Why did Hitler start the war? Hitler attacked the USSR on the orders of the West
The pursuit of justice is one of the most important human aspirations. In any kind of complex social organization, the need for a moral assessment of interactions with other people has always been extremely great. Justice is the most important motivational motive for people to act, to assess what is happening, the most important element in the perception of oneself and the world.
The chapters written below do not pretend to be any complete description of the history of the concepts of justice. But in them we tried to focus on the basic principles from which people at different times proceeded, evaluating the world and themselves. And also on those paradoxes that they encountered when implementing certain principles of justice.
Greeks discover justice
The idea of justice appears in Greece. Which is understandable. As soon as people unite in communities (polises) and begin to interact with each other not only at the level of tribal relations or at the level of direct domination-subordination, there is a need for a moral assessment of such interaction.
Until then, the whole logic of justice fit into a simple scheme: justice is following the given order of things. The Greeks, however, also largely adopted this logic - the teachings of the sages-founders of the Greek policies in one way or another came down to an understandable thesis: "Only what is in our laws and customs is fair." But as cities developed, this logic became noticeably more complex and expanded.
So, what is right is that which does not harm others and is done for the good. Well, since the natural order of things is an objective good, then following it is the basis for any criteria for evaluating justice.
The same Aristotle wrote very convincingly about the justice of slavery. Barbarians are naturally destined for physical labor and submission, and therefore it is very fair that the Greeks - naturally destined for mental and spiritual labor - make them slaves. Because it is good for barbarians to be slaves, even if they themselves do not understand this due to their unreasonableness. The same logic allowed Aristotle to talk about a just war. The war waged by the Greeks against the barbarians for the sake of replenishing the army of slaves is just, because it restores the natural state of affairs and serves for the good of all. Slaves receive masters and the opportunity to realize their destiny, and the Greeks - slaves.
Plato, proceeding from the same logic of justice, proposed to closely monitor how children play and, according to the type of play, determine them into social groups for the rest of their lives. Those who play war are guards, they must be taught the military trade. Those who govern are philosopher-rulers, they must be taught Platonic philosophy. And all the rest do not need to be taught - they will work.
Naturally, the Greeks shared the good for the individual and the common good. The second is certainly more important and significant. Therefore, for the common good there has always been primacy in the assessment of justice. If something infringes on other individuals, but presupposes the common good, this is certainly fair. However, for the Greeks there was no particular contradiction here. They called the common good the good for the policy, and the cities in Greece were small, and not at the level of abstraction, but at a very specific level, it was assumed that the one whose good was infringed, for the good of all, would return him as a member of the community, with profit. This logic, of course, led to the fact that justice for your own (the inhabitants of your policy) was very different from justice for strangers.
Socrates who confused everything
So, the Greeks figured out what good is. Understand what the natural order of things is. Understand what justice is.
But there was one Greek who liked to ask questions. Good-natured, consistent and logical. You already understood that we are talking about Socrates.
In Xenophon's Memoirs of Socrates there is an amazing chapter "A conversation with Euthydemus about the need to study." This chapter ends with the following words: "And many, driven to such despair by Socrates, no longer wanted to deal with him." questions that Socrates asked the young politician Euthydemus about justice and good.
Read this brilliant dialogue by Xenophon himself, or perhaps even better, by Mikhail Leonovich Gasparov. However, you can do it right here.
"Tell me: to lie, to deceive, to steal, to seize people and sell them into slavery - is this fair?" - "Of course, it's not fair!" - “Well, if the commander, having repelled the attack of the enemies, captures the prisoners and sells them into slavery, will this also be unfair?” - "No, perhaps that is fair." - "And if he plunders and devastates their land?" - "It's also fair." - "And if he deceives them with military tricks?" “That's also fair. Yes, perhaps I told you inaccurately: both lying, and deceit, and theft are fair in relation to enemies, but unfair in relation to friends.
"Wonderful! Now I think I'm starting to understand. But tell me this, Euthydemus: if the commander sees that his soldiers are discouraged, and lies to them that allies are approaching them, and this encourages them, will such a lie be unfair? - "No, perhaps that is fair." - “And if the son needs medicine, but he does not want to take it, and the father deceives him into food, and the son recovers, will such a deception be unfair?” - "No, also fair." “And if someone, seeing a friend in despair and fearing that he would lay hands on himself, steals or takes away his sword and dagger, what can I say about such theft?” “And that's fair. Yes, Socrates, it turns out that again I told you inaccurately; it was necessary to say: both lies, and deceit, and theft - this is fair in relation to enemies, but fair in relation to friends when it is done for their benefit, and unfair when it is done to them to harm.
“Very well, Evfidem; now I see that before I can recognize justice, I must learn to recognize good and evil. But do you know that, of course?" - “I think I know, Socrates; although for some reason I'm not so sure about it anymore. - "So what is it?" - “Well, for example, health is good, and illness is evil; food or drink that leads to health is good, and that leads to illness is evil.” - “Very well, I understood about food and drink; but then, perhaps, it would be more correct to say about health in the same way: when it leads to good, then it is good, and when it leads to evil, then it is evil? - "What are you, Socrates, but when can health be evil?" - “But, for example, an unholy war began and, of course, ended in defeat; the healthy went to war and perished, while the sick remained at home and survived; what was health here - good or evil?
