DONT MISS ANYTHING! ONE CLICK TO GET NEW MATILDA DELIVERED DIRECT TO YOUR INBOX, FREE!
EDITORS NOTE: Late yesterday afternoon, New Matilda received an email from the Russian Embassy in Canberra. Would we like to publish an essay by one of their citizens, a Mr Vladimir Putin? The piece had already been published overseas (here), by conservative American magazine National Interest, but not in Australia.
At first we thought does the Russian Embassy think were Putins bitch, a slur levelled against Julian Assange by ABC Four Corners Executive Producer Sally Neighbour in 2017 shortly after Neighbour presided over a vomituous one-hour long hug-fest by Sarah Ferguson with failed US presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. And then we thought maybe they just think were stupid. Neither is particularly flattering.
But in the end, we figured, sure, why the hell not its not like Putins asking to be paid (we havent got any money anyway, but you can help fix that by clicking this link), and besides, The Australian re-published an embarrassing puff piece by US vice president Mike Pence last week, claiming that Donald Trumps response to COVID-19 should be celebrated (which is definitely true if youre rooting for the disease). So why shouldnt New Matilda publish a lengthy essay from a world leader?
Unlike Pences effort, Putins essay is no puff piece. Indeed, its a 9,000-plus word feature marking the 75th anniversary of the Soviet Unions defeat of the Nazis, a fact of history often glossed over by the West (sorry Diggers, the Russians won the war in Europe, not us). The piece also tears Europe and the West more generally a new one, while more or less conceding some of the more problematic parts of Russian history.But unlike The Australian, we dont publish pieces without fact-checking them, even if theyre written by authors with access to nuclear weapons. And thats when things got weird.
Overnight, we sought advice from a number of historians and experts in Europe (a sincere thanks to all those involved). The consensus is that Putins piece is certainly very interesting, but, to quote one of our advisers: I think its actually very important not to get this out without any editorial notes and a disclaimer that a lot of what he writes is disputed by historians, because otherwise its just giving Putin an international propaganda platform.
Indeed, albeit a very small platform. And so thats what weve done. Putins piece is published below, and weve inserted Eds notes throughout where we suggest more reading might be helpful which is a polite way of coughing the word bullshit. None of this, however, means there isnt value in Putins essay. Indeed, there is substantial value in it. Its definitely propaganda (ironically we published a lengthy investigation on Australian government propaganda yesterday actually, maybe thats why the Russian embassy came to us?) but its also well-written, comprehensive, and purports to provide new information about World War II which Putin asserts is based on Russian archives (although notably he quotes from material without displaying it). Most of all it provides a valuable and detailed insight into a non-Western view of the history of Europe post- and pre-Wars by a polarising world leader.
However, we also recommend this article in the Globe and Mail, for a more critical analysis of Putins world view. And overnight, The Spectator, a conservative publication in the UK, filed an analysis of this article here. The author of the critique, Owen Matthews, is a respected author, historian and journalist.Our fact-checkers also suggested this Twitter thread by Dr Sergey Radchenko an expert historian on the Cold War and a Professor and Director of Research at the School of Law & Politics at Cardiff University, which provides a quick take down. And theres this article by Radchenko, which is more comprehensive.This piece, written by John Pilger and published by New Matilda in June 2016 also touches on some of the themes in this essay. As does this one.
Now, over to Putin.
75th Anniversary Of The Great Victory: Shared Responsibility To History And Our Future
75 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 distantmemory, even for its participants. So why does Russia celebrate the 9th of Mayas the biggest holiday? Why does life almost come to a halt on June 22? And whydoes one feel a lump rise in their throat?
They often say that the war has left a deep imprint on everyfamilys history. Behind these words, there are the fates of millions ofpeople, their sufferings and the pain of loss. Behind these words, there isalso the pride, the truth and the memory.
For my parents, the war meant the terrible ordeals of theSiege of Leningrad, where my two-year-old brother Vitya died. It was the placewhere 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 ofSoviet citizens. He fought at the Nevsky Pyatachok bridgehead and was severelywounded.
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. But I no longer have the opportunity to do so. This is the reason why I treasure in my heart the conversations I had with my father and mother on this subject, as well as the little emotion they showed.
