June
18, 2020
The
Russian president offers a comprehensive assessment of the legacy of World War
II, arguing that "Today, European politicians, and Polish leaders in
particular, wish to sweep the Munich Betrayal under the carpet. The Munich
Betrayal showed to the Soviet Union that the Western countries would deal with
security issues without taking its interests into account."
Seventy-five
years have passed since the end of the Great Patriotic War. Several generations have grown up
over the years. The political map of the planet has changed. The Soviet
Union that
claimed an epic, crushing victory over Nazism and saved the entire world is
gone. Besides, the events of that war have long become a distant memory, even
for its participants. So why does Russia celebrate the ninth of May as
the biggest holiday? Why does life almost come to a halt on June 22? And
why does one feel a lump rise in their throat?
They
usually say that the war has left a deep imprint on every family's history. Behind these words, there are fates
of millions of people, their sufferings and the pain of loss. Behind these
words, there is also the pride, the truth and the memory.
For
my parents, the war meant the terrible ordeals of the Siege of Leningrad where my two-year-old brother
Vitya died. It was the place where my mother miraculously managed to survive.
My father, despite being exempt from active duty, volunteered to defend his
hometown. He made the same decision as millions of Soviet citizens. He fought
at the Nevsky Pyatachok bridgehead and was severely wounded. And the more years
pass, the more I feel the need to talk to my parents and learn more about the
war period of their lives. However, I no longer have the opportunity to do so.
This is the reason why I treasure in my heart those conversations I had with my
father and mother on this subject, as well as the little emotion they showed.
People
of my age and I believe it is important that our children, grandchildren and
great-grandchildren understand the torment and hardships their ancestors had to
endure. They need to understand how their ancestors managed to persevere and
win. Where did their sheer, unbending willpower that amazed and fascinated the
whole world come from? Sure, they were defending their home, their children,
loved ones and families. However, what they shared was the love for their
homeland, their Motherland. That deep-seated, intimate feeling is fully
reflected in the very essence of our nation and became one of the decisive
factors in its heroic, sacrificial fight against the Nazis.
I
often wonder: What would today's generation do? How will it act when faced with
a crisis situation? I see young doctors, nurses, sometimes fresh graduates that
go to the "red zone" to save lives. I see our servicemen that fight
international terrorism in the Northern Caucasus and fought to the bitter end
in Syria. They are so young. Many servicemen who were part of the legendary,
immortal 6th Paratroop Company were 19-20 years old. But
all of them proved that they deserved to inherit the feat of the warriors of
our homeland that defended it during the Great Patriotic War.
This
is why I am confident that one of the characteristic features of the peoples of
Russia is to fulfill their duty without feeling sorry for themselves when the
circumstances so demand. Such values as selflessness, patriotism, love for
their home, their family and Motherland remain fundamental and integral to the
Russian society to this day. These values are, to a large extent, the backbone
of our country's sovereignty.
Nowadays,
we have new traditions created by the people, such as the Immortal Regiment.
This is the memory march that symbolizes our gratitude, as well as the living
connection and the blood ties between generations. Millions of people come out
to the streets carrying the photographs of their relatives that defended their
Motherland and defeated the Nazis. This means that their lives, their ordeals
and sacrifices, as well as the Victory that they left to us will never be
forgotten.
We
have a responsibility to our past and our future to do our utmost to prevent
those horrible tragedies from happening ever again. Hence, I was compelled to
come out with an article about World War II and the Great Patriotic War. I have
discussed this idea on several occasions with world leaders, and they have
showed their support. At the summit of CIS leaders held at the end of last
year, we all agreed on one thing: it is essential to pass on to future
generations the memory of the fact that the Nazis were defeated first and
foremost by the Soviet people and that representatives of all republics of the
Soviet Union fought side by side together in that heroic battle, both on the
frontlines and in the rear. During that summit, I also talked
with my counterparts about the challenging pre-war period.
That
conversation caused a stir in Europe and the world. It means that it is indeed
high time that we revisited the lessons of the past. At the same time, there
were many emotional outbursts, poorly disguised insecurities and loud
accusations that followed. Acting out of habit, certain politicians rushed to
claim that Russia was trying to rewrite history. However, they failed to rebut a
single fact or refute a single argument. It is indeed difficult, if not
impossible, to argue with the original documents that, by the way, can be found
not only in the Russian, but also in the foreign archives.
Thus,
there is a need to further examine the reasons that caused the world war and
reflect on its complicated events, tragedies and victories, as well as its
lessons, both for our country and the entire world. And like I said, it is
crucial to rely exclusively on archive documents and contemporary evidence
while avoiding any ideological or politicized speculations.
I
would like to once again recall the obvious fact. The root causes of World
War II mainly stem from the decisions made after World
War I. The Treaty of Versailles became a symbol of grave
injustice for Germany. It basically implied that the country was to be robbed,
being forced to pay enormous reparations to the Western allies that drained its
economy. French marshal Ferdinand Foch who served as the Supreme Allied
Commander gave a prophetic description of that Treaty: "This is not peace.
It is an armistice for twenty years."
It
was the national humiliation that became a fertile ground for radical
sentiments of revenge in Germany. The Nazis skillfully played on
people's emotions and built their propaganda promising to deliver Germany from
the "legacy of Versailles" and restore the country to its former
power while essentially pushing German people into war. Paradoxically, the
Western states, particularly the United Kingdom and the United States, directly
or indirectly contributed to this. Their financial and industrial enterprises
actively invested in German factories and plants manufacturing military
products. Besides, many people in the aristocracy and political establishment
supported radical, far-right and nationalist movements that were on the rise
both in Germany and in Europe.
