Why did Hitler start the war with the USSR. Why Hitler did not attack the USSR earlier & nbsp Why Hitler wanted this war so much
Striving for justice is one of the most important human aspirations. In any social organization of any complexity, the need for a moral assessment of interactions with other people has always been extremely great. Justice is the most important motivation for people to act, to assess what is happening, the most important element of the perception of themselves and the world.
The chapters written below do not pretend to be any complete description of the history of the concepts of justice. But in them we tried to focus on the basic principles from which people at different times proceeded, evaluating the world and themselves. And also on those paradoxes that they faced, realizing these or those principles of justice.
Greeks discover justice
The idea of justice appears in Greece. Which is understandable. As soon as people unite in communities (policies) and begin to interact with each other not only at the level of tribal relations or at the level of direct rule-subordination, there is a need for a moral assessment of such interaction.
Before that, the whole logic of justice fit into a simple scheme: justice is following a given order of things. The Greeks, however, also largely adopted this logic - the teachings of the sages-founders of the Greek city-states somehow boiled down to an understandable thesis: "Only what is in our laws and customs is fair." But with the development of cities, this logic has become noticeably more complicated and expanded.
So, what is true is that which does not harm others and is done for the good. Well, since the natural order of things is an objective good, then following it is the basis for any criteria for assessing fairness.
The same Aristotle wrote very convincingly about the justice of slavery. Barbarians are naturally destined for physical labor and submission, and therefore it is very true that the Greeks - by nature destined for mental and spiritual labor - make them slaves. Because it is good for barbarians to be slaves, even if they themselves do not understand this due to their unreasonableness. This same logic allowed Aristotle to speak of a just war. The war waged by the Greeks against the barbarians for the sake of replenishing the army of slaves is just, since it restores the natural state of affairs and serves for the good of all. Slaves receive masters and the opportunity to realize their destiny, and the Greeks - slaves.
Plato, proceeding from the same logic of justice, proposed to carefully monitor how children play and, by the type of play, define them in social groups for the rest of their lives. Those who play war are guards, they need to be taught the craft of war. Those who rule are philosophical rulers, they must be taught Platonic philosophy. And you don't need to teach everyone else - they will work.
Naturally, the Greeks shared the good for the individual and the common good. The second is certainly more important and significant. Therefore, for the common good there has always been primacy in the assessment of justice. If something infringes on other individuals, but presupposes the common good, this is certainly true. However, for the Greeks there was no particular contradiction here. They called the general good the good for the polis, and the cities in Greece were small, and not at the level of abstraction, but at a very specific level, it was assumed that the one whose good was infringed, for the good of everyone, would return him as a member of the community, with a profit. This logic, of course, led to the fact that justice for their own (residents of your polis) was very different from justice for strangers.
Socrates who confused everything
So, the Greeks figured out what good is. We figured out what the natural order of things is. We figured out what justice is.
But there was one Greek who liked to ask questions. Good-natured, consistent and logical. You already understood that we are talking about Socrates.
In Xenophon's "Memories of Socrates" there is an amazing chapter "A Conversation with Euthydemus about the Need to Learn." questions that Socrates asked the young politician Euthydemus about justice and welfare.
Read this brilliant dialogue from Xenophon himself or, perhaps, even better, as presented by Mikhail Leonovich Gasparov. However, you can also right here.
"Tell me: is it fair to lie, cheat, steal, grab people and sell them into slavery?" - "Of course it's unfair!" - "Well, if the commander, after repelling the attack of the enemies, captures the prisoners and sells them into slavery, will that also be unfair?" - "No, perhaps that is fair." - "And if he loots and ravages their land?" - "Also true." - "And if he deceives them with military tricks?" - “That’s also true. Yes, perhaps I told you inaccurately: lies, deception, and theft are fair to enemies, but unfair to friends. "
"Wonderful! Now I, too, seem to begin to understand. But tell me this, Euthydem: if a commander sees that his soldiers are depressed, and lies to them that allies are approaching them, and this will cheer them up, will such a lie be unfair? " - "No, perhaps that is fair." - “And if a son needs medicine, but he does not want to take it, and the father tricks it into food, and the son recovers, - would such a deception be unfair?” - "No, also fair." - “And if someone, seeing a friend in despair and fearing that he would lay hands on himself, steals or takes away his sword and dagger, - what to say about such theft?” “And that's true. Yes, Socrates, it turns out that I again told you inaccurately; it was necessary to say: lies, and deceit, and theft - this is fair in relation to enemies, but in relation to friends it is fair when it is done for their good, and unjust when it is done for their evil. "
“Very good, Euthydem; now I see that before I can recognize justice, I need to learn to recognize good and evil. But you know that, of course? " - “I think I know, Socrates; although for some reason I am not so sure of that anymore. " - "So what is it?" “Well, for example, health is good, and illness is evil; food or drink that leads to health is good, and those that lead to illness are evil. " - “Very well, I understood about food and drink; but then, perhaps, it is more correct to say about health in the same way: when it leads to good, then it is good, and when to evil, then it is evil? " - "What are you, Socrates, but when can health be for evil?" “But, for example, an unholy war began and, of course, ended in defeat; the healthy ones went to war and died, but the sick stayed at home and survived; what was health here - good or bad? "
“Yes, I see, Socrates, that my example is unfortunate. But, perhaps, we can say that the mind is a blessing! " - “But is it always? Here the Persian king often demands clever and skillful artisans from Greek cities to his court, keeps them with him and does not let them home; is their mind good for them? " - "Then - beauty, strength, wealth, glory!" “But beautiful slaves are more often attacked by slaves, because beautiful slaves are more valuable; the strong often take on a task that exceeds their strength, and get into trouble; the rich pamper themselves, become victims of intrigue and perish; glory always arouses envy, and from this, too, there is a lot of evil. "
