CREATION OF THE “EASTERN” FRONT, GERMANY'S ATTACK ON THE USSR, ANTI-HITLER COALITION AND THE QUESTION OF INTER-UNION RESPONSIBILITIES

        Concluding the Soviet-German non-aggression pact in August 1939, the Soviet Union did not doubt for a moment that sooner or later Hitler would attack the USSR. Such confidence in the Soviet Union stemmed from the basic political and military orientation of the Nazis. It was confirmed by the practical activities of the Nazi government for the entire pre-war period.

        Therefore, the first task of the Soviet Government was to create an “eastern” front against Hitler aggression, build a line of defense at the western borders of the Belarusian and Ukrainian lands, and thus organize a barrier against the unhindered advance of German troops to the East. To do this, it was necessary to reunite Western Belarus and Western Ukraine, captured by Pan Poland in 1920, with Soviet Belarus and Soviet Ukraine and to advance Soviet troops here. It was impossible to delay this matter, since the poorly equipped Polish troops were unstable, the Polish command and the Polish Government were already on the run, and the Hitler troops, without encountering a serious obstacle, could take

        Belorussian and Ukrainian lands before Soviet troops arrived there.

        On September 17, 1939, by order of the Soviet Government, Soviet troops crossed the pre-Soviet Soviet-Polish border, liberated Western Belarus and Western Ukraine, and deployed defense construction there along the western line of Ukrainian and Belarusian lands. It was basically the same line that is known in history as the “Curzon line” established at the Versailles Conference of the Allies.

        A few days later, the Soviet Government signed mutual assistance pacts with the Baltic states, providing for the deployment of the garrisons of the Soviet Army in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, the organization of Soviet airfields and the creation of naval bases.

        Thus, the foundation of the “eastern” front was created.

        It was not difficult to understand that the creation of an “eastern” front was a serious contribution not only to the organization of the security of the USSR, but also to the common cause of peace-loving states fighting against Hitler aggression. Nevertheless, the Anglo-Franco-American circles in their overwhelming majority responded to this step of the Soviet Government with a vicious anti-Soviet campaign, qualifying it as aggression.

        However, there were also such political figures who had enough insight to understand the meaning of Soviet politics and recognize the creation of an “eastern” front as correct. Among them, the first place belongs to Mr. Churchill, then Minister of the Navy, who, in a radio statement on October 1, 1939, after a series of unfriendly attacks against the Soviet Union, said:

        “The fact that the Russian armies were supposed to be on this line was absolutely necessary for Russia's security against the German threat. In any case, the positions are occupied and the Eastern Front has been created, which Nazi Germany does not dare to attack. When Mr. von Ribbentrop was called to Moscow last week, this was done so that he would familiarize himself with this fact and acknowledge that the plans of the Nazis regarding the Baltic States and Ukraine should be put to an end. ”

        If the security of the USSR was more or less satisfactory on the western borders of the USSR, far from Moscow, Minsk, and Kiev, then the same could not be said about the northern border of the USSR. Here, at a distance of some 32 kilometers from Leningrad, Finnish troops stood, the commanding personnel of which for the most part focused on Nazi Germany. The Soviet Government was well aware that the fascist elements of the leading circles of Finland, closely connected with the Nazis and. who had a great influence in the Finnish army, seek to capture Leningrad. It could not be considered a coincidence that the head of the General Staff of the Hitler Army Halder came to Finland in the summer of 1939 to instruct the top leaders of the Finnish army. It was difficult to doubt that the Finnish leading circles were allied with the Nazis, that they were. they want to turn Finland into a springboard for Nazi Germany’s attack on the USSR.

        It is not surprising, therefore, that all attempts by the USSR to find a common language with the Finnish Government in improving relations between the two countries were unsuccessful.

        The Finnish government rejected, one after another, all the friendly proposals of the Soviet Government aimed at ensuring the security of the USSR and, in particular, Leningrad, despite the fact that the Soviet Union went towards Finland in satisfying its legitimate interests.

        The Finnish Government rejected the USSR’s offer to push the Finnish border on the Karelian Isthmus several tens of kilometers, although the Soviet Government agreed to cede Finland to twice the size of Soviet Karelia.

        The Finnish Government also rejected the USSR’s proposal to conclude a mutual assistance pact, thereby showing that Finland’s security on the part of the USSR remained unsecured.

        With these and other similar hostile actions and provocations on the Soviet-Finnish border, Finland unleashed a war with the Soviet Union.

        The results of the Soviet-Finnish war are known. The borders of the USSR in the northwest and, in particular, in the Leningrad region were pushed back, and the security of the USSR was strengthened. This played an important role in the defense of the Soviet Union against Nazi aggression, since Hitlerite Germany and its Finnish accomplices had to launch their offensive in the north-west of the USSR not under Leningrad itself, but from a line that was almost 150 kilometers northwest of it.

        In his speech at a session of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR on March 29, 1940, V. M. Molotov declared:

        “... The Soviet Union, which defeated the Finnish army and had the full opportunity to occupy the whole of Finland, did not go for it and did not demand any indemnity in reimbursement of its military expenses, as any other power would do, but limited its wishes to a minimum ...”

        “We set no goals other than ensuring the security of Leningrad, Murmansk and the Murmansk railway in the Peace Treaty.” It should be noted that despite the fact that the Finnish ruling circles played into the hands of Hitler Germany with all their policies towards the USSR, the Anglo-French rulers of the League of Nations immediately sided with the Finnish Government, declared the USSR “aggressor” through the League of Nations of the USSR and thereby openly approved and supported the war launched by the Finnish rulers against the Soviet Union. The League of Nations, tarnished itself with connivance and encouragement of the Japanese and German-Italian aggressors, on the orders of the Anglo-French ruled obediently voted a resolution against the Soviet Union, defiantly "expelling" the USSR from the League of Nations.

        Not only that. In the war launched by the Finnish reactionaries against the Soviet Union, England and France helped the Finnish military in every way. The Anglo-French ruling circles did not cease to incite the Finnish Government to continue hostilities.

        Anglo-French rulers systematically supplied Finland with weapons and energetically prepared for the dispatch to Finland of a hundred thousand expeditionary force.

        In the three months since the war began, England, according to Chamberlain in the Commons on March 19, 1940, handed over to Finland one hundred and one aircraft, over two hundred guns, hundreds of thousands of shells, aerial bombs and anti-tank mines. At the same time, Daladier told the Chamber of Deputies that France had handed over to Finland 175 aircraft, about 500 guns, more than five thousand machine guns, a million shells and hand grenades and various other weapons.

        The plans of the British and French Governments of this time can be fully judged by the memo transmitted by the British to the Swedes on March 2, 1940, which stated:

        “Allied governments understand that Finland’s martial law is becoming desperate. After careful consideration of all the possibilities, they came to the conclusion that the only means by which they can provide effective assistance to Finland is to send allied forces, and they are ready to send such troops in response to the Finnish request. ”1

        1 Note of the British Mission of March 2, 1940, White Paper, Swedish Foreign Ministry, Stockholm 1947, p. 120.

        At this time, as Chamberlain declared this on March 19 in the English Parliament,

        "Preparations for the dispatch of expeditionary units were carried out as quickly as possible, and the expeditionary army was ready for dispatch at the beginning of March ... two months before the time appointed by Field Marshal Mannerheim for their arrival."

        Chamberlain added that the number of these units reached 100,000.

        At the same time, the French Government was preparing its own expeditionary force of 50,000 people of the first line to be sent to Finland via Narvik.

        And this warlike activity was developed by the Anglo-French rulers at a time when England and France did not show any activity on the front against Hitler Germany, and when the so-called "strange war" was waged there.

        But Finland’s military assistance against the Soviet Union was only part of the broader plan of the Anglo-French imperialists.

        In the mentioned “White Book” of the Swedish Ministry of Foreign Affairs there is a document belonging to the Swedish Minister of Foreign Affairs Gunther. This document states that

        “The sending of this contingent of troops was part of the general plan of attack on the Soviet Union,” and that this plan, “starting March 15, will be put into effect against Baku, and even earlier through Finland.” 1

        In his book De Gaulle - the dictator, Kerrilis wrote the following about this plan:

        “According to this plan, the main features of which Paul Raino2 outlined to me in a letter kept with me, a motorized expeditionary force, having landed in Finland, would quickly scatter messy hordes of Russia through Norway and go to Leningrad ...” 3

        1 “Ponter's Notes for Memory March 2, 1940,” White Paper, Swedish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Stockholm 1947, p. 119.

        2 At that time a member of the French Government.

        3 Henri de Carrillis, De Gaulle - dictator, Montreal 1945, pp. 363 - 364.

        This plan was developed in France by de Gaulle and General Weygand, then commander of the French troops in Syria, who boasted that: “with some reinforcements and two hundred aircraft, he would take possession of the Caucasus and enter Russia like a“ knife in oil ”.