The
"Versailles world order" caused numerous implicit controversies and
apparent conflicts. They revolved around the borders of new European states
randomly set by the victors in World War I. That boundary delimitation was
almost immediately followed by territorial disputes and mutual claims that
turned into "time bombs".
One
of the major outcomes of World War I was the establishment of the League of
Nations. There were high expectations for that international organization to
ensure lasting peace and collective security. It was a progressive idea that,
if followed through consistently, could actually prevent the horrors of a
global war from happening again.
However,
the League of Nations dominated by the victorious powers of France and the
United Kingdom proved ineffective and just got swamped by pointless
discussions. The League of Nations and the European continent in general turned
a deaf ear to the repeated calls of the Soviet Union to establish an equitable
collective security system, and sign an Eastern European pact and a Pacific
pact to prevent aggression. These proposals were disregarded.
The
League of Nations also
failed to prevent conflicts in various parts of the world, such as the attack
of Italy on Ethiopia, the civil war in Spain, the Japanese aggression against
China and the Anschluss of Austria. Furthermore, in case of the Munich
Betrayal that, in addition to Hitler and Mussolini, involved British and French
leaders, Czechoslovakia was taken apart with the full approval of the League of
Nations. I would like to point out in this regard that, unlike many other
European leaders of that time, Stalin did not disgrace himself by meeting with
Hitler who was known among the Western nations as quite a reputable politician
and was a welcome guest in the European capitals.
Poland
was also engaged in the partition of Czechoslovakia along with Germany. They
decided together in advance who would get what Czechoslovak territories. On
September 20, 1938, Polish Ambassador to Germany Józef Lipski
reported to Minister of Foreign Affairs of Poland Józef Beck on the following
assurances made by Hitler: "…in case of a conflict between Poland and Czechoslovakia
over our interests in Teschen, the Reich would stand by Poland." The Nazi
leader even prompted and advised that Poland started to act "only after
the Germans occupy the Sudetes."
Poland
was aware that without Hitler's support, its annexationist plans were doomed to
fail. I would like to quote in this regard a record of the conversation between
German Ambassador to Warsaw Hans-Adolf von Moltke and Józef Beck that took
place on October 1, 1938, and was focused on the Polish-Czech
relations and the position of the Soviet Union in this matter. It says:
"Mr. Beck expressed real gratitude for the loyal treatment accorded [to]
Polish interests at the Munich conference, as well as the sincerity of
relations during the Czech conflict. The attitude of the Führer and Chancellor
was fully appreciated by the Government and the public [of Poland]."
The
partition of Czechoslovakia was brutal and cynical. Munich destroyed even the
formal, fragile guarantees that remained on the continent. It showed that
mutual agreements were worthless. It was the Munich Betrayal that served as a
"trigger" and made the great war in Europe inevitable.
Today,
European politicians, and Polish leaders in particular, wish to sweep the
Munich Betrayal under the carpet. Why? The fact that their countries once broke
their commitments and supported the Munich Betrayal, with some of them even
participating in divvying up the take, is not the only reason. Another is that
it is kind of embarrassing to recall that during those dramatic days of 1938,
the Soviet Union was the only one to stand up for Czechoslovakia.
The
Soviet Union, in accordance with its international obligations, including
agreements with France and Czechoslovakia, tried to prevent the tragedy from
happening. Meanwhile, Poland, in pursuit of its interests, was doing its utmost
to hamper the establishment of a collective security system in Europe. Polish
Minister of Foreign Affairs Józef Beck wrote about it directly in his letter of
September 19, 1938 to the aforementioned Ambassador Józef Lipski
before his meeting with Hitler: "…in the past year, the Polish government
rejected four times the proposal to join the international interfering in defense
of Czechoslovakia."
Britain,
as well as France, which was at the time the main ally of the Czechs and
Slovaks, chose to withdraw their guarantees and abandon this Eastern European
country to its fate. In so doing, they sought to direct the attention of the
Nazis eastward so that Germany and the Soviet Union would inevitably clash and
bleed each other white.
That
is the essence of the western policy of appeasement, which was pursued not only
towards the Third Reich but also towards other participants of the so-called
Anti-Comintern Pact – the fascist Italy and militarist Japan. In the Far
East, this policy culminated in the conclusion of the Anglo-Japanese agreement
in the summer of 1939, which gave Tokyo a free hand in China. The leading
European powers were unwilling to recognize the mortal danger posed by Germany
and its allies to the whole world. They were hoping that they themselves would
be left untouched by the war.
The
Munich Betrayal showed to the Soviet Union that the Western countries would deal
with security issues without taking its interests into account. In fact, they
could even create an anti-Soviet front, if needed.
Nevertheless,
the Soviet Union did its utmost to use every chance of creating an anti-Hitler
coalition. Despite – I will say it again – the double‑dealing on the
part of the Western countries. For instance, the intelligence services reported
to the Soviet leadership detailed information on the behind-the-scenes contacts
between Britain and Germany in the summer of 1939. The important thing is that
those contacts were quite active and practically coincided with the tripartite
negotiations between France, Great Britain and the USSR, which were, on the
contrary, deliberately protracted by the Western partners. In this connection,
I will cite a document from the British archives. It contains instructions to
the British military mission that came to Moscow in August 1939. It
directly states that the delegation was to proceed with negotiations very
slowly, and that the Government of the United Kingdom was not ready to assume
any obligations spelled out in detail and limiting their freedom of action
under any circumstances. I will also note that, unlike the British and French
delegations, the Soviet delegation was headed by top commanders of the Red
Army, who had the necessary authority to "sign a military convention on
the organization of military defense of England, France and the USSR against
aggression in Europe."