"Well, if that's the case," said Euthydemus sadly, "I don't even know what to pray to the gods about." - "Do not worry! It just means that you still do not know what you want to talk to the people about. But do you know the people yourself? " "I think I know, Socrates." - "Who is the people made of?" - "From the poor and the rich." - "And who do you call rich and poor?" - "The poor are those who do not have enough to live on, and the rich are those who have everything in abundance and in excess of it." - “But does it not happen that the poor man knows how to get along well with his small means, while the rich man doesn’t have enough wealth?” - “Indeed, it happens! There are even tyrants who do not have enough of their entire treasury and need illegal extortions. " - “So what? Should we not classify these tyrants as the poor, and the economic poor as the rich? " - “No, it’s better not, Socrates; I see that here I, it turns out, do not know anything. "
“Do not despair! You will think about the people, but of course you have thought about yourself and your future fellow speakers, and more than once. So tell me this: there are such bad orators who deceive the people to their detriment. Some do it unintentionally, and some even intentionally. Which ones are better and which ones are worse? " “I think, Socrates, that intentional deceivers are much worse and more unfair than unintentional ones.” - “Tell me: if one person reads and writes with errors on purpose, and the other does not on purpose, then which one is more literate?” - "Probably the one who is on purpose: after all, if he wants, he can write without mistakes." - "But does it not come out of this that an intentional deceiver is better and more just than an unintentional one: after all, if he wants, he can speak with the people without deceiving!" - "Don't, Socrates, don't tell me that, I see now even without you that I don't know anything and it would be better for me to sit and be silent!"
Romans. Justice is right
The Romans were also concerned with the issue of justice. Although Rome began as a small settlement, it quickly grew into a huge state that dominates the entire Mediterranean. The Greek logic of polis justice did not work very well here. Too many people, too many provinces, too many different interactions.
The Romans were helped to cope with the idea of justice. A rebuilt and constantly being completed system of laws to which all citizens of Rome obeyed. Cicero wrote that the state is a community of people united by common interests and agreement in relation to laws.
The legal system combined the interests of society, and the interests of specific people, and the interests of Rome as a state. All this has been described and codified.
Hence the law as the initial logic of justice. What is right is just. And justice is realized through the possession of law, through the possibility of being an object of the action of law.
"Don't touch me, I'm a Roman citizen!" - A man included in the system of Roman law proudly exclaimed, and those who wanted to harm him understood that all the power of the empire would fall on them.
Christian Logic of Justice or Everything's Got Complicated Again
The "New Testament" again confused things a little.
First, he set the absolute coordinates of justice. The Last Judgment is coming. Only there will true justice be manifested, and only this justice matters.
Secondly, your good deeds and a just life here on earth can somehow influence that very decision of the High Court. But these deeds and a just life must be an act of our free will.
Third, the demand to love one's neighbor as oneself, declared by Christ as the main moral value of Christianity, is still something more than just a demand to try not to harm or have a disposition for the good. The Christian ideal presupposes the need to perceive the other as oneself.
And finally, the New Testament abolished the division of people into friends and foes, into worthy and unworthy, into those whose destiny to be the master, and those whose destiny to be a slave: “In the image of the One who created it, where there is neither Greek nor Jew , neither circumcision, nor uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free, but Christ is all and in all "(Epistle to the Colossians of the holy Apostle Paul, 3.8)
Based on the logic of the New Testament, now all people should be perceived as equal subjects of justice. And the same criteria of fairness should be applied to all. And the principle of "love for one's neighbor" requires more from justice than simply following the formal criteria of good. The criteria of justice cease to be the same, for everyone they turn out to be their own. And then there's the Last Judgment in the inevitable perspective.
In general, all this was too complicated, it required too much mental and social effort. Fortunately, religious logic itself allowed us to perceive the world in the traditional paradigm of justice. Following the traditions and prescriptions of the church leads more reliably to the kingdom of heaven, for this is both good deeds and a just life. And all these acts of good free will can be omitted. We are Christians and believe in Christ (no matter what he says there), and those who do not believe - our criteria of justice do not fit those. As a result, Christians, when necessary, no worse than Aristotle justified the justice of any wars and any slavery.
However, what was said in the New Testament in one way or another still exerted its influence. And on the religious consciousness, and on the whole European culture.
Do not do what you do not want to be done to you
“Therefore, in everything that you want people to do to you, so do you to them, for in this is the law and the prophets” (Matt. 7:12). These words of Christ from the Sermon on the Mount are one of the formulations of the universal moral maxim. Confucius has about the same formula, in the Upanishads and in general in many places.
And it was this formula that became the starting point for thinking about justice in the Age of Enlightenment. The world has become more complicated, people speaking different languages, believers in different ways and in different things, doing different things, more and more actively collided with each other. Practical reason demanded a logical and consistent formula of justice. And I found it in a moral maxim.
It is easy to see that this maxim has at least two very different variants.
"Do not do what you do not want to be treated with you."
"Do as you would like to be treated with you."
The first was called the principle of justice, the second - the principle of mercy. The combination of these two principles solved the problem of who exactly should be considered the neighbor whom should be loved (in the Sermon on the Mount, it is the second option). And the first principle provided the basis for a clear justification of fair actions.
All these reflections were summed up and brought into a categorical imperative by Kant. However, he had to (as the consistent logic of his reflections demanded) slightly change the wording: "Do so that the maxim of your will could be a universal law." The author of the famous "Critic" also has another option: "Do so that you always treat humanity in your own person and in the person of everyone else as well as a goal, and never treat it only as a means."
How Marx put everything in its place and justified the struggle for justice
But there were big problems with this formula, in any of its wording. Especially if you go beyond the Christian idea of the highest (divine) good and the highest judge. But what if others do exactly what you would not want them to do to you? What if you are treated unfairly?
And further. People are very different, "what is great for a Russian is a karachun for a German." Some people passionately want to see the holy cross on Hagia Sophia in Constantinople, while others do not care about this at all, some control over the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles is vital, while others find it important to find somewhere a half for a shot of vodka.
And here Karl Marx helped everyone. He explained everything. The world is divided into warring ones (no, not cities like Aristotle's), but classes. Some classes are oppressed and others are oppressive. Everything that the oppressor does is unfair. Everything that the oppressed do is fair. Especially if these oppressed are the proletariat. Because science has proved that it is the proletariat that is the upper class, behind which is the future, and which represents an objectively good majority and the logic of progress.
So:
First, there is no justice for everyone.
Secondly, what is done for the benefit of the majority is fair.
Thirdly, what is true is that which is objective, immutable (cf. the objective laws of the universe among the Greeks) and progressive.
And finally, what is true is that for the good of the oppressed, and therefore requires a fight. Demands the suppression of those who are against, those who oppress and stand in the way of progress
Actually, Marxism became for many years the main logic of the struggle for justice. And she still is. True, with one important change. Justice for the majority has fallen out of modern Marxist logic.
American philosopher John Rawls created the theory of "fair inequality", which is based on "equality of access to fundamental rights and freedoms" and "priority in access to any opportunity for those who have fewer of these opportunities." There was nothing Marxist in Rawls's logic; rather, on the contrary, it is clearly an anti-Marxist doctrine. However, it was precisely the combination of Rawls's formula and the Marxist approach that created the modern foundations for the struggle for justice and destruction.
The Marxist logic of the struggle for justice is based on the rights of the oppressed. Marx argued in the category of large groups and global processes, and the oppressed was the proletariat - the logic of progress was destined to be the majority. But if the focus is shifted a little, then any other oppressed marginal groups that do not necessarily constitute the majority may find themselves in the place of the proletariat. And so, from Marx's striving to achieve justice for all, a struggle for the rights of any minorities grows, turning the ideas of a German inside out from the century before last.
In the literature about the Second World War, the idea that Hitler did not defeat the USSR only because he did not manage to take Moscow before winter is a red thread. And he did not have time to do this because he launched an invasion too late. For some reason, I waited until the end of June, instead of attacking in the spring. Moreover, the initial date of the attack was, as it were, scheduled for May 15, 1941. That is, it turns out that Hitler, by some whim or bewilderment, lost precious time? Or were there objective reasons that forced him to postpone the implementation of the "Barbarossa" plan?
First of all, let's clarify where it came from that Hitler set the date of the invasion of the USSR on May 15th. This date has only one source: the directive of the High Command of the Wehrmacht No. 21, otherwise the "Barbarossa" plan, signed by the Fuhrer on December 18, 1940. It reads: “I will give the order on the strategic deployment of armed forces against the Soviet Union, if necessary, eight weeks before the scheduled start of operations. Preparations that require a longer time, if they have not yet begun, should be started now and finished by 15.5.41. "
It does not follow that May 15 was already set as the date for the attack. By this time, the transfer of Wehrmacht troops to the areas from where their strategic deployment could begin for an operation against the USSR should have just ended. The appointment of a start date for the operation is the subject of a special order. From the same text, it follows that this order should have been issued no later than eight weeks before the planned date of the invasion. That is, if this date was scheduled for May 15, then the order should have been received no later than March 20, 1941. As you know, there was no such order. [C-BLOCK]
Of course, Hitler was interested in attacking the USSR as early as possible, and the Barbarossa plan clearly indicates this: "The German armed forces must be ready to defeat Soviet Russia in a short-lived campaign." May 15 was a tentative date. As early as April 3, the OKH issued an order stating the postponement of Operation Barbarossa "by at least four weeks." The postponement was motivated by the need for a military operation in the Balkans. On April 30, after the end of the occupation of Yugoslavia and Greece, the new order for the first time named a specific date for the attack - June 22, and it was sustained. On June 17, the troops of Germany and its allies received the code signal "Dortmund" to advance to their initial positions.
So, the reason for the postponement seems to be beyond doubt, since the Germans themselves named it. However, some historians question the truth of this official version.
According to some mystically minded people, Hitler specially timed the attack on the USSR to the day when the Russian Orthodox Church celebrated the "Day of All Saints Who Shone in the Land of Russia." Considering that Hitler viewed the campaign against the USSR as a "fight against godless Bolshevism" and that the German administration everywhere opened churches in the occupied regions that had previously been closed by the Bolsheviks, this "version" should be dismissed as an absurd myth. Let's consider more serious explanations.
In the opinion of such authors as V. Suvorov (Rezun) and M. Solonin, Hitler undertook the invasion at the moment most favorable in order to forestall the Soviet troops, which themselves were preparing to attack Germany. On July 6, 1941, Stalin allegedly appointed the beginning of the RKKA campaign in Europe. Hitler, knowing this, chose the time to suddenly defeat the Soviet troops concentrated near the borders and completely unprepared for defense with a surprise blow. Therefore, he postponed the attack until June 22 to be sure.
However, this version has not yet found direct documentary evidence. The problem for her is not even the secrecy of the most important Soviet archival documents of the pre-war period. In all German documents, there are absolutely no indications that the preparation of German troops for the invasion of the USSR was carried out depending on the information about the allegedly impending Soviet invasion and in order to forestall it. All the data available today indicate that Nazi Germany was preparing an attack on the USSR completely regardless of what the Soviet leadership was undertaking.
Back in the 70s of the last century, the English historian A.J.P. Taylor wrote: “Subsequently, it was believed that the implementation of the Barbarossa plan ... was ... postponed due to the events in Yugoslavia ... This is a legend invented by German generals to justify their defeat in Russia and actually based on nothing. Only 15 out of 150 [more precisely, out of 153 - Ya. B.] German divisions intended for the first strike were diverted to the Balkans. This is hardly a serious loss. Mobilization plans in Germany for the Eastern Front had not been fulfilled by May 15 ... due to a lack of supplies, especially vehicles ... The delay may even have come in handy, because after the spring melting of snow, the ground dried out by mid-June. "
To this we can add another consideration. The factor of strategic surprise would surely have been used to a greater extent by Germany if the invasion had been undertaken in the month of May. At this time, Stalin would have considered the German army the least capable of striking, since its ground operation in the Balkans had just ended, and it still had to capture Crete.
Therefore, the hypothesis that the Wehrmacht missed a convenient time to defeat the USSR only for purely technical reasons (difficulties in concentrating the materiel), and not because of the sudden need to conduct an operation in the Balkans (carried out by very limited forces) deserves serious attention.
"Icebreaker" version of the name of J. Goebbels.
The fugitive intelligence officer and scandalous historian Viktor Suvorov (VB Rezun), following Josef Goebbels, put forward a theory that the reason for the crushing defeat of the Red Army in the summer and autumn of 1941 was that Stalin was preparing to attack Hitler, which is why the troops could not effectively defend themselves. Suvorov is trying to prove that Stalin and Zhukov had completely completed preparations for the attack on Germany, which was to take place on July 6, 1941, by June 1941. More than 150 divisions of the Red Army were to unexpectedly attack German and Romanian troops and with the support of thousands of tanks and aircraft inflict a swift and crushing defeat upon them. Hitler learned about this from his intelligence and launched a preventive offensive on June 22, 1941. Therefore, the real aggressor in this war should not be considered Hitler, but Stalin. “It was Stalin who helped bring Hitler to power and turn Hitler into a real Icebreaker of the Revolution. It was Stalin who pushed the Icebreaker of the Revolution to Europe. It was Stalin who supplied the Icebreaker with everything necessary for the victorious movement forward. It was Stalin who turned a blind eye to all the crimes of the Nazis and was preparing the Soviet operation "Thunderstorm" in order to defeat Hitler and get his hands on the whole of Europe. But Hitler figured out Stalin's plan. That is why the Second World War ended in disaster for Stalin: he only got half of Europe and something in Asia. "
How many of our and foreign "historians" were thrown into exposing the "untruth of Viktor Suvorov"! There are several times more books trying to refute Suvorov, all sorts of "Anti-Suvorovs", "Icebreaker-2", etc., than the books of Suvorov himself.
Not! - they all assure. - Dushka-Stalin did not even think of attacking Dusya-Hitler!
Now let me ask this question: Who doubts Hitler's cannibalism? Show me him, so that this idiot can be judged or treated right away.
And what, Stalin did not understand that the Hitler regime needed to be destroyed? And someone from normal countries would blame him for this?
The Jews of America would very much object to the release of their fellow tribesmen and co-religionists from the death camps? Would England be offended by the Soviet Union, for the fact that the bombing of its territory stopped, that German submarines stopped sinking its ships?
And if in 1941 Hitler had not attacked the USSR, would we have been friends with him, keeping silent about the crimes of Nazism, the death camps?
We must pay tribute - Viktor Suvorov, and after him all of us, came close to understanding the reasons for our crushing defeat in 1941-1942. But in order to get the right answer, you need to ask the right question, and here the author of the exposures of the Stalinist authoritarian regime is not all right.
"Historians have never explained why Hitler attacked Stalin."
(V. Suvorov).
And after him, the rest of the researchers, turning on the "fool's mode" at full capacity, began to ask perplexedly: But really, why did Hitler attack the USSR? Maybe you imagined what? Maybe he ate, sick, what's wrong? Who provoked the peaceful and quiet Adya to aggression?
And meanwhile, by that time, Hitler had ripped Austria, Czechoslovakia, France, Belgium, Luxembourg, Holland, Norway, Denmark, Greece, Yugoslavia and half of Poland into a part of the millennial Reich ...
(Yes, the second half of Poland was occupied by Stalin, but firstly, the lands belonging to us according to international law (Curzon's line) were occupied, and secondly, it is not Poland to blame for this, because shortly before that Poland shared Czechoslovakia with Hitler ).
By the end of the fortieth year, the "economic space" of Germany is 4 million square meters. km. nearly 350 million people.
And in the agriculture of Germany alone, more than a million agricultural slaves, mainly Poles, appeared. And only in Belgium did Hitler receive high-tech machine-building and arms factories, where half of the workers and employees worked for the German armed forces, and this is more than 900 thousand highly qualified specialists.
Thinking about the tragic day of June 22, 1941, one must look back to June 22, 1940, when Germany entered into a "truce" with France. And as a result: “The Germans have discovered sufficient oil reserves in the storage facilities ... for the first major campaign in Russia. And the collection of occupation costs from France ensured the maintenance of an army of 18 million people ”; and in wartime conditions in Germany “... the standard of living actually increased in the second half of 1940 ... There was no need for economic mobilization, for the management of labor resources ... The construction of highways continued. Hitler's ambitious plans to create a new Berlin began to be implemented.
