Appeal to the “Commission under the President of the Russian Federation to counter attempts to falsify history to the detriment of the interests of R

[Alik Bahshi]

Alik Bakhshi



Appeal to the “Commission under the President of the Russian Federation to counter attempts

to falsify history to the detriment of the interests of Russia”



​

“We have locked the door with the key of crookedness,


The world was overcome by our truth. Believe me"


Nizami




In a short period of rampant non-sovereign Yeltsin democracy, some materials were removed from the regime of secrecy and made public, which were used by falsifiers of history in order to harm Russia and its state and its defining people. Thus, the enemies of the young Russian sovereign democracy, who tendentiously interpret the Soviet-German non-aggression pact of 1939 and the Katyn massacre (http://proza.ru/2009/11/29/1370), are trying to present Russia as an aggressor and equally guilty of Germany in unleashing World War II war. However, there are historical documents that are deliberately ignored by falsifiers because they contain information and facts that leave no opportunity for spiteful critics to denigrate the political and military steps taken by the party and government in the difficult pre-war period. In this regard, I would like to comment on the transcript of the report of the Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars and the People's Commissar for Foreign Affairs. V.M. Molotov at a meeting of the Supreme Council of the USSR on October 31, 1939. on the foreign policy of the USSR at the Extraordinary Fifth Session of the Supreme Council of the USSR of the first convocation.

(http://www.oldgazette.ru/lib/propagit/21/01.html)


“Firstly, we must point out the changes that have taken place in relations between the Soviet Union and Germany. Since the conclusion of the Soviet-German non-aggression pact on August 23, the abnormal relations that had existed for a number of years between the Soviet Union and Germany were put to an end. The hostility, fueled in every possible way by some European powers, was replaced by rapprochement and the establishment of friendly relations between the USSR and Germany. Further improvement of these new, good relations was expressed in the German-Soviet Treaty of Friendship and Border between the USSR and Germany, signed on September 28 in Moscow. The sharp turn in relations between the Soviet Union and Germany, between the two largest states in Europe, could not but affect the entire international situation.”


Thus, at the beginning of his report, Molotov emphasizes the geopolitical significance of a friendly alliance with Nazi Germany, which made it possible to finally put an end to such an awkward entity as Poland - the result of the First World War, or, as the speaker defined it, an “ugly brainchild”:


“Secondly, we must point out such a fact as the military defeat of Poland and the collapse of the Polish state. The ruling circles of Poland boasted quite a bit about the “strength” of their state and the “power” of their army. However, it turned out that a short blow to Poland from first the German army and then the Red Army was enough for nothing to remain of this ugly brainchild of the Treaty of Versailles, which lived off the oppression of non-Polish nationalities.”


The imperialists of France and England were very puzzled by such an unexpected outcome for them, namely the political changes in Europe that became a reality thanks to the concluded alliance of communists and fascists. Here I want to note that the opponents of the New Europe could not even imagine the existence of a secret part of the agreement, which provided for freedom of action of the Soviet Union to provide assistance to the peoples of Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Bessarabia, harshly exploited by local capitalists. Molotov, who knew the essence of the agreement, spoke about the upcoming changes:


“Thirdly, it should be recognized that the great war that broke out in Europe brought fundamental changes to the entire international situation. This war began between Germany and Poland and turned into a war between Germany - on the one hand, and England and France - on the other hand. The war between Germany and Poland ended quickly, due to the complete bankruptcy of the Polish leaders. Poland, as is known, was not helped by either English or French guarantees. To this day, in fact, it is still unknown what these “guarantees” were. (General laughter). The war that began between Germany and the Anglo-French bloc is only in its first stage and has not yet truly unfolded. Nevertheless, it is clear that such a war was supposed to make fundamental changes in the position of Europe, and not only Europe.”





