, things were different.

After Hitler came to power in 1933 and managed to create an "invincible" Nazi army, he set his sights on annexing foreign lands to Germany. Austria was annexed in the spring of 1938. Then, after the Munich Agreement, a part of Czechoslovakia, the Sudetenland, was forcibly annexed. Continuing the offensive in all directions, Hitler invaded Poland and then, with the force of an indomitable beast, occupied a number of countries on the European continent.

Questions arise:

Why did Hitler not immediately offer France and Britain to jointly resist the "Bolshevik threat", which would be reasonable if there was a reason for the threat?

At a meeting in Munich in 1938 between N. Chamberlain, A. Hitler, E. Daladier and B. Mussolini there was a conversation not about opposition to the Soviet Union. There they discussed the fate of the unfortunate Czechoslovakia. This is understandable: the politicians of Europe threw a piece of “fatty meat” into the mouth of the “predator” in order to tame the beast, so as not to get involved in a war. But Hitler wanted more, he just got a taste, and then the same corrupt countries (except Italy) had to resist Germany.

If Europe was threatened by the Bolsheviks, why then did the British, Poles, French stubbornly oppose the Nazis?

Then, when socialism was gaining momentum in the young USSR, none of the countries of Europe made an attempt to "lay siege to the threat of the Bolsheviks." The United States simply erased the Soviet Republics from its allies, not recognizing their system, not understanding its meaning. But when the situation began to take shape in favor of the Soviets, when the gates to Europe were thrown open before the Red Army (late 1944), W. Churchill himself began to play a double game.

By signing a non-aggression pact in 1939, Hitler solved several very important problems for himself at once. First, he extended the supply of raw materials from the USSR for the production of equipment and weapons. Secondly, Hitler, in the war with Europe, tied Stalin's hands and untied them for himself. Third, the cunning Adolf secured himself from the east in the event of a complete defeat of Britain; that is, having foreseen a possible alliance between Britain, the United States and the USSR, Hitler by signing the pact wanted to find it (the alliance) to ruin. Stalin also benefited from the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, managing to prolong the USSR's preparations for the inevitable war.

Why did Hitler occupy Poland in the first place? It seems to me only in order to ensure their safety from the east. That is, Hitler, with the help of the pact, made the border of Europe inviolable for the USSR. It is not clear who benefited more from the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, but on September 1 (eight days later) Hitler attacked Poland.

If we talk about winning, then this would not be entirely correct: Stalin had no intention of playing at all, he needed time to prepare the country for defense. Since the leading countries of Europe refused to unite with the USSR in the fight against Hitler, Stalin had no choice but to provide Hitler with an opportunity to go to war with Europe. Of course, saying "grant" is not entirely correct, but giving way is fair.

The accusation of a strike by Soviet troops in the back of "friendly" Germany is based on the assumption based on the speeches of Hitler, who addressed his people: Army ".

But, firstly, at the time of the German attack on the Soviet Union, no major battles over the English Channel had already taken place. Second, by fighting Britain and unleashing a war with the USSR, Hitler would have created a threat of a battle on two fronts. And this he tried with all his might to avoid. It turns out that Hitler was absolutely sure that England would never enter into an alliance with Stalin.

What is Stalin doing? Stalin is building up the country's military power, simultaneously offering to organize an alliance to repel Nazi aggression. When the attempt at an alliance with Europe was finally exhausted, Stalin pushed the borders towards the west, taking the peoples of the fraternal USSR under his protection. The Red Army unfolds a battle on the Soviet-Finnish border, the goal of which is the safety of the city on the Neva.

When the Wehrmacht broke into the USSR, the victory of the Red Army hung in the balance. But after Hitler's defeat near Moscow, after its defeat near the city of Stalingrad, after the failure of Operation Citadel, the German vanguards were suppressed and defeated. Already Hitler made erroneous decisions, and the Soviet General Staff confidently planned actions.

The Soviet Union occupied by the Germans, the Red Army under the command of Stalin liberates, and then it gets the right to cleanse the Nazi-occupied Europe.

