For more than 20 years of liberal lies, the people have been stubbornly and persistently fed and are being fed the completely false idea that the civil war is some kind of evil into which the Bolsheviks plunged the entire country. And if it weren’t for a handful of these scoundrels, the country would live in peace and prosperity.
In reality, such a statement is a priori false and leads away from the class essence of the issue itself.
After all, what is a civil war? Civil war is nothing more than a concentrated expression of class struggle. In other words, this is a struggle for power between the exploited class, that is, the proletarians, and the exploiting class, that is, those who were in power recently, lost it and would like to regain it.
Vladimir Ilyich Lenin wrote: “Whoever recognizes the class struggle cannot help but recognize civil wars, which in any class society represent a natural, under certain circumstances, inevitable continuation, development and intensification of the class struggle.” (MILITARY PROGRAM OF THE PROLETARIAN REVOLUTION).
Could this intense struggle not have happened? No, it could not, because the proletarians - workers, peasants and soldiers - tried to retain and defend the power they had won in October 1917. And a pitiful bunch of rich people, without strong support within the country, naturally tried to rely on foreign interventionists and their bayonets, who did not fail to rush to plunder Russian wealth. Fortunately, the White Guard, not without pleasure, sold out their own country to them wholesale and retail, not being too ashamed of their actions and not noticeably sad about the prosperity of Mother Russia.
So, let's fix that the civil war was a war or struggle for power between a handful of rich people, i.e. minority, and the working majority, or proletarians.
Does this mean that “brother went against brother” or, in other words, that the crack of discord ran, so to speak, right through families?
Let's just say that this phrase cannot be taken literally. Of course, there were isolated cases when one brother was in the white camp and the other in the red camp. However, such a situation could arise only due to delusion and misunderstanding by individual proletarians of their class interests due to political illiteracy.
It is significant how Demyan Bedny wrote about this at that time, addressing the lost proletarians who stood up to defend the interests of their exploiter masters, the tsarist guardsmen and the fat-bellied bourgeoisie:
But I feel sorry for the real sufferers - the poor,
I feel sorry for those who, trembling in difficult moments,
I am ready to put on my old shackles,
He himself asks for prisons and shackles,
He himself offers the former “owners” their shoulders...
Let me note that before the Great October Revolution, the so-called “brothers” who stood on the other side of the barricades did not hesitate to rob the common people blind and gnaw them to the bones, without even thinking about some kind of “mythical brotherhood.”
Therefore, to the civilian the oppressed stood up against the oppressor, and not “brother” against “brother”, only one way and not the other, and it was impossible to avoid this, except by once again bending one’s neck under the yoke and whip of the exploiter.
Thus, those who cry today that civil war is evil are far from concerned with the desire for peace and non-shedding of blood, but with the abandonment of the struggle in general for power in favor of the bourgeoisie and landowners, who were removed from it by the will of the people in October 1917 of the year. And this position of theirs, by definition, is deeply anti-people.
Lenin wrote in his “Response to P. Kievsky (Yu. Pyatakov)”: “The goal of the civil war is the conquest of banks, factories, mills and other things (in favor of the proletarians), the destruction of any possibility of resistance to the bourgeoisie, the extermination of its troops.”
It is clear that such goals could not please those who until recently were fattening at the expense of the oppressed majority. It was this clash of interests that became the reason for the fierce struggle - civil war, refusal of which would be tantamount to capitulation to the bourgeoisie and those fragments of tsarism that, unfortunately, still survived.
In December 1991, the heads of the republics of Belarus, Ukraine and Russia signed an agreement on the creation of the GCC in Belovezhskaya Pushcha. This document actually meant the collapse of the Soviet Union. Political map the world began to look different.
First, you need to decide what caused the global catastrophe in order to try to objectively assess the situation. There are many such reasons. This includes the degradation of the power elites of the “era of funerals,” which turned a powerful state into a not very powerful one, and problems in the economy that have long required effective reforms. This also includes strict censorship, deep internal crises, including increased nationalism in the republics.
It is naive to believe that the stars aligned and the state collapsed due to coincidental events. The main political opponent of the Soviet Union was also on the alert, imposing an arms race in which the USSR, given all the existing problems, did not have the opportunity to succeed. We must pay tribute to the intelligence and insight of Western geopoliticians who managed to undermine and destroy the seemingly unshakable “Soviet machine.”
