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are historical documents that are deliberately ignored by falsifiers because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.”
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).”
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).”
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