Poland
played its role in the failure of those negotiations as it did not want to have
any obligations to the Soviet side. Even under pressure from their Western
allies, the Polish leadership rejected the idea of joint action with the Red
Army to fight against the Wehrmacht. It was only when they learned of the arrival
of Ribbentrop to Moscow that J. Beck reluctantly and not directly, through
French diplomats, notified the Soviet side: "… in the event of joint
action against the German aggression, cooperation between Poland and the Soviet
Union is not out of the question, in technical circumstances which remain to be
agreed." At the same time, he explained to his colleagues: "… I
agreed to this wording only for the sake of the tactics, and our core position
in relation to the Soviet Union is final and remains unchanged."
In
these circumstances, the Soviet Union signed the Non-Aggression Pact with
Germany. It was practically the last among the European countries to do so.
Besides, it was done in the face of a real threat of war on two fronts –
with Germany in the west and with Japan in the east, where intense fighting on
the Khalkhin Gol River was already underway.
Stalin
and his entourage, indeed, deserve many legitimate accusations. We remember the
crimes committed by the regime against its own people and the horror of mass
repressions. In other words, there are many things the Soviet leaders can be
reproached for, but poor understanding of the nature of external threats is not
one of them. They saw how attempts were made to leave the Soviet Union alone to
deal with Germany and its allies. Bearing in mind this real threat, they sought
to buy precious time needed to strengthen the country's defenses.
Nowadays,
we hear lots of speculations and accusations against modern Russia in
connection with the Non-Aggression Pact signed back then. Yes, Russia is the
legal successor state to the USSR, and the Soviet period – with all its
triumphs and tragedies – is an inalienable part of our thousand-year-long
history. However, let us recall that the Soviet Union gave a legal and moral assessment
of the so-called Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact. The Supreme Soviet in its resolution
of 24 December 1989 officially denounced the secret protocols as
"an act of personal power" which in no way reflected "the will of
the Soviet people who bear no responsibility for this collusion."
Yet
other states have preferred to forget the agreements carrying signatures of the
Nazis and Western politicians, not to mention giving legal or political
assessments of such cooperation, including the silent acquiescence – or
even direct abetment – of some European politicians in the barbarous plans
of the Nazis. It will suffice to remember the cynical phrase said by Polish
Ambassador to Germany J. Lipski during his conversation with Hitler on
20 September 1938: "…for solving the Jewish problem, we [the
Poles] will build in his honor … a splendid monument in Warsaw."
Besides,
we do not know if there were any secret "protocols" or annexes to
agreements of a number of countries with the Nazis. The only thing that is left
to do is to take their word for it. In particular, materials pertaining to the
secret Anglo-German talks still have not been declassified. Therefore, we urge
all states to step up the process of making their archives public and
publishing previously unknown documents of the war and pre-war periods –
the way Russia has done it in recent years. In this context, we are ready for
broad cooperation and joint research projects engaging historians.
But
let us go back to the events immediately preceding the Second World War. It was
naïve to believe that Hitler, once done with Czechoslovakia, would not make new territorial
claims. This time the claims involved its recent accomplice in the partition of
Czechoslovakia – Poland. Here, the legacy of Versailles, particularly the
fate of the so-called Danzig Corridor, was yet again used as the pretext. The
blame for the tragedy that Poland then suffered lies entirely with the Polish
leadership, which had impeded the formation of a military alliance between
Britain, France and the Soviet Union and relied on the help from its Western
partners, throwing its own people under the steamroller of Hitler's machine of
destruction.
The
German offensive was mounted in full accordance with the blitzkrieg doctrine.
Despite the fierce, heroic resistance of the Polish army, on
8 September 1939 – only a week after the war broke out –
the German troops were on the approaches to Warsaw. By 17 September, the
military and political leaders of Poland had fled to Romania, abandoning its
people, who continued to fight against the invaders.
Poland's
hope for help from its Western allies was in vain. After the war against
Germany was declared, the French troops advanced only a few tens of kilometers
deep into the German territory. All of it looked like a mere demonstration of
vigorous action. Moreover, the Anglo-French Supreme War Council, holding its
first meeting on 12 September 1939 in the French city of Abbeville,
decided to call off the offensive altogether in view of the rapid developments
in Poland. That was when the infamous Phony War started. What Britain and
France did was a blatant betrayal of their obligations to Poland.
Later,
during the Nuremberg trials, German generals explained their quick success in
the East. The former chief of the operations staff of the German armed forces
high command, General Alfred Jodl admitted: "… we did not suffer defeat as
early as 1939 only because about 110 French and British divisions stationed in
the west against 23 German divisions during our war with Poland remained
absolutely idle."
I
asked for retrieval from the archives of the whole body of materials pertaining
to the contacts between the USSR and Germany in the dramatic days of August and
September 1939. According to the documents, paragraph 2 of the Secret
Protocol to the German-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact of 23 August 1939
stated that, in the event of territorial-political reorganization of the
districts making up the Polish state, the border of the spheres of interest of
the two countries would run "approximately along the Narew, Vistula and
San rivers". In other words, the Soviet sphere of influence included not
only the territories that were mostly home to Ukrainian and Belarusian population
but also the historically Polish lands in the Vistula and Bug interfluve. This
fact is known to very few these days.
Similarly,
very few know that, immediately following the attack on Poland, in the early
days of September 1939 Berlin strongly and repeatedly called on Moscow to join
the military action. However, the Soviet leadership ignored those calls and
planned to avoid engaging in the dramatic developments as long as possible.