The USSR collapsed into 15 states. In 1991, the following countries appeared on the world map: Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan.
Cold War, which resulted in the collapse of the USSR, was by no means reduced solely to indirect skirmishes on all sorts of fronts in countries such as Korea, Vietnam, and Afghanistan. The Cold War took place in the heads and hearts of citizens of the USSR and the USA. Western propaganda was more sophisticated. The United States and its allies turned all their mass riots and discontent into a show. Hippies could preach love instead of war, and the authorities calmly allowed them to express their point of view, nevertheless continuing to pursue their policies. In the Soviet Union, dissent was harshly suppressed. And when they were allowed to think “otherwise,” it was too late. The wave of discontent fueled from outside (and the fifth column took an active part) was unstoppable.
There were many reasons for the collapse, but if we simplify everything, we can come to the conclusion that the USSR collapsed because of jeans, chewing gum and Coca-Cola. There were too many “forbidden fruits” that in reality turned out to be empty.
Options for resolving the situation.
It was probably possible to prevent the collapse of the USSR. It is difficult to say what solution would be ideal for the state, for the country, for the people, without knowing all the unknown factors. As an example, we can consider the People's Republic of China, which, thanks to the flexible actions of the authorities, managed to overcome the crisis of the socialist system.
However, do not underestimate the national component. Although both the Soviet Union and the PRC are multinational states, the peoples of China and the Soviet Union are by no means identical. The difference in culture and history makes itself felt.
We needed an idea for the people. It was necessary to come up with an alternative to the “American Dream”, which was teasing Soviet citizens from overseas. In the 30s, when the inhabitants of the USSR believed in the ideals of communism, the country turned from an agricultural one into an industrial one in record time. short time. In the 40s It was not without faith in a just cause that the USSR defeated the enemy, who was stronger in military power at that time. In the 50s people were ready to raise virgin soil with sheer enthusiasm for the common good. In the 60s The Soviet Union was the first to send a man into space. Soviet people conquered mountain peaks, made scientific discoveries, broke world records. All this happened largely because of faith in a bright future and for the good of his people.
In 20 s extra years By most economic and social indicators, the newly formed countries have rolled back significantly.
Then the situation gradually began to worsen. The people began to understand the utopian ideals of the past. The country's government blindly continued to follow its line, without thinking about possible development alternatives. The aging leaders of the USSR reacted primitively to Western provocations, getting involved in unnecessary military conflicts. The outrageously expanding bureaucracy thought primarily about its own welfare rather than about the needs of the people, for whom all these “people’s” bodies were originally created.
There was no need to “tighten the screws” where the situation did not require it. Then the “forbidden fruits” would not have become so desirable, and the intriguers of the West would have lost their main weapon. Instead of mindlessly following obviously utopian ideals, it was necessary to pay attention in time to the needs of the people even at that time. And under no circumstances should you alternate “thaws” and other liberalities with strict prohibitions. Internal and foreign policy should have been carried out justifiably harshly for the benefit of national interests, but without excesses.
Answer the question of whether the First could have been prevented world war, in short, historians and researchers of that conflict have been trying for several decades now. However, a definite answer has not yet been found.
After the murder
Despite the fact that at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries the situation in Europe, due to the accumulated contradictions between the largest world powers, heated up almost to the limit, the countries several times managed to avoid the outbreak of open military confrontation.
A number of experts believe that even after the assassination of Franz Ferdinand, the conflict was not inevitable. To prove their version, they cite the facts that the reaction did not occur immediately, but only after several weeks. What happened during this time?
Visit of the French
Taking advantage of the summer break in parliament, French President R. Poincaré paid a visit to Russia. He was accompanied by Prime Minister and concurrently Minister of Foreign Affairs R. Viviani. Arriving on board a French battleship, the distinguished guests spent several days in Peterhof, after which they set off for Scandinavia.
Despite the fact that the German Kaiser at that time spent his summer vacation far from Berlin, and there was a period of calm in the activities of other states, this visit did not go unnoticed. Based on the situation on the world stage, the governments of the Central Powers (then the Triple Alliance) decided that France and Russia were secretly up to something. And of course, what is being planned will certainly be directed against them. Therefore, Germany decided to prevent any of their steps and act first.
