An informal CIS summit
took place in St Petersburg.
December
20, 2019
17:00
St
Petersburg
CIS informal summit.
The summit was attended
by Vladimir Putin, President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev, Prime
Minister of Armenia Nikol Pashinyan, President of Belarus Alexander
Lukashenko, first President of Kazakhstan Nursultan Nazarbayev, President
of Kyrgyzstan Sooronbay Jeenbekov, President of Moldova Igor Dodon,
President of Tajikistan Emomali Rahmon and President
of Turkmenistan Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedov.
Vladimir Putin told
the participants about the archive materials
on the pre-history of World War II and invited them
to tour a specially organised exhibit.
* * *
Speech
at the informal CIS summit
President of Russia
Vladimir Putin: Colleagues, I am very happy to see you.
I would like to welcome you once again, in this “very extended”
format of CIS heads of state.
We have resolved
on events dedicated to the end of the Great Patriotic
War between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany
and the Victory of the Soviet Union.
Let me stress that
for all of us, and I know you agree, it is a special
date because our fathers and grandfathers sacrificed a lot
to our Fatherland, our common Fatherland back then. In fact, every
family in the former Soviet Union in one way or another suffered
from what happened with our country and the world.
We have discussed this many
times both formally and informally and decided to work together
on the eve of the 75th anniversary.
I would like to share some of my thoughts on this.
I was surprised, even
somewhat hurt by one of the latest European Parliament
resolutions dated September 19, 2019 “on the importance
of preserving historical memory for the future of Europe.”
We, too, have always strived to ensure the quality of history, its
truthfulness, openness and objectivity. I want to emphasise once
again that this applies to all of us, because we are to some
extent descendants of the former Soviet Union. When they talk about
the Soviet Union, they talk about us.
What does it say? According
to this paper, the so-called Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact
(the foreign ministers of the Soviet Union and Nazi
Germany), as they write further, divided Europe
and the territories of independent states between two
totalitarian regimes, which paved the way for World War II.
The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact ‘paved the way to WWII…’ Well,
maybe.
In addition,
the European parliamentarians are demanding that Russia stop its efforts
aimed at distorting historical facts and promoting the thesis
that Poland, the Baltic countries and the West really started
the war. I do not think we have ever said anything like this,
or that any of the above countries were the perpetrators.
Where is the truth
after all? I decided to figure this out and asked
my colleagues to check the archives. When I started reading
them, I found something that I think would be interesting
for all of us, because, again, we all come from the Soviet
Union.
Here is the first
question. We talk about the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact all the time. We
repeat this after our European colleagues. This begs the question: was
this the only document signed by one of the European
countries, back then the Soviet Union, with Nazi Germany? It turns out
that this is not at all the case. I will simply give a list
of them, if I may.
So, the Declaration
on the Non-use of Force between Germany and Poland. This
is, in fact, the so-called Pilsudski-Hitler Pact signed in 1934.
In essence, this is a non-aggression pact.
Then, the Anglo-German
maritime agreement of 1935. Great Britain provided Hitler with
an opportunity to have his own Navy, which was illegal for him
or, in fact, reduced to a minimum following World War I.
Then, the joint
Anglo-German declaration of Chamberlain and Hitler signed
on September 30, 1938, which they agreed upon at Chamberlain’s
initiative. It said that the signed ‘Munich Agreement, as well
as the Anglo-German maritime agreement symbolise…’ and so on.
The creation of a legal framework between the two states continued.
That is not all. There is
the Franco-German Declaration signed on December 6, 1938
in Paris by the foreign ministers of France
and Germany, Bonnet and Ribbentrop.
Finally, the treaty
between the Republic of Lithuania and the German Reich
signed on March 22, 1939 in Berlin by the foreign
minister of Lithuania and Ribbentop to the effect that
Klaipeda Territory will reunite with the German Reich.
Then, there was
the Nonaggression Treaty between the German Reich and Latvia
of June 7, 1939.
Thus, the Treaty
between the Soviet Union and Germany was the last
in a line of treaties signed by European countries that
seemed to be interested in maintaining peace in Europe. Also,
I want to note that the Soviet Union agreed to sign this
document only after all other avenues had been exhausted and all proposals
by the Soviet Union to create a unified security system,
in fact, an anti-Nazi coalition in Europe were rejected.