Thus, Germany, which fought with France and England, was in fact a guarantor, a shield for the actions of the USSR to liberate these peoples. By the way, all of them were part of the Russian Empire, that is, they lived on primordially Russian territories, temporarily seized by national separatists, reunification with which was part of the task of the secret protocol of the Soviet-German treaty. Without accepting the ongoing political changes, the leaders of England and France, who declared war on Germany, are, in fact, responsible for the fact that the war escalated into World War II, which neither Germany nor the Soviet Union wanted. The words of Comrade Molotov accurately reflect the truth in that distant past that modern falsifiers hide from the public:


“Now, if we talk about the great powers of Europe, Germany is in the position of a state striving for a speedy end to the war and for peace, while England and France, which only yesterday stood up against aggression, stand for the continuation of the war and against the conclusion of peace. The roles, as you can see, are changing.

The attempts of the British and French governments to justify this new position of theirs by the obligations given to Poland, of course, are clearly untenable. The restoration of old Poland, as everyone understands, is out of the question. Therefore, it is pointless to continue the current war under the banner of restoring the former Polish state. Realizing this, the governments of England and France, however, do not want to end the war and restore peace, but are looking for a new justification for continuing the war against Germany.”



As you can see, in October 1939, when the war just arose after it was declared by England and France, the two countries that had concluded a non-aggression pact wanted peace and restoration of justice, violated by the results of the First World War.

Further in his speech, Molotov reveals the true background of the war, which does him honor as an intelligent and far-sighted politician:


“Recently, the ruling circles of England and France have been trying to portray themselves as fighters for the democratic rights of peoples against Hitlerism, and the British government has announced that for it the goal of the war against Germany is, no more and no less, “destruction Hitlerism". It turns out that the British, and with them the French, supporters of the war declared against Germany something like an “ideological war”, reminiscent of the old religious wars. Indeed, at one time religious wars against heretics and infidels were in vogue. As is known, they led to the most dire consequences for the masses, to economic ruin and to the cultural savagery of peoples. These wars could not give anything else. But these wars took place during the Middle Ages. Is it not to these times of the Middle Ages, to the times of religious wars, superstitions and cultural savagery that the ruling classes of England and France are again drawing us? In any case, under the “ideological” flag a war has now been launched on an even larger scale and with even greater dangers for the peoples of Europe and the whole world. But this kind of war has no justification. The ideology of Hitlerism, like any other ideological system, can be recognized or denied; this is a matter of political views. But any person will understand that ideology cannot be destroyed by force, it cannot be ended by war. Therefore, it is not only senseless, but also criminal to wage such a war as the war for the “destruction of Hitlerism,” covered by the false flag of the struggle for “democracy.” In fact, such actions as the closure of the Communist Party in France, the arrests of communist deputies in the French parliament or the curtailment of political freedoms in England, unrelenting national oppression in India, etc. cannot be called a struggle for democracy.


Isn’t it clear that the goal of the current war in Europe is not what is being talked about in official speeches for a wide circle of listeners in France and England, that is, not in the struggle for democracy, but in something else that these gentlemen are not talking about open. The real reason for the Anglo-French war against Germany is not that England and France allegedly vowed to restore the old Poland and, of course, not that they decided to take upon themselves the task of fighting for democracy. The ruling circles of England and France, of course, have other more valid motives for the war against Germany. These motives do not belong to the realm of any ideology, but to the sphere of their purely material interests, as powerful colonial powers.”


It becomes clear that the imperialists were equally dissatisfied with both fascist and communist ideologies, which were equally the eve of capitalism. But the following phrase reveals the meaning of the agreement and the political wisdom of Stalin:


“Our relations with Germany, as I already said, have improved radically. Here things developed along the lines of strengthening friendly relations, developing practical cooperation and political support for Germany in its aspirations for peace. The non-aggression treaty concluded between the Soviet Union and Germany obligated us to neutrality in the event of Germany's participation in the war. We have consistently pursued this line, which is not at all contradicted by the entry of our troops into the territory of the former Poland, which began on September 17.”