And already government France sends French workers to German factories, and sends raw materials. (And the order is given to the French police together with the Gestapo to fight against members of the Resistance, and the political prisoners held in French camps - Germans and Jews who fled from the Nazi regime - were handed over to Hitler.)
Well, do you understand?
Yes, it's just such a business - to plunder nearby peoples and lands! And the people of Germany are happy - roads are being built, a German woman is putting on Parisian toilets, and on the table is Norwegian salmon, Danish butter, French wines, cognac and pâtés, Dutch cheese, Krakow sausage, Greek oranges and olives ...
It was in such a situation that Germany, intoxicated with satiety, decided on what Bismarck called "Suicide due to fear of death." (This is what Bismarck called the preventive war against Russia.)
Why did Germany attack the USSR?
The answer to this is given by the peace-loving Hitler himself: "We demand living space: territories and lands (colonies) necessary for the sustenance of the German people and for the resettlement of the surplus German population." It's still 1920!
“The border between Europe and Asia does not pass through the Urals, but at the place where the settlements of real Germans end ... Our task is to move this border as far as possible to the East, if necessary - beyond the Urals ... for a long time the Asian poison has been exuding into the Baltic Sea, must disappear from the face of the earth ... Asians and Bolsheviks will be expelled from Europe, the episode of the 250-year-old Asiatic is over. The East will be a sales market and a source of raw materials for Western Europe ”.
“The annual population growth in Germany is 900 thousand people. It is becoming more and more difficult to feed this new army of citizens every year ... Having made the decision to get new lands in Europe, we could get them in general only at the expense of Russia ... The German sword would have to conquer the land for the German plow and thus provide the daily bread of the German nation " ...
"Every German hostess will feel relief when we get the Urals, Siberia and Ukraine."
Dr. Goebbels echoed him in the magazine "Das Reich": “This war is not for the throne or for the altar; this is a war for grain and bread, for a plentiful dining table set for breakfast, lunch and dinner ... a war for raw materials, for rubber, for iron and ores ... In the vast fields of the East, yellow ears sway, which are enough and super-enough to feed our people and the whole of Europe ... This is the goal of our war. "
Thousands of copies were printed posters for the soldiers of the Wehrmacht: "Russians must die for us to live!"
Hitler was a strong well-fed German soldier who strove to make his life and the lives of his children even more prosperous. At the expense of whom? And at the expense of Russian subhumans.
"Russia is our Africa, Russians are our negros."
Adolf Gitler.
Now tell me - why Was Stalin to attack Germany, creating conditions for the revival of politically alien democracies in European countries? Why Was Stalin to act as an aggressor when it was already known that Hitler was preparing an aggressive war against the USSR?
Stalin was profitable so that Hitler would attack him. Stalin was profitable to postpone entry into the war until the last moment, when Germany and England mutually exhaust each other, and then enter Europe triumphantly, and occupy the Dardanelles Strait, fulfilling the age-old dream of the Russian tsars to once again hoist a two-headed eagle over ancient Constantinople, inherited from the Palaeologus.
Did Hitler himself believe that Stalin wanted to attack him?
On June 16, 1941, after a conversation with Hitler about the impending attack on the Soviet Union, J. Goebbels wrote in his diary: “ Moscow wants to stay out of the war until Europe gets tired and bleeds out. Then Stalin would want to act. ... Russia would attack us if we became weak, and then we would have a war on two fronts, which we do not allow with this preventive action
Not everyone knows, but the Great Patriotic War might not have happened, or, at least, it could have begun much later. It is known that by the spring of 1941 Europe had already been conquered by Hitler. There remained a small and not very difficult "business" - to conquer England. In 1940, a directive was issued by the German government on this matter. Luftwaffe aircraft have already begun work. But all of a sudden, everything changed. Hitler decided to go East. Why?
Muscovites listen to the information of the Information Bureau about the beginning of the war. 1941 year
Historians agree: England would not have stood against the German troops. And if Hitler had conquered the island state, he would have received additional resources and could close the rear in the war with the USSR. But the Fuehrer did not do that. In 1941, as you know, the Wehrmacht troops crossed the border of the Soviet Union, and the Second World War began.
Historian Nikolai Starikov, in order to explain the reasons for this "strange" behavior in Germany, suggests going back to 1938, when the "Munich Agreement" took place. Hitler and Chamberlain, who served as Prime Minister of England, agreed that the states they represent would not attack each other. In 1939, however, the Germans agreed on something similar with the USSR. But, apparently, Hitler did not consider England as a serious enemy, but he did not want to endure the empire under the leadership of Stalin on the world map.
London after an air raid in December 1940
Experts say that since the 20s of the last century, both England and the United States actively helped Germany and Hitler. The goal was simple: it was necessary to "feed" such a "pet" that could "gnaw the throat" of the Union. In part, it worked: Germany, in fact, became a superpower, Hitler felt the strength for a war with the USSR. But here's the bad luck: the Fuhrer no longer considered the British as his "masters". At the very least, he considered himself their equal. Or, more precisely, above them. After all, even in the time of Bismarck they said that "Germany is above all."
A very curious situation has developed. And here it is necessary to analyze the position of each of the parties - England and Germany.
What did the Fuhrer want?
He did not want to fight with England. After an easy occupation of almost all of Europe, Hitler decided to fight a truly serious enemy. However, from "Blitzkrieg" also emanates a kind of frivolity. But that's a slightly different story.
What to do with the British? Scare, press, persuade to peace and, perhaps, submission, without getting involved in a serious confrontation. That is why German planes fly to the islands and bomb London. Not strong, but perceptible.
