Why the west likes neither Molotov, nor Ribbentrop 10 страница
The situation was obvious: the Allies were quietly giving Poland away to Hitler, so that the triumphant German fuehrer could pass from the Polish-German War to Soviet-German warfare. This fully explains the “odd” be-havior of England and France at that period of time. All the rest is nothing but eye-wash explanations invented by historians, politicians and authors aimed at disguising the impolite truth.
The most important moment of the Polish campaign was coming on. The key moment was related to the military entry of the Red Army into Poland envisaged by the German-Soviet Pact. In spite of the Pact, it was impossible to exclude occasional or purposeful armed conflicts between German and Soviet soldiers with consequences leading to a large-scale warfare. The ques-tion is: why did Stalin introduce the troops into East Poland on August 17, 1939, not a day earlier or later? The date of the Soviet interference into the Polish affairs indicates how unstable the relations between Germany and the USSR were. The Soviet troops marched in only after Stalin became confident that there was no threat of fighting on two fronts, because on September 16, 1939 the Soviet conflict with Japan in Mongolia came to an end! It was on the following day after the news of Japan having officially announced of the end of military operations that the Red Army entered into the territory of Poland.
The Polish Army put up a “furious” resistance. The return of West Be-lorussia and West Ukraine had cost Russia 795 dead and 2019 injured with 59 missing. The Red Army captured 452,500 Polish servicemen, and Stalin’s “atrocious regime” sent most of them home. 125,400 men found themselves in the NKVD concentration camps; 15,131 of them were later found to have been shot down in Katyn. Up to now no one can be dead certain that the Poles had been shot down by the Russians, not the Nazi Germans3.
Shirer, W. The rise and fall of the Third Reich. P. 55.
Ibid. P. 56.
Meltyukhov, M. Stalin’s lost chance.P. 132.
286
The betrayed Poland
Stalin tried to make assurance double sure, because no one could have guaranteed that Hitler would make good his commitments. But the head of Germany realized that no confrontation with the USSR was necessary at the time. Apart from it, amity with the Soviet Union was a more interesting variant. All the more so, because he could always flop over to the camp of his former patrons, i. e. England and France…
|
|
|
For the Western diplomats the situation was still worse. When the powder fume had vanished away, the fatal mistake became evident to ev-erybody. Poland, having been loyal to her allies up to the end, disappeared from the map of Europe. The Third Reich and the USSR now had a common borderline and opposite ideologies. But they were not going to fight each other. The Polish campaign being over (September 28, 1939), the potential adversaries concluded an agreement of mutual friendship and came to an amicable division of the Polish territory.
Estimating the events of the then time, it is necessary to focus one’s at-tention on the following detail. Poland had been given the Allies’ guarantees of security, and the Allies seemed to meet their commitments, but not with reference to the USSR. England and France declared war on Germany for invading Poland, Stalin, using nice diplomatic rhetoric about defending the working people of West Belorussia and West Ukraine from the chaos of war, did absolutely the same thing. His army entered into the territory of Poland without any permission from the Polish government. But no one declared war on Stalin. Why not? Historians and politicians cannot give an unequivocal explanation; instead, they allege that the West did not want to see Stalin in Hitler’s boat, as his ally. This is a half -truth, or a lie. If they had declared war on Stalin, Moscow and Berlin would have involuntarily become comrades-in-arms. But it was not the Red Army stopping Hitler’s aggression that the West wanted; instead, the West wanted the German Wehrmacht to crush Russia. War on Stalin was not declared, because the West did not want to see Hitler in Stalin’s boat, not the other way round! They wanted to give the German fuehrer a chance to change his mind. And, ultimately, he would really change his mind and attack this country…
But let me not jump ahead of myself, because much water passed under the bridges between September 1939 and June 22, 1941…
How England left France
To sink or swim
Remember: every time, when we have to
|
|
|
choose between Europe and high seas, we
will always choose high seas.
Winston Churchill 1
One failure on the continent was enough
for England to be absorbed with the prob-
lem of home defense.
Charles de Gaulle 2
Hitler’s speech lasted an hour and a half. It was a long speech, the longest of his public speeches. A good speaker, Hitler realized that he was unable to hold the attention of the audience indefinitely long. That was why he tried each time to be convincing, interesting and laconic. But on that day, Oc-tober 6, 1939, Adolf Hitler broke his own rule. The topic was so important that he decided to sacrifice his style to the subject. Two weeks after the fall of Warsaw and the end of the Polish Campaign the head of Nazi Germany spoke about peace…
“Germany has no claims to France… I will not even touch on the Alsace-Lorraine problem. I have more than once expressed my wishes that
Gaulle, Ch. de. The War Memoirs. The Call-up of 1940–1942. P. 248.
Ibid. P. 78.
288
How England left France to sink or swim
France and Germany should bury our old feud and bring together our nations, each of which has such a glorious history… I have gone through the equivalent effort of reaching an accord, and more so, amity between Germany and England. I have never acted against the interests of Eng-land. Even today I believe that lasting peace in Europe and the whole world may be ensured in case England and Germany come to mutual understanding”1.