That is, Stalin foresaw that war was inevitable, and he correctly calculated that the capitalist predators attacked only Germany, which, as I said, was a shield, took the blow, while the Soviet Union was liberating its western territories. Of course, the friendly treaty was also beneficial to Hitler’s friend, because Germany secured neutrality and political support from the Soviet Union.

Molotov's report emphasized many times the Soviet-German friendship and Germany's desire for peace at a time when the war was already underway:


“Now our relations with the German state are built on the basis of friendly relations, on the readiness to support Germany’s aspirations for peace and, at the same time, on the desire to fully promote the development of Soviet-German economic relations to the mutual benefit of both states.”


The report contains some information about the entry of the Red Army into Poland; it turns out that despite the complete defeat that Hitler’s troops inflicted on the Poles, they still had the audacity to resist:


“During the military advance of the Red Army through these areas, our military units sometimes had serious clashes with Polish units, and, therefore, there were casualties. ... the total number of victims suffered by the Red Army on the territory of Western Belarus and Western Ukraine is: killed - 737, wounded - 1,862, that is, in total - 2,599 people.”


To be continued

 

[Alik Bahshi]

Continuation:

In this regard, it is clear why the entire officer corps of the Polish army had to be arrested, and these are many thousands of ideological opponents, potentially capable of organizing partisan resistance. Apparently for this reason, all of them were subsequently secretly shot by the Germans in Katyn. Russophobes, using the unclear circumstances of this crime, attribute it to the Russians, but the Russians had no reason to take the lives of Polish officers, because even if the Poles wanted to form partisan detachments, then nothing came of this venture, because for the success of any partisan movement popular support was needed, which the officers could not count on, because the Russians brought freedom to the people and deprived them of the opportunity to exploit the working class and peasantry by exploiters. But Polish prisoners of war could well have raised the people against the Germans, if we recall the Warsaw Uprising. The Russians, faithful to their allied obligations, not only arrested, but rather limited their ability to cross the western border and partisan in the occupied German part of Poland. Thus, the arrest protected the Poles from a rash step that would inevitably lead to their death. On the other hand, if we soberly think about what reason there was to shoot some 22 thousand Poles, if millions of their own citizens were shot, and no one would get dirty with such a small thing, especially foreigners.

Of course, it was in vain that Yeltsin declassified some of the documents about Katyn, because it was clear in advance that they would be deliberately misinterpreted. In general, there are many dark spots in the Katyn affair, and I would not be surprised if it turns out that the British were involved here too. After all, they managed to turn Hitler against the Soviet Union. There is no limit to their cunning. How much more skilled Stalin became in this matter, having dispersed the Trotskyist-Zinoviev bloc. But even an old woman can fail, having outwitted his fellow Jewish revolutionaries, Stalin temporarily lost his vigilance; he could not even imagine that there were politicians equal to him. True, later Stalin, having won over the amateur Roosevelt to his side, took revenge, chopping off half of Europe, including the Kuril Islands. And Churchill had no choice but to gnash his teeth in Fulton’s speech. It should be noted that wherever the British did not appear, blood flowed. By leaving India, they left behind the Pakistani-Indian conflict, and by leaving Palestine, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. In America, they exterminated the bison and Indians, whose numbers the Americans are trying in vain to revive. The British showed up in Afghanistan already in the 19th century and since then everyone has been constantly fighting there. Recently, a young English prince flew to Afghanistan for a couple of days to play war; If he gets bored, he might come back again, you can always play it there.