The position of the British
Fire after German raid on London docks. 1940 year
In England they understand that Hitler is out of control, but they also understand that it is already difficult to "calm down" him. True, in 1940, the British were the first to strike an air strike on Freiburg, on civilians. This is not even a hint: "We are very unhappy." Hitler, as indicated, is in charge. And that is all. Play. Or, if you like, "armed diplomacy." The British do not want to lose their soldiers and civilians. And Hitler decides not to start serious hostilities in western Europe, not seeing any real threat.
The real confrontation begins with the opening of the Second Front. However, by this time it is already clear that the Union has held out, and Germany is losing its strength and power. Therefore, the British are again "on horseback" and confidently go to victory.
Until his death in July 1996, Adolph von Thadden was a prominent and respected figure in German "right-wing" and "nationalist" (conservative) circles. In his latest book, he briefly and convincingly explains why Hitler was forced, for political and military reasons, to launch a preemptive strike against the Soviet Union. His book "Stalin's Trap" is a legacy for future generations, a kind of testament for young Germans.
For decades in the United States and Europe, the official point of view was that the madman Adolf Hitler attacked without warning, betraying the gullible Joseph Stalin in a treacherous surprise attack on the completely unprepared Soviet Union on June 22, 1941. Von Thadden's book, which is based largely on recently disclosed data from Russian archives, Stalin's own statements, and new revelations by Russian military experts, convincingly debunks this notion.
Many Soviet documents came to the Germans during the war; German intelligence also reported on the accumulation of Soviet troops on the border in 1941, justifying Hitler's decision to strike. Before an impartial tribunal, this evidence would undoubtedly justify the German military and political leadership. Unfortunately, all these documents have been confiscated and are in the possession of the victorious allies.
In his speech on December 11, 1941, Adolf Hitler detailed the "red menace" in the East, which arose with the assistance and instigation of England and the (still officially neutral) United States. At this historic moment, the German leader said:
“Already in 1940 it became clear that the Kremlin’s plans were aimed at domination, and thus the destruction of all of Europe. I have already spoken about the buildup of Soviet troops in the East at a time when Germany had only a few divisions in areas bordering Soviet Russia. a blind person may not see that there was a build-up of military power, and this was not in order to hold the line, but most likely to attack someone who seemed incapable of defending himself ...
When I became aware of the possibility of a threat in the eastern Reich in 1940 through [secret] reports from the British House of Commons and by observing the movements of Soviet troops on our border, I immediately gave the order to form new tank, motorized and infantry divisions .. ...
“We realized very clearly that under no circumstances could we give the enemy the opportunity to strike the first blow. However, the decision in this case was very difficult ...
“A truly impressive amount of material is now available confirming that a Soviet offensive was planned. We are also confident when this offensive was to take place. In view of this danger, the extent of which we are only now truly aware, I can only thank the Lord God that he enlightened me and gave me the strength to do what had to be done Millions of German soldiers can thank him for his life and the fact that Europe still exists.
"I can say today: if a wave of more than 20,000 tanks, a hundred divisions, tens of thousands of guns, together with more than 10,000 aircraft, would move against the Reich, Europe would be lost ..."
During the Nuremberg Trials, former high-ranking officials of the Third Reich testified about the background of the Barbarossa plan, describing the Soviet threat in 1941, and what huge amounts of weapons, fuel and other materials they discovered when their troops invaded Soviet territory. But this fact was not accepted by the tribunal.
Von Thadden cites, for example, the testimony of Hermann Goering:
“We very quickly realized who was behind the coup in Yugoslavia and General Simovic [in Belgrade on March 27, 1941]. Soon after, it was confirmed that the reports from Yugoslavia were correct, namely that there was a strong political influence of the Soviets, providing significant financial assistance for the implementation of the coup from England, later we found evidence of this.It was clear that this venture was directed against the policy of the former Yugoslav government in relation to Germany ...
The coup of Roman Simovich was probably the last and decisive factor that dispelled the last doubts of the Fuhrer about the intentions of the USSR, and prompted him to take preventive measures in this direction. "
Von Thadden cites the testimony of General Alfred Jodl, one of Hitler's closest military advisers, who gave similar testimony:
“This is undoubtedly a purely preventive war. Later we found huge warehouses and all kinds of war preparations right in front of our border. I will skip the details, but I can say that although we managed to achieve some degree of tactical surprise, there was no strategic surprise. Russia was fully prepared for war. "
The allies at Nuremberg restricted the defendants' access to German documents that would justify them. Germany's military and political leaders were hanged, committed suicide, or deported to the Soviet Union for slave labor. As a result, the task of establishing historical truth was left to others, including scientists from Russia and the United States, as well as such respected Germans as von Thadden.
Additional evidence given by von Thadden was provided by Andrei Vlasov, an outstanding Soviet general who was captured by the Germans. During a conversation in 1942 with SS General Richard Hildebrandt, he asked if Stalin intended to attack Germany, and if so, when. Hildebrandt later said:
“Vlasov responded by saying that the attack was planned for August-September 1941. The Russians had been preparing the attack from the beginning of the year, preparations took quite a long time due to poor railways. Hitler correctly assessed the situation, and struck right during the build-up of forces. This, Vlasov said, is the reason for the enormous initial German successes. "
A significant contribution was made by Viktor Suvorov (Vladimir Rezun), a Soviet military intelligence officer, who showed that Stalin was preparing to attack Germany and the West as part of a long-term project for global Sovietization, and that Hitler had no reasonable alternative to resist this but to launch his attack ... In Stalin's Trap, von Thadden discusses and confirms Suvorov's analysis, also citing the findings of Russian military historians who, working in archives available since 1990, generally support Suvorov's work. Retired Soviet Colonel Alexei Filippov wrote an article "On the Red Army's Readiness for War in June 1941," published in 1992 in the Russian military journal Voenny Vestnik, and Valery Danilov, another retired Soviet colonel who wrote the article "Did the General Prepare Red Army headquarters preemptive strike on Germany ?, "which first appeared in Rossiyskaya Gazeta, and later, in translation, in the respectable Austrian military magazine, Österreichische Militärische Zeitschrift.