        The plan of military operations of the Anglo-French against the USSR, developed by the French general Gamelin in 1940, is also known, in which special attention was paid to the bombing of Baku and Batumi.

        The preparation of the Anglo-French rulers for an attack on the USSR was in full swing. The general headquarters of England and France were diligently developing plans for such an attack. Instead of war with Hitler Germany, these gentlemen wanted to start a war against the Soviet Union.

        But these plans did not come true. Finland at that time was defeated by Soviet troops and was forced to capitulate, despite all the efforts of England and France to prevent its surrender.

        On March 12, 1940, the Soviet-Finnish peace treaty was signed.

        Thus, the defense of the USSR against Hitler aggression was also improved in the north, in the Leningrad region, with the defensive line being moved 150 kilometers north of Leningrad to Vyborg inclusively.

        But this did not mean that the formation of the “eastern” front from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea had already been completed. Pacts with the Baltic states were concluded, but there were still no Soviet troops that could hold the defenses. Moldova and Bukovina were formally reunited with the USSR, but there was not there yet. Soviet troops, able to hold the defense. In mid-June 1940, Soviet troops entered Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. On June 27 of that year, Soviet troops entered Bukovina and Moldova, which Romania had severed from the USSR after the October Revolution.

        Thus, the formation of the “eastern” front from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea against Hitler aggression was completed.

        The Anglo-French leading circles, who continued to scold the USSR for aggression because of the creation of the "eastern" front, apparently did not realize that the appearance of the "eastern" front meant a radical change in the development of the war - against Hitler tyranny - in favor of victory democracy.

        They did not understand that it was not a matter of infringement or non-infringement of the national rights of Finland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Poland, but of preventing the transformation of these countries into a disenfranchised colony of Nazi Germany by organizing a victory over the Nazis.

        They did not understand that it was a matter of creating a barrier to the advancement of German troops in all areas where it was possible, to establish a strong defense, and then go on a counterattack, defeat the Hitler troops and thereby create an opportunity for the free development of these countries.

        They did not understand that there were no other ways to defeat Nazi aggression.

        Was the British Government doing the right thing by deploying its troops during the war in Egypt, despite the protests of the Egyptians and even the resistance of some elements in Egypt? Of course, right! This was the most important means of blocking the path of Hitler aggression towards the Suez Canal, protecting Egypt from attempts by Hitler, organizing a victory over Hitler and thus preventing the transformation of Egypt into a Hitler colony. Only the enemies of democracy or the lunatics can claim that the actions of the British Government in this case represented aggression.

        Did the Government of the United States act correctly by deploying its troops in Casablanca, despite Moroccan protests and direct military opposition from the Petain government in France, whose power extended to Morocco? Of course, right! This was a serious means of creating a base for counteracting German aggression in close proximity to Western Europe, organizing a victory over Hitler’s troops and thus creating the possibility of liberating France from Hitler’s colonial oppression. Only the enemies of democracy or the lunatics could regard these actions of American troops as aggression.

        But the same thing must be said about the actions of the Soviet Government, which had organized an “eastern” front against Hitler aggression by the summer of 1940 and deployed its troops possibly further west from Leningrad, Moscow, and Kiev. This was the only way to block the unhindered advance of German troops to the East, create a strong defense, and then go on a counterattack in order to defeat the Nazi army together with the allies and thus prevent the transformation of the peace-loving countries of Europe, including Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, to the Nazi colony. Only the enemies of democracy or the lunatics could qualify these actions of the Soviet Government as aggression.

        But it follows that Chamberlain, Daladier and their entourage, qualifying this policy of the Soviet Government as aggression and organizing the exclusion of the Soviet Union from the League of Nations, acted as enemies of democracy or as crazy people.

        From this it follows, further, that the current slanderers and falsifiers of history, working in commonwealth with Mr. Bevin and Bidot and qualifying the creation of the “eastern” front against Hitler as aggression, act in the same way as the enemies of democracy or as crazy people.

        What would happen if the USSR had not created an “eastern” front even before the German attack — far to the west of the old borders of the USSR, if this front passed not along the Vyborg – Kaunas – Bialystok – Brest – Lviv line, but along the old border Leningrad –– Narva - Minsk - Kiev?