However, let's return to Molotov's report, in which the People's Commissar reports on three more pacts concluded with the Baltic countries:



“They are based on mutual assistance between the Soviet Union, on the one hand, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, on the other hand, including military assistance to each other in the event of an attack on any of them. Due to the special geographical position of these countries, which are a kind of approaches to the USSR, especially from the Baltic Sea, these pacts provide the Soviet Union with the opportunity to have naval bases and airfields in certain points of Estonia and Latvia, and in relation to Lithuania they establish joint protection with the Soviet Union Lithuanian border. The creation of these Soviet naval bases and airfields on the territory of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania and the introduction of a number of Red Army units to guard these bases and airfields provide a reliable defense base not only for the Soviet Union, but also for the Baltic states themselves and, thus, serve the cause of preserving peace, in which our peoples are interested."



True, later this “certain number of Red Army units” was used to support the voluntary will of these peoples to join the Soviet Union, which caused discontent among the imperialists. Anticipating the reaction of spiteful critics and preventing their sweeping accusations of the use of military force, Molotov especially emphasizes compliance with the principle of non-interference and mutual respect:



“The special nature of these mutual assistance pacts does not at all mean any interference of the Soviet Union in the affairs of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, as some organs of the foreign press are trying to portray. On the contrary, all these mutual assistance pacts firmly stipulate the inviolability of the sovereignty of the signatory states and the principle of non-interference in the affairs of another state. These pacts are based on mutual respect for the state, social and economic structure of the other side and should strengthen the basis of peaceful, good neighborly cooperation between our peoples. We stand for the honest and punctual implementation of the concluded pacts on conditions of complete reciprocity and declare that chatter about the Sovietization of the Baltic countries is beneficial only to our common enemies and all sorts of anti-Soviet provocateurs.”



Molotov then moves on to the traditionally strained Soviet-Finnish relations, which, due to the fault of the same British, left much to be desired.



“Our relations with Finland are in a special situation. This is explained mainly by the fact that Finland is more affected by various kinds of external influences from third powers. Impartial people must, however, recognize that the same issues of ensuring the security of the Soviet Union and, especially, Leningrad, which were in negotiations with Estonia, are also in negotiations with Finland. It can be said that in some respects, security issues for the Soviet Union are even more acute here, since the main city of the Soviet state, after Moscow, Leningrad, is located only 32 kilometers from the Finnish border. This means that Leningrad is located from the border of another state at a distance shorter than is necessary for artillery shelling from modern long-range guns.”



Having dared to locate the country so close to Leningrad, the Finns persisted and did not agree to give up part of their territory adjacent to the glorious city on the Niva. Molotov very logically leads to the following:



“The Soviet Union not only has the right, but also the obligation to take serious measures to strengthen its security. At the same time, it is natural that the Soviet Government shows special concern regarding the Gulf of Finland, which is the sea approach to Leningrad, as well as regarding the land border that hangs over Leningrad some 30 kilometers away. Let me remind you that the population of Leningrad reached three and a half million, which is almost equal to the population of the entire Finland, which has 3 million 650 thousand inhabitants. (Merry animation in the hall).”
To be continued

 

[Alik Bahshi]

Continuation:

In this regard, it is clear why the entire officer corps of the Polish army had to be arrested, and these are many thousands of ideological opponents, potentially capable of organizing partisan resistance. Apparently for this reason, all of them were subsequently secretly shot by the Germans in Katyn. Russophobes, using the unclear circumstances of this crime, attribute it to the Russians, but the Russians had no reason to take the lives of Polish officers, because even if the Poles wanted to form partisan detachments, then nothing came of this venture, because for the success of any partisan movement popular support was needed, which the officers could not count on, because the Russians brought freedom to the people and deprived them of the opportunity to exploit the working class and peasantry by exploiters. But Polish prisoners of war could well have raised the people against the Germans, if we recall the Warsaw Uprising. The Russians, faithful to their allied obligations, not only arrested, but rather limited their ability to cross the western border and partisan in the occupied German part of Poland. Thus, the arrest protected the Poles from a rash step that would inevitably lead to their death. On the other hand, if we soberly think about what reason there was to shoot some 22 thousand Poles, if millions of their own citizens were shot, and no one would get dirty with such a small thing, especially foreigners.