I believe it is important that people of my age, and ourchildren, grandchildren and great-grandchildren, understand the torment andhardships their ancestors had to endure. They need to understand how theirancestors managed to persevere and win. Where did their sheer, unbendingwillpower that amazed and fascinated the whole world come from?
Sure, they were defending their homes, 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.
New generation, newtraditions
People often wonder: What would todays generation do? Howwill 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 ourservicemen fighting international terrorism in the North Caucasus, fighting tothe bitter end in Syria.
They are so young. Many servicemen who were part of thelegendary, immortal 6th Paratroop Company were 19 or 20-years-old. But all ofthem proved that they deserved to inherit the feat of the warriors of ourMotherland that defended it during the Great Patriotic War.
This is why I am confident that one of the characteristicfeatures of the peoples of Russia is to fulfil their duty without feeling sorryfor themselves when the circumstances so demand. Such values as selflessness,patriotism, love for their home, their family and Fatherland remain fundamentaland integral to Russian society to this day. These values are, to a largeextent, the backbone of our countrys sovereignty.
Nowadays, we have new traditions created by the people, suchas the Immortal Regiment. This is the memory march that symbolises ourgratitude, as well as the living connection and the blood ties betweengenerations.
Millions of people ever year come out to the streetscarrying the photographs of their relatives who defended their Fatherland anddefeated the Nazis. This means that their lives, the ordeals and sacrificesthey endured, as well as the Victory that they passed to us will never beforgotten.
We have a responsibility to our past and our future to doour utmost to prevent those horrible tragedies from ever happening again.Hence, I was compelled to come out with an article about World War II and theGreat Patriotic War.
I have discussed this idea on several occasions with worldleaders, and they have showed their support. At the summit of CIS leaders heldat the end of last year, we all agreed on one thing: it is essential to pass onto future generations the memory of the fact that the Nazis were defeated firstand foremost by the entire Soviet people, and that representatives of allrepublics of the Soviet Union fought side-by-side together in that heroicbattle, both on the frontlines and in the rear.
During that summit, I also talked with my counterparts aboutthe challenging pre-war period.
That conversation caused a stir in Europe and the world. Itmeans 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 ofhabit, certain politicians rushed to claim that Russia was trying to rewritehistory. However, they failed to rebut a single fact or refute a singleargument.
It is indeed difficult, if not impossible, to argue with theoriginal documents that, by the way, can be found not only in Russian, but alsoin 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 politicised speculations.
Painful truths
I would like to once again recall the obvious fact. The rootcauses of World War II mainly stem from the decisions made after World War I.
The Treaty of Versailles became a symbol of grave injusticefor Germany. It basically implied that the country was to be robbed, forced topay enormous reparations to the Western allies that drained its economy.
French Marshal Ferdinand Foch who served as the SupremeAllied Commander gave a prophetic description of that Treaty: This is notpeace. It is an armistice for twenty years.
It was the national humiliation that became a fertile ground for radical and revenge-seeking sentiments in Germany. The Nazis skilfully played on peoples 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 UnitedKingdom and the United States, directly or indirectly contributed to this.Their financial and industrial enterprises actively invested in Germanfactories and plants which manufactured military products.
Besides, many people in the aristocracy and politicalestablishment supported radical, far-right and nationalist movements that wereon the rise both in Germany and in Europe.
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.
No Light from darkness
One of the major outcomes of World War I was theestablishment of the League of Nations. There were high expectations for thatinternational organisation to ensure lasting peace and collective security. Itwas a progressive idea that, if followed through consistently, could actuallyprevent the horrors of a global war from happening again.
However, the League of Nations dominated by the victoriouspowers of France and the United Kingdom proved ineffective and was swamped bypointless discussions.
The League of Nations and the European continent in generalturned a deaf ear to the repeated calls of the Soviet Union to establish anequitable collective security system, and sign an Eastern European pact and aPacific 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 by Italy on Ethiopia, a 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.