“Yes, I see, Socrates, that my example is unsuccessful. But, perhaps, we can already say that the mind is a blessing! - “Is it always? Here, the Persian king often demands smart and skilled artisans from Greek cities to his court, keeps them with him and does not let them into his homeland; Is their mind good for them?" - "Then - beauty, strength, wealth, glory!" - “But the beautiful ones are more often attacked by slave traders, because beautiful slaves are valued more; the strong often take on a task that exceeds their strength, and get into trouble; the rich are pampered, fall prey to intrigues, and perish; fame always arouses envy, and this also causes a lot of evil.
“Well, if that’s the case,” said Euthydemus despondently, “then I don’t even know what I should pray to the gods about.” - "Do not worry! It just means that you still don't know what you want to tell the people about. But do you know the people yourself?” “I think I do, Socrates.” - “Who is the people made of?” - From the poor and the rich. - "And who do you call poor and rich?" “The poor are those who do not have enough to live on, and the rich are those who have everything in abundance and beyond.” “But doesn’t it happen that the poor man can do very well with his small means, and the rich man is not enough of any wealth?” - “Right, it happens! There are even tyrants who lack their entire treasury and need illegal requisitions. - “So what? Shall we classify these tyrants among the poor, and the economic poor among the rich?” - “No, it’s better not to, Socrates; I see that here I, it turns out, know nothing.
“Don't despair! You will still think about the people, but you, of course, have thought about yourself and your future fellow speakers, and more than once. So tell me this: after all, there are such bad orators who deceive the people to their detriment. Some do it unintentionally, and some even on purpose. Which ones are better and which ones are worse? - "I think, Socrates, that intentional deceivers are much worse and more unjust than unintentional ones." - “Tell me: if one person deliberately reads and writes with errors, and the other not on purpose, then which one of them is more literate?” - "Probably the one that is on purpose: after all, if he wants, he can write without errors." “But doesn’t it mean that an intentional deceiver is better and more just than an unintentional one: after all, if he wants, he will be able to speak with the people without deception!” “Don’t, Socrates, don’t tell me that, even without you I now see that I don’t know anything and it would be better for me to sit and be silent!”
Romans. justice is right
The Romans were also concerned with the problem of justice. Although Rome began as a small settlement, it quickly grew into a huge state that dominates the entire Mediterranean. The Greek logic of polis justice did not work very well here. Too many people, too many provinces, too many interactions.
Law helped the Romans cope with the idea of justice. A rebuilt and constantly being built up system of laws to which all the citizens of Rome obeyed. Cicero wrote that the state is a community of people united by common interests and agreement in relation to laws.
The legal system combined the interests of society, and the interests of specific people, and the interests of Rome as a state. All this has been described and codified.
Hence the law as the initial logic of justice. What is right is what is right. And justice is realized through the possession of the right, through the opportunity to be the object of the right.
"Don't touch me, I'm a Roman citizen!" - the man included in the system of Roman law proudly exclaimed, and those who wanted to harm him understood that all the power of the empire would fall upon them.
Christian logic of justice or Everything has become more complicated again
The "New Testament" again confused everything a little.
First, he set the absolute coordinates of justice. The Last Judgment is coming. Only there will true justice be revealed, and only this justice matters.
Secondly, your good deeds and a just life here on earth can somehow affect the very decision of the Supreme Court. But these deeds and a just life must be an act of our free will.
Thirdly, the requirement to love your neighbor as yourself, declared by Christ as the main moral value of Christianity, is still something more than just a requirement to try not to harm or to have a good disposition. The Christian ideal presupposes the need to perceive the other as oneself.
And, finally, the New Testament abolished the division of people into friends and foes, worthy and unworthy, those whose destiny is to be a master, and those whose destiny is to be a slave: “In the image of Him who created him, where there is neither Greek nor Jew , no circumcision, no uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free, but all and in all Christ ”(Epistle to the Colossians of the Holy Apostle Paul, 3.8)
Based on the logic of the New Testament, now all people should be perceived as equal subjects of justice. And the same criteria of justice must be applied to all. And the principle of "love of one's neighbor" requires more from justice than simply following the formal criteria of the good. The criteria of justice cease to be the same, for everyone they turn out to be their own. And then there is the Last Judgment in the inevitable future.
In general, all this was too difficult, it required too much mental and social effort. Fortunately, religious logic itself made it possible to perceive the world in the traditional paradigm of justice. Following the traditions and prescriptions of the church leads more reliably to the kingdom of heaven, for this is both good deeds and a just life. And all these acts of good free will can be omitted. We are Christians and believe in Christ (no matter what he says), and those who do not believe - our criteria of justice do not fit those. As a result, Christians, when necessary, justified the justice of any wars and any slavery no worse than Aristotle.
However, what was said in the New Testament somehow still exerted its influence. And on the religious consciousness, and on the whole European culture.
Don't do what you don't want to be done to you
“Therefore, whatever you want people to do to you, do also to them, for this is the law and the prophets” (Matt. 7:12). These words of Christ from the Sermon on the Mount are one of the formulations of a universal moral maxim. Approximately the same formula is found in Confucius, in the Upanishads and in general in many places.
And it was this formula that became the starting point for thinking about justice in the Age of Enlightenment. The world has become more complicated, people speaking different languages, believing in different ways and in different ways, doing different things, are increasingly colliding with each other. Practical reason demanded a logical and consistent formula of justice. And found it in a moral maxim.
It is easy to see that this maxim has at least two very different variants.
"Don't do what you don't want to be done to you."
"Do as you would like to be treated."
The first was called the principle of justice, the second - the principle of mercy. The combination of these two principles solved the problem of who exactly should be considered the neighbor who should be loved (in the Sermon on the Mount, it is the second option). And the first principle provided grounds for a clear justification of just actions.