More recently, two prominent European historians, a German and an Austrian, provided additional evidence of the USSR's preparations for an attack on Germany. The first is Joachim Hoffmann, a historian at the Military History Research Center in Freiburg. He wrote the fundamental work Stalins Vernichtungskrieg, 1941-1945 ("Stalin's War of Destruction"), consisting of 300 pages, which went through three reprints. The second is Heinz Magenheimer, a member of the Academy of National Defense in Vienna and the Österreichische Militärische Zeitschrift. His book recently appeared in English under the title Hitler's War: German Military Strategy, 1940-1945 (London, 1998).
Von Thadden also comments on a number of articles by the German weekly Der Spiegel about the Soviet plans devised by General Georgy Zhukov to attack northern Germany and Romania in early 1941. Commenting on this, Colonel Vladimir Karpov said:
“Just imagine if Zhukov’s plan were accepted and implemented. At dawn, in May or June, thousands of our aircraft and tens of thousands of our guns would strike at the densely concentrated enemy forces, whose positions were known down to the battalion level - a surprise even more unthinkable than Germany's attack on us. "
Stalin's speeches
Perhaps the most revealing of Stalin's speeches is that delivered at a meeting of the Politburo on August 19, 1939. Said in a narrow circle of like-minded people, it shows his accurate, but absolutely cynical assessment of political forces, and reveals his cunning intentions.
Four days after this speech, German Foreign Minister von Ribbentrop met with Stalin in the Kremlin to sign the Soviet-German non-aggression pact.
It is important to note that Stalin could have prevented war in 1939 by agreeing to support Britain and France in their "guarantees" for Poland's integrity, or simply by declaring that the Soviet Union would strongly oppose Germany's violation of Polish territory. Instead, he decided to give Hitler the green light to attack Poland, expecting that then Britain and France would declare war on Germany, turning the local conflict into a full-scale pan-European war.
In this speech, Stalin outlined his cunning and calculating view of the situation in Europe:
“The question of peace or war is entering a critical phase for us. If we conclude a mutual assistance treaty with France and Great Britain, Germany will abandon Poland and will seek a "modus vivendi" with the Western powers. The war will be averted, but in the future events may take on a dangerous character for the USSR. If we accept Germany's offer to conclude a non-aggression pact with her, she will, of course, attack Poland, and the intervention of France and England in this war will become inevitable. Western Europe will be subject to serious unrest and unrest. In these conditions, we will have many chances to stay away from the conflict, and we will be able to hope for our advantageous entry into the war.
The experience of the last twenty years shows that in peacetime it is impossible to have a communist movement in Europe, strong to such an extent that the Bolshevik Party could seize power. The dictatorship of this party becomes possible only as a result of a great war. "
We will make our choice, and it is clear. We must accept the German offer and politely send back the Anglo-French mission. The first advantage we will gain will be the destruction of Poland as far as the approaches to Warsaw, including Ukrainian Galicia.
Let us now consider the second assumption, i.e. victory for Germany. Some are of the opinion that this opportunity poses a serious danger to us. There is some truth in this statement, but it would be a mistake to think that this danger will be as close and as great as some imagine. If Germany wins, she will come out of the war too exhausted to start an armed conflict with the USSR for at least ten years.
Its main concern will be to monitor the defeated England and France in order to prevent their recovery. On the other hand, victorious Germany will have vast territories, and for many decades she will be busy “exploiting” them and establishing German order there. It is obvious that Germany will be very busy elsewhere to turn against us. There is one more thing that will serve to strengthen our security. In defeated France, the Communist Party will always be very strong. The communist revolution will inevitably occur, and we can use this circumstance in order to come to the aid of France and make her our ally. Later, all peoples who fell under the "protection" of victorious Germany will also become our allies. We will have a wide field of activity for the development of the world revolution.
Comrades! It is in the interests of the USSR, the motherland of workers, that a war breaks out between the Reich and the capitalist Anglo-French bloc. Everything must be done to make this war last as long as possible in order to exhaust the two sides. It is for this reason that we must agree to the conclusion of the pact proposed by Germany and work to ensure that this war, once declared, lasts as long as possible. It will be necessary to intensify propaganda work in the belligerent countries in order to be ready by the time the war is over ... "
The Soviet leader's daring calculation was based on using Germany as an "icebreaker," von Thadden argues in his "Stalin trap."
A version of this speech has been around since 1939, but has been considered fake for decades. However, in 1994, Russian historians found its text in special secret Soviet archives, and quickly published it in a Russian scientific journal, as well as in the academic publication of Novosibirsk University. Soon after this speech in August 1939, von Thadden notes, Stalin ordered a buildup of forces, which ended in the summer of 1941 with the presence of a powerful group of Soviet troops on the border with Germany.
On May 5, 1941, just seven weeks before the German attack, Stalin delivered another important speech at a gala banquet in the Kremlin in front of the graduates of the Frunze Military Academy. Members of Stalin's "inner circle" were also present, including Molotov and Beria. During the war, the Germans reconstructed the text of this speech, based on the memories of captured Soviet officers who attended the banquet.
