Why the west likes neither Molotov, nor Ribbentrop 1 страница
No one will ask the winner after his vic-
tory if he has been honest.
In warfare, what matters is not the truth,
but the victory.
Adolf Hitler
It is necessary to defend one’s homeland
honestly or, at least, dishonestly.
All means are acceptable, as long as
Homeland’s integrity is ensured.
Niccolo Machiavelli
The true motive powers feeding the conflict between Germany and Poland that led to World War II are invested with a thick coat of lies. Many a historian, a journalist, or a researcher has a finger in the pie. To cover up the mean policies of the West they brought into play a plain myth that Hitler was a maniac obsessed with the idea to conquer the whole world. That was why, due to his aggressiveness, he attacked his neighbors, one by one, until the progressive mankind put an end to his regime. The reader has already made sure that Hitler’s annexation of Austria and Czechoslovakia and involvement in the Spanish Civil War cannot be accounted for by his great lust for power. Hitler’s logic characterizes a reasonable politician that has stair-work with some circles of the West establishment anxious to crush the Soviet Union.
218
Why the west likes neither Molotov, nor Ribbentrop
Adolf Hitler is the greatest criminal of all times and nations condemned by the humankind’s earthly court and, sure enough, the Supreme Court that will try each and every one of us. But there is no sense in painting him too black and drag through all the mire and muck of the then politics just to whitewash the other masters of string pulling, because it is their concerted action that took a toll of over 60 million people. Let every politician be appraised according to his/ her share in the build-up of the Nazi military machine. Up to now, the major criminals responsible for the horrible bloodshed of 1939–1945 are flying under false colors of “peace-lovers” and “peace-makers”.
All the mysteries of the Second World War may be unraveled, provided the logic underlying the actions of the major players is clarified. Historians wonder, why Germany had so few submarines at the beginning of the war against England, with the Reich’s shipbuilding program to be completed only by 1944–1945. The answer is as follows: it was determined by Adolf Hitler. In May 1938 he informed the German Navy Minister Admiral Raeder that England was Germany’s potential enemy1. Does it suggest that Germany was going to attack England? No. In the modern world both the USA and the NATO military block, as well as China are Russia’s potential adversaries. Potential means possible. Consequently, the General Staff of the Russian Army must have plans against the possibility of a conflict situation. Does it suggest Russia’s aggressiveness? Not at all. Because Russia is also con-sidered to be a potential adversary for the USA, Great Britain and China, and their General Staffs also have plans in preparation for war against this power. It is common practice of all the states in the world.
|
|
|
By August 1, 1939 the major Western powers had superiority over Ger-many in the Navy military hardware: aircraft carriers: England — 7, France — 1, Germany — 0; large cruisers: England — 15, France — 12, Germany — 2; destroyers: England — 183, France — 59, Germany — 22; torpedo boats: England — 0, France — 12, Germany — 20; submarines:England — 65, France — 78, Germany — 57; patrol torpedo boats: Eng-land — 27, France — 9, Germany — 20; monitors: England — 3, France — 0, Germany — 02. Gross-Admiral Raeder informed the German fuehrer that to wage a war with England it was necessary to have 300 submarines,
Dцnitz, K. The Reich’s submarine Force. Smolensk, 1999. P. 38.
The protracted blitzkrieg: German generals on the war in Russia. M., 2006. P. 292.
219
Who made Hitler attack Stalin
but when the war broke out, Germany had only 23 submarines ready to go to the Atlantic Ocean as compared to 57 it had later! In other words, Germany had 13 times as few submarines as was necessary according to the estimates of the German admirals! Is this the proper way to prepare for war against the sea powers, such as England and France? Of course, not! Hitler did not prepare for war on the sea which is indispensable for crushing Britain, the “Mistress of the Seas”. Hitler did not even think of preparing for war against England and France! This hardly depicts Ger-many as an aggressor striving to conquer the whole world.
|
|
|
To assess the degree of Hitler’s aggressiveness one has to look at the missions he assigned his generals and plans he ordered them to work out. This may give the reader a bit of a surprise. After the German fuehrer’s outspoken remark about England as a potential adversary Admiral Raeder submitted two variants of developing the German Navy.
‰ The first variant provided for intensive construction of submarines ona tough schedule.
‰ The second plan (Plan “Z”) based on a longer period of implementa-tion due to the assumption that “war is excluded within the nearest 10 years”1 envisaged building a great number of large surface ships. The period of implementation was 10 years (up to the year 1948), but Hitler demanded that it be carried out in 6 years. Thus, Hitler had not intended to be engaged in warfare with England before 1944–1945. But the war broke out in 1939! Submarines were used as the striking force, although Hitler banned their large-scale construction. The question is: why did Hitler opt for Plan “Z”?
Here is the evidence of Anglo-American sources: “It is hard to explain this erroneous decision in the light of the subsequent developments. Prob-ably, Hitler thought that large surface ships could make a political impact”2. According to the Western historians, Hitler simply “forgot” that way back during the First World War England was as good as on the rocks due to the operations of the German submarines which sank hundreds of English ships. England is an island, so it has to draw supplies by sea. But it was no good to rival the British surface ships, because Britain kept a sharp lookout
Nimitz, Ch., Potter, A. War on the sea in 1939–1945. Smolensk, 1999. P. 11.
Ibid.
220
Why the west likes neither Molotov, nor Ribbentrop
for shipbuilding in other countries and responded to any new foreign vessel by building two vessels of its own. At that period, the shipbuilding facilities of the British Empire excelled those of any other country.
Hitler’s shipbuilding plan for “conquering the whole world” envisaged quite an asymmetric ratio of surface ships (maximum) and submarines (minimum). The time period for doing the work (1944–1945) is a surprise, too. Is Hitler in his right senses? A year’s lapse between adopting the plan and the outbreak of the war in September 1939 is fantastic for building the required number of surface ships! How is the German fuehrer going to defeat the English Navy, if he actually rules out submarines and has no time to build surface ships?
|
|
|
It is quite a treat to read Western historians: it looks that they do not read what they write; otherwise they would not be riddled with errors and clangers. For instance: “Hitler made constant mistakes in determining the date of unleashing war — September 1, 1939”1.
Just think of it: the chief aggressor “of all times and nations” makes mistakes in the date of the war that he himself unleashed! How can itbe? The idea is really insane! Only an attacked country may be in the dark about the date, while an attacking country cannot make such a mistake, because it fixes the date itself. It was Hitler’s decision to attack Poland on September 1, 1939, and so he did, or to strike the USSR on June 22, 1941, and so he did… Is there any mistake? Disreputable historians advance mutually exclusive ideas, suggesting that Hitler had a well-elaborated war plan to conquer the world, but made a mistake with the date and started the war too early. In their phrase-mongering they overlook the principal fact: oddly enough, unleashing the war by an onslaught on Poland, Germany was not prepared for warfare. Why did Hitler start the war, being unprepared? This is where historians make a point of his idiocy and excessive bellicosity, and this seems to be an exhaustive explanation. A maniac is a maniac; such a person can’t be called to account.
Dear historians, please, explain, how this belligerent idiot managed to win the elections polling 40 % of votes, to create an army that it took the whole world 6 long years to defeat, to win back all the German lands with-
Kershaw, I. Hitler. P. 218.
221
Who made Hitler attack Stalin
|
|
|
out firing a shot? Why was he named “person of the year” by the American magazine “Time” in the last peaceful year of 1938?1
To discover the horrible truth of the then events and find the names of true malefactors responsible for the colossal human catastrophe termed “World War II” it is necessary to look facts in the face. It is a bad idea to confuse oneself with cock and bull stories and fables. Adolf Hitler was no idiot. He was a German state figure that had been quite cleverly rebuilding his country until 01.09.1939. But later this unusually successful politician “makes a mistake” concerning the date of the war. Why? Because, while he was in office, he was preparing for another war (against the USSR), not for the Second World War that actually took place later. He learned by diplomatic mail he received from England and France that these Western countries would not interfere. It was essential information that earlier helped him to foresee the international events as “a clairvoyant”. Hence his “mistakes” and “whims” historians are talking about.
Submarines were Germany’s major striking force in the war against Great Britain. Why did Adolf Hitler ban their mass production on the eve of World War II?
Time. 02.01.1939 (source: Martirosyan, A. P. 400).
222
Why the west likes neither Molotov, nor Ribbentrop
To show their worth the German submarines needed a worthy adversary, or an adequate victim. To sink great numbers of trade and combat ships it was necessary that the potential adversary should have these ships. Hundreds of submarines would be at work if they had a stated objective — to sink the joint Navy of Great Britain and its allies. There is no other world power that might come up with the British Royal Navy. The USSR did not have a suf-ficient number of vessels, in other words, targets for German submarines. The Soviet Navy had only 3 battle- ships, 4 large cruisers, 5 light cruisers, 31 destroyers, 19 torpedo vessels, 156 submarines, 120 torpedo boats1.
The inadequate number of the Soviet Navy would show later, in the naval actions. All the enemy ships sunk by the German submarines during World War II totals 2,7592. Karl Dцnitz does not specify the state identity of the sunken ships; so, the total number of the Soviet sea fight losses is unknown. It is possible, though, to sum up the losses of the Soviet ships on all the seas where they fought during the war. Thus, the Soviet losses should include the vessels sunken in the Black Sea (26), in the Baltic Sea (18), in the Arctic Ocean (99); the ships sunken in the coast waters of Norway, in the Barents Sea. Losses in the Northeast Passage may be also accounted as the Russian losses (though, naturally, the ships lost in Norway’s coast waters, especially in the convoys going to Murmansk, might be British or American). It turns out that during the war the German submarines sunk 143 Soviet ships.