        This would enable Hitler’s troops to gain space by hundreds of kilometers, bringing the German front closer to Leningrad — Moscow — Minsk — Kiev by 200–300 kilometers, seriously accelerate the advance of the Germans into the interior of the USSR, accelerate the fall of Kiev and Ukraine, and lead to the capture of Moscow Germans, would lead to the capture of Leningrad by the combined forces of Germans and Finns and would force the USSR to go on a long defense, which would give the Germans the opportunity to liberate fifty divisions in the east for landing on the English islands and to strengthen the German o-Italian front in the area of ​​Egypt. It is likely that the British Government would have to evacuate to Canada, and Egypt and the Suez Canal would fall under Hitler's rule.

        But that's not all. The USSR would be forced to transfer most of its troops from the Manchu border to the "eastern" front to strengthen its defense, and this would enable the Japanese to free up to 39 divisions in Manchuria and send them against China, against the Philippines, against Southeast Asia in general, ultimately against the US military in the Far East.

        All this would lead to the fact that the war would drag on for at least another two years, and the Second World War would not end in 1945, but in 1947 or a little later.

        This was the case with the question of the "eastern" front. Meanwhile, events in the West took their course. In April 1940, the Germans occupied Denmark and Norway. In mid-May, German troops invaded Holland, Belgium and Luxembourg. On May 21, the Germans went to Lamanche and cut off the allies in Flanders. At the end of May, British troops evacuated Dunkirk, left France and headed for England. Paris fell in mid-June. On June 22, France surrendered to Germany.

        Thus Hitler trampled all and sundry declarations of non-aggression with France and England.

        It was a complete failure of the policy of appeasement, the policy of renouncing collective security, the policy of isolating the USSR.

        It became clear that, having isolated the USSR, France and England broke the united front of freedom-loving countries, weakened themselves and were isolated.

        On March 1, 1941, the Germans occupied Bulgaria.

        On April 5, the USSR signed a non-aggression pact with Yugoslavia.

        On June 22 of that year, Germany attacked the USSR.

        Italy, Romania, Hungary, Finland entered the war against the Soviet Union on the side of Germany.

        The Soviet Union entered the war of liberation against Nazi Germany.

        Different circles in Europe and America reacted differently to this event.

        The peoples enslaved by Hitler breathed a sigh of relief, deciding that Hitler would break his neck between two fronts, the western and the "eastern".

        The ruling circles of France gloated, not doubting that "Russia will be defeated" in the shortest possible time.

        A prominent member of the Senate of the United States of America, and now President Truman of the United States, a day after the German attack on the USSR declared:

        “If we see that Germany wins, then we should help Russia, and if we win

        will Russia, then we should help Germany and, therefore, let them kill as much as possible "

        A similar statement was made in 1941 by the then Minister of Aviation, Moore Brabazon, in Great Britain, who stated that, as far as Great Britain was concerned, the best outcome of the struggle on the eastern front would be the mutual exhaustion of Germany and the USSR, as a result of which England could take a dominant position.

        These statements were undoubtedly an expression of the position of the reactionary circles of the USA and Great Britain.

        However, the vast majority of the English and American peoples were in favor of the USSR, demanding unification with the Soviet Union for a successful struggle against Nazi Germany.

        A reflection of these sentiments should be considered the statement of the Prime Minister of Great Britain, Mr. Churchill on June 22, 1941 that “the danger to Russia is our danger and the danger of the United States just as the work of every Russian who is fighting for his land and home is a matter of free people and free peoples in any part of the globe. ”

        1 New York Times, June 24, 1941.

        The same position with respect to the USSR was taken by the Roosevelt government in the United States.

        This marked the beginning of the Anglo-Soviet-American coalition against Nazi Germany.

        The anti-Hitler coalition set itself the goal of defeating the Hitler regime and liberating the peoples enslaved by Hitler Germany. Despite the differences in the ideology and economic system of individual allied states, the Anglo-Soviet-American coalition became a powerful union of peoples, joining forces in the liberation struggle against Hitlerism.

        Of course, even then, during the war, there were disagreements between the Allies on certain issues. It is known, for example, how important the disagreements were on such important issues as the question of opening a second front, the question of the obligations of the Allies, of their moral duty to each other.