Europe courtedHitler, Russia didnt
I would like to point out in this regard that, unlike manyother European leaders of that time, Stalin did not disgrace himself by meetingwith Hitler, who was known among the Western nations as quite a reputablepolitician 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 whatCzechoslovak territories. On September 20, 1938, Polish Ambassador to Germany JzefLipski reported to Polands Minister of Foreign Affairs, Jzef Beck on thefollowing assurances made by Hitler: in case of a conflict between Polandand Czechoslovakia over our interests in Teschen, the Reich would stand byPoland.
Poland was aware that without Hitlers 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 Jzef Beck, which 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 Government and the public [of Poland]fully appreciated the attitude of the Fuehrer and Chancellor.
The partition of Czechoslovakia was brutal and cynical.Munich destroyed even the formal, fragile guarantees that remained on thecontinent. It showed that mutual agreements were worthless. It was the MunichBetrayal that served as the trigger and made the great war in Europeinevitable.
Today, European politicians, and Polish leaders inparticular, wish to sweep the Munich Betrayal under the carpet. Why? The factthat their countries once broke their commitments and supported the MunichBetrayal, with some of them even participating in divvying up the take, is notthe only reason.
Another is that it is embarrassing to recall that duringthose dramatic days of 1938, the Soviet Union was the only one to stand up forCzechoslovakia.
The Soviet Union, in accordance with its internationalobligations, including agreements with France and Czechoslovakia, tried toprevent the tragedy from happening. Meanwhile, Poland, in pursuit of itsinterests, was doing its utmost to hamper the establishment of a collectivesecurity system in Europe.
Foreign Minister Beck wrote about it directly in his letterof September 19, 1938 to the aforementioned Ambassador Jzef Lipski before hismeeting with Hitler: in the past year, the Polish government rejected fourtimes the proposal to join the international interfering in defence ofCzechoslovakia.
Britain, as well as France, which was at the time the mainally of the Czechs and Slovaks, chose to withdraw their guarantees and abandonthis Eastern European country to its fate. In so doing, they sought to directthe attention of the Nazis eastward so that Germany and the Soviet Union wouldinevitably clash, and bleed each other white.
That was the essence of the western policy of appeasement,which was pursued not only towards the Third Reich but also towards otherparticipants of the so-called Anti-Comintern Pact the fascist Italy and militaristJapan.
In the Far East, this policy culminated in the conclusion ofthe Anglo-Japanese agreement in the summer of 1939, which gave Tokyo a freehand in China. The leading European powers were unwilling to recognise themortal danger posed by Germany and its allies to the whole world. They werehoping that they themselves would be left untouched by war.
The Munich Betrayal showed to the Soviet Union that 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.
The Soviets fightback
Nevertheless, the Soviet Union did its utmost to use everychance to create an Anti-Hitler coalition. Despite I will say it again thedouble-dealing on the part of the Western countries.
For instance, the intelligence services reported to theSoviet leadership detailed information on the behind-the-scenes contactsbetween Britain and Germany in the summer of 1939. The important thing is thatthose contacts were quite active and practically coincided with the tripartitenegotiations between France, Great Britain and the USSR, which were, on thecontrary, deliberately protracted by the Western partners.
In this connection, I will cite a document from the Britisharchives. It contains instructions to the British military mission that came toMoscow in August 1939. It directly states that the delegation was to proceedwith negotiations very slowly, and that the Government of the United Kingdomwas not ready to assume any obligations spelled out in detail and limitingtheir freedom of action under any circumstances.
I will also note that, unlike the British and Frenchdelegations, the Soviet delegation was headed by top commanders of the RedArmy, who had the necessary authority to sign a military convention on theorganisation of military defence of England, France and the USSR againstaggression in Europe.
Poland played its role in the failure of those negotiations as it did not want any obligations owed 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 J.Ribbentrop to Moscow that J. Beck reluctantly and not directly, but throughFrench diplomats, notified the Soviet side: in the event of joint actionagainst the German aggression, cooperation between Poland and the Soviet Union,subject to technical conditions which have to be agreed, is not out of thequestion.
At the same time, he explained to his colleagues: Iagreed to this wording only for the sake of the tactics, and our core positionin relation to the Soviet Union is final and remains unchanged.