It
was only when it became absolutely clear that Great Britain and France were not
going to help their ally and the Wehrmacht could swiftly occupy entire Poland
and thus appear on the approaches to Minsk that the Soviet Union decided to
send in, on the morning of 17 September, Red Army units into the so-called
Eastern Borderlines, which nowadays form part of the territories of Belarus,
Ukraine and Lithuania.
Obviously,
there was no alternative. Otherwise, the USSR would face seriously increased
risks because – I will say this again – the old Soviet-Polish border
ran only within a few tens of kilometers of Minsk. The country would have to
enter the inevitable war with the Nazis from very disadvantageous strategic
positions, while millions of people of different nationalities, including the
Jews living near Brest and Grodno, Przemyśl, Lvov and Wilno, would be left to
die at the hands of the Nazis and their local accomplices – anti-Semites
and radical nationalists.
The
fact that the Soviet Union sought to avoid engaging in the growing conflict for
as long as possible and was unwilling to fight side by side with Germany was
the reason why the real contact between the Soviet and the German troops
occurred much farther east than the borders agreed in the secret protocol. It
was not on the Vistula River but closer to the so-called Curzon Line, which
back in 1919 was recommended by the Triple Entente as the eastern border of
Poland.
As
is known, there is hardly any point in using the subjunctive mood when we speak
of the past events. I will only say that, in September 1939, the Soviet
leadership had an opportunity to move the western borders of the USSR even
farther west, all the way to Warsaw, but decided against it.
The
Germans suggested formalizing the new status quo. On
September 28, 1939 Joachim von Ribbentrop and V.Molotov signed in
Moscow the Boundary and Friendship Treaty between Germany and the
Soviet Union, as well as the secret protocol on changing the state border,
according to which the border was recognized at the demarcation line where the
two armies de-facto stood.
In
autumn 1939, the Soviet Union, pursuing its strategic military and
defensive goals, started the process of the incorporation of Latvia, Lithuania
and Estonia. Their accession to the USSR was implemented on a contractual
basis, with the consent of the elected authorities. This was in line with
international and state law of that time. Besides, in October 1939, the
city of Vilna and the surrounding area, which had previously been part of
Poland, were returned to Lithuania. The Baltic republics within the USSR preserved
their government bodies, language, and had representation in the higher state
structures of the Soviet Union.
During
all these months there was an ongoing invisible diplomatic and
politico-military struggle and intelligence work. Moscow understood that it was
facing a fierce and cruel enemy, and that a covert war against Nazism was
already going on. And there is no reason to take official statements and formal
protocol notes of that time as a proof of ‘friendship' between the USSR and
Germany. The Soviet Union had active trade and technical contacts not only with
Germany, but with other countries as well. Whereas Hitler tried again and again
to draw the Soviet Union into Germany's confrontation with the UK. But the
Soviet government stood firm.
The
last attempt to persuade the USSR to act together was made by Hitler during the
visit of Molotov to Berlin in November 1940. But Molotov accurately
followed Stalin's instructions and limited himself to a general discussion of
the German idea of the Soviet Union joining the Tripartite Pact signed by
Germany, Italy and Japan in September 1940 and
directed against the UK and the USA. No wonder that already on November 17
Molotov gave the following instructions to Soviet plenipotentiary
representative in London Ivan Maisky: "For your information…No agreement
was signed or was intended to be signed in Berlin. We just exchanged our views
in Berlin…and that was all…Apparently, the Germans and the Japanese seem anxious
to push us towards the Gulf and India. We declined the discussion of this
matter as we consider such advice on the part of Germany to be
inappropriate." And on November 25 the Soviet leadership called it a
day altogether by officially putting forward to Berlin the conditions that were
unacceptable to the Nazis, including the withdrawal of German troops from
Finland, mutual assistance treaty between Bulgaria and the USSR, and a number
of others. Thus it deliberately excluded any possibility of joining the Pact.
Such position definitely shaped the Fuehrer's intention to unleash a war
against the USSR. And already in December, putting aside the warnings of his
strategists about the disastrous danger of having a two-front war, Hitler
approved the Barbarossa Plan. He did this with the knowledge that the Soviet
Union was the major force that opposed him in Europe and that the upcoming
battle in the East would decide the outcome of the world war. And he had no
doubts as to the swiftness and success of the Moscow campaign.
And
here I would like to highlight the following: Western countries, as a matter of
fact, agreed at that time with the Soviet actions and recognized the Soviet
Union's intention to ensure its national security. Indeed, back on
October 1, 1939 Winston Churchill, the First Lord of the Admiralty
back then, in his speech on the radio said, "Russia has pursued a cold
policy of self-interest… But that the Russian armies should stand on this line
[the new Western border is meant] was clearly necessary for the safety of
Russia against the Nazi menace." On October 4, 1939 speaking in
the House of Lords British Foreign Secretary Halifax said, "…it should be
recalled that the Soviet government's actions were to move the border
essentially to the line recommended at the Versailles Conference by Lord
Curzon... I only cite historical facts and believe they are indisputable."
Prominent British politician and statesman D. Lloyd George emphasized,
"The Russian armies occupied the territories that are not Polish and that
were forcibly seized by Poland after the First World War ... It would be an act
of criminal insanity to put the Russian advancement on a par with the German
one."
In
informal communications with Soviet plenipotentiary representative Maisky,
British diplomats and high-level politicians spoke even more openly. On
October 17, 1939 Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs R. A.
Butler confided him that the British government circles believed there could be
no question of returning Western Ukraine and Belarus to Poland. According to
him, if it had been possible to create an ethnographic Poland of a modest size
with a guarantee not only of the USSR and Germany, but also of Britain and
France, the British government would have considered itself quite satisfied. On
October 27, 1939, Chamberlain's senior advisor H.Wilson said that
Poland had to be restored as an independent state on its ethnographic basis,
but without Western Ukraine and Belarus.