In this connection,
I am asking you to take a few minutes to return
to the origins, to the very beginning, which I find
very important. I suggest beginning, as they say, from ‘centre
field’, as they say, I mean from the results from World War I,
from the Versailles Peace conditions written in the Treaty
of Versailles in 1919.
For Germany,
the Treaty of Versailles became a symbol of blatant injustice
and national humiliation. In fact, it meant robbing Germany.
I will give you some numbers, because they are very interesting.
Germany had to pay
the Triple Entente countries (Russia left the winners and did
not sign the Treaty of Versailles) an astronomical sum
of 269 billion golden marks, the equivalent of 100,000 tonnes
of gold. For comparison, I would say the gold reserves
as of October 2019 are 8,130 tonnes in the US, 3,370 tonnes
in Germany and 2,250 tonnes in Russia. And Germany had
to pay 100,000 tonnes. At the current price of gold
of $1,464 for a troy ounce, the reparations would be worth
about $4.7 trillion, while the German GDP in 2018 prices, if
my data are correct, is only $4 trillion.
Suffice it to say that
the last payments of 70 million euros were made quite recently,
on October 3, 2010. Germany was still paying for World War
I on the 20th anniversary
of the Federal Republic of Germany.
I believe,
and many, including researchers, agree that the so-called spirit
of Versailles created an environment for a radical
and revanchist mood. The Nazis were actively exploiting Versailles
in their propaganda promising to relieve Germany of this
national shame, so the West gave the Nazis a free hand for revenge.
For reference,
I can say that the man behind the French victory in World
War I, Marshal Ferdinand Foch, the French commander, spoke about
the results of the Treaty of Versailles and once
uttered a famous prophecy, I quote: “This is not peace. It is
an armistice for twenty years.” He was right even about
the time.
US President Woodrow Wilson
warned that giving Germany reason to avenge one day would be a big
mistake. The internationally renowned Winston Churchill wrote that
the economic articles of the treaty were vicious and stupid
to the point of being clearly meaningless.
The Versailles world
order gave rise to many conflicts and disagreements. They are based
on the borders of new states arbitrarily drawn up in Europe
by the winners of World War I. That is, the borders were
reshaped. This created conditions for the so-called Sudeten crisis.
Sudetenland was part of Czechoslovakia where the German population
lived. Here is a reference document about the Sudeten crisis
and the ensuing so-called Munich Conference.
In 1938, 14 million
people lived in Czechoslovakia, of which 3.5 million were ethnic
Germans. On September 13, 1938, a rebellion broke out there,
and Great Britain immediately proposed talking to Hitler
and appeasing him in order to keep the peace. I will
not bore you with the details of the correspondence
and talks, but they led to the signing
of the well-known Munich agreement.
To reiterate, we used
some archive materials. I want to explain some of them. We have
an encrypted message from the Soviet Plenipotentiary Envoy
to France to the People's Commissar for Foreign Affairs
Litvinov dated May 25, 1938, about a confidential conversation with
French Prime Minister Daladier.
I will read
an excerpt, as it is an interesting document. “Prime Minister
of France, Eduard Daladier, has devoted the past several days
to clarifying Poland’s position.” This refers to the Munich
Agreement, as a result of which Sudetenland, part
of Czechoslovak territory, was supposed to go to Germany.
‘The probe in Poland gave an utterly negative result,’
the Prime Minister of France said. “Not only can we not rely
on Polish support, but there is no certainty that Poland will not stab us
in the back.” Contrary to Polish assurances, Daladier does not
believe in the Poles’ loyalty, even if Germany were to directly
attack France. He demanded a clear and unambiguous answer from
the Poles as to whose side they are on in peace
and in war. In this regard, he asked the Polish ambassador
to France, Juliusz Łukasiewicz, a number of direct questions. He
asked him if the Poles would let Soviet troops pass through their
territory. Łukasiewicz said no. Daladier then asked if they would let Soviet
planes fly across their territory. Łukasiewicz said the Poles would open
fire on them. When Łukasiewicz said no to the question
of whether Poland would come to the rescue if after
a German attack on Czechoslovakia (there was an agreement
on mutual assistance between France and Czechoslovakia)… Germany
declares war on France. The Polish representative said no. Daladier
said he saw no reason in a Franco-Polish alliance
and the sacrifices that France is making as part of it.“
So what does this mean? It
means the Soviet Union was ready to help Czechoslovakia, which Nazi
Germany was going to rob. But the agreement between the Soviet
Union and Czechoslovakia stated that the Soviet Union would do this
only if France fulfilled its obligations to Czechoslovakia. France linked
its aid to Czechoslovakia to support from Poland. But Poland refused
to provide it.