All these reflections were summed up and brought out into the categorical imperative by Kant. However, he had to (as the consistent logic of his reflections demanded) slightly change the wording: "Do so that the maxim of your will might be a universal law." The author of the famous “Critic” has another option: “Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, both in your own person and in the person of everyone else, as well as an end, and never treat it only as a means.”
How Marx put everything in its place and justified the struggle for justice
But with this formula, in any of its formulations, there were big problems. Especially if you go beyond the Christian idea of the highest (divine) good and the highest judge. But what if others do just the way you would not want them to do to you? What do you do if you are being treated unfairly?
And further. People are very different, "what is great for a Russian is a karachun for a German." Some passionately want to see the holy cross on Hagia Sophia in Constantinople, while others don’t care at all, for some, control over the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles is vital, while for others it’s important to find somewhere a half for a glass of vodka.
And then Karl Marx helped everyone. He explained everything. The world is divided into warring (no, no longer cities like Aristotle), but classes. Some classes are oppressed, while others are oppressive. Everything the oppressors do is unfair. Everything that the oppressed do is just. Especially if these oppressed are the proletariat. Because science has proven that it is the proletariat that is the highest class, behind which the future belongs, and which represents the objectively good majority and the logic of progress.
So:
First, there is no justice for all.
Secondly, what is done for the benefit of the majority is just.
Thirdly, that which is objective, immutable (cf. the objective laws of the universe among the Greeks) and progressive is just.
And finally, it is fair that for the benefit of the oppressed, and therefore requires a struggle. Requires the suppression of those who are against, those who oppress and stand in the way of progress
Actually, Marxism became for many years the main logic of the struggle for justice. Yes, and still is. True, with one important change. Justice for the majority has fallen out of modern Marxist logic.
The American philosopher John Rawls created the theory of "just inequality", which is based on "equality of access to fundamental rights and freedoms" and "priority in access to any opportunities for those who have less of these opportunities." There was nothing Marxist in Rawls' logic, rather the opposite - this is an obviously anti-Marxist doctrine. However, it was precisely the combination of the Rawls formula and the Marxist approach that created the modern foundations for the struggle for justice to annihilate
The Marxist logic of the struggle for justice is based on the right of the oppressed. Marx reasoned in the category of large groups and global processes, and the oppressed was the proletariat - the logic of progress was destined to be the majority. But if we shift the focus a little, then in the place of the proletariat there may be any other oppressed marginal groups, which are not necessarily the majority. And so, from Marx's desire to achieve justice for all, the struggle for the rights of any minorities grows, turning the ideas of the German from the century before last inside out.
At 04:00, the Reich Foreign Minister Ribbentrop presented the Soviet Ambassador in Dekanozov with a note declaring war and three appendices to it: “Report of the German Minister of the Interior, the Reichsführer SS and the Chief of the German Police to the German government on the sabotage work of the USSR directed against Germany and the national Socialism", "Report of the German Foreign Ministry on the Propaganda and Political Agitation of the Soviet Government", "Report of the High Command of the German Army to the German Government on the Concentration of Soviet Troops against Germany". In the early morning of June 22, 1941, after artillery and aviation training, German troops crossed the border of the USSR. After that, at 5:30 in the morning, the German Ambassador to the USSR, V. Schulenburg, appeared before the People's Commissar for Foreign Affairs of the USSR V. M. Molotov and made a statement, the content of which was that the Soviet government was pursuing a subversive policy in Germany and in the territories occupied by it. countries, pursued a foreign policy directed against Germany, and "concentrated all its troops on the German border in full combat readiness." The statement ended with the following words: "The Führer therefore ordered the German armed forces to confront this threat with all the means at their disposal." Together with the note, he handed over a set of documents identical to those that Ribbentrop handed over to Dekanozov (according to V. M. Molotov himself, Schulenburg appeared earlier, at about half past three, but no later than 3 a.m.).
Here is a quote from the note declaring war:
"Since the beginning of the year, the Supreme High Command of the Wehrmacht has repeatedly pointed out to the foreign policy leadership of the Reich the growing threat to the territory of the Reich from the Russian army and at the same time emphasized that only aggressive plans can be the reason for this strategic concentration and deployment of troops. These messages from the Supreme High Command of the Wehrmacht will be brought in full detail to the public.
If there was the slightest doubt about the aggressiveness of the strategic concentration and deployment of Russian troops, then it was completely dispelled by reports received by the Wehrmacht Supreme High Command in recent days. After the general mobilization in Russia, at least 160 divisions were deployed against Germany.
In the literature about the Second World War, the idea that Hitler did not defeat the USSR only because he did not have time to take Moscow before winter is a red thread. And he did not have time to do this because he made the invasion too late. For some reason, he waited until the end of June, instead of attacking in the spring. Moreover, the initial date of the attack seemed to be scheduled for May 15, 1941. That is, it turns out that Hitler lost precious time due to some whim or bewilderment? Or were there objective reasons that forced him to postpone the implementation of the Barbarossa plan?
First of all, let's clarify where it came from that Hitler set the date for the invasion of the USSR on May 15th. This date has only one source: the directive of the Wehrmacht High Command No. 21, otherwise the Barbarossa plan, signed by the Fuhrer on December 18, 1940. It reads: “I will give the order on the strategic deployment of the armed forces against the Soviet Union, if necessary, eight weeks before the scheduled date for the start of operations. Preparations requiring a longer time, if they have not yet begun, should begin now and be completed by 15.5.41.