In these circumstances, the Soviet Union signed the Non-Aggression Pact with Germany. [Eds note: alternative view here]. 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 legitimateaccusations. We remember the crimes committed by the regime against its ownpeople and the horror of mass repressions. In other words, there are manythings the Soviet leaders can be reproached for, but poor understanding of thenature of external threats is not one of them.
They saw how attempts were made to leave the Soviet Unionalone to deal with Germany and its allies. Bearing in mind this real threat,they sought to buy precious time needed to strengthen the countrys defences.
Nowadays, we hear lots of speculations and accusationsagainst modern Russia in connection with the Non-Aggression Pact signed backthen. Yes, Russia is the legal successor state to the USSR, and the Sovietperiod with all its triumphs and tragedies is an inalienable part of ourthousand-year-long history.
However, let me also remind you that the Soviet Union gave alegal and moral assessment of the so-called MolotovRibbentrop Pact. TheSupreme Soviet in its resolution of December 24, 1989 officially denounced thesecret protocols as an act of personal power which in no way reflected thewill of the Soviet people who bear no responsibility for this collusion. [Edsnote: alternativeview here, here, andhere]
Yet other states prefer to forget the agreements carryingsignatures of the Nazis and Western politicians, not to mention giving legal orpolitical assessments of such cooperation, including the silent acquiescence or even direct abetment of some European politicians in the barbarous plansof the Nazis.
It will suffice to remember the cynical phrase said byPolish Ambassador to Germany J. Lipski during his conversation with Hitler onSeptember 20, 1938: for solving the Jewish problem, we [the Poles]willbuild in his honour a splendid monument in Warsaw.
Besides, we do not know if there were any secret protocolsor annexes to agreements of a number of countries with the Nazis. The onlything that is left to do is to take their word for it.
In particular, materials pertaining to the secretAnglo-German talks still have not been declassified. Therefore, we urge allstates to step up the process of making their archives public and publishingpreviously unknown documents of the war and pre-war periods the way Russiahas been doing in recent years.
In this context, we are ready for broad cooperation and joint research projects engaging historians.
Back in time
But let us go back to the events immediately preceding theSecond World War. It was nave to believe that Hitler, once done withCzechoslovakia, would not make new territorial claims. This time the claims involvedits recent accomplice in the partition of Czechoslovakia Poland.
Here, the legacy of Versailles, particularly the fate of theso-called Danzig Corridor, was yet again used as the pretext. The blame for thetragedy that Poland then suffered lies entirely with the Polish leadership,which had impeded the formation of a military alliance between Britain, Franceand the Soviet Union and relied on the help from its Western partners, throwingits own people under the steamroller of Hitlers machine of destruction. [Edsnote: awildly alternative view here!].
The German offensive was mounted in full accordance with the blitzkrieg doctrine. Despite the fierce, heroic resistance of the Polish army, on September 8, 1939 only a week after the war broke out the German troops were within reach of Warsaw. By September 17, the military and political leaders of Poland had fled to Romania, betraying their people, who continued to fight against the invaders.
Polands hope for help from its Western allies was vain.After the war against Germany was declared, the French troops advanced only afew tens of kilometres into the German territory. All of it looked like a meredemonstration of vigorous action. Moreover, the Anglo-French Supreme WarCouncil, holding its first meeting on September 12, 1939 in the French city ofAbbeville, decided to call off the offensive altogether in view of the rapiddevelopments in Poland.
That was when the infamous Phony War started. What Britainand France did was a blatant betrayal of their obligations to Poland.
Later, during the Nuremberg Trials, German generalsexplained their quick success in the East. Former Chief of the Operations Staffof the German Armed Forces High Command General Alfred Jodl admitted: we didnot suffer defeat as early as 1939 only because about 110 French and Britishdivisions stationed in the west against 23 German divisions during our war withPoland remained absolutely idle.
I asked for retrieval from the archives of the whole body ofmaterials pertaining to the contacts between the USSR and Germany in thedramatic days of August and September 1939. According to the documents,paragraph 2 of the Secret Protocol to the German-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact ofAugust 23, 1939 stated that, in the event of territorial-politicalreorganisation of the districts making up the Polish state, the border betweenthe spheres of interest of the two countries would run approximately along theNarew, Vistula and San rivers.