It
is worth noting that in the course of these conversations the possibilities for
improving British-Soviet relations were also being explored. These contacts to
a large extent laid the foundation for future alliance and anti-Hitler
coalition. Churchill stood out among other responsible and far-sighted
politicians and, despite his infamous dislike for the USSR, had been in favour
of cooperating with the Soviets even before. Back in May 1939, he said in
the House of Commons, "We shall be in mortal danger if we fail to create a
grand alliance against aggression. The worst folly would be to drive away any
natural cooperation with Soviet Russia." And after the start of
hostilities in Europe, at his meeting with Maisky on October 6, 1939
he confided that there were no serious contradictions between the UK and the USSR
and, therefore, there was no reason for strained or unsatisfactory relations.
He also mentioned that the British government was eager to develop trade
relations and willing to discuss any other measures that might improve the
relationships.
The
Second World War did not happen overnight, nor did it start unexpectedly or all
of a sudden. And German aggression against Poland was not out of nowhere. It was
the result of a number of tendencies and factors of the world policy of that
time. All pre-war events fell into place to form one fatal chain. But,
undoubtedly, the main factors that predetermined the greatest tragedy in the
history of mankind were state egoism, cowardice, appeasement of the aggressor
who was gaining strength, and unwillingness of political elites to search for a
compromise.
Therefore,
it is unfair to claim that the two-day visit to Moscow of Nazi Foreign Minister
Ribbentrop was the main reason for the start of the Second World War. All the
leading countries are to a certain extent responsible for its outbreak. Each of
them made fatal mistakes, arrogantly believing that they could outsmart others,
secure unilateral advantages for themselves or stay away from the impending
world catastrophe. And this short-sightedness, the refusal to create a
collective security system cost millions of lives and tremendous losses.
Saying
this, I by no means intend to take on the role of a judge, to accuse or acquit
anyone, let alone initiate a new round of international information
confrontation in the historical field that could set countries and peoples at
loggerheads. I believe that it is academics with a wide representation of
respected scientists from different countries of the world who should search
for a balanced assessment of what happened. We all need the truth and
objectivity. On my part, I have always encouraged my colleagues to build a
calm, open and trust-based dialogue, to look at the common past in a
self-critical and unbiased manner. Such an approach will make it possible not
to repeat the errors committed back then and to ensure peaceful and successful
development for years to come.
However,
many of our partners are not yet ready for joint work. On the contrary,
pursuing their goals, they increase the number and the scope of information
attacks against our country, trying to make us provide excuses and feel guilty,
and adopt thoroughly hypocritical and politically motivated declarations. Thus,
for example, the resolution on the Importance of European Remembrance
for the Future of Europe approved by the European Parliament on
19 September 2019 directly accused the USSR together with the Nazi
Germany of unleashing the Second World War. Needless to say, there is no
mention of Munich in it whatsoever.
I
believe that such ‘paperwork' – for I cannot call this resolution a
document – which is clearly intended to provoke a scandal, is fraught with
real and dangerous threats. Indeed, it was adopted by a highly respectable
institution. And what does that show? Regrettably, this reveals a deliberate
policy aimed at destroying the post-war world order whose creation was a matter
of honour and responsibility for States a number of representatives of which
voted today in favour of this deceitful resolution. Thus, they challenged the
conclusions of the Nuremberg Tribunal and the efforts of the international
community to create after the victorious 1945 universal international
institutions. Let me remind you in this regard that the process of European
integration itself leading to the establishment of relevant structures,
including the European Parliament, became possible only due to the lessons
learnt form the past and its accurate legal and political assessment. And those
who deliberately put this consensus into question undermine the foundations of
the entire post-war Europe.
Apart
from posing a threat to the fundamental principles of the world order, this
also raises certain moral and ethical issues. Desecrating and insulting the
memory is mean. Meanness can be deliberate, hypocritical and pretty much
intentional as in the situation when declarations commemorating the 75th anniversary
of the end of the Second World War mention all participants in the anti-Hitler
coalition except for the Soviet Union. Meanness can be cowardly as in the
situation when monuments erected in honour of those who fought against Nazism
are demolished and these shameful acts are justified by the false slogans of
the fight against an unwelcome ideology and alleged occupation. Meanness can also
be bloody as in the situation when those who come out against neo-Nazis and
Bandera's successors are killed and burned. Once again, meanness can have
different manifestations, but this does not make it less disgusting.
Neglecting
the lessons of history inevitably leads to a harsh payback. We will firmly
uphold the truth based on documented historical facts. We will continue to be
honest and impartial about the events of World War II. This includes a
large-scale project to establish Russia's largest collection of archival
records, film and photo materials about the history of World War II and the pre‑war
period.
Such
work is already underway. Many new, recently discovered or declassified
materials were also used in the preparation of this article. In this regard, I
can state with all responsibility that there are no archive documents that
would confirm the assumption that the USSR intended to start a preventive war
against Germany. The Soviet military leadership indeed followed a doctrine
according to which, in the event of aggression, the Red Army would promptly
confront the enemy, go on the offensive and wage war on enemy territory.
However, such strategic plans did not imply any intention to attack Germany
first.
Of
course, military planning documents, letters of instruction of Soviet and
German headquarters are now available to historians. Finally, we know the true
course of events. From the perspective of this knowledge, many argue about the
actions, mistakes and misjudgment of the country's military and political
leadership. In this regard, I will say one thing: along with a huge flow of
misinformation of various kinds, Soviet leaders also received true information
about the upcoming Nazi aggression. And in the pre-war months, they took steps
to improve the combat readiness of the country, including the secret
recruitment of a part of those liable for military duty for military training
and the redeployment of units and reserves from internal military districts to
western borders.