It does not follow from this that May 15 was already scheduled as the date of the attack. By this date, the transfer of Wehrmacht troops to areas from where their strategic deployment for operations against the USSR could begin was only to be completed. The appointment of a start date for the operation is the subject of a special order. From the same text it follows that this order should have been given no later than eight weeks before the scheduled date of the invasion. That is, if this deadline was May 15, then the order should have been received no later than March 20, 1941. As you know, there was no such order. [S-BLOCK]
Of course, Hitler was interested in attacking the USSR as soon as possible, and the Barbarossa plan clearly indicates this: "The German armed forces must be ready to defeat Soviet Russia in a fleeting campaign." May 15 was the target date. As early as April 3rd, the OKH issued an order that called for the postponement of Operation Barbarossa "by at least four weeks." The delay was motivated by the need for a military operation in the Balkans. On April 30, after the completion of the occupation of Yugoslavia and Greece, the new order for the first time named a specific date for the attack - June 22, and it was held. On June 17, the troops of Germany and its allies received the Dortmund code signal to advance to their original positions.
So, the reason for the delay seems to be beyond doubt, since the Germans themselves named it. However, some historians doubt the truth of this official version.
According to some mystically minded people, Hitler specifically timed the attack on the USSR to the day when the Russian Orthodox Church celebrated "The Day of All Saints Who Shone in the Russian Land." Considering that Hitler considered the campaign against the USSR as “a fight against godless Bolshevism”, and that the German administration everywhere opened churches in the occupied regions that had previously been closed by the Bolsheviks, this “version” should be discarded as an absurd myth. Let's consider more serious explanations.
According to such authors as V. Suvorov (Rezun) and M. Solonin, Hitler undertook the invasion at the most favorable moment in order to preempt the Soviet troops, who themselves were preparing to attack Germany. On July 6, 1941, Stalin allegedly appointed the start of the Red Army's campaign in Europe. Hitler, knowing this, chose the time to defeat the Soviet troops, concentrated near the borders and completely unprepared for defense, with a sudden blow. Therefore, he postponed the attack until June 22, in order to act for sure.
However, this version does not yet find direct documentary evidence. The problem for her is not even the secrecy of the most important Soviet archival documents of the pre-war period. In all German documents, there are absolutely no indications that the preparation of German troops for the invasion of the USSR was carried out depending on the information about the supposedly impending Soviet invasion and in order to forestall it. All the data available today indicate that Nazi Germany was preparing an attack on the USSR, completely regardless of what the Soviet leadership was doing.
The English historian A. J. P. Taylor wrote back in the 70s of the last century: “Subsequently, it was believed that the implementation of the Barbarossa plan ... was ... postponed due to events in Yugoslavia ... This is a legend invented by German generals to justify their defeat in Russia and actually based on nothing. Only 15 out of 150 [more precisely, out of 153 - Ya. B.] German divisions intended for the first strike were diverted to the Balkans. It's hardly a big loss. The plans for mobilization in Germany for the Eastern Front were not completed by May 15 ... due to a lack of supplies, especially vehicles ... The delay may even have been opportune, since after the spring snowmelt, the ground dried up by mid-June.
One more thought can be added to this. The factor of strategic surprise would certainly have been used by Germany to a greater extent if the invasion had been undertaken in the month of May. At this time, Stalin would have considered the German army the least capable of striking, since its ground operation in the Balkans had just ended, and it had yet to capture Crete.
Therefore, the hypothesis that the Wehrmacht missed a convenient time to defeat the USSR only for purely technical reasons (difficulties in concentrating the material part), and not because of the sudden need to conduct an operation in the Balkans (carried out by very limited forces), deserves serious attention.
The twentieth century went down in history with many events that influenced the development of our civilization.
Along with great achievements in science, technology and culture, the past century has written tragic pages in the history of mankind - the last century was the century of two world wars.
After the First World War, which was also called the Great War, which claimed the lives of over 10 million people, it seemed that humanity, having comprehended the tragic results, would be able to do everything necessary to ensure that such large-scale bloody conflicts would not be repeated.
But soon after its end, the revolution in Russia and the revolutionary events in other European countries, it became obvious that the outcome of the war did not suit everyone, and the victory of the Bolsheviks became the main irritant for the West.
For example, here is what the commander of the American troops in Germany, General G. Allen, wrote in his diary on January 15, 1920: “ Germany is the state most capable of successfully repelling Bolshevism. German expansion at the expense of Russia would divert the Germans to the east for a long time and thereby reduce the tension in their relations with Western Europe.
Having entered the world stage after participating in the First World War, the United States paid great attention to the situation in Europe and especially to events in Germany.
Back in 1921-1922. the assistant to the American military attache in Berlin, Captain Truman Smith, drew attention to the emotional and tough speeches in Munich of the still little-known politician Adolf Hitler in the country, who since 1921 led the German National Socialist Workers' Party (NSDAP).
In 1922 an American diplomat met him. He recommended that businessman Ernst Ganfstaengl, who, in addition to business, carried out assignments from American intelligence services, who arrived from the United States, especially follow his speeches and rallies of the National Socialists.
At the beginning of the twentieth century. he moved with his father, who was in the publishing business in Munich, from Germany to the United States. There he received an excellent education, graduating in 1909 from the prestigious Harvard University. He knew several foreign languages, played the piano well, was a member of the aristocratic houses of Bavaria, was familiar with the future US President Franklin Roosevelt ...
Arriving in Munich, E. Hanfstaengl promptly complied with the request of Captain Smith. Soon, having met Hitler, he entered his inner circle. After the "beer putsch" in Munich, the Nazi leader was hiding in the country house of an American in the Munich suburb of Uffing.