It is a funny thing reading this transcript of Hitler’s speech. You’d think that the author is not the main criminal in the history of humanity, but the main peace-maker of all times and nations. During the time of his political career Hitler often and verbosely spoke about peace, while preparing for war. But this speech in the Reichstag on October 6 contains some overtones never heard before. Hitler sounds as if he were trying to convince his invis-ible interlocutors in London and Paris of his righteous cause and to make them change their decision of which he undoubtedly was aware.
|
|
|
What was Hitler’s aim? Was it to provide an alibi for himself in the face of the future generations? Did he want to display phony peacefulness to Germany, so that he could expose the German nation, without scruples, to the hardships of the most terrible war on earth? This is a probability. Yet, it is hard to get rid of the impression that he addressed his speech to a few dozens of English gentlemen who determined the British policy and, cor-respondingly, the current events in the world.
“Who wants this war in the West? Is it wanted to restore Poland? The Po-land of the Versailles Treaty will never be restored… It makes no sense to murder millions of people and destroy property worth millions to restore the state that was a stillborn child from the very beginning, and this is recognized by all non-Poles. What are other reasons? If they want to wage this war only to impose a new regime on Germany… then millions of lives will be wasted… No, this war in the West cannot solve any problems…”2
It is blasphemy to call Adolf Hitler a consistent “champion of peace” after what he has done to this country. Even the most odious admirers of the demoniac German fuehrer do not think so. But it is possible to try to explain his activities by making up a more or less verisimilar logic of his
Shirer W. The rise and fall of the Third Reich. P. 64.
Ibid. P. 64–65.
289
Who made Hitler attack Stalin
moves. This is exactly what western historians do, together with some com-patriots who, either purposefully or unconsciously, are trying to justify the monstrous crimes of the Nazis on the territory of the USSR.
They explain that Hitler willfully tried to crush “the island of freedom and justice” represented by England and France by entering into collu-sion with the real “enemy of mankind”, i. e. the Soviet Union. They claim that Hitler, a feeble-minded German corporal that rose to the position of chancellor, was just a tool of the boss, i. e. Joseph Stalin, the real aggressor that threatened the world in the name of the communist ideology. They go on saying that once upon a time Hitler opened his eyes and realized the danger over Germany and the whole “civilized world” from the barbaric Bolsheviks — the Russians. Then June 22, 1941 came on, but the Germans cannot be to blame for that, because they meant only to defend themselves by forestalling Stalin a few days.
|
|
|
This is the logic of a great number of books published in the pursuit of cheap sensation, money and satisfying the ambitions of authors. Few scribblers realize that accusing the USSR of preparing an attack on Hitler suggests that this country is the main culprit of the Second World War, though, in fact, it was supposed to become the main victim. That is why this research aims at considering the catastrophe that happened to this country not on June 22, 1941, or even on August 23, 1939, but on September 12, 1919, when Adolf Hitler came for the first time into a Munich alehouse to attend a political meeting. It is worthwhile reminding those who believe the conception of Stalin’s attack on Europe of one fact. The phony accusation of this country of all deadly sins of the Second World War first appeared in the book of Suvorov- Rezun, a talented author. He wrote his famous “Ice -breaker” in London. How did he find himself there? He changed sides and established contact with the British intelligence service. Is it clear now who dictated the works that he wrote? The aim of these “historic works” is also transparent.
The whole history of Hitler’s ascent to power, related to the sources of the Nazi German economic “miracle”, indicates the real culprit of the Second World War. Besides, indicative is Hitler’s love of England and his admiration of the English way of managing subjugated territories. This culprit must by right share “the ignoble laurels” for murdering millions with the Third Reich that had been so carefully nurtured on the site of fire of the First World War. This culprit is by no means the Soviet Union (Russia)…
290
How England left France to sink or swim
Turn once again to Hitler’s speech. “Who wants this war in the West?” asks the German chancellor. He answers this question himself: no one wants this war. He really does not want anything from France; as early as in “Mein Kampf” he wrote that Alsace and Lorraine might just as well be left to France. Now he makes this point again.
“I have never acted against the interests of England”, says Hitler. This does sound strange on the part of the German leader. Why should he try to justify himself before those who declared war on his country? The leader of Germany must act in the interests of Germany, just like the leader of France takes care of French interests and the leader of Holland places the Dutch interests above all. To ensure the national interests of a state is the main ob-ligation of any national leader. This is what policy is for — to pursue national interests by resorting to the most ingenious methods, even at the expense of other nations and territories and sometimes contrary to their interests.