The following document
is this document No. 5 in front of me, which I have just spoken
about. Let us go ahead. The sixth document.
What did the Polish
authorities do when Germany began to claim part of Czechoslovak
territory? They also laid claim to their part of the “prey”
during the partitioning of Czechoslovak territory and demanded
that a certain part of Czechoslovakia be transferred to them.
Moreover, they were ready to use force. They formed a special
military group called ‘Silesia,’ which included three infantry divisions,
a cavalry brigade and other units.
There is also
a specific document from the archives. From a report from
a commander of the Silesia Independent Operation Group,
a Mr Bortnowski on preparations for the offensive
operation, the capture of Tesin Silesia and the training
of troops, the Polish authorities trained and sent militants
to Czechoslovakia to carry out sabotage and terrorist attacks
and actively prepare for the partitioning and occupation
of Czechoslovakia.
The next document is
a record of a conversation between German Ambassador
to Poland Mr Moltke and Polish Foreign Minister, Mr Beck.
In this document, Polish Foreign Minister Beck spoke directly about this,
I quote: “In the areas claimed by Poland, there will be no
conflict with German interests.” Therefore, there will be a division
of Czechoslovak territory.
Immediately after
the Munich Agreement was concluded on September 30, 1938,
Warsaw, having imitated in fact Nazi methods, sent an ultimatum
to Prague with an unconditional claim for part
of the territory of Czechoslovakia – Tesin Silesia. France
and Great Britain did not support Czechoslovakia, which forced it
to yield to this violence. Simultaneously with Germany, which annexed
Sudetenland, Poland began a direct seizing of Czechoslovak territory
on October 1, 1938, thereby violating the agreement it had previously
concluded with Czechoslovakia.
The next document tells
about the final agreement to set the border between Poland
and Czechoslovakia. Here is what this is about: on July 28,
1920, with the arbitration of the Triple Entente, Poland and Czechoslovakia
signed the so-called final border agreement, which gave the western
part of Czechoslovakia’s Cieszyn Region to the Czechs
and the eastern part to Warsaw. Both parts officially recognised
and, more importantly, guaranteed their shared border.
Of course, Poland
understood that without Hitler’s support all attempts to seize part
of Czechoslovakia were doomed to fail. In this context,
I would like to cite a very interesting document:
a recorded conversation between German Ambassador in Warsaw
Hans-Adolf von Moltke and Josef Beck about Polish-Czech relations
and the USSR’s position on this from October 1, 1938.
The German ambassador
reports to his superiors in Berlin. Mr Beck – let me remind you
that he was the Foreign Minister of Poland – expressed his deep
gratitude for the loyal interpretation of Polish interests
at the Munich conference as well
as for the sincere relations during the Czech conflict.
The Polish government and people credited Hitler
and the Reichskanzler, which means he was grateful for Hitler’s
actions at the conference in Munich.
It is noteworthy that
representatives of Poland were not invited to the Munich
conference, and that their interests were in fact represented
by Hitler.
At this point Poland
assumed the role of instigator: it tried to draw Hungary into
the division of Czechoslovakia, which means deliberately pulling
other countries into violating international law. It was well known
to other European countries, including to both Great Britain
and France, that Germany and Poland acted together.