When the police came for Hitler with an arrest warrant, he tried to commit suicide. Helen, Hanfstaengl's wife, was able to disarm him with the judo technique Ernst had taught her earlier. Who knows how the history of the 20th century would have developed if Hitler had shot himself in 1923?
After his release from prison, where he spent nine months of the five years to which he was sentenced, the Nazi leader began to trust Hanfstaengl even more. And he, in turn, began to acquaint him with representatives of the high society of Bavaria. Moreover, he continued to actively supply the National Socialists with money.
From 1923 to 1926 financing of Hitler and his party was carried out through Swiss and Swedish banks, and the role of Hanfstaengl in this can hardly be exaggerated. He himself personally assisted in the publication of Hitler's book "Mein Kampf" and the newspaper, the NSDAP print organ "Volkischer Beobachter" ("People's Observer").
Ernst Hanfstaengl even wrote several marches for brownshirts, and when his son was born, the Fuhrer became his godfather... Until 1937, he headed A. Hitler's press service.
(Hanfstaengl's relationship with the Fuhrer cooled in 1936, when he learned that the fascist leader's entourage was dissatisfied with his connections and closeness to Hitler. In 1937 he fled to Switzerland...
After his activities in Germany, in addition to operational information, the administration of President Roosevelt had detailed data on 400 fascist leaders. Only the report on Hitler was about 70 pages, where there were details that none of the special services had in those years.)
From 1926 Nazi financing began to be carried out directly through the banks and industrial concerns of Germany. In the autumn of 1930, the head of the Reichsbank, Hjalmar Schacht, visited the United States and negotiated directly with representatives of American business.
In private negotiations, he told them about the scenarios for A. Hitler's coming to power in Germany and about his concept of the country's development, the strategy of combating Bolshevism ...
Soon, D. Gordon, attache of the American embassy in Berlin, reported in a diplomatic dispatch to US Secretary of State G. Stimson: “...Hitler received significant financial support from certain circles of industrialists. Just today I heard a rumor from a source, usually well informed, that the various American financial circles represented here are very active in the same direction.
In 1932, while working on the book "The Life of Marlborough", the well-known British politician W. Churchill visited the Netherlands and Germany by that time.
In Munich, he stayed at the Regina Hotel, where he was soon introduced to one of Hitler's assistants. It turned out to be Hanfstaengl, who, after a short conversation, offered to organize a meeting between Churchill and Hitler in Munich.
Here is how the English politician himself later recalled this in his book The Second World War: “In all likelihood, he was instructed to get in touch with me, and he clearly tried to make a good impression on me. After dinner he sat down at the piano and played many pieces and songs so well that we enjoyed it immensely...
As it turned out, at that time he was the favorite of the Fuhrer. He said that I should have met with Hitler and that nothing could be easier to arrange...
At that time I did not have any national prejudice against Hitler. I knew little about his doctrine and his past, and knew nothing at all about his personal qualities.
I admire people who stand up for their defeated homeland, even if I myself am on the other side. He had the right to be a German patriot if he so desired.
I have always wanted England, Germany and France to be friends. However, in a conversation with Hanfstaengl, I asked among other things: “Why does your leader hate the Jews so cruelly? ..”
Having received a detailed report on the conversation with Churchill, Hitler never came to meet him, apparently unwilling to answer the sharp and uncomfortable questions of the British politician.
It is difficult to say what such a meeting could give, but even without it it soon becomes clear that The West is increasingly relying on Hitler and seeking to help him b. The main goal of Western politicians in those years was to push Germany against the USSR.
In May 1933, the president of the imperial bank, Hjalmar Schacht, again visits America, where he meets with President F. Roosevelt and the largest American financiers.
Soon Berlin receives investments in German industry and loans from the United States for a total of over a billion dollars.
A month later, in June, at an international conference in London, Hjalmar Schacht also holds a series of meetings and negotiations with the head of the British bank, N. Montague. As then, during the Nuremberg trials, J. Schacht stated, UK lends over £1bn to Germany, which in dollar terms amounted to two billion dollars.
After the economic crisis experienced by Germany in the 1920s, which was exacerbated by the payment of reparations to the victorious countries, American industrial corporations and banks, taking advantage of the situation, bought up the assets of many of the country's key enterprises.
For example, Standard Oil, owned by the Rockefeller family, gained control of the German I. G. Ferbenindustri", which actively financed the election campaign of A. Hitler in 1930.
From 1929 to this day, Opel has been controlled by the American automobile corporation General Motors, owned by the Dupont family. It was at the factories of this corporation in Germany that the famous Blitz trucks were produced for the German army.
The American telephone company ITT acquired 40% of Germany's telephone networks.
On the eve of World War II, US corporations and banks invested $800 million in industry and the country's financial system. Amount at that time huge.
Of these, the leading four from America invested about $200 million in the militarized German economy: "Standard Oil"- 120 million, "General Motors"- 35 million, investments "ITT" amounted to 30 million, and "Ford"$17.5 million
It cannot but be shocking that even after the US entered World War II on December 11, 1941, American corporations continued to actively fulfill orders from firms in enemy countries, supported the activities of their branches in Germany, Italy, and even Japan.
To do this, it was only necessary to apply for a special permit to carry out business activities with companies under the control of the Nazis or their allies.
Decree of the President of the United States of December 13, 1941 allowed such transactions, doing business with enemy companies, unless specifically prohibited by the US Treasury Department.
Very often, American corporations without any problems received permits to work with enemy firms and supplied them with the necessary steel, engines, aviation fuel, rubber, radio components ...