Of course, it was in vain that Yeltsin declassified some of the documents about Katyn, because it was clear in advance that they would be deliberately misinterpreted. In general, there are many dark spots in the Katyn affair, and I would not be surprised if it turns out that the British were involved here too. After all, they managed to turn Hitler against the Soviet Union. There is no limit to their cunning. How much more skilled Stalin became in this matter, having dispersed the Trotskyist-Zinoviev bloc. But even an old woman can fail, having outwitted his fellow Jewish revolutionaries, Stalin temporarily lost his vigilance; he could not even imagine that there were politicians equal to him. True, later Stalin, having won over the amateur Roosevelt to his side, took revenge, chopping off half of Europe, including the Kuril Islands. And Churchill had no choice but to gnash his teeth in Fulton’s speech. It should be noted that wherever the British did not appear, blood flowed. By leaving India, they left behind the Pakistani-Indian conflict, and by leaving Palestine, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. In America, they exterminated the bison and Indians, whose numbers the Americans are trying in vain to revive. The British showed up in Afghanistan already in the 19th century and since then everyone has been constantly fighting there. Recently, a young English prince flew to Afghanistan for a couple of days to play war; If he gets bored, he might come back again, you can always play it there.

However, let's return to Molotov's report, in which the People's Commissar reports on three more pacts concluded with the Baltic countries:



“They are based on mutual assistance between the Soviet Union, on the one hand, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, on the other hand, including military assistance to each other in the event of an attack on any of them. Due to the special geographical position of these countries, which are a kind of approaches to the USSR, especially from the Baltic Sea, these pacts provide the Soviet Union with the opportunity to have naval bases and airfields in certain points of Estonia and Latvia, and in relation to Lithuania they establish joint protection with the Soviet Union Lithuanian border. The creation of these Soviet naval bases and airfields on the territory of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania and the introduction of a number of Red Army units to guard these bases and airfields provide a reliable defense base not only for the Soviet Union, but also for the Baltic states themselves and, thus, serve the cause of preserving peace, in which our peoples are interested."



True, later this “certain number of Red Army units” was used to support the voluntary will of these peoples to join the Soviet Union, which caused discontent among the imperialists. Anticipating the reaction of spiteful critics and preventing their sweeping accusations of the use of military force, Molotov especially emphasizes compliance with the principle of non-interference and mutual respect:



“The special nature of these mutual assistance pacts does not at all mean any interference of the Soviet Union in the affairs of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, as some organs of the foreign press are trying to portray. On the contrary, all these mutual assistance pacts firmly stipulate the inviolability of the sovereignty of the signatory states and the principle of non-interference in the affairs of another state. These pacts are based on mutual respect for the state, social and economic structure of the other side and should strengthen the basis of peaceful, good neighborly cooperation between our peoples. We stand for the honest and punctual implementation of the concluded pacts on conditions of complete reciprocity and declare that chatter about the Sovietization of the Baltic countries is beneficial only to our common enemies and all sorts of anti-Soviet provocateurs.”



Molotov then moves on to the traditionally strained Soviet-Finnish relations, which, due to the fault of the same British, left much to be desired.



“Our relations with Finland are in a special situation. This is explained mainly by the fact that Finland is more affected by various kinds of external influences from third powers. Impartial people must, however, recognize that the same issues of ensuring the security of the Soviet Union and, especially, Leningrad, which were in negotiations with Estonia, are also in negotiations with Finland. It can be said that in some respects, security issues for the Soviet Union are even more acute here, since the main city of the Soviet state, after Moscow, Leningrad, is located only 32 kilometers from the Finnish border. This means that Leningrad is located from the border of another state at a distance shorter than is necessary for artillery shelling from modern long-range guns.”