The
war did not come as a surprise, people were expecting it, preparing for it. But
the Nazi attack was truly unprecedented in terms of its destructive power. On
June 22, 1941, the Soviet Union faced the strongest, most mobilized
and skilled army in the world with the industrial, economic and military
potential of almost all Europe working for it. Not only the Wehrmacht, but also
German satellites, military contingents of many other states of the European
continent, took part in this deadly invasion.
The
most serious military defeats in 1941 brought the country to the brink of
catastrophe. Combat power and control had to be restored by extreme means,
nation-wide mobilization and intensification of all efforts of the state and
the people. In summer 1941, millions of citizens, hundreds of factories
and industries began to be evacuated under enemy fire to the east of the
country. The manufacture of weapons and munition, that had started to be
supplied to the front already in the first military winter, was launched in the
shortest possible time, and by 1943, the rates of military production of
Germany and its allies were exceeded. Within six months, the Soviet people did
something that seemed impossible. Both on the front lines and the home front.
It is still hard to realize, understand and imagine what incredible efforts,
courage, dedication these greatest achievements were worth.
The
tremendous power of Soviet society, united by the desire to protect their
native land, rose against the powerful, armed to the teeth, cold-blooded Nazi
invading machine. It stood up to take revenge on the enemy, who had broken,
trampled peaceful life, people's plans and hopes.
Of
course, fear, confusion and desperation were taking over some people during
this terrible and bloody war. There were betrayal and desertion. The harsh
split caused by the revolution and the Civil War, nihilism, mockery of national
history, traditions and faith that the Bolsheviks tried to impose, especially
in the first years after coming to power – all of this had its impact. But
the general attitude of the absolute majority of Soviet citizens and our
compatriots who found themselves abroad was different – to save and protect the
Motherland. It was a real and irrepressible impulse. People were looking for
support in true patriotic values.
The
Nazi "strategists" were convinced that a huge multinational state
could easily be brought to heel. They thought that the sudden outbreak of the
war, its mercilessness and unbearable hardships would inevitably exacerbate
inter-ethnic relations. And that the country could be split into pieces. Hitler
clearly stated: "Our policy towards the peoples living in the vastness of
Russia should be to promote any form of disagreement and division".
But
from the very first days, it was clear that the Nazi plan had failed. The Brest
Fortress was protected to the last drop of blood by its defenders of more than
30 ethnicities. Throughout the war, the feat of the Soviet people knew no
national boundaries – both in large-scale decisive battles and in the
protection of every foothold, every meter of native land.
The
Russian president offers a comprehensive assessment of the legacy of World War
II, arguing that "Today, European politicians, and Polish leaders in
particular, wish to sweep the Munich Betrayal under the carpet. The Munich
Betrayal showed to the Soviet Union that the Western countries would deal with
security issues without taking its interests into account."
The
Volga region and the Urals, Siberia and the Far East, the republics of Central
Asia and Transcaucasia became home to millions of evacuees. Their residents
shared everything they had and provided all the support they could. Friendship
of peoples and mutual help became a real indestructible fortress for the enemy.
The
Soviet Union and the Red Army, no matter what anyone is trying to prove today,
made the main and crucial contribution to the defeat of Nazism. These were
heroes who fought to the end surrounded by the enemy at Bialystok and
Mogilev, Uman and Kiev, Vyazma and Kharkov. They launched attacks near Moscow
and Stalingrad, Sevastopol and Odessa, Kursk and Smolensk. They liberated
Warsaw, Belgrade, Vienna and Prague. They stormed Koenigsberg and Berlin.
We
contend for genuine, unvarnished, or whitewashed truth about war. This
national, human truth, which is hard, bitter and merciless, has been handed
down to us by writers and poets who walked through fire and hell of front
trials. For my generation, as well as for others, their honest and deep
stories, novels, piercing trench prose and poems have left their mark in my
soul forever. Honoring veterans who did everything they could for the Victory
and remembering those who died on the battlefield has become our moral duty.
And
today, the simple and great in its essence lines of Alexander Tvardovsky's poem
"I was killed near Rzhev ..." dedicated to the participants of the
bloody and brutal battle of the Great Patriotic War in the center of the
Soviet-German front line are astonishing. Only in the battles for Rzhev and the
Rzhevsky Salient from October 1941 to March 1943, the Red Army lost
1,154, 698 people, including wounded and missing. For the first time,
I call out these terrible, tragic and far from complete figures collected from
archive sources. I do it to honor the memory of the feat of known and nameless
heroes, who for various reasons were undeservingly, and unfairly little talked
about or not mentioned at all in the post-war years.
Let
me cite you another document. This is a report of February 1954 on
reparation from Germany by the Allied Commission on Reparations headed by Ivan
Maisky. The Commission's task was to define a formula according to which
defeated Germany would have to pay for the damages sustained by the victor
powers. The Commission concluded that "the number of soldier-days spent by
Germany on the Soviet front is at least 10 times higher than on all other
allied fronts. The Soviet front also had to handle four-fifths of German tanks
and about two-thirds of German aircraft." On the whole, the USSR accounted
for about 75 percent of all military efforts undertaken by the anti-Hitler
coalition. During the war period, the Red Army "ground up"
626 divisions of the Axis states, of which 508 were German.