Why, then, did not Stalin deprive Germany of its state status after defeat in World War II, when not only a pretext, but also a reason presented itself? Why did I. Stalin not accept W. Churchill's proposal to partition Germany into independent states? But, firstly, Stalin understood that if he accepted Churchill's proposal, he would become a participant in a secret conspiracy with the British, of which later the British would easily accuse him - Stalin. The wise secretary general foresaw the possibility of a trick and abandoned the ideas of the clever cunning Churchill. Secondly, the Soviet secretary general did not want to decide the fate of Europe without the participation of US representatives. And thirdly, Stalin knew very well: Churchill needed to weaken the influence of the Germans in Europe. And since Stalin knew that dismemberment of Germany would play into the hands of mainstream Britain, he kept its potential pressure on Europe.

Probably, after all, the Secretary General was guided not by greed like Hitler, but by conscience and justice. Why did Stalin raise the question of a joint struggle with Europe against Nazi Germany in the mid-1930s? Why did he insist on an alliance with Britain and the United States and on the opening of a Second Front by them? And in 1943, when he realized that the Anglo-American troops could be in Berlin before the Red Army. And 1945, when he was convinced that the Red Army would cope with the Wehrmacht without a Second Front, he still continued to insist on negotiations with F. Roosevelt and W. Churchill. And these negotiations took place: in November 1943 in Tehran and in February 1945 in Yalta. This alliance is proof that Stalin was worried about his people and did not throw them into the fire of war for victory or retribution. It seems today that the Tehran and Yalta conferences were carried out with an easy agreement of the three parties. But in reality, it was not so simple. And not only because of geographical inconveniences, but also because of difficult relationships with the politicians of England and the United States. Misty Albion persisted the most. Churchill did not want the spread of communism in Europe.

But still, Stalin convinced him too - Churchill. The Soviet leader hoped that Europe would be grateful for his liberation, but Europe turned out like a snake, stinging both the USSR and Russia. Europe not only did not thank Russia-USSR for its liberation, it found instigators and "allies" who cynically profit from gratuitous human suffering. For that atrocity, for those lives that were taken away by the Nazi barbarians, Germany had to pay a high price, but it remained on the map of Europe. It was this nation that showed malice towards the whole world, it was she who made Stalin fight.

In the documentary footage of The Millennium Reich, one can see with what enthusiasm the German people greeted the triumph of Nazism. He seemed to have succumbed to some kind of mystical hypnosis, and this was exactly the case, only it was not Stalin who possessed "hypnosis", but Hitler. A fit of hysteria accompanied all the Germans who fell under the influence of the Fuhrer. Hitler was specially trained in these methods of introducing people into a trance. And these manners are inherent in the fierce fanatic. Did Stalin ever behave like that?

We ask ourselves a completely natural question: what exactly did Stalin provoke Hitler into? To defend Europe from the world revolution? But Hitler did not defend Europe, he fought with it. He occupied the countries, armed them and directed them against the USSR, and those who could not resist the Nazis took weapons and stood next to the Germans. Then maybe Hitler defended the rights of democracy? But democracy does not mean the destruction of civilians. Maybe Stalin pushed Hitler to expand his own nation out of fear that communism would deprive Germany of its German roots? But then why didn't the Wehrmacht go straight east? Why was he wasting his energy on the war with neighboring countries? The German attack on the English shores proves only one thing: Hitler did not think of any salvation of Europe from Bolshevism. His goal was to establish control over the world, but before enslaving the Soviet people, it was necessary to cut America off from Europe. Yes, Hitler sagged the neighboring countries in order to provide himself with military material, but he needed Poland and England for something else.

There is reason to believe that the "red plague" of the USSR created the brown plague of Germany. The rise of communist movements in Germany forced Hitler to form his own party in opposition to them. But if Hitler wanted to stop the spread of communism in Europe, then again, what does the attack on England have to do with it, and what does the occupation of France have to do with it? What does it have to do with trying to expand the territory for your nation? It seems to be not difficult to guess that fear of Bolshevism is only a pretext. Indeed! why they say that Stalin wanted to attack Europe, if while still sitting in the Landsberg prison, Hitler proclaimed his historical mission: "To break and destroy Bolshevism." And knowing about his intentions, foreign leaders in everything and everywhere made way for him. Does it not seem to us that here it was not Hitler, but Stalin who acted as a peacemaker? Hitler needed a war. Stalin needed security.