So the power of the military industry of Germany and its allies was supported by the economic activity of the United States, whose companies received super-profits for their deals with the enemy. Indeed, who is war, and who is mother…
Thus, the powerful Standard Oil regularly supplied the Nazi army with various fuels, and supplied synthetic rubber and various raw materials to industry. Deliveries also went to Italy and Austria.
At the same time, in the United States during the war years, there were serious problems with the supply of synthetic rubber for American industry.
The war did not prevent Standard Oil, using British intermediaries, from concluding a contract with I. G. Ferbinidustri”, which allowed the production of aviation gasoline in Germany. So the Luftwaffe planes that bombed the peaceful cities of the Soviet Union, Great Britain, killed British and American soldiers, received gasoline created by an American corporation.
During the Second World War, not a single Standard Oil tanker was sunk by German submarines. This is understandable - no one cuts the branch on which he sits.
Almost until the end of the war, having a special permit for trade with Germany, Italy, Japan, the American ITT conducted its business.
The Ford automobile concern did not stop production in France after the German occupation.
Hermann Goering, who headed the industrial concern Reichswerk Hermann Goering, personally provided special patronage to the activities of the concern in Europe.
Even a company far from military supplies "Coca Cola" established the production of a drink in Germany "Fanta".
And these are far from all examples of cooperation between US big business and Nazi Germany during the war.
Subsequently, Yalomir Schacht, in a conversation with the American doctor Gilbert during the Nuremberg trials, will declare: “If you want to indict the industrialists who helped rearm Germany, then you must indict yourself.
The Opel car plant, for example, produced nothing but military products. Owned this factory "General Motors" …
As you know, the Nuremberg Tribunal found J. Mine innocent.
Having occupied most of Europe, controlling the territory of the continent with a population of 290 million people, Nazi Germany used the resources and huge military-industrial potential of European countries for the war with the USSR.
In March 1939, Czechoslovakia, which had a combat-ready army and a developed industry, became a special prize for Germany.
Back in 1938, during the Munich agreement, according to which Czechoslovakia undertook to transfer the Sudetenland to Germany, Hitler warned the British Prime Minister N. Chamberlain and the French head of government E. Deladier that, following the Sudetenland, all of Czechoslovakia would soon be occupied. But Deladier and Chamberlain did not lift a finger to protect the interests of this country.
It must be admitted that the Czechoslovak leaders, having a modern army for those times, were able to offer powerful resistance to Germany, but slavishly handed over their country to the mercy of Hitler.
And Czechoslovakia was a tasty morsel for preparing for a future war. The weight of the country in the world arms market of those years was 40%. In this small country, 130 thousand rifles, 200 guns, about 5000 various machine guns were produced monthly ...
Only at the expense of Czechoslovakia, the German Air Force increased by 72%, receiving 1582 aircraft. Tank units of Germany added 486 tanks produced at Czechoslovak plants to their 720.
As a result, Hitler, at the expense of Czechoslovakia alone, was able to arm and equip 50 divisions.
In addition, fascist Germany received in addition the gold reserves (80 tons) of this country, as well as the people who meekly worked for the criminal Nazi regime all the years of the war.
A particularly large contribution to the production of guns, trucks, tanks was made by the factories of a well-known company "Skoda". From the beginning of the war, German soldiers fought on Czech tanks in Poland, France, Greece, Yugoslavia, and then in the USSR ...
Only from 1933 to 1939, during the six years that Hitler was in power, did the size of the German army grow 40 times. Despite the Versailles Accords, this was stubbornly ignored by the leaders of Great Britain and France ...
And the strengthening of the military-technical potential of Germany after the swift victories of the Wehrmacht in 1939-1940. also contributed to the economy of France, Holland, Belgium, Norway ...
Even neutral Sweden and Switzerland supplied the German military industry with iron ore for steel production and precision instruments ...
Spain supplied a significant amount of oil and oil products ...
The industry of almost all of Europe worked for the war machine of Hitler, who on June 30, 1941 announced that he was considering a war with the USSR as a joint European war against Russia.
For four long years the Soviet Union waged war against the criminal regime of Hitler and all those who supported Nazi Germany. The front line ran not only on the front line, but in factory shops, design bureaus, scientific laboratories ...
Our Victory over Nazi Germany and militaristic Japan is also a victory for our teachers, designers, engineers and workers... who also won in the confrontation between economies and creative thought over the enemy for whom all of Europe and dozens of countries of the world worked.
73 years ago, the Second World War ended, which claimed the lives of 50 million people. But, as the facts show, another war continues today, a war for the minds of people.
Some Western historians and political scientists are creating an ideological weapon with which they seek to rewrite the history of the Second World War, substituting facts, and do not shun falsifications.
That's why it's important to remember how and with the help of whom did Hitler come to power what threat the Nazi ideology posed to the world, who pandered to the Fuhrer in the West, and how a Soviet soldier inflicted a mortal blow in 1945 on Nazi Germany and its allies.