On
April 28, 1942, Franklin D. Roosevelt said in his address to the
American nation: "These Russian forces have destroyed and are destroying
more armed power of our enemies – troops, planes, tanks, and guns –
than all the other United Nations put together". Winston Churchill in his
message to Joseph Stalin of September 27, 1944, wrote "that it
is the Russian army that tore the guts out of the German military
machine…".
Such
an assessment has resonated throughout the world. Because these words are the
great truth, which no one doubted then. Almost 27 million Soviet citizens
lost their lives on the fronts, in German prisons, starved to death and were
bombed, died in ghettos and furnaces of the Nazi death camps. The USSR lost one
in seven of its citizens, the UK lost one in 127, and the USA lost one in 320.
Unfortunately, this figure of the Soviet Union's hardest and grievous losses is
not exhaustive. The painstaking work should be continued to restore the names
and fates of all who have perished – Red Army soldiers, partisans,
underground fighters, prisoners of war and concentration camps, and civilians
killed by the death squads. It is our duty. And here, members of the search
movement, military‑patriotic and volunteer associations, such projects as the
electronic database "Pamyat Naroda", which contains archival
documents, play a special role. And, surely, close international cooperation is
needed in such a common humanitarian task.
The
efforts of all countries and peoples who fought against a common enemy resulted
in victory. The British army protected its homeland from invasion, fought the
Nazis and their satellites in the Mediterranean and North Africa. American and
British troops liberated Italy and opened the Second Front. The US dealt
powerful and crushing strikes against the aggressor in the Pacific Ocean. We
remember the tremendous sacrifices made by the Chinese people and their great
role in defeating Japanese militarists. Let us not forget the fighters of
Fighting France, who did not fall for the shameful capitulation and continued
to fight against the Nazis.
We
will also always be grateful for the assistance rendered by the Allies in
providing the Red Army with ammunition, raw materials, food and equipment. And
that help was significant – about 7 percent of the total military
production of the Soviet Union.
The
core of the anti-Hitler coalition began to take shape immediately after the
attack on the Soviet Union where the United States and Britain unconditionally
supported it in the fight against Hitler's Germany. At the Tehran conference in
1943, Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill formed an alliance of great powers,
agreed to elaborate coalition diplomacy and a joint strategy in the fight
against a common deadly threat. The leaders of the Big Three had a clear
understanding that the unification of industrial, resource and military
capabilities of the USSR, the United States and the UK will give unchallenged
supremacy over the enemy.
The
Soviet Union fully fulfilled its obligations to its allies and always offered a
helping hand. Thus, the Red Army supported the landing of the Anglo-American
troops in Normandy by carrying out a large-scale Operation Bagration in
Belarus. In January 1945, having broken through to the Oder River, it put
an end to the last powerful offensive of the Wehrmacht on the Western Front in
the Ardennes. Three months after the victory over Germany, the USSR, in full
accordance with the Yalta agreements, declared war on Japan and defeated the
million-strong Kwantung Army.
Back
in July 1941, the Soviet leadership declared that the purpose of the War
against fascist oppressors was not only the elimination of the threat looming
over our country, but also help for all the peoples of Europe suffering under
the yoke of German fascism. By the middle of 1944, the enemy was expelled from
virtually all of the Soviet territory. However, the enemy had to be finished
off in its lair. And so the Red Army started its liberation mission in Europe.
It saved entire nations from destruction and enslavement, and from the horror
of the Holocaust. They were saved at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives
of Soviet soldiers.
It
is also important not to forget about the enormous material assistance that the
USSR provided to the liberated countries in eliminating the threat of hunger
and in rebuilding their economies and infrastructure. That was being done at
the time when ashes stretched for thousands of miles all the way from Brest to
Moscow and the Volga. For instance, in May 1945, the Austrian government
asked the USSR to provide assistance with food, as it "had no idea how to
feed its population in the next seven weeks before the new harvest." The
state chancellor of the provisional government of the Austrian Republic Karl
Renner described the consent of the Soviet leadership to send food as a saving
act that the Austrians would never forget.
The
Allies jointly established the International Military Tribunal to punish Nazi
political and war criminals. Its decisions contained a clear legal
qualification of crimes against humanity, such as genocide, ethnic and
religious cleansing, anti-Semitism and xenophobia. Directly and unambiguously,
the Nuremberg Tribunal also condemned the accomplices of the Nazis,
collaborators of various kinds.
This
shameful phenomenon manifested itself in all European countries. Such figures
as Pétain, Quisling, Vlasov, Bandera, their henchmen and followers –
though they were disguised as fighters for national independence or freedom
from communism – are traitors and slaughterers. In inhumanity, they often
exceeded their masters. In their desire to serve, as part of special punitive
groups they willingly executed the most inhuman orders. They were responsible
for such bloody events as the shootings of Babi Yar, the Volhynia massacre, burnt
Khatyn, acts of destruction of Jews in Lithuania and Latvia.
Today
as well, our position remains unchanged – there can be no excuse for the
criminal acts of Nazi collaborators, there is no statute of limitations for
them. It is therefore bewildering that in certain countries those who are
smirched with cooperation with the Nazis are suddenly equated with the Second
World War veterans. I believe that it is unacceptable to equate liberators with
occupants. And I can only regard the glorification of Nazi collaborators as a
betrayal of the memory of our fathers and grandfathers. A betrayal of the
ideals that united peoples in the fight against Nazism.
At
that time, the leaders of the USSR, the United States, and the UK faced,
without exaggeration, a historic task. Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill represented the countries with
different ideologies, state aspirations, interests, cultures, but demonstrated
great political will, rose above the contradictions and preferences and put the
true interests of peace at the forefront. As a result, they were able to come
to an agreement and achieve a solution from which all of humanity has
benefited.
The
victorious powers left us a system that has become the quintessence of the
intellectual and political quest of several centuries. A series of
conferences – Tehran, Yalta, San Francisco and Potsdam – laid the
foundation of a world that for 75 years had no global war, despite the
sharpest contradictions.
Historical
revisionism, the manifestations of which we now observe in the West, and
primarily with regard to the subject of the Second World War and its outcome,
is dangerous because it grossly and cynically distorts the understanding of the
principles of peaceful development, laid down at the Yalta and San Francisco conferences
in 1945. The major historic achievement of Yalta and other decisions of that
time is the agreement to create a mechanism that would allow the leading powers
to remain within the framework of diplomacy in resolving their differences.
The
twentieth century brought large-scale and comprehensive global conflicts, and
in 1945 the nuclear weapons capable of physically destroying the Earth also
entered the scene. In other words, the settlement of disputes by force has
become prohibitively dangerous. And the victors in the Second World War
understood that. They understood and were aware of their own responsibility
towards humanity.
The
cautionary tale of the League of Nations was taken into account in 1945. The
structure of the UN Security Council was developed in a way to make peace
guarantees as concrete and effective as possible. That is how the institution
of the permanent members of the Security Council and the right of the veto as
their privilege and responsibility came into being.
What
is veto power in the UN
Security Council?
To put it bluntly, it is the only reasonable alternative to a direct
confrontation between major countries. It is a statement by one of the five
powers that a decision is unacceptable to it and is contrary to its interests
and its ideas about the right approach. And other countries, even if they do
not agree, take this position for granted, abandoning any attempts to realize
their unilateral efforts. So, in one way or another, it is necessary to seek
compromises.
A
new global confrontation started almost immediately after the end of the Second
World War and was at times very fierce. And the fact that the Cold War did not
grow into the Third World War has become a clear testimony of the effectiveness
of the agreements concluded by the Big Three. The rules of conduct agreed upon
during the creation of the United Nations made it possible to further minimize
risks and keep confrontation under control.
Of
course, we can see that the UN system currently experiences certain tension in
its work and is not as effective as it could be. But the UN still performs its
primary function. The principles of the UN Security Council are a unique
mechanism for preventing a major war or global conflict.
The
calls that have been made quite often in recent years to abolish the veto
power, to deny special opportunities to permanent members of the Security
Council are actually irresponsible. After all, if that happens, the United
Nations would in essence become the League of Nations – a meeting for
empty talk without any leverage on the world processes. How it ended is well
known. That is why the victorious powers approached the formation of the new
system of the world order with utmost seriousness seeking to avoid repetition
of the mistakes of their predecessors.
The
creation of the modern system of international relations is one of the major
outcomes of the Second
World War.
Even the most insurmountable contradictions – geopolitical, ideological,
economic – do not prevent us from finding forms of peaceful coexistence
and interaction, if there is the desire and will to do so. Today the world is
going through quite a turbulent time. Everything is changing, from the global
balance of power and influence to the social, economic and technological
foundations of societies, nations and even continents. In the past epochs,
shifts of such magnitude have almost never happened without major military
conflicts. Without a power struggle to build a new global hierarchy. Thanks to
the wisdom and farsightedness of the political figures of the Allied Powers, it
was possible to create a system that has restrained from extreme manifestations
of such objective competition, historically inherent in the world development.
It
is a duty of ours – all those who take political responsibility and
primarily representatives of the victorious powers in the Second World
War – to guarantee that this system is maintained and improved. Today, as
in 1945, it is important to demonstrate political will and discuss the future
together. Our colleagues – Mr. Xi Jinping, Mr. Macron, Mr. Trump and Mr.
Johnson – supported the Russian initiative to hold a meeting of the
leaders of the five nuclear-weapon States, permanent members of the Security
Council. We thank them for this and hope that such a face-to-face meeting could
take place as soon as possible.
What
is our vision of the agenda for the upcoming summit? First of all, in our
opinion, it would be useful to discuss steps to develop collective principles
in world affairs. To speak frankly about the issues of preserving peace,
strengthening global and regional security, strategic arms control, as well as
joint efforts in countering terrorism, extremism and other major challenges and
threats.
A
special item on the agenda of the meeting is the situation in the global
economy. And above all, overcoming the economic crisis caused by the
coronavirus pandemic. Our countries are taking unprecedented measures to
protect the health and lives of people and to support citizens who have found
themselves in difficult living situations. Our ability to work together and in
concert, as real partners, will show how severe the impact of the pandemic will
be, and how quickly the global economy will emerge from the recession.
Moreover, it is unacceptable to turn the economy into an instrument of pressure
and confrontation. Popular issues include environmental protection and
combating climate change, as well as ensuring the security of the global
information space.
The
agenda proposed by Russia for the upcoming summit of the Five is extremely
important and relevant both for our countries and for the entire world. And we
have specific ideas and initiatives on all the items.
There
can be no doubt that the summit of Russia, China, France, the United States, and the UK can play an important role in
finding common answers to modern challenges and threats, and will demonstrate a
common commitment to the spirit of alliance, to those high humanist ideals and
values for which our fathers and grandfathers were fighting shoulder to
shoulder.
Drawing
on a shared historical memory, we can trust each other and must do so. That
will serve as a solid basis for successful negotiations and concerted action
for the sake of enhancing the stability and security on the planet and for the
sake of prosperity and well-being of all States. Without exaggeration, it is
our common duty and responsibility towards the entire world, towards the
present and future generations.
https://nationalinterest.org/feature/vladimir-putin-real-lessons-75th-anniversary-world-war-ii-162982