DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
WebWar
HTML https://webwar.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Ιστορία κ&#...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 20391--------------------------------------------------
Ποιοι προκά	
55;εσαν τον Β' Π	
45;γκόσμιο Πόλ
εμο
By: Long Knives 88 Date: January 19, 2016, 5:33 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Ο Ζντάνοφ
στην
Πράβντα (29-6-1939)
εξηγεί την
ευθύνη των
Αγγλογάλλω_
7;
για τον
πόλεμο που
έρχεται.
ENGLISH AND FRENCH GOVERNMENTS DO NOT WANT AN EQUAL TREATY WITH
THE USSR
The Anglo-French-Soviet talks for the conclusion of an effective
pact of mutual assistance against aggression, are in a
stalemate. Despite the absolute clarity of the position of the
Soviet government, despite all the efforts of the Soviet
government to the rapid conclusion of the mutual assistance
pact, we see no progress in more or less significant in the
progress of the talks.
This fact can not but have a serious meaning in the current
international situation. It revived the hopes of the aggressors
and the enemies of peace, to derail the agreement between
democratic states against aggression, it pushes the attackers to
a broader development of aggression.
In this respect, a question arises: where lies the cause of the
delay in the talks, including the favorable completion which is
eagerly awaited and expected by all peace-loving peoples, by all
the friends of peace?
Allow me to express a personal opinion on this, although my
friends did not agree with me. They continue to consider that
starting talks for mutual assistance pact with the USSR, the
British and French governments had the serious intention to
develop a powerful barrier against aggression in Europe.
I think and I will try to prove by facts, that the British and
French governments do not want to be treated as equals with the
USSR, that is to say the only kind of treaty that can accept a
State respectable - and precisely this circumstance is the cause
of stagnation of the state where the talks are.
What are these facts? The Anglo-Soviet talks in the direct sense
of the term, that is to say from the moment the first English
proposals were submitted on 15 April were already going on for
75 days, of which 16 days were spent by the Soviet government to
prepare the response to the different English proposals and
other 59 days were employed by the British and the French to
slow down and drag it out. One wonders who carries, in this
case, the responsibility, the fact that the talks are
progressing so slowly, if not the English and the French?
The practice of international agreements, similar to the
Anglo-Franco-Soviet agreement shows that England has signed a
mutual assistance pact with Turkey and with Poland in a short
time. It follows that when England desired the treaty with
Turkey and Poland, she knew how to ensure desirable pace in
conducting talks.
These endless unacceptable procrastinations and delays in the
talks with the USSR are making us doubt the sincerity of the
true intentions of England and France, and force us to ask the
question what is precisely the basis of such a policy: serious
aspirations to ensure the front Peace or desire to use these
talks and the delay of the talks for some other purposes that
have nothing to do with the work of creating a peaceful powers
front.
Such questions arise, especially since during the talks the
British and French governments piled artificial difficulties,
created an appearance of serious disagreements between Britain
and France on the one hand, and the USSR on the other, on issues
that could be resolved without delays and without obstacles,
provided a good will and sincere intentions of England and
France.
We know, for example, that such a "stumbling block",
artificially conceived in the talks is the question of the
guarantee by the three powers of immediate assistance to Latvia,
Estonia and Finland, If their neutrality would be violated by
the aggressors; allegations that the Baltic states mentioned
they do not want this guarantee and that these so-called
circumstances prevent England and France from accepting the
Soviet proposals are obviously inconsistent and can not be
dictated by none other than the sole intention of making talks
fail.
In any case, we know the facts testifying that when England
considers itself interested in ensuring any country, it imakes
any pact without waiting for the country to require guarantees
for them.
English newspaper The Sunday Times wrote in its issue of June 4
that "Poland expressed its consent in case Britain would be
driven to war in connection with the aggression against Holland,
to help Britain, on the other hand, Britain has agreed to assist
Poland in case it would be driven to war with an attack against
Danzig or Lithuania. "
Thus it follows that the UK can simultaneously guarantee Poland,
Lithuania and Holland. I do not know if Lithuania and Holland
were asked their opinion on this bilateral guarantee - in any
case there was no article on this in the press - but Holland and
Lithuania deny having requested this guarantee. However, the
bilateral pact guaranteeing these countries is already concluded
according to the Sunday Times.
It was not long ago, when the Polish Foreign Minister, Beck,
interviewed by a French journalist, said, among other things,
unequivocally, that Poland demanded nothing, asked nothing about
guarantees from the USSR and was fully satisfied by the fact
that a recently concluded trade agreement existed between Poland
and the USSR.
So what in the position of Poland is different, in this case,
from the position of the governments of the three Baltic States?
Absolutely nothing. This does not prevent England and France to
demand of the USSR guarantees not only for Poland, but for the
other four states which we do not know if they want to have a
guarantee from the USSR, and also a guarantee for Holland and
Switzerland with which the USSR does not even have simple
diplomatic relations.
All these facts show that the English and the French do not want
a treaty with the USSR based on the principle of equality and
reciprocity; although they swear every day to "equality," they
want a treaty where the USSR plays the compact loader role and
bears alone all the weight of engagement.
However, no self-respecting country would accept such a treaty
if it does not want to be a toy in the hands of people who like
to pull the chestnuts out of the fire for them by others. A
fortiori, such a treaty can not be accepted by the USSR whose
strength, power and dignity are known worldwide. It seems to me
that the English and the French do not want a real treaty,
acceptable to the USSR, but only conversations about a treaty,
to speculate on the alleged intransigence of the USSR before
public opinion in their country and make easier the path of
compromise with the assailants. The next few days should show
whether this is so or not.
*****************************************************