Having dared to locate the country so close to Leningrad, the Finns persisted and did not agree to give up part of their territory adjacent to the glorious city on the Niva. Molotov very logically leads to the following:



“The Soviet Union not only has the right, but also the obligation to take serious measures to strengthen its security. At the same time, it is natural that the Soviet Government shows special concern regarding the Gulf of Finland, which is the sea approach to Leningrad, as well as regarding the land border that hangs over Leningrad some 30 kilometers away. Let me remind you that the population of Leningrad reached three and a half million, which is almost equal to the population of the entire Finland, which has 3 million 650 thousand inhabitants. (Merry animation in the hall).”
To be continued

Continuation:

It should be noted that Finland was already preparing for aggression against the USSR and hastily created a fortified area on the Karelian Isthmus, the so-called Mannerheim Line, which naturally worried the Soviet Union:



“We also proposed that Finland carry out the disarmament of fortified areas along the entire Soviet-Finnish border on the Karelian Isthmus, which should entirely correspond to the interests of Finland. We further expressed our desire to strengthen the Soviet-Finnish non-aggression pact with additional mutual guarantees.”



The Finns flatly refused to conclude any non-aggression pacts, as the Baltic countries did. Encouraged by England, they ignored the legitimate requests of the USSR, and the world’s first country of the proletariat and working peasantry had no choice but to start a just war in the fall of 1939. However, the war did not turn out to be quick and victorious as expected; moreover, it was lost. As Khrushchev recalled: “The Finns turned out to be excellent soldiers. We soon realized that this piece was too tough for us.” In the deep snows of the Karelian Isthmus, the Russians left 2,300 tanks, 1,000 aircraft and 1 million Red Army soldiers. A very important fact should be noted: when the Germans approached Leningrad, the Finns returned their ancestral territories captured by the Russians, along with the second largest city in Finland, Vyborg. But it should be noted that the Finns did not heed Hitler’s requests for a further attack on the USSR, declaring that they did not need foreign territory. And most importantly, no expected shelling of Leningrad, which the Russians talked about in order to chop off Vyborg from the Finns, did not follow. The far-fetched Russian version was not confirmed. But another important fact is that Stalin wanted to get the go-ahead from Hitler to seize all of Finland when the “Axis Pact” was being negotiated.



The Russians then failed to liberate the Finnish people from capitalist exploitation. All subsequent years, the Finns worked hard to make Finland a kind of Potemkin village, a sign of a prosperous life, behind which the exorbitant work of the Finnish people is hidden, and only thanks to the fact that Russia provided ordinary Finns with the opportunity to come to Leningrad, they can at least for a short time between monotonous workdays, take a break from exploitation and join the joyful Russian people's recreation.



But all this happened later, and in those distant pre-war years, while friendly Germany was holding back the aggressors England and France in the West, the Soviet Union in June 1940, according to the Soviet-German Pact, also had to liberate Bessarabia from the Romanians.



The Soviet Union was preparing for war, but not with Germany, but with England and France. And this conclusion follows from the next part of the report:



“The Soviet-Turkish negotiations did not lead to the conclusion of a pact, but they helped to clarify or at least test a number of political issues that interest us. In the modern international situation, it is especially important to know the true face and policies of states with which relations are of serious importance. In politics In Turkey, many things have now become much clearer to us, both as a result of the Moscow negotiations and as a result of the latest foreign policy acts of the Turkish government.

As is known, the Turkish government chose to throw in its lot with a certain group of European powers participating in the war. It concluded a mutual assistance pact with England and France, which had been waging war against Germany for two months. Thus, Türkiye finally abandoned the cautious policy of neutrality and entered the orbit of the unfolding European war. Both England and France are very pleased with this, and they want to involve more neutral countries in their sphere of war. We won’t guess whether Türkiye will regret this. (Animation in the hall).”


To be continued

 

[Alik Bahshi]

Continuation:

It should be noted that Finland was already preparing for aggression against the USSR and hastily created a fortified area on the Karelian Isthmus, the so-called Mannerheim Line, which naturally worried the Soviet Union:



“We also proposed that Finland carry out the disarmament of fortified areas along the entire Soviet-Finnish border on the Karelian Isthmus, which should entirely correspond to the interests of Finland. We further expressed our desire to strengthen the Soviet-Finnish non-aggression pact with additional mutual guarantees.”