In other words, the Soviet sphere of influence included notonly the territories that were mostly home to Ukrainian and Belorussianpopulation, but also the historically Polish lands in the Vistula and Buginterfluve. This fact is known to very few these days.
Similarly, very few know that, immediately after the attackon Poland, in the early days of September 1939, Berlin strongly and repeatedlycalled on Moscow to join the military action. However, the Soviet leadershipignored those calls and planned to avoid engaging in the dramatic developmentsas long as possible.
It was only when it became absolutely clear that GreatBritain and France were not going to help their ally and the Wehrmacht couldswiftly occupy all of Poland (and thus appear on the approaches to Minsk) thatthe Soviet Union decided to act. [Eds note: alternativeview here]. On the morning of September 17, Red Army units moved into theso-called Eastern Borderlines (Kresy), which nowadays form part of theterritories of Belorussia, Ukraine and Lithuania.
Obviously, there was no alternative. Otherwise, the USSRwould face seriously increased risks because I will say this again the oldSoviet-Polish border ran only within a few tens of kilometres of Minsk. The SovietUnion would have been forced to enter the inevitable war with the Nazis fromvery disadvantageous strategic positions, while millions of people of differentnationalities, including the Jews living near Brest and Grodno, Przemyl, Lvovand Wilno, would be left to die at the hands of the Nazis and their localaccomplices anti-Semites and radical nationalists.
The fact that the Soviet Union sought to avoid engaging inthe growing conflict for as long as possible and was unwilling to fight side-by-sidewith Germany was the reason why the real contact between the Soviet and theGerman troops occurred much farther east than the borders agreed in the secretprotocol. [Eds note: Alternativeview here]
It was not on the Vistula River, but closer to the so-calledCurzon Line, which back in 1919 was recommended by the Triple Entente as theeastern border of Poland.
As is known, the subjunctive mood can hardly be used 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.
A new Europe
The Germans suggested formalising the new status quo. InMoscow, on September 28, 1939 J. Ribbentrop and V. Molotov signed the Boundaryand Friendship Treaty between Germany and the Soviet Union, as well as the secretprotocol on changing the state border, according to which the border wasrecognised at the demarcation line where the two armies de-facto stood.
In autumn 1939, the Soviet Union, pursuing its strategicmilitary and defensive goals, started the process of incorporation of Latvia,Lithuania and Estonia. Their accession to the USSR was implemented on acontractual basis, with the consent of the elected authorities. This was inline with international and state law of that time. [Eds note: The BalticStates, as they were known, were considered by the West at the time to beoccupied by the USSR. The states themselves Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania gainedindependence from the USSR in 1991. They each still assert to this day that theircountries were illegally occupied. An alternative view on this is availablehere. And also here.]
Besides, in October 1939, the city of Wilno and thesurrounding area, which had previously been part of Poland, were returned toLithuania. The Baltic republics within the USSR preserved their governmentbodies, language, and had representation in the higher government entities ofthe Soviet Union. [Eds note: an alternative view here.]
During all these months there was an ongoing invisiblediplomatic and politico-military struggle and intelligence work. Moscowunderstood that it was facing a fierce and cruel enemy, and that a covert waragainst Nazism was already going on. And there was no reason to take officialstatements and formal protocol notes of that time as a proof of friendshipbetween 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 Germanys confrontation with the UK. But the Soviet government stood firm.
Hitler tries again
The last attempt to persuade the USSR to act together wasmade by Hitler during Molotovs visit to Berlin in November 1940. But Molotovaccurately followed Stalins instructions and limited himself to a generaldiscussion of the German idea of the Soviet Union joining the Tripartite Pactsigned by Germany, Italy and Japan in September 1940, and directed against theUK and the USA.
No wonder that already on November 17 Molotov gave thefollowing instructions to the London-based Soviet diplomat Ivan Maisky: Foryour information No agreement was signed or was intended to be signed inBerlin. 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 andIndia. We declined the discussion of this matter as we consider such advice onthe part of Germany to be inappropriate.
View original post here:
We See Your Mike Pence, And Raise You A Vladimir Putin: A Russian Leader's Take On How The Soviets Beat The Nazis, With Caveats - New Matilda