Wine of Russia?
Others, in search of an answer to the question of whether World War I could have been prevented, in short, try to shift all the blame to Russia. Firstly, it is argued that the war could have been avoided if Russian diplomats had not insisted on the unacceptability of the Austro-Hungarian demands made against Serbia. That is, if Russian empire refused to protect the Serbian side.
However, according to documents, Nicholas II offered the Austrian Kaiser to settle the matter peacefully - in the Hague court. But the latter completely ignored the appeal of the Russian autocrat.
Secondly, there is a version that if Russia had fulfilled the conditions of the German ultimatum and stopped mobilizing its troops, then again there would have been no war. As evidence, it is cited that Germany announced its mobilization later than the Russian side. However, it should be noted here that the concept of “mobilization” was significantly different in the Russian and German empires. If the Russian army was just beginning to gather and prepare when mobilization was announced, the German army was ready in advance. And mobilization in the Kaiser’s Germany already meant the beginning of hostilities.
As for the allegations that the German government until the last assured Russia of its peaceful intentions and reluctance to start a war, perhaps it was simply playing for time? To sow doubts in the enemy and prevent him from properly preparing.
Opponents of the version that Russia was responsible for the start of the war, in turn, cite the fact that although the Russians were preparing for an armed conflict, they planned to complete preparations no earlier than 1917. While the German troops were fully prepared for a war on two fronts (simultaneously against Russia and France). The last statement was evidenced by the well-known Schlieffen plan. This document, developed by the Chief of the German General Staff A. Schlieffen, was drawn up back in 1905-08!
An inevitable necessity
And yet, despite different views and versions, most historical and military researchers continue to argue that the first world conflict happened simply because at that time it simply could not be otherwise. War was the only way to resolve the contradictions that had accumulated over several decades between the major powers of Europe and the world. Therefore, even if R. Poincaré had not come to visit Nicholas II, the Russian authorities did not take such an irreconcilable position on the Austrian ultimatum to Serbia and did not declare mobilization, and even if G. Princip had failed, like his accomplices, the war would still it would have started anyway. Another reason would have been found. Maybe not in 1914, but later. Therefore, the question of whether the First World War could have been completely prevented can only be answered briefly in the negative. It was an inevitable necessity.
This topic is in the news. They get rid of it with feigned cheerfulness.
But Crimea continues to be in darkness.
Due to sabotage, maternity hospitals, hospitals, and schools were cut off. Most cities have rolling blackouts, some populated areas- total blackout: no water, no communication...
This summer, the Free Press published a series of my articles about Crimea - the story of its long-standing struggle for self-determination. I expressed hope for the speedy energetic isolation of the peninsula from disgusting Ukraine. Otherwise, it was clear that she would cut off the electricity herself.
Kyiv encouraged Crimea with threat after threat after March 16, 2014, when over 96% of participants in the long-awaited referendum chose Russia (and Crimeans, despite everything, still have no doubt about their choice, as European sociologists testify). It was difficult to be surprised at the threats from the Ukrainian capital. But did the Russian capital pay attention to them?
Ukraine took active action within a month. On April 19, the water supply through the North Crimean Canal, which provided up to 85% of Crimea’s needs, was completely cut off. We urgently had to build drainage systems, dig wells, and lay pipes.
But if the water was turned off quickly, then it was possible to prepare for the next shocks.
On September 20, 2015, the so-called “Majlis” led by Mustafa Dzhemilev and the affiliated Right Sector * began a food blockade of the peninsula. As a result, prices in Crimean stores jumped sharply and became higher than in Moscow. Moreover, Crimeans cannot boast of capital salaries. Not to be left behind in the extreme, official Kyiv, which initially objected, joined the blockade.
On November 23, the State Border Service of Ukraine announced the beginning of a naval blockade of the peninsula. It will hardly surprise anyone if the border guards of the “Independence” begin to sink the ships of their businessmen.
But the most difficult thing for Crimea was the energy blockade. Everyone warned about its likelihood: from functionaries of the Kyiv government and Ukrainian Nazis to Russian political scientists. But we preferred, despite previous events, to believe in “respectful partnership.”