Hitler kind of apologizes: I have never acted against the interests of England and have respected the interests of France, too! The leader of an independent state cannot talk like that. “The German interests do not contradict the interests of France and England” — this is the implication of the German leader’s speech content. Yet, there is one “if”: if Adolf Hitler had come to power unassisted, with no one to give him a leg up except the captains of German industry. But the role of England, France and the USA in establishing the Nazi regime has already been revealed in this work. That is why Adolf Hitler, “having broken loose”, is trying to justify himself before his English patron saints. He is trying to get across the following message: in spite of what has happened, he will not encroach on their empires and just wants to be on equal footing with them. This accounts for his rhetoric about the unnecessary war in the West.
Hitler’s speech is not an appeal for peace, not at all. It is an attempt to shake the will of the stubborn English and French politicians who would not see Germany as an equal partner in the world political arena. The cause of the discord is quite plain: Hitler wants to make sure that he is treated as an equal and only then deliver a blow against Russia that he had always hated. But the Western leaders refuse to share a meal with Hitler before fulfilling Berlin’s commitment to crush the USSR.
“To prolong the current situation in the West is inconceivable. Soon every day the bell will toll for more and more victims. The European national wealth is going to be wasted by bombs, and the force of each nation
291
Who made Hitler attack Stalin
shall be exhausted in the battlefield… One thing is quite clear. In the course of world history there have never been two victors at once, but very often only losers. Let the peoples, who share this viewpoint, as well as their leaders give their answer today. And let those, who consider war as the best method of solving problems, disregard my offered hand”1.
Both the West and Hitler must make a decision now. The Phoney War cannot last forever, after all. It can end either in a peace agreement or in a “real” war, there is no third option. Why did the West decline peace with Hitler? Was it because he was a war criminal? Certainly not — at that point in time he was Chancellor of Germany and no Western politician could pos-sibly accuse him of war crimes. There was quite a different reason behind the inflexibility of London and Paris.
Why did these countries refrain from a full-blown campaign against the Nazi? They would really have had no difficulty striking the enemy in its very heart. They could have bombed the Ruhr district to dust — that key region of the Reich situated conveniently on the border. Instead, the Phoney War on the France-Germany frontier dragged on not for two weeks and not even two months — but some eight months (from September 3, 1939, to May 10, 1940)!
Why such procrastination? What good ground could the British and French have for not acting as they should have acted? Was it that the mobi-lization procedures took longer than expected? You must be kidding — one could have mobilized and disbanded an army several times over during that time! Or did they spare they troops? Well, in that case, they could have used nothing but aviation, as they have done in Yugoslavia in our days. Could have used their bombers to do the job. But no air bombings actually took place!
During the entire Phoney War, the only military operation carried out by the British Air Force was the bombing on September 4, 1939, of Wilhelm-shaven where the German fleet was harboured. Why just one air attack and why Wilhelmshaven, one may ask? Most likely, it was an attempt of Britain, that has always been jealously alert about other countries’ marine power, to undermine the German fleet, even during the Phoney War. The war being indeed “phoney”, any further attacks would have been “against the rules”. That is why the British bombers shot down during that brief attack were for a long time afterward the only ones hit in World War II.
Shirer, W. The rise and fall of the Third Reich. P. 65.
292
How England left France to sink or swim
One may fancy that the peace-mongers that according to some weird logic “formed” the majority of all Western governments cut down expenses on flying their planes and for that reason did not bomb Germany. But then they might have applied their favorite methods, applying the famous British intelligence service. British “James Bonds” could have resorted to sabotage, raids and other subversive acts on the German territory. But the history of the Second World War knows no such examples… in the first months of the war. Later, when it became clear that it was impossible to come to terms with Hitler, the acts of sabotage were as many as flies. But there were none during “the phony war”. But it was not because of lack of experience on the part of English special services. They had a lot of experience. One can make sure of this by turning to an interesting book by William Mackenzie: The secret history of SOE: Special Operations Executive, 1940–1945.
This is quite a sizeable volume which evokes natural respect: 900 pages in small print. There are so many glorious operations carried out by the British raiders that it was rather difficult to describe all of them in one voluminous book. It appears that SOE (Special Operations Executive) was set up in addition to the main branches of the English espionage and counter-espionage exclusively for the war period of time to do all kinds of dirty work. After the victory they broke up and burned all the archives. But the author, William Mackenzie, had had an opportunity to work with the archives. The book was published in England, but long before that its material had been highly classified. It appears, though, that after the security label was no longer relevant, the British censors had made some excisions in the text and introduced some inclusions: “Part of the text has been removed for the security reasons”. Such inclusions are abundant, but normally only names are missing, while the facts have remained intact.
The title shows a strange deliberation of the British special services: the book tells about operations carried out by agents beginning with the year of 1940. What about 1939? It was the year when the war began. Why did the English delay their activities? Were they unprepared for the war or did they love peace too dearly and trust too much in humanity? No. As it follows from the text, they started to develop their operations long before the war with Germany. The author points out the concrete date, when they started to work out acts sabotage against Germany: March 20, 19391. It was then that
Дата добавления: 2019-07-17; просмотров: 193; Мы поможем в написании вашей работы! |
Мы поможем в написании ваших работ!