Why, possessing such a clear "talent" of persuasion, Hitler simply did not offer a fight against the USSR, at least jointly with France? Because he needed one-man power.

There is one more reason to believe that Stalin forced Hitler to attack the USSR, because he brought his troops close to the border of Europe. And Hitler simply delivered a preemptive blow to the Bolsheviks. But the fascists beat not only the Bolsheviks, they incinerated everything and everyone. For the entire period of World War II, there were about 4 million people in the Bolshevik party, and more than 20 million Soviet citizens were killed. In addition, the Red Army transferred its divisions only after the Fuhrer drove them to the border. Then it turns out like this: the deployment of troops on the border - is it a stupid argument to justify the reasons for the attack? Any country has the right to defend and protect its country from the enemy, but not to attack.

According to the masters of falsification, it is worth being convinced that Stalin created an army only to capture and enslave Europe. But why then Stalin, having planned the seizure of Europe, actually liberated it?

Suppose that in 1945 it was no longer necessary for Stalin to introduce socialism into Europe by force, Hitler seemed to play into his hands and himself opened the way to the vastness of the Western countries. In such a situation, the leader of the USSR could simply demand that the West follow the path of communism. But he hoped for the prudence of the people of Europe and that victory in the war would be a worthy example of socialism. And now Europe seems to make it clear what the Soviet Union did is wrong and it remains to think that Europe should not have been saved from the Nazi plague at all. Like, Hitler wanted to clear the space for the German race, and Stalin, you see, prevented him. The Germans wanted to bring out the best species of Homo sapiens, burning in the furnace of concentration camps: Jews, Poles, Russians, and again Stalin prevented them from doing so. Hitler wanted to penetrate the mysteries unknown to science by setting up barbaric experiments on sick people, but this "science" is being killed by the same Stalin.

The horrors that took place in the concentration camps of Auschwitz, Buchenwald, Dachau will excite the feelings of those who want to know what the barbaric essence of the Nazis was for a long time to come. These concentration camps were erected by neither Stalin nor the Bolsheviks, they were built by the Nazis of Germany, led by the treacherous Hitler. The German went to war in the euphoria of invincibility, for this he had to be confident in his exceptional superiority.

So, again we ask ourselves one single question: did Stalin need Europe? After all, there are historians who claim that in the name of communism, Stalin planned to use force against her. It follows from their concept that the "bloody executioner and tyrant" wanted to transfer socialism to Europe, but before that he had to remove disobedient subordinates, conspirators and applicants for his chair; and then, mobilizing the army, to arrange a war in Europe.

If you ask: why did Stalin need Europe, then naturally you need to find a reason. And the reason was that the German philosopher and publicist Karl Marx pointed to Europe as the leader of the reorganization of the world. VI Lenin took advantage of the teachings of Karl Marx, but even in theory he understood that the great German "prophet" was not right in everything. In practice, everything turned out to be much more complicated. After the death of Vladimir Ilyich, Stalin turned the socialist course at his own discretion. K. Marx pointed to Europe as the leading one in the socialist system and argued that in Europe there is the production necessary for the revolution. But after socialism arose in the USSR, the leading in socialism was no longer Europe, but the Great Soviet Union, created by the hands of the people. Again we need to ask ourselves the same question that worries us: did Stalin need Europe?

Part 2

Today the truth about the Soviet Union has been trampled and plunged into the mud. Most of Europe today thinks they were freed by the Americans. The French, Poles, British have already forgotten the bombing and Nazi captivity. The Americans have appropriated the honor and glory of our heroes. But if they tell the truth, then Stalin's provocation instilled in the Germans so much atrocities and so much aggression. Then neither Hitler nor Goebbels pushed their people to war with the whole world.