The Finns flatly refused to conclude any non-aggression pacts, as the Baltic countries did. Encouraged by England, they ignored the legitimate requests of the USSR, and the world’s first country of the proletariat and working peasantry had no choice but to start a just war in the fall of 1939. However, the war did not turn out to be quick and victorious as expected; moreover, it was lost. As Khrushchev recalled: “The Finns turned out to be excellent soldiers. We soon realized that this piece was too tough for us.” In the deep snows of the Karelian Isthmus, the Russians left 2,300 tanks, 1,000 aircraft and 1 million Red Army soldiers. A very important fact should be noted: when the Germans approached Leningrad, the Finns returned their ancestral territories captured by the Russians, along with the second largest city in Finland, Vyborg. But it should be noted that the Finns did not heed Hitler’s requests for a further attack on the USSR, declaring that they did not need foreign territory. And most importantly, no expected shelling of Leningrad, which the Russians talked about in order to chop off Vyborg from the Finns, did not follow. The far-fetched Russian version was not confirmed. But another important fact is that Stalin wanted to get the go-ahead from Hitler to seize all of Finland when the “Axis Pact” was being negotiated.



The Russians then failed to liberate the Finnish people from capitalist exploitation. All subsequent years, the Finns worked hard to make Finland a kind of Potemkin village, a sign of a prosperous life, behind which the exorbitant work of the Finnish people is hidden, and only thanks to the fact that Russia provided ordinary Finns with the opportunity to come to Leningrad, they can at least for a short time between monotonous workdays, take a break from exploitation and join the joyful Russian people's recreation.



But all this happened later, and in those distant pre-war years, while friendly Germany was holding back the aggressors England and France in the West, the Soviet Union in June 1940, according to the Soviet-German Pact, also had to liberate Bessarabia from the Romanians.



The Soviet Union was preparing for war, but not with Germany, but with England and France. And this conclusion follows from the next part of the report:



“The Soviet-Turkish negotiations did not lead to the conclusion of a pact, but they helped to clarify or at least test a number of political issues that interest us. In the modern international situation, it is especially important to know the true face and policies of states with which relations are of serious importance. In politics In Turkey, many things have now become much clearer to us, both as a result of the Moscow negotiations and as a result of the latest foreign policy acts of the Turkish government.

As is known, the Turkish government chose to throw in its lot with a certain group of European powers participating in the war. It concluded a mutual assistance pact with England and France, which had been waging war against Germany for two months. Thus, Türkiye finally abandoned the cautious policy of neutrality and entered the orbit of the unfolding European war. Both England and France are very pleased with this, and they want to involve more neutral countries in their sphere of war. We won’t guess whether Türkiye will regret this. (Animation in the hall).”


To be continued

Continuation:



It also follows that Turkey, having abandoned the mutual assistance pact with the Soviet Union, was in the same situation as Finland. But events unfolded so unexpectedly due to the machinations of Foggy Albion that the Russians did not have time to free the Turkish people from the Janissaries.



In conclusion, I would like to note that this document, which sheds true light on the situation on the eve of the war, does not leave falsifiers of history the chance to present Russia as an aggressor. And yet, we must clearly understand that at the beginning of the war it was England and France that were the aggressors, as the countries that declared it, but later, when Germany attacked the Soviet Union, and it became clear that the Russians themselves could defeat the Germans, they changed their aggressive intentions, to look good in the post-war world. However, the period of trust was short-lived. The sincere aspirations of the Soviet Union to protect the working people of Eastern European countries from the aggressive intentions of the exploiters led to the Cold War.



____________________



“If they are right, then understand my lie!

If they are people, should we be called people?



Nizami



12/18/2009