The next, tenth
document. From a report by French Ambassador to Germany André
François-Poncet to the Foreign Minister of France
Georges-Étienne Bonnet of September 22, 1938. I will read it; it
is a very interesting document. Next comes a quote, it is
the French ambassador’s report to his superior in Paris; he
writes, “This is about the demarches taken by Poland and Hungary
on September 20 to the Fuehrer, and in London,
which were designed to point out that Warsaw and Budapest would not
agree to exercising a less favourable plan for their ethnic
minorities in the Czechoslovakian state than the plan offered
to Sudeten Germans. This was equivalent to a statement,
the French Ambassador goes on to say, that ceding territories
inhabited by the German majority should also entail Prague’s
surrender of the Těšín district and 700,000 Hungarians
in Slovakia. Therefore, the presumed divestiture
of the territory would amount to the partitioning
of the country (that is, Czechoslovakia).”
This is exactly what
the Reich wanted. Poland and Warsaw were joining Germany
in hounding Czechoslovakia. France and England, who were trying
to offer concessions and doing their best to meet Germany’s
demands, wanted to save the existence of the Czech state,
which was facing a united front of three states that were set
to partition Czechoslovakia.
The leaders
of the Reich, who made no secret of their goal to erase
Czechoslovakia from the map of Europe, immediately used
the Polish and Hungarian demarches to declare through their official
print media as early as September 21, that a new situation
had emerged which required a new solution.
Next. The fact that
Poland expressed its appetite once it felt the hour
for the division of the spoils was coming, could not have
come as a surprise to those who were aware
of the intentions of Polish Foreign Minister Beck, who had
displayed an increasing caution about Germany and was fully informed
of the designs of Hitler’s leaders. In particular, due
to regular contact with Hermann Goering throughout several months,
the Polish foreign minister believed that the partitioning
of Czechoslovakia was unavoidable, that it would happen before
the end of 1938. Beck also made no secret of his intentions
to claim Těšín and to occupy it if needed.
And the last
point. The differences between the party led by Konrad
Henlein – the party’s leader in Czechoslovakia –
and the Czechs only served as a pretext
and the starting point for the Reich as,
by persecuting the Prague authorities, the Reich could achieve
its main objective, which was to take down a barrier
to Germany’s expansion, as Czechoslovakia was an ally
of France and Russia in Central Europe.
This is significant. How did
the leading politicians around the world respond
to the Munich Betrayal, an agreement signed between Hitler,
Great Britain and France in 1938? What did well-known people who
earned the respect of the public around the world
and Europe say back then? We can say that with a few exceptions their
reaction was positive and optimistic. Only Winston Churchill was honest
in describing the situation, calling a spade a spade.
I want to add that
after the agreement was signed, the British Prime Minister, speaking
outside his residence on Downing Street upon his return from Munich
on September 30, 1938, said: “For the second time
in our history, a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany
bringing peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time.” That
is, for our generation.
After the Munich
Agreement was signed, Franklin Roosevelt in his message of greetings
to Chamberlain dated October 5, 1938, wrote that he completely shared
his belief that this was a great opportunity to establish a new
order based on justice and the rule of law.
On October 19,
1938, US Ambassador to the UK Joseph Kennedy, the father
of future president John Kennedy, gave the following assessment
of the Munich Agreement signed between the Western countries,
or democracies, and Germany and Italy: It has been
my belief for a long time now that it is unproductive
and unreasonable on the part of both democracies
and dictatorships to emphasise the existing differences between
them. They can benefit from working towards resolving their common problems,
something that will change relations between them for the better.
And now from
Churchill’s speech made in the House of Commons
in the British Parliament on October 5, 1938: “We have
sustained a total and unmitigated defeat… All is over. Silent,
mournful, abandoned, broken, Czechoslovakia recedes into the darkness… Do
not let us blind ourselves to that.” He said we should stop deceiving
ourselves; we must look realistically at the scale
of the disaster that the world is facing. “A disaster
of the first magnitude has befallen Great Britain and France… We
have sustained a defeat without a war, the consequences
of which will travel far with us along our road… And do not suppose
that this is the end. This is only the beginning
of the reckoning. This is only the first sip.” Quite
an assessment.
What was Churchill talking
about? The fact that, in Munich, the so-called Western
democracies had betrayed their ally, signaling that war was imminent.
Speaking
at a League of Nations plenary meeting in September 1938,
our Foreign Minister Maxim Litvinov said, “Avoiding a likely war today
and getting a sure and universal war tomorrow –
and that at the cost of feeding the aggressors’
insatiable appetite and destroying sovereign countries – does not
mean acting in the spirit of the League of Nations
pact.” That is, the Soviet Union condemned this event.