        Clutching at these disagreements, the falsifiers of history and all kinds of slanderers are trying to “prove”, contrary to the evidence, that the USSR was not and could not be a faithful and sincere ally in the fight against Nazi aggression. But since the joint struggle against Germany’s protis and the USSR’s behavior in this struggle does not provide any evidence in favor of such an accusation, they turn to the past, to the pre-war period, claiming that during the “negotiations” with Hitler in Berlin in 1940, representatives of the Soviet Union behaved treacherously, not in an allied manner.

        They assure that during the Berlin "negotiations" treacherous "plans for the division of Europe", territorial claims of the Soviet Union "south of the Soviet Union towards the Indian Ocean", "plans" about Turkey, Iran, Bulgaria and other "problems were discussed and adopted. ". For this purpose, slanderers use the reports of German ambassadors and other Hitler officials, all sorts of notes and German drafts of some “protocols” and other similar “documents”.

        What really happened in Berlin? It must be said that the so-called “Berlin talks” of 1940 were in fact nothing more than a return visit by V. M. Molotov on two Ribbentrop trips to Moscow. The discussions that took place concerned mainly Soviet-German relations. Hitler tried to turn them into a base for a broad agreement between the German and Soviet sides. The Soviet side, on the contrary, used them to probe, to probe the position of the German side, having no intention of concluding any agreement with the Germans. In these conversations, Hitler believed that the Soviet Union should have gained access to the Persian Gulf, occupying Western Iran and the British oil fields in Iran. He said, further, that Germany could help the Soviet Union resolve its claims against Turkey up to the amendment of the Montreux Straits treaty, while completely ignoring Iran’s interests, he carefully protected Turkey’s interests, clearly considering it as real or in any case as your future ally. As for the Balkan countries and Turkey, Hitler regarded them as a sphere of influence of Germany and Italy.

        From these conversations, the Soviet Government made the following conclusions: Germany does not value ties with Iran; Germany is not connected and does not intend to get in touch with England, which means that the Soviet Union can have a reliable ally in the person of England against Hitler Germany; the Balkan states are either already bought and turned into German satellites (Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary), or enslaved like Czechoslovakia, or are on the way to enslavement like Greece; Yugoslavia is the only Balkan country that can be counted on as the future ally of the anti-Hitler camp; Turkey is either already closely bound with Nazi Germany, or intends to contact it.

        Having made these useful conclusions, the Soviet Government did not return to any conversations on

        set forth issues, despite repeated reminders of Ribbentrop.

        As you can see, it was a probe, probing the position of the Hitler government on the part of the Soviet Government, which did not end and could not end with any agreement.

        Is such a sounding of the enemy’s position on the part of peace-loving states permissible? Definitely valid. And not only acceptable, but sometimes it is a direct political necessity. It is only necessary that the sounding occurs with the knowledge and consent of the allies and that the sounding results be communicated to the allies. But the Soviet Union did not have allies then, it was isolated and, unfortunately, it could not share the results of sounding with them.

        It should be noted that a similar, albeit foul-smelling, probe of the position of Hitlerite Germany was made by representatives of England and the United States of America already during the war, after the organization of the anti-Hitler coalition: England - United States of America - USSR. This is evident from documents captured by Soviet troops in Germany.

        These documents show that in the fall of 1941, as well as in 1942 and in 1943 in Lisbon and Switzerland, negotiations were held behind the back of the USSR between representatives of England and Germany, and then between representatives of the United States of America and Germany on the conclusion of peace with Germany .

        One of the documents, an annex to the report of the Deputy German Minister of Foreign Affairs Weizsacker, describes the course of these negotiations in Lisbon in September 1941. It can be seen from this document that on September 13, a meeting was held between the son of Lord Beaver Brook Aitken, an officer in the British Army, subsequently a member of the English Parliament, representing England, with Hungarian Gustav von Kever, acting on behalf of the German Ministry of Foreign Affairs, as you can judge by letter German Consul General in Geneva Crowell in the name of Weizsäcker.

        In these negotiations, Aitken directly posed the question: “Could the coming winter and spring be used to discuss the possibilities of peace behind the curtains?”

        Other documents speak of negotiations that took place between representatives of the US and German governments in February 1943 in Switzerland. These negotiations were conducted by the US Government Special Representative Allen Dulles (brother of John Foster Dulles), who appeared under the conspiratorial name “Ball” and had “direct instructions and powers from the White House”. His interlocutor from the German side was Prince M. Hohenlohe, close to the ruling circles of Nazi Germany and acting as a Nazi representative under the fictitious name "Pauls". The document containing the description of these negotiations belonged to the Hitler Security Service (SD).