On November 20, Mejlis militants blew up the supports of two power lines: Melitopol - Dzhankoy and Kakhovskaya - Titan. Two days later, the remaining lines Kakhovskaya - Ostrovskaya and Kakhovskaya - Dzhankoy were also cut off.
Judging by the reaction of the Ukrainian media, the country's establishment was happy about this, as they coquettishly put it, “blackout.” In theory, it was possible to simply turn off the “switch” and not commit what even the German Foreign Ministry called a “crime.” But, apparently, it is not customary to think rationally in modern Ukraine.
It seems that the “radicals” were given instructions: to plunge Crimea into a humanitarian catastrophe as boldly as possible. And no one pays attention to such trifles as collateral losses. Not for the loss of annual revenue of approximately 230 million dollars, which Crimea regularly paid to Ukraine. Not the threat of an accident at the Zaporozhye and South Ukrainian nuclear power plants, which were forced to urgently drop 500 MW of power. There is no risk of leaving two thousand people in the Ukrainian energy system unemployed. There is no danger of cutting off power in parallel to Kherson and Nikolaev region.
But what can we take from today’s Ukraine? But two million of our citizens are really forced to think about survival. And no one can say for sure when this will end.
It is known that Crimea’s maximum demand for electricity is 1,200 MW; the peninsula generates only 30% of this power itself. Almost 700 MW came from Ukraine.
The project to build an energy bridge from mainland Russia promises to be long and expensive. It will cost the treasury 47 billion rubles.
After the blackout, the Chinese cable-laying Kerch Strait started working day and night. It is gratifying that good relations with Russia are more valuable to China than the international status of Crimea, but so far, according to the most optimistic forecasts, the peninsula will become completely energy independent only by the beginning of 2017.
And most importantly, the question remains of what else the dashing boys, or those who spur them on to “great achievements,” are ready to do.
Now an instructor of the Donbass battalion Dmitro Riznichenko(the greyhound tamer of Donbass) called for “immediately torpedoing the Chinese cable-laying ship.” The journalist echoes him Matvey Ganapolsky, like the goddess Erinyes, performing an angry aria on the air of Ukrainian radio: “Whatever has been done Russian Federation regarding the development of Crimea, it will all be blown up... They will lay some kind of cable. Well, they won’t guard it along its entire length - someone in scuba gear will definitely swim up, put explosives and it will explode. I just understand, I feel that no one will forgive or forget.”
And who will guarantee that these hysterios and inadequates will not try to implement their plans? Moreover, if behind them is the power of inadequate people. And the approval of “global patrons”.
And what, we again ask our fellow citizens in Crimea to endure, have fun, sing around the fires, enjoy immersion in the primitive world?
In general, should we support a country that is hostile to us? Interesting fact. Since Soviet times, we have had a single energy system with Ukraine. The Kharkov and Sumy regions depend more than half on electricity supplies from Russia. Crimea paid Ukraine 3.4 rubles per kWh, and Russia supplied Ukraine at a price of 2.3 rubles per kWh. Maybe we should at least equalize prices if we don’t dare threaten to cut off the electricity?
It was reported that Russia has stopped supplying coal to Ukraine. An effective measure? How to proceed? What will happen next? Talk to experts about this.
Head of the Communist Party faction in the State Duma Gennady Zyuganov:
Head of the Communist Party faction in the State Duma Gennady Zyuganov (Photo: Alexander Shcherbak/TASS)Of course, it is necessary to separate Ukraine as a country and its current government. Ukraine is our brother. The Nazi-Bandera regime, which seized power in Kyiv by force, is unfriendly to us. Now he is pursuing a frankly idiotic policy. Only idiots can buy coal in South Africa when it is nearby, only criminals and idiots can shoot cities, as they did with Donetsk, Lugansk, Kramatorsk, Slavyansk. And only idiots can cover up the criminal behavior of those who blow up electrical substations and networks in order to cut off power to Crimea, which Kiev considers theirs.
Although it is clear that Crimea is ours, he returned to his native harbor, to his homeland - Russia. But the Ukrainian authorities say that this is not so. Why blow up power lines? Moreover, Kyiv made money from the supply of electricity, but was not able to heat and feed its people.