But it was the Nazis who drove women with children into the barns and burned them alive. It was the Nazis who hanged the Soviet civilian population. This German command exported women to forced labor in Germany. It was they who brazenly invaded not their territory. Whether it was a provocation or not, one should not judge Stalin without evidence of a crime. Whatever confrontation there was before the war between the USSR and Germany, it was Hitler who unleashed it. It was he who violated the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact - a pact of friendship and non-aggression!

Continuing the topic, I would like to finally ask: what exactly was the impetus for the outbreak of World War II? What made Hitler so pissed off? And why was it based on retribution and cruelty?

Oddly enough, but for Hitler, the unjust end of the First World War was the real impetus for unleashing the Second World War.

After the battles on the fields of Europe (1914 - 1918), negotiations between the belligerent countries took place in the French province of Versailles, and at the same time a peace treaty humiliating for Germany was signed. For the Germans, he laid down a heavy burden: huge reparations, limitation of the production of weapons, the return of land, the deprivation of colonial territories. Hitler's opposition was based on compensation for losses. To get rid of the "Versailles shackles", he attempted a coup. Then he saved Germany from shameful humiliation, and this could be done only by resorting to force. It was the Treaty of Versailles that the Germans considered "a stab in the back."Hitler was a participant in the First World War and it was then that hatred of the French, British, Jews and Russians arose in him.

But when the Wehrmacht attacked the Soviet Union, the imperialists of the United States and Britain, inciting it, feared that Germany would gain dominance over all of Europe and Asia. Then they rushed to the aid of the USSR - delaying the delivery of goods and delaying the second front. They were supposed to bleed Germany and the USSR as much as possible, which posed the greatest threat in the struggle for spheres of influence. After losing the war, Germany for many years lost its status as a power, and this gave Britain and the United States to strengthen their power in the vastness of the European continent.

Europe and only Europe are to blame for unleashing the Second World War. The imperialists of America pushed the Germans towards aggression. To go further, Hitler had only to find a reason, and he found it - Bolshevism. And the Soviet system did not threaten with war and could not. The entire Nazi system was saturated with fanaticism and fanaticism.

Even if, having disassembled Hitler's rule by the minute, one can find at least a hundredth part of the benefit for the Germans, still none of his actions deserves an excuse, he used inhuman measures.

If we compare the attitude of the Nazis and the Bolsheviks to their people, then we can remember something and give an irrefutable example; when the complicated situation in World War II provided an opportunity for the Nazis to show their true colors.

In the summer of 1944, the Germans were convinced that Germany was approaching defeat, as evidenced by the assassination attempt on Adolf Hitler. But the plan to eliminate the Fuhrer failed and we can say that fate itself intervened in the outcome of the war. The only hope for salvation from complete collapse was an attempt - to conclude a separate peace with Britain and the United States. But even these efforts were in vain. So what was the German leadership supposed to do?

Convinced of the inevitable defeat of the Third Reich, the German leadership was to arrest Hitler and hand him over to the NKGB. Of course, this would not save them from punishment and execution, but they could save the country from complete defeat and exhaustion. Many people from Germany and the USSR could have been saved at the end of the war. But, not a grain of reason, not a sense of compassion did not prevail over the poor Nazi instinct. Making way for their barbarism, the leadership of the Reich preferred malice instead of conscience, and six years earlier Hitler insisted that the Aryan race was the best.

The assertion that Stalin is to blame for the colossal damage caused by the Second World War will be indisputable. He was the head of state, he cannot be innocent. But history knows the facts when the leaders of some countries inflicted damage on purpose for no particular reason. For example, because of Napoleon's desire to seize Russia and all of Europe, people died, villages and cities were burned. He is guilty of the death of hundreds of thousands of people, but for some reason he is still respected. G. Truman, for the sake of completing the Manhattan project and intimidating the USSR, incinerated two Japanese cities - Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But today this barbarism is forgotten even in the country on which he dropped the bombs.

Even at the beginning of the last century, the British were interested in sole influence on Europe. For what? In order to expand the area of influence and trade. But the socialist USSR stood up to them more than across the throat, it could take away from them not only the market, but also by its example, stop the capitalist lawlessness in Europe.

In 1920 - 1930, the USSR barely erected a new system in the country, there could be no talk of a war with Europe.