        As can be seen from the document, important issues concerning Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Romania, Hungary, and, most importantly, the issue of concluding peace with Germany, were raised in the conversation.

        In this conversation, A. Dulles (Ball) said that “it will never be allowed for nations like Germany to be forced into desperate experiments and heroism because of injustice and need. The German state must remain as a factor in order and restoration.

        There can be no talk of his division or of the separation of Austria. ”

        Regarding Poland, Dulles (Ball) stated that

        "... by expanding Poland to the east and preserving Romania and strong Hungary, the creation of a sanitary cordon against Bolshevism and Pan-Slavism should be supported."

        Further in the recording of the conversation, it is noted that

        “Mr. Ball more or less agrees with the state and industrial organization of Europe, on the basis of large spaces, believing that a federal Great Germany (like the United States) with the adjoining Danube Confederation will be the best guarantee of order and restoration of Central and Eastern Europe” 1 2 .

        Dulles (Ball) also stated that he fully recognized the claims of German industry to a leading role in Europe.

        It should be noted that this probe was made by the British and Americans without the knowledge and consent of their ally, the Soviet Union, and the Soviet Government was not informed of the results of this probe, even in the order of subsequent information.

        This could mean that the governments of the USA and England made an attempt in this case to enter the path of negotiations with Hitler on a separate peace.

        It is clear that such behavior of the Governments of England and the USA cannot be regarded otherwise than as a violation of the elementary requirements of allied debt and allied obligations.

        1 “Conversation Pauls - Mr. Ball”, from German archival documents.

        2 See document cited above.

        It turns out that the falsifiers of history, accusing the USSR of "insincerity", are being blamed here for good.

        There can be no doubt that the falsifiers of history and other slanderers know these documents. And if they hide them from public opinion, keeping silent about them in their slanderous campaign against the USSR, then this is because they are afraid, like the plague, of historical truth.

        As for the disagreement over the opening of a second front, a different understanding of the responsibilities of the Allies in their relations to each other affected here. Soviet people believe that if an ally is in trouble, then he must be bailed out by all available means, that you need to treat your ally not as a temporary companion, but as a friend, rejoicing at his successes, rejoicing at his strengthening. Representatives of the British and Americans do not agree with this and consider such morality naive. They proceed from the fact that a strong ally is dangerous, that strengthening an ally is not in their interests, that it is better to have a weak ally than a strong one, and if it nevertheless strengthens, measures must be taken to weaken it.

        everyone knows that in the Anglo-Soviet communique, as well as in the Soviet-American communique in June 1942, the Anglo-Americans committed themselves to open a second front in Europe as early as 1942. It was a solemn promise, if you like, an oath that had to be fulfilled on time for the relief of the troops of the Soviet Union, which in the first period of the war carried the brunt of resistance to German fascism. But it is also known that this promise was not fulfilled either in 1942 or in 1943, despite the fact that the Soviet Government has repeatedly stated that the Soviet Union cannot be reconciled with the postponement of a second front.

        The policy of postponing a second front was by no means random. She fed on the aspirations of those reactionary circles in England and the USA who pursued their goals in the war with Germany, which had nothing to do with the liberation tasks of the struggle against German fascism. Their plans did not include the task of completely defeating German fascism. They were interested in undermining the power of Germany and, mainly, in eliminating Germany as a dangerous competitor in the world market, based on their narrowly selfish goals. But their intentions did not at all include the liberation of Germany and other countries from the domination of reactionary forces, which are the constant carriers of imperialist aggression and fascism, as well as the implementation of fundamental democratic transformations.

        At the same time, they built their calculations on weakening the USSR, on its bloodlessness and on the fact that, as a result of a grueling war, the USSR would for a long time lose its significance as a great and powerful power and would become dependent on the United States of America and Great Britain after the war.

        It is clear that the Soviet Union cannot consider such relations to an ally normal.

        The complete opposite of such a policy is the policy pursued by the USSR in inter-allied relations. This policy is characterized by invariably disinterested, consistent and honest fulfillment of the undertaken obligations, readiness to always render comradely help to one’s ally. The Soviet Union during the past war gave examples of such a truly allied attitude towards other countries - combat comrades in the fight against a common enemy.

        Here is one such fact.

        As you know, in late December 1944, the Nazi forces launched an offensive on the western front in the Ardennes region, broke through the front and put the Anglo-American troops in a difficult position. According to the allies, the Germans wanted to defeat the 1st American army, defeat the 1st American army, cut off the 9th American, 2nd British and 1st Canadian armies and arrange a second Dunkirk for the allies to withdraw England from the war.

        In this regard, on January 6, 1945, W. Churchill addressed I.V. Stalin with the following message:

        “In the West, there are very heavy battles, and at any time, the High Command may need big decisions. You yourself know from your own experience how disturbing the situation is when you have to defend a very wide front after a temporary loss of initiative. General Eisenhower is very desirable and necessary to know in general terms what you intend to do, as this, of course, will affect all his and our most important decisions. According to the message, our emissary, Chief Air Marshal Tedder, was in Cairo last night, being weather bound. His trip was dragged out through no fault of yours. If he has not yet arrived at you, I will be grateful if you can tell me if we can count on a major Russian offensive on the Vistula front or somewhere else during January, and any other points that you may be talking about. wish to mention. I will not pass on this highly confidential information to anyone except Field Marshal Brook and General Eisenhower, and only if it is kept in the strictest confidence. I consider the matter urgent. ”

        On January 7, 1945, JV Stalin sent W. Churchill the following answer:

        “I received on the evening of January 7 your message of January 6, 1945.

        Unfortunately, the Chief Marshal of Aviation, Mr. Tedder, has not yet arrived in Moscow.

        It is very important to use our superiority against the Germans in artillery and aircraft. These species require clear weather for aviation and the absence of low mists that prevent artillery from conducting aimed fire. We are preparing for the offensive, but the weather now is not conducive to our offensive. However, taking into account the position of our allies on the western front, the Supreme High Command Headquarters decided to complete preparations at an accelerated pace, and, regardless of the weather, to launch widespread offensive operations against the Germans on the entire central front no later than the second half of January. You can rest assured that we will do everything possible to render assistance to our glorious allied forces. ”

        In a reply to I.V. Stalin, W. Churchill wrote on January 9:

 “I am very grateful to you for your exciting message"     I sent it to General Eisenhower for his personal information only. Let your noble enterprise be lucky! ” Wanting to speed up aid to the allied forces in the west, the Supreme High Command of the Soviet troops decided to move the date of the offensive against the Germans on the Soviet-German front from January 20 to January 12. On January 12, a large offensive by Soviet troops began on a wide front from the Baltic Sea to the Carpathians. 150 Soviet divisions were set in motion with a large amount of artillery and aviation, which broke through the German front and drove German troops hundreds of kilometers away.

        On January 12, German troops on the western front, including the 5th and 6th tank armies, aimed for a new attack, stopped their offensive and within 5-6 days were withdrawn from the front and transferred to the east - against the advancing Soviet troops. The German offensive in the west was thwarted.

        On January 17, 1945, W. Churchill wrote to JV Stalin: “I am very grateful to you for your message and I am very glad that Air Marshal Tedder made such a favorable impression on you.

        On behalf of the Government of His Majesty and from the bottom of my heart, I want to express our gratitude and congratulations to you on the occasion of the gigantic offensive that you launched on the Eastern Front.

        You undoubtedly now know the plans of General Eisenhower, and to what extent their implementation was delayed by the frustrating offensive of Rundstedt. I am sure that on our entire front the battles will continue uninterrupted. "The British 21st Army Group, under the command of Field Marshal Montgomery, launched an offensive today in the area south of Roermond."

        In an order of I.V. Stalin on Soviet troops in February 1945, this offensive by the Soviet troops said:

        “In January of this year, the Red Army brought down an unprecedented force blow on the enemy on the entire front from the Baltic to the Carpathians. She hacked over the 1,200 kilometers of powerful Germans defenses that they built over the years. During the offensive, the Red Army quickly and skillfully pushed the enemy far west.

        The successes of our winter offensive led, first of all, to thwarted the winter offensive of the Germans in the West, which was aimed at capturing Belgium and Alsace, and enabled the armies of our allies, in turn, to go on the offensive against the Germans and thereby close their offensive operations in the West offensive operations of the Red Army in the East. "

        So acted I.V. Stalin.

        This is how real allies act in the common struggle.

        These are the facts.

        Of course, the falsifiers of history and the slanderers are therefore called falsifiers and slanderers because they have no respect for facts. They prefer to deal with gossip, with slander. But there is no reason to doubt that these gentlemen will nevertheless have to finally recognize one well-known truth that gossip and slander perish, and the facts remain.