Sergey Shargunov: It’s clear with the Kyiv authorities, but didn’t we miss the sabotage?
Editor-in-chief of the portal " Free press", writer Sergei Shargunov (Photo: Yuri Mashkov/TASS)Gennady Zyuganov: You missed it, Sergei. The situation now would not be so critical if the Russian leadership pursued a more energetic policy. We found an opportunity to open the Yeltsin Center. They themselves talked about the “dashing nineties”, they themselves talked about what the Americanized camarilla was doing then. Our Prime Minister had to go to Crimea and hold a planning meeting there with ministers, think about solving the problem. It was necessary to put forward strict demands on the Kyiv administration. We supplied them with gas and made concessions on debts. We have a lot of leverage to force the authorities in Kyiv to make more responsible decisions. But nothing is being done.
Crimea was annexed to Russia a year and a half ago. During this time, it would have been possible to lay the cable long ago. The western semi-ring of the Great Ring of the Moscow Railway was built in a few months during the war years. And then it was necessary to supply the army, regroup troops, there was a shortage of everything, but they coped with the task. In Crimea, it was possible to solve the problem with generators and spare capacity. The current helpless government is simply setting our country up in Crimea.
The trouble is that the government is constantly increasing taxes on ordinary people. Either they refuse to index pensions for pensioners, or they charge for road travel, or they increase transport taxes. By and large, government policies are provoking mass outrage. We believe that this should not be the case.
Writer, editor-in-chief of Literaturnaya Gazeta Yuri Polyakov:
Writer, editor-in-chief of Literaturnaya Gazeta Yuri Polyakov (Photo: TASS)I am not a politician or an economist. But I, of course, have some kind of humanitarian instinct as a writer and journalist. In my opinion, the inappropriate and sometimes hooligan behavior of the Ukrainian authorities at the state level is due to the fact that we continue to traditionally treat the long-independent state as some kind of “family runt.” They say that family closeness forgives rudeness, arrogance, and laziness. With this attitude we are only provoking Kyiv. They think: “Where will Russia go? We consider them enemies, but they consider us brothers.” I think that the current attitude towards Ukraine needs to be changed, then sobering up will come.
Sergey Shargunov: Over the past year and a half, was it possible to somehow prepare for “surprises”?
Yuri Polyakov: I think that in the current situation there is guilt that dates back to the Yeltsin period. I’m talking about Moscow’s reluctance to work with the elites of Ukraine, with its information space, to delve into its realities, and to act proactively.
In principle, we should have taken into account the new geopolitical reality much earlier and thought about supplying Crimea. Maybe some of the funds spent on expanding Moscow sidewalks should have been spent on the construction of facilities in Crimea. The fact that the sidewalks widened by two meters only made traffic worse, and this money could probably help Crimea.
What specific actions needed to be taken so that two million of our people would not sit in the dark? My questions about this Director of the Institute of CIS Countries, member of the Public Chamber of Russia Konstantin Zatulin.
Director of the Institute of CIS Countries Konstantin Zatulin (Photo: Vyacheslav Prokofiev/TASS)Sergey Shargunov: Konstantin Fedorovich, the current situation of the Crimeans can hardly be called unexpected.
Konstantin Zatulin: From the moment Crimea voted to become part of Russia, there should have been no doubt that the peninsula would be in the area of close attention of Kyiv. It was clear that the Ukrainian authorities would try to cause damage to Crimea, and the further, the more severely. Last year the water supply was already cut off. We had to urgently correct the situation; units of the Ministry of Defense urgently laid flexible water pipelines to supply people.
If we continue our policy of non-resistance to evil through violence, then Ukraine may decide to take more decisive steps. First for sabotage and partisan actions, and then for everything else. While they are trying to cause damage to Crimea in indirect ways.
We saw an energy blockade. I do not extend my words to the entire Ukrainian people, but as a state, Ukraine is a weak and deceitful country. It has been like this since independence in 1991. We see that it is the Ukrainian authorities who stand behind the Mejlis and the Right Sector; they encourage extremists.
The situation is generally twofold. On the one hand, the authorities in Kyiv benefit from the actions of radicals, since they cause harm to Russians in Crimea. On the other hand, in the internal Ukrainian discourse it turns out that the radicals are fighting Russia, and the authorities are inconsistent. It is important for us that the authorities and the radicals are thinking about how to harm Crimea more and more painfully.
Sergey Shargunov: Could hostile actions have been prevented?
Konstantin Zatulin: All unfriendly steps could have been foreseen. In general, the leadership of the country, the government, understood everything before. But until the thunder strikes...
The right warnings and ideas fade and fade away at the bureaucratic level. Head of the Republic of Crimea Sergey Aksenov removed his Minister of Fuel and Energy for falsity in drawing up rolling blackout schedules. But we are rushing around like crazy with our Ministry of Energy, which should have provided the peninsula with electricity long ago, and which it has only started doing now.
I know very well: there were a lot of proposals for energy supply to Crimea. Conventional and unique from a technical point of view. By now, it was possible, if not to completely remove the issue of dependence on Ukraine, then to solve most of the problems. But all proposals were put on hold. It’s just that our ministry has become a toy in the hands of energy lobbyists who are interested in increasing sales of produced electricity. They are located in the Krasnodar region and Naryan-Mar. Therefore, the ministry chose the most costly and long-term implementation method to solve the problem of Crimea’s energy dependence, that is, they began to build an energy bridge. Now they will tell us how it is being built and what the prospects will be.
It was necessary to focus on creating modern energy sources in Crimea itself. Let's say there is a power plant already installed for Sochi, but the resort city does not need such capacity. And for several months now we have had to prove the need to send this station to Crimea. And it produces the same amount as on the peninsula today. But there are people in the ministry who are not thinking about securing Crimea, but about “kickbacks” and “sunsets” associated with cooperation with energy companies. They deliberately delay solving the problem. It would be good to sort this out.
Aksenov dismissed his minister. Perhaps the minister was wrong. But, by and large, his fault is not that big. The amount of energy capacity on the peninsula does not depend on it.
Sergey Shargunov: Maybe it’s worth using some measures of pressure on Ukraine?
Konstantin Zatulin: I was struck by the words of the Minister of Energy Alexandra Novak, who said that we need to think about retaliatory measures. It turns out that for a year and a half he did not think about what kind of “big stick” he needed to have so that Ukraine would not think about causing damage. By the way, not only to Crimea itself, but also to the image of our president and the image of the country as a whole.
Novak's words remind me of his behavior Yegor Gaidar. In 1993, he went to the Duma elections and went to campaign in Krasnodar region. There he issued a phrase after which he could not get votes in Kuban. He said that when carrying out reforms, the government did not take into account the changing seasons in agriculture. Gaidar’s competence immediately became clear.
Everyone knew that Crimea depended on Ukraine. But why didn't the Energy Minister think about this?
Sergey Shargunov: And now there are many levers of influence on Ukraine.
Konstantin Zatulin: Don’t think that Ukraine is very afraid of us. It stopped purchasing gas from us because it successfully filled gas storage facilities under a contract with Gazprom. Now in Kyiv they believe that there is enough gas. If we thought, we would connect one with the other. The cessation of gas purchases by Ukraine means the onset of a certain period of energy independence for the country. This means that this period will be used for provocations.
Now Ukrainian power plants operate on coal from Donbass, which came through our railways. Last year Yatsenyuk I have already experimented with purchasing anthracite from South Africa. It turned out that there are different types of coal and African coal is not suitable for Ukrainian stations. We can set a condition: coal in exchange for stopping the outrages on Ukrainian territory. Let them not say that they cannot repair power lines in any way.
Poroshenko openly says that Russia is to blame for undermining power lines. As if this happened on our territory. Until Russia shows toughness, these people in Kyiv will continue to mock. We must show Kyiv that Russia is a country that does not give offense to its citizens. Those who allowed the current situation in Crimea to happen must be punished.
It is possible to put Ukraine in a position in which our favor will depend on its behavior.
He told me about the current situation on the peninsula Crimean journalist Sergei Kulik:
Crimean journalist Sergei Kulik (Photo: Courtesy of Sergei Kulik)Our central regional hospital in Dzhankoy was cut off from power, but they turned on a backup generator and brought the situation under control. In rural areas the situation is more complicated. The shutdown schedule has already been drawn up, but it is not followed; they can turn it off in the morning for three hours, then in the evening for three hours, sometimes for half a day at once. In Kerch, in Shchelkino, the situation is simply terrible. Shchelkino is a city of power engineers who built a nuclear power plant, but then construction was frozen in the late 1980s. Over the past 23 years, they didn’t even install gas there; people cooked in their homes only on electric stoves. People are forced to stand in line for water and boiling water, which are issued by the Ministry of Emergency Situations.
Information is being spread that not all the generators that arrived before the blockade went as intended. Let the prosecutor's office figure out where they went.
Big problems arose in Crimea with transport.
Now people would like to know the shutdown schedule. Let's say from 9 am to 3 pm there will be no light. And then I got ready to do something, but suddenly there was no light.
Hatred towards those who seized power in Kyiv is, of course, growing.
It’s hard, but people don’t lose heart. We even joke that thanks to Ukraine, in nine months we will have a new army. And no one is saying that we made the wrong choice a year and a half ago. But let Russia not let its own people be offended!
* - “Right Sector” was recognized by the Supreme Court as an extremist organization, its activities in Russia are prohibited.
Seamless input Hitler's troops to the territory of Czechoslovakia was preceded by consent wrested through violence and threats from the then Czechoslovak President Emil Haha.
“I have decided to declare that I am placing the fate of the Czech people and state in the hands of the leader of the German people,”- Gaha said on Czech Radio upon returning from Berlin.
The Czech army was ordered to remain in the barracks and surrender their weapons. On the same day, March 15, Adolf Hitler arrived in Prague. The Czech government under the leadership of Rudolf Beran decided to resign, but President Haha refused to relieve the cabinet of ministers from office.
A day later, Hitler announces the creation of the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia at Prague Castle.
Was it possible to turn the arrows of history in a different direction, to what extent was the decision of Nazi Germany “unexpected” for the Czechoslovak authorities?
Back in February 1936, a letter with a proposal for cooperation, signed “Karl,” arrived by mail at the headquarters of the Czechoslovak intelligence services. Its author, as it later turns out, is Paul Thümmel (agent A 54), a high-ranking Abwehr official officially acting against Czechoslovakia. Thümmel, a member of the Nazi Party since 1927, is considered a personal friend of Heinrich Himmler.
“At the time when Thümmel’s proposal came, Czechoslovakia’s position in the international arena was quite satisfactory. Our state concluded a number of agreements with its allies, mainly with France, as well as with the countries of the Little Entente - that is, with Romania and Yugoslavia, and from May 1935 with Soviet Union», - historian Jiri Plachy explains in an interview with Czech Radio.
However, relations with its closest neighbors were problematic; after the Nazis came to power, relations with Germany began to deteriorate sharply; relations with Hungary were also unsatisfactory, and, at certain intervals, even with Poland. All controversial issues related to the situation of national minorities, as well as territorial claims.
Despite the rather detailed information about the nature of the impending occupation, voiced by Thummel on March 11, 1939, Czechoslovak politicians refuse to believe such a negative scenario.
“We can say that information about plans for the occupation of Czech lands by Hitler’s troops came to the headquarters of the Czech military intelligence from the beginning of March. Its main source was agent A 54, the information he provided was decisive for Colonel Frantisek Moravec (one of the leaders of the Czechoslovak intelligence services). Information in a similar vein came from the French intelligence services. The authors of a number of warning messages were also Czech agents monitoring the demarcation line, as well as those who acted directly on German territory,”- says historian Jiri Plachy.
How can one evaluate, to a certain extent, the “inaction” of the then Czechoslovak political representatives from today’s perspective?
“We must clearly understand that the Czechoslovak border in March 1939 passed north of the city Miller. If we want to open a discussion on the topic: “Did Czechoslovakia need to fight back?”, then we need to go back to September 1938 (the time when the Munich Agreement was signed on the transfer of the Sudetenland by Czechoslovakia to Germany, editor’s note). In March 1939, the armed confrontation of the Czechoslovak army would have slowed down the occupation only for a matter of hours. Such an act could not even be called a courageous gesture; it would be simply a massacre. The war should have started back in September 1938,”- concludes historian Jiri Plachy.