In this connection,
I would like to present the following very important document;
it is a curious document. Actually, we have all of them displayed
at our exhibit. This is a response from the Political Bureau
of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) to the September 20,
1938 cable from the USSR’s Plenipotentiary Envoy to Czechoslovakia,
Alexandrovsky. On September 20, 1938, the Political Bureau
of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) unanimously gave
a positive answer to the direct question from President Edvard
Benes as to whether the USSR would deliver prompt assistance
to Czechoslovakia if France stood loyal to it.
Further,
on September 23, 1938, the Soviet Union officially notified
Poland that if it invaded Czechoslovakia, the Soviet-Polish non-aggression
pact would be terminated. Poland’s Foreign Minister Jozef Beck called this
a propaganda ploy of no significance.
In addition, while
considering the forthcoming invasion of Tesin, Poland did everything
it could to prevent the Soviet Union from fulfilling its obligations
to provide assistance to Czechoslovakia. As you recall, they
were going to shoot down Soviet planes, and not allow
the transit of Soviet troops to help rescue Czechoslovakia.
Meanwhile, France, the chief ally of the Czechs and Slovaks
at the time, in fact reneged on its guarantees
to defend Czechoslovakia’s integrity.
Being left alone,
the USSR had to face the reality created
by the Western states. The partitioning of Czechoslovakia
was cruel and cynical, in essence, it was pillaging. We have every
reason to say that the Munich agreement was the turning point
in history following which World War II became inevitable.
Hitler could have been
stopped in 1938 through the collective efforts
of the European states. This was acknowledged by the Western
leaders themselves.
Another reference
to a document. This is a transcript of conversations
of May 17, 1939, between representatives of the French
and Polish Commands about the possibilities of war
in Europe between the Italian-German and Polish-French
coalitions. The French Chief of Staff said at a meeting
with the Polish Minister of Military Affairs that the overall
situation in 1938 offered many more opportunities for opposition
to Germany. So what was he talking about? That given a timely response,
the war could have been avoided. Meanwhile, during the Nuremberg
Trials, Field Marshall Keitel said, when responding to the question
of whether Germany would have attacked Czechoslovakia in 1938 if
the Western powers had supported Prague, “No. We were not strong enough
militarily.” The Munich [agreement] objective was to push Russia out
of Europe, gain time and complete the arming of Germany.
The Soviet Union
consistently tried to prevent the tragedy of partitioning
Czechoslovakia based on its international obligations, including its
agreements with France and Czechoslovakia. However, Britain
and France preferred to throw a democratic East European country
to the Nazis to appease them. And not only that, but also
to steer Nazi aspirations eastward. Polandat the time,
unfortunately, was instrumental in this. The leaders
of the Second Rzeczpospolita did everything they could to resist
a collective security system that would include the USSR.
I want to show you
another document – a transcript of Adolf Hitler’s conversation
with Foreign Minister of Poland Jozef Beck of January 5, 1939.
This document is indicative. It is a sort of distillation
of the joint policy of the German Reich and Poland
on the eve of, in the course of, and after
the end of the Czechoslovakia crisis. The content is
cynical in its attitude towards neighbouring nations and Europe
as a whole. And it clearly illustrates the contours
of the Polish-German alliance as a striking force against
Russia.
Let me quote just a few
excerpts. Document 13. Everything is in fine print here. This is
a copy of the May 17, 1939 document, and I asked
my colleagues to make excerpts for me so they are readable.
So, quote number one.
The Fuehrer says bluntly, “It was not easy to get the French
and the English to consent to the inclusion
of Polish and Hungarian claims to Czechoslovakia
in the Munich agreement.” This means Hitler was working
in the interests of those countries then. In fact, Hitler
was an attorney for the Polish authorities in Munich.
And the second
quote. The Polish minister says, with certain pride, that Poland does not
show such nervousness about enhancing its security as, for example, France
does, and attaches no importance to the so-called security
systems that went completely bankrupt after the September crisis (Sudetenlandcrisis)
in Czechoslovakia. They do not want to establish anything.
The Polish foreign minister says this to Hitler directly.
None
of the decision-makers in Berlin or Warsaw cared about
the fact that the security system in Europe was disintegrating.
They cared about something else.
In this connection,
the third quote. Hitler says (Adolf Hitler’s words), “Under all
circumstances, Germany will be interested in the preservation
of a strong national Poland, absolutely independently from
the situation in Russia. Be it Bolshevik, Tsarist or any other
Russia, Germany will always be extremely cautious in regard to this
country. A strong Polish army takes a considerable burden off Germany.
The divisions that Poland is forced to keep on the Russian
border relieve Germany of additional military expense.” This looks like
a military alliance against the Soviet Union.
This document, as you
can see, was completely undisguised, and it did not come out
of nowhere. This was not a result of tactical manoeuvring but
rather a reflection of the consistent trend towards
Polish-German rapprochement to the detriment of the Soviet
Union. And I have more evidence in this vein, though from
earlier dates, it is very revealing
This is an excerpt from
a conversation between Polish Deputy Foreign Minister Jan Szembek
and Hermann Goering about Polish-Soviet relations of November 5,
1937. Goering is confident that the Third Empire, that is, the Third
Reich, will not be able to cooperate with the Soviets and with
Russia in general regardless of its internal structure. Goering also
added that Germany needs a strong Poland whereby he added that
the Baltic Sea is not enough for Poland and it must have access
to the Black Sea.
Both then and now,
Russia is used to scare people. Be it Tsarist, Soviet
or today’s – nothing has changed. It does not matter what kind
of country Russia is – this rationale remains. We should also not
confuse ideological terms – Bolshevik, Russian, whatever, our former
common homeland, the Soviet Union. To achieve this, they will make
a deal with anyone, including Nazi Germany, we can, in fact, see
this.
And related
to that is another very revealing document – a transcript
of the conversation between the German Minister of Foreign
Affairs, Joachim Ribbentrop, and Polish Foreign Minister Jozef Beck
on January 6, 1939. We got hold of a fairly substantial
number of documents from Eastern Europe and Germany after World War
II. Joachim Ribbentrop expressed Germany’s position, which, I quote, “will
proceed from viewing the Ukrainian issue as Poland’s privilege,
and we support Poland in all respects during the discussion
of this issue, however, only on condition that Poland takes
a more salient anti-Russian stance (this is a quote) since otherwise
we (Nazi Germany) are unlikely to have common interests.” Responding
to Ribbentrop’s question as to whether Poland had given up
Marshal Pilsudski’s ambitions regarding Ukraine, Mr Beck said, “The Poles
have already been to Kiev, and these plans are undoubtedly still
alive today.”
Actually, this happened
in 1939. Let us hope that at least something has changed in this
respect. However, the foundation of what I am sharing now is
pathological Russophobia. The European capitals, incidentally, were perfectly
aware of that. Poland’s Western allies at that time were perfectly
aware of that.
The following document
will prove what I have just said. This is a report by Ambassador
of France to Poland, Mr Leon Noel, to Foreign Minister
of France Georges Bonnet on his conversations with his Polish
colleagues of May 31, 1938. In this document, the French
ambassador wrote about the unequivocal statements made
by the Polish leaders, who did not mince words during their meeting.
To quote, “When
a German is a rival, he nevertheless remains a European
and a man of order.” And Poland would soon find out what
a “European and man of order” means. Everyone experienced this
on September 1, 1939.
According to Noel,
the Poles saw Russians as barbarians with whom “all contact would be
perilous and all compromise mortal.” To comment, this can be seen
as a typical example of racism and contempt
for the “untermensch,” a Nazi concept that included Russians,
Belarusians, Ukrainians, and later the Poles themselves.
You know, in this
context, I look at the cases of Russophobia, anti-Semitism
and so on in certain European countries, and they bear
a striking resemblance to this.
Aggressive nationalism
always makes one blind and eliminates any and all moral boundaries.
Those who take this path will stop at nothing to achieve their
goals – but ultimately, it will hit them back, which we have seen
repeatedly.
In this context, here
is another document to support this, a report by Ambassador
of Poland to Nazi Germany Jozef Lipski to Polish Minister of Foreign
Affairs Jozef Beck of September 20, 1938, which I think is
necessary to read to you aloud. Mr Lipski had spoken to Hitler,
and this is what he, the Polish ambassador, wrote to his
Minister of Foreign Affairs: “Further to our discussion,
the Chancellor of Germany, Hitler persistently emphasised that Poland
is a paramount factor that protects Europe from Russia.”
It follows from Hitler's
other statements that he suddenly had an idea that the Jewish issue
can be resolved through migration to colonies in accord with Poland,
Hungary, and maybe also Romania. Hitler suggested forcibly expelling
the Jewish population from Europe to Africa first – and not
just expelling them but actually sending them to their extermination. We
all know what was meant by colonies in 1938 – it meant
extermination. This was the first step towards genocide,
the extermination of Jews and what we today know
as the Holocaust.
And this is what
the Polish ambassador wrote to the Polish Foreign Minister
in this connection – apparently hoping for understanding
and approval: I, meaning the Polish Ambassador to Germany,
responded, he writes to his Foreign Minister, that if this happens
and this issue is resolved, we will build a beautiful monument to him,
to Hitler, in Warsaw. There.
An excerpt from
the above-mentioned conversation between Adolf Hitler and Polish
Foreign Minister Jozef Beck of January 5, 1939. Hitler said, “Another
issue of common interest for Germany and Poland is
the Jewish issue.” He, the Fuhrer, is firmly resolved to oust
Jews from Germany. At that moment, they would be allowed to take
along some of their belongings, and Hitler noted, they would
definitely take with them much more from Germany than they had when they had
settled in that country. But the longer they procrastinate with
emigration, the less property they will able to take with them.
What is this? What kind
of people are they? Who are they? I have the impression that
today’s Europe wants to know nothing about it, it is being deliberately
hushed up while they try to shift the blame, including
for starting World War II, from the Nazis
to the Communists.
Yes, we know who Stalin was,
we have given our assessments of him. But I think the fact
remains that it was Nazi Germany that invaded first Poland
on September 1, 1939, and then the Soviet Union
on June 22, 1941.
And what kind
of people are those who hold such conversations with Hitler? It was them
who, while pursuing their mercenary and exorbitantly overgrown ambitions,
laid their people, the Polish people, open to attack from Germany’s
military machine, and, moreover, generally contributed
to the beginning of the Second World War. What else can one
think after reading these documents?
And something we also
witness today: they desecrate the graves of those who won that war,
who gave their lives, including in Europe, while liberating those
countries from Nazism.
By the way, it
occurred to me that it had nothing to do with Stalin whatsoever.
The monuments in Europe were erected to our regular Red Army
soldiers, including those who came from currently absolutely independent states
established after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. They were
ordinary people. Who were these Red Army soldiers? They were mainly farmers
and workers, many of whom also suffered from the Stalin
regime – some of them were repressed kulaks, some had family members
sent to labour camps. These people died as they were liberating
the European countries from Nazism. Now memorials to them are being
demolished, among other things, so that the facts of a real
collusion of some European leaders with Hitler should not surface. This is
not revenge on Bolsheviks: they are doing all they can to conceal
their own position.
Why did I say that
the leaders of those countries, including Poland, at that time, actually
threw their people under the chariot of Nazi Germany’s military
machine? Because they underestimated the real reasons underlying Hitler’s
actions.
This is what he said
at a meeting with German Army commanders at the Reich
Chancellery, I quote: “The point is not Danzig,” this is a city
that was declared to be an international entity and which
Germany wanted back after World War I, “the point for us is
to expand the Lebensraum eastward and to ensure food
supplies.” It was not about Poland at all. The point is that they
needed to pave the road for an aggression against
the Soviet Union
The Soviet Union was
trying to the utmost to use every opportunity
for establishing an anti-Hitler coalition, held talks with military
representatives of France and Great Britain, thus attempting
to prevent the outbreak of World War II, but it practically
remained alone and isolated. As I have already said, it was
the last of the European states concerned that was compelled to sign
a non-aggression pact with Hitler.
Yes, there is
a classified part on the partitioning of some territory.