I. A. Mikhailov
To begin with - what did the Germans themselves say about this
The opposing worldviews that separated the two states from each other did not decrease as a result of their conclusion of the treaty in 1939. The Soviet Union remained in the eyes of Hitler the ideological enemy of Germany. But Hitler, even in the political arena, considered him a potential enemy, who, sooner or later, would turn to a policy of blackmail. Hitler believed that this would begin as early as 1940. The longer the war dragged on, the more Germany depended on raw materials, which, to a large extent, could supply - and still did supply on the basis of concluded agreements - only the Soviet Union. If the war against England drags on indefinitely and, as Hitler believed, from 1943 the military might of the United States fully manifests itself, then Germany will finally become dependent on the Soviet Union. This prospect seemed unbearable to Hitler. In his opinion, this was exactly what England wanted: she wanted to endure until the United States was ready for war and the Soviet Union turned against Germany. Hitler did not want to allow such a danger. In January 1941, he told Raeder that Germany, if she eliminated the threat in the East, would be able to continue the war against England under quite tolerable conditions. The defeat of the Soviet Union, in his opinion, would greatly facilitate the position of Japan and would make it very dangerous for the United States to enter the war against Germany. (Map 4, p. 228) Hitler set firm deadlines for the implementation of these plans. In 1941, the Soviet Union, as a mighty power, was to cease to exist. Then, according to Hitler's calculations, not only will he not have an enemy behind him, but he will receive a large amount of raw materials and agricultural products, without making himself dependent on the mercy of the Soviet Union: wheat - from Ukraine, coal and ore - from the Donets Basin, nickel - from the Kola Peninsula, oil - from the Caucasus and timber - from Belarus. In the political circles of Germany, they strongly hoped that after major military failures, the Soviet state would crumble. That the Soviet Union would in the near future itself seek an armed conflict with Germany seemed highly improbable on political and military grounds; however, the fear that, under more favorable conditions, the Soviet Union could later become a very inconvenient and even dangerous neighbor could be well-founded. For the time being, the Soviet Union had no reason to abandon the policy that had hitherto allowed it to achieve remarkable successes almost without the use of force. The Soviet Union was busy modernizing its obsolete tanks and aircraft and transferring much of its military industry to the Urals. Cautious and sober politicians in the Kremlin could not conceive of an offensive against Germany, which had only small ground forces on other fronts, and could concentrate its powerful aviation at any time in the east. In addition, the Russians in 1941 felt that they were weaker than the Germans.
Probably shortly after the Paul campaignHis dream was completely swallowed up by the East. Perhaps he even mentally saw a new "Germanization" of the vast eastern territories, as it was in past centuries. But the boundless steppes, bad roads or almost complete lack of roads, huge swamps and forests, and with all this a staunch, brave Russian soldier - he did not imagine this. During the First World War, he served as a private only in the West and was not familiar with the conditions of the East. After lightning victories in Poland, Norway, France and the Balkans, Hitler was convinced that he could defeat the Red Army as easily as his former opponents. He remained deaf to numerous warnings. In the spring of 1941, Field Marshal von Rundstedt, who had spent most of World War I on the Eastern Front, asked Hitler if he knew what it meant to invade Russia. Field Marshal von Brauchitsch, commander-in-chief of the German ground forces, and his chief of staff, General Halder, tried to dissuade Hitler from going to war with Russia. General Kestring, who had lived in Russia for many years and knew the country and Stalin himself, addressed him with the same warnings. But all this did not bring any results. Hitler insisted. It seems to me that Hitler seriously conceived an attack on Russia in the summer of 1940. He wanted, firstly, to strike at the Russians before they could attack Germany, and, secondly, to win living space for the growing population of Germany. At that time, only top political and other leaders knew about the intention. In some respects, Hitler's plan depended on making peace with England, which he still dreamed of. He knew that the successful execution of his intentions would depend on the security of the Western Front. A war on two fronts meant the defeat of Germany. But when all hopes for the realization of an important condition failed, when it became absolutely clear that England would never make peace with Hitler's Germany, the Führer nevertheless did not abandon the campaign to the East. With a firm hand, he took the helm and led Germany to the rocks of complete defeat. Despite the conclusion of the German-Soviet treaty, a chill of distrust remained between the countries. However, relations between Russia and the West, especially between Russia and England, were even worse. During the Russian-Finnish campaign, England almost declared war on the Soviets, and now Hitler decided to do something that England had refrained from. By making this fateful decision, Germany lost the war.
Shortly after Molotov's visit to Berlin, my chiefLieutenant Colonel Baron von Liebenstein and Chief of Operations Major Bayerlein were summoned to the Chief of the General Staff of the Ground Forces for a meeting, where they received the first instructions regarding the "Plan Barbarossa" - a plan for war against Russia. When after this meeting they came to me for a report and unfolded a map of Russia in front of me, I could not believe my eyes. What I thought was impossible, must become a reality? Hitler, who sharply criticized in my presence the political leadership of Germany in 1914, which did not understand the danger of waging a war on two fronts, now he himself wanted, without ending the war with England, to start a war with Russia. By this he himself brought upon himself the danger arising from the conduct of a war on two fronts, against which all the old soldiers persistently warned him, and which he himself often began to call a mistaken step. I expressed my disappointment and outrage in a very unambiguous way, startling both of my colleagues. They were impressed by the plan of the High Command of the Ground Forces and therefore immediately answered me that, according to the Chief of the General Staff of the Ground Forces, Halder, it would take no more than eight to ten weeks to defeat Russia. The division of forces between three approximately equal groups of armies, which should move in divergent directions deep into the territory of Russia, without a clear operational goal, from the point of view of a military specialist, could not seem correct. I communicated my fears through my chief of staff to the main command of the ground forces, which, however, had no effect. Not being privy to all matters, I could still hope that Hitler did not finally decide on a war with the Soviet Union, but only wanted to intimidate him. Still, the winter and spring of 1941 were a nightmare for me. A new study of the campaigns of the Swedish king Charles XII and Napoleon 1 showed all the difficulties of this theater of war; at the same time, the insufficiency of our preparation for such a major campaign was revealed. Past successes, especially the victory in the west in such an unexpectedly short time, have so clouded the minds of the leaders of our high command that they have expunged the word "impossible" from their lexicon. All the senior officials of the High Command of the Armed Forces and the High Command of the Army, with whom I had to talk, showed unshakable optimism and did not react to any objections.