This definitely oversized estimate nevertheless points to a petty percent (5 %!) of the Soviet losses attacked by the German submarines. That is whyit was clear from the very beginning that Germany did not need a great number of submarines to fight the Soviets. A war against England was a dif-ferent story: the more submarines — the better. But Hitler was preparing to wage a war against Stalin and therefore he banned building submarines in large numbers. Why squander hard-to-find steel and India rubber, why strain the capacities of the German docks?
Here is the production schedule of the German submarines: 1935 — 14 boats, 1936 — 21 boats, 1937 — 1 boat (!), 1938 — 9 boats, 1939 — 18 boats3 . This launching schedule characterizes a country that never proposed to wage a war against England! In the first two years they build
The delayed blitzkrieg… P. 295.
Dцnitz, K. P. 443–444.
Ibid. P. 32–33.
223
Who made Hitler attack Stalin
submarines just to have them on hand, in another two years they minimize production and resume it only when a conflict with England begins to loom large. Eighteen submarines in 1939 — is this many or few? Compared to one boat in 1937 the production increases 18 times. Yet, the subsequent production gives one the impression that before then Germany has hardly been producing any submarines. Starting the war with only 57 submarines, Germany produces the total number of 1,095 boats1 (in the period between January 1, 1940 and May 8, 1945), i. e. 200 submarines annually. It beats anything…
As for Hitler’s plans of building aircraft carriers and battleships, they prove the same thing: Hitler was not going to wage a war with England. This becomes clear after analyzing the figures of Plan “Z”. It does not pay to pester the reader with figures: an enthusiast can look things up for himself 2. But there is an evident fact to be pointed out: had Hitler’s plan for making battle-ships and aircraft carriers been fulfilled, the German Navy would not have come up to the British Navy, to say nothing of the joint Anglo-French Navy. Besides, with Plan “Z” being realized, the British dockyards would not have stood idle…
It is the right time now to turn back to the Anglo-American historians. What did they say? Hitler thought that “large surface ships could make a political impact”. Yes, the German fuehrer had them built to make an impact on his English friends, to win their respect, to gain advantage in negotiations with them, to join “the club of world leaders”. But not to wage war against them! It is not “impact”, but ammunition that makes war. But the Western historians do not see the difference. The question is: can’t they, or won’t they “see” — for the benefit of money, academic titles, degrees, sale and popularity?
In 1939 Hitler did not think about any big war. In a conflict with Poland he hoped to draw upon his own resources and got involved into a world war without a reliable ally. The Soviet Union could not be an ally to side with Germany. Even Italy was not going to war on Germany’s side! Mussolini was shocked to learn about Hitler’s plans on the 20th of August 1939, i. e. 11 days before the world war. As early as the following day Italy’s Foreign Minister made up a memorandum to remind Germany that the union between Italy
Dцnitz, K. P. 443.
Ibid. P. 38–39; Kuznetsov, N. On the eve. P. 390.
224
Why the west likes neither Molotov, nor Ribbentrop
and Germany (“the Steel Pact”) envisaged starting warfare no sooner than in two or three years. But a two weeks’ notice was by far worse! In response, to relieve the Italian leader’s embarrassment, the Germans asked him to specify acceptable conditions for an earlier war. Italy demanded such off-balance amounts of procurement that Germany could never satisfy them. Yet, Mussolini insisted that without indicated items and amounts of sup-plies Italy would not be able to make a war partner. What did Hitler do after losing HIS ONLY ALLY at that time? He did nothing. Did he intend to do without allies?1 Was he determined to wage war against the whole world? After all, they say that it was Hitler that unleashed a world war and that he fought long enough.
Germany was at war with 52 states in a span of six years between 1939 and 19452. Here is the schedule of their participation in the war.
1939:
September 1 — Poland;
September 3 — Great Britain, Australia, India, New Zealand and France; September 4 — the South-African Union; September 7 — Canada;
1940:
April 9 — Norway;
April 10 — Denmark;
May 10 — the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxemburg;
1941:
April 6 — Yugoslavia and Greece;
June 22 — the USSR;
December 8 — China;
December 11 — the USA, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Haiti, Honduras and El-Salvador;
December 16 — Czechoslovakia (the in-exile government, London);
Italy did not take part in the world war until the summer of 1940, a few days before France laid down arms. Thus, Germany got the worst of the war alone. Is this the proper way to prepare a large-scale aggression?
The Second World War: two view-points. P. 341–342.
225
Who made Hitler attack Stalin
1942:
January 13 — Panama;
May 28 — Mexico;
August 28 — Brazil;
October 9 — Abyssinia (the war was declared by the newly-formed government);
1943:
January 13 — Iraq;
Дата добавления: 2019-07-17; просмотров: 241; Мы поможем в написании вашей работы! |
Мы поможем в написании ваших работ!