But we do not know the content of other European countries’
agreements with Hitler. Because while we have de-classified these documents,
the Western capitals are still keeping all this classified. We know
nothing of their contents. But now we do not need to, because
the facts show that there was collusion. In essence, we see
the partitioning of a democratic independent state,
Czechoslovakia. And the participants in it were not just Hitler
but also the then leaders of those countries. It was this that opened
the road to the east for Hitler, it was this that became
the cause of the outbreak of World War II.
One more point concerning
the Soviet Union’s actions after Germany launched a war against
Poland. Let me remind you that in the west, in the area
of Lvov, the Polish garrison was still resisting, this is true. When
the Red Army advanced, they surrendered their weapons to the Red
Army. Actually, the fact that the Red Army’s units entered there saved
many lives of the local population, mainly the Jewish
population. Because all those present here know that the percentage
of the Jewish population in that area was very high. If
the Nazis had entered, they would have cut out everyone and sent them
to the furnaces.
Concerning Brest,
for instance, the Red Army advanced there only after those
territories were occupied by German troops. The Red Army did not wage
any hostilities with anyone there; they were not fighting with the Poles.
Moreover, by that time the Polish government had lost control over
the country, over the armed forces, and stayed somewhere close
to the Romanian border. There was nobody to have any
negotiations with. Let me reiterate, the Brest Fortress, which we all know
as a citadel for defending the interests
of the Soviet Union and our common Fatherland and one
of the most extraordinary pages in the history
of the Great Patriotic War, was only occupied by the Red
Army after the Germans left. They had already captured it, thus
in reality the Soviet Union did not seize it from Poland.
In conclusion,
I would like to remind you of the way contemporaries
assessed the results of the victory over Nazism
and the contribution of each of us to that victory,
starting with 1941.
Churchill’s statement:
“I am very glad to … learn from many sources of the valiant
fight and many vigorous counter-attacks with which the Russian armies
are defending their native soil. I fully realise the military
advantage you have gained by forcing the enemy to deploy
and engage on forward Western fronts,” “on forward Western
fronts” – I draw your attention to this, the British
leaders of the time admitted that this had a combat importance
in fighting Nazi Germany, “thus exhausting some of the force
of his initial effort.” That means the power of the initial
assault of the Nazi army was weakened by the fact that
the Red Army advanced to new frontiers. So advancing to these
new positions also had a military importance for the Soviet
Union.
And now a quote from
Winston Churchill’s personal message to Joseph Stalin
of February 22, 1945. It was on February 22, the eve
of the 27th anniversary of the Red Army.
Churchill writes that the Red Army celebrates its twenty-seventh
anniversary amid triumphs, which have won the unstinted applause
of their allies. And I would like to stress
the following in connection with the resolution adopted recently
by our colleagues in the European Parliament: “Future generations
will acknowledge their debt to the Red Army as unreservedly
as do we who have lived to witness these proud achievements.” But we
see how the present-day generation of European politicians reacts
to this.
Here is what Roosevelt wrote
to Stalin in 1945, “The continued outstanding achievements
of the Red Army together with the all-out effort
of the United Nations forces in the South
and the West assure the speedy attainment of our common
goal—a peaceful world based upon mutual understanding
and cooperation.”
And some time later
Harry Truman, the new US President, wrote, “We fully appreciate
the magnificent contribution made by the mighty Soviet Union
to the cause of civilization and liberty. You have
demonstrated the ability of a freedom-loving and supremely
courageous people to crush the evil forces of barbarism, however
powerful.”
I believe each
of us here cannot forget and will never forget the feat
of our fathers. I would very much like our colleagues
in the West in general and in Europe
in particular, to keep this in mind. And if they do not
want to listen to us, let them heed the respected leaders
of their own countries, who knew what they were saying and had
first-hand knowledge of the events.
First President
of Kazakhstan Nursultan Nazarbayev: This must be made public.
Vladimir Putin: We have
already made it public. But I just want to put it all together
properly and write an article. I want to write
an article on this matter.
Nursultan
Nazarbayev: Tosystemise, organise and present all these historical
documents.
Vladimir Putin: Quite
right. But that is not all.
I suggest
the following: we will now proceed to dinner, and I suggest
we go through that hall, where we have set up a little exhibition
of these documents. Literally two minutes, and specialists will tell
us all about them.
Thank
you very much.
No comments:
Post a Comment