Hitler
Actually, all available Russian troops are on our borders. With the onset of warm weather, defensive work is being carried out in many places. If circumstances force me to throw German aircraft against England, there will be a danger that Russia, for its part, will begin to exert pressure in the south and north, before which I will be forced to silently retreat for the simple reason that I will not have air superiority. I would not have been able then to launch an offensive against the Russian defenses with the divisions stationed in the East without sufficient air support. If we continue to endure this danger, we will probably have to lose the whole of 1941, and at the same time the general situation will not change in the least. On the contrary, England will be even more opposed to the conclusion of peace, since she will still rely on a Russian partner. Moreover, that hope, of course, will grow as the combat readiness of the Russian armed forces increases. And behind all this there is still the American massive supply of military materials, which have been expected since 1942. As for the struggle in the East, Duce, it will definitely be difficult. But I don't doubt for a second that it will be a big success. First of all, I hope that as a result we will be able to secure a common food base in Ukraine for a long time: It will serve for us as a supplier of those resources that we may need in the future. I dare add that, as we can now judge, the current German harvest promises to be very good. It is quite possible that Russia will try to destroy the Romanian oil sources. We've built a defense that I hope will keep us from that. The task of our armies is to eliminate this threat as quickly as possible. Let England try not to draw conclusions from the terrible facts before which she finds herself. Then, having freed our rear, we will be able to attack the enemy with triple force in order to destroy him. What will depend on us Germans, I dare to assure you, Duce, is done. About all your wishes, considerations and about the help that you, Duce, can provide me in the upcoming operation, I ask you to inform me either personally or coordinate these issues through your military bodies with my high command. In conclusion, I would like to tell you one more thing. I feel inwardly free again after I have come to this decision. Collaboration with the Soviet Union, with all the sincere desire to achieve final detente, often weighed heavily on me. For it seemed to me a break with all my past, my outlook and my former obligations. I am happy that I have been freed from this moral burden. With cordial and comradely greetings
Quotes from Mein Kampf:
Russia lived at the expense of the German core in its upper strata of the population. Now this nucleus has been completely and completely exterminated. The place of the Germans was taken by the Jews. But just as the Russians cannot throw off the yoke of the Jews (German: das Joch der Juden) on their own, so the Jews alone are not able to keep this vast state in their subordination for a long time. The Jews themselves are by no means an element of organization, but rather an enzyme of disorganization (German: Ferment der Dekomposition). This gigantic eastern state is inevitably doomed to destruction. All the prerequisites for this have already matured. The end of Jewish domination in Russia will also be the end of Russia as a state.
We National Socialists quite consciously put an end to the entire foreign policy of the pre-war period. We want to return to the point where our old development stopped 600 years ago. We want to stop the eternal German drive to the south and west of Europe and definitely point the finger towards the territories located in the east. We are finally breaking with the colonial and commercial policy of the pre-war period and are consciously moving on to a policy of conquering new lands in Europe. When we talk about the conquest of new lands in Europe, we can, of course, have in mind primarily only Russia and those border states that are subordinate to it.
Quotes from other Hitler speeches:
Immediately after seizing power, Hitler presented at a meeting with the generals in the house of General Hammerstein-Equord on February 3, 1933, his living space program (from a note by General Kurt Liebmann): How should we use political power? It's too early to tell. Maybe to get new opportunities for export, or maybe - even better - to conquer a new living space in the East and its unceremonious Germanization.
In a secret text on the four-year plan for armaments, in which Hitler demanded that the German army and the German economy be ready for war in four years, he is told: The final solution is to expand the living space and food and raw material base of our people. The task of the political leadership is to resolve this issue soon.
Summary: Hitler decided to attack the USSR for the following reasons
1. In the prospect of confrontation with the Anlo-Saxon bloc, Hitler understood that air and sea war would require a significant increase in the need for resources, and decided to take them on the territory of the USSR.
2. Since the USSR refused to go to the anti-Comintern bloc as a junior partner on German terms, Hitler decided that occupation would be the guarantee of reliable supplies
3. At the same time, Hitler was sure that a war between Germany and the USSR was inevitable (generally inevitable, in the indefinite future, and not due to any specific events), and since it was inevitable, why not fight now, until the USSR became stronger.
4. Hitler was afraid that as Germany's need for resources grew, the USSR would put forward any political demands as a condition for supplies, especially with respect to Finland and the Balkans. At the same time, the USSR did not pose any specific military threats at the current moment either for Germany or for its allies, and in relation to Germany until the autumn-winter of 1941, for example, according to Manstein’s assessment, it could not, and according to Tippelskirch, the USSR was obviously weaker and itself realized it. Only Keitel speaks about threats, but his work was intended for lawyers in Nuremberg, Keitel urgently needed excuses to justify himself from war crimes, so as a witness here he is extremely biased.
5. An important argument in making the decision was the belief in the obviously indispensable superiority of the Wehrmacht over the Red Army, and in the instability of the USSR as a state.
6. The deepest basis for the belief in the superiority of the Wehrmacht over the Red Army, and for the belief in the instability of the USSR, and for the conviction in the right of the Germans to colonize the Soviet (Russian) territories was a racial theory that placed the Germans much higher than the Slavs.