As von Thadden notes, a number of historians predictably deny the authenticity of the speech, accepting it as a product of German propaganda and disinformation. However, a few years ago, Russian historian Lev Bezymensky found parts of speech in the text that had been edited for the alleged publication in the Kremlin archives. He published this text in 1992 in one of the issues of the scientific journal Osteuropa.
In this speech, Stalin stressed that the peaceful policy of the Soviet state had played its role. (With this policy, the Soviet Union significantly expanded its borders in the west in 1939 and 1940, "capturing" about 30 million people.) So, Stalin bluntly announced that it was time to prepare for a war against Germany, a conflict that would begin soon time. He mentioned the huge buildup of Soviet troops over the past few years. The recent "occupation" of Bulgaria, and the transfer of German troops to Finland, provides several "grounds for a war against Germany."
Stalin said:
"Our war plan is already ready ... we can start a war with Germany in the next two months ... a peace treaty with Germany is just a deception, a curtain behind which one can openly prepare ...
The peaceful policy ensured the peace of our country. A peaceful policy is a good thing. For the time being, for the time being, we pursued a line of defense - until we rearmed our army, provided the army with modern means of struggle.
And now, when we have reconstructed our army, saturated it with equipment for modern combat, when we have become strong - now we need to move from defense to offensive.
In defending our country, we are obliged to act in an offensive manner. Move from defense to a military policy of offensive actions. We need to rebuild our upbringing, our propaganda, agitation, our press in an offensive spirit. The Red Army is a modern army, and a modern army is an offensive army. "
The successes of the German army are explained by the fact that it did not face an equally strong rival. Some Soviet commanders falsely overestimate the successes of the German army ...
Therefore, I propose a toast to the new era that has begun in the development of our socialist Fatherland. Long live the active offensive policy of the Soviet state! "
In the face of all the new evidence that has become available in recent years, von Thadden argues that it is necessary to revise the official history of this period.
A group of concerned scientists met at an international conference in Moscow in 1995. Historians from Europe, Israel, the United States and Canada met with their Russian counterparts to coordinate an "official" line, both in Russia and in the West, on the German-Soviet clash and its origins. These historians simply ignored most of the new evidence to revise this chapter of history, including the Stalinist speeches and other evidence cited by von Thadden, as well as some of the findings of Russian historians.
Von Thadden quotes the French historian Stéphane Courtois:
“I am working to reassess Stalin’s personality. He was the greatest criminal of our century. But at the same time he was the great politician of the twentieth century: the most literate and professional. He understood best of all how to use all available means to achieve his goal. , he achieved his goal, and in the end, achieved his goal ... of course, you can say that Hitler unleashed the war. But the evidence of Stalin's guilt is shocking. Stalin wanted to eradicate all who opposed the Marxist-Leninist social order. "
"Because of the resistance of the German soldiers," von Thadden concludes, "the Russian and Anglo-American" liberators "met each other not in Western Europe, but on the Elbe, in the very center of Germany."
Notes:
1. Von Thadden wrote numerous articles and essays, and was a co-publisher of the Coburg monthly Nation und Europe. Other books by him include Zwei Angreifer: Hitler and Stalin, 1993; Adolf Hitler, 1991; Die verfemte Rechte, 1984; Guernica: Greuelpropaganda oder Kriegsverbrechen?
2. "Hitler" s Declaration of War Against the United States, "The Journal of Historical Review, Winter 1988-89 (Vol. 8, No. 4), pp. 389-416.
3. This portion of Göring "s testimony, given on March 15, 1946, is in the IMT" blue series "(Nuremberg), vol. 9, pp. 333-334. On March 27, 1941, Serbian officers in Belgrade, with backing from Britain, and possibly also the United States, overthrew the pro-German Yugoslav government of prime minister Cvetkovic. The new government, headed by General Simovic, quickly concluded a pact with Moscow. The subsequent German invasion of Yugoslavia, launched on April 6, delayed the Barbarossa attack against the USSR by several weeks.See: Germany and the Second World War (Oxford Univ. Press: 1995), vol. 3, pp. 480, 498, 499.
4. This portion of Jodl "s testimony, given on June 5, 1946, is in the IMT" blue series, "vol. 15, pp. 394-395.
5. See David Irving "s study, Nuremberg: The Last Battle, reviewed in the July-August 1998 Journal of Historical Review. See also, M. Weber," The Nuremberg Trials and the Holocaust, "Summer 1992 Journal, pp. 167 -213.
6. Suvorov "s first three books on World War II have been reviewed in The Journal of Historical Review. The first two, Icebreaker and" M Day, "were reviewed in Nov.-Dec. 1997 Journal (Vol. 16, No. 6), pp. 22-34. His third book, "The Last Republic," was reviewed in the July-August 1998 Journal (Vol. 17, No. 4), pp. 30-37.
7. A portion of this speech is quoted in part in the Nov.-Dec. 1997 Journal of Historical Review, pp. 32-34, and in the July-August 1998 Journal, p. 31.
8. Works by Courtois include Histoire du parti communiste français (1995), L "etat du monde en 1945 (1994), Rigueur et passion (1994), 50 ans d" une passion française, 1991), Qui savait quoi? (1987), and, perhaps best known, Le livre noir du communisme: Crimes, terreur, repression (1997).
"New Evidence on the 1941" Barbarossa "Attack: Why Hitler Attacked Soviet Russia When He Did" by Daniel W. Michaels
From The Journal of Historical Review, May-June 1999 (Vol. 18, No. 3), pp. 40 ff.
