President Vladimir Putin’s speech delivered at Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS
President Vladimir Putin
Commonwealth
of Independent States (CIS) is a regional intergovernmental organization
focused on cooperation on political, economic, environmental, humanitarian,
cultural and other issues between a number of former Soviet Republics.
Meetings
of the Council of the Heads of Government, the Council of Ministers of Foreign
Affairs and the Economic Council of the CIS are also held on a regular basis to
discuss issues of interstate cooperation within the framework of the CIS with
the recent one held on December 20 last year at St Petersburg, Russia.
In attendance
during the summit were President of Russia, 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 who took participants down
memory lane told the participants about the archive materials on the
pre-history of World War II and invited them to tour a specially organised
exhibit.
He however, delivered this interesting speech
to the admiration of audience:
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.
President Vladimir Putin’s speech delivered at Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS
Reviewed by PEOPLES MAIL
on
11:17
Rating:
No comments: