Was it possible to prevent a world war. Could the war have been avoided? What is a duplicate

History does not tolerate the subjunctive mood. Therefore, I will not fantasize about what would happen as a result of a change in certain historical decisions. I just want to take a small step towards understanding whether the war of 1941-45 as such could have been avoided.

Illustrated - Caricature by Clifford Barriman, 1939

Consideration of the prerequisites for World War II traditionally begins with a mention of the Treaty of Versailles. It was a humiliating agreement for Germany, limiting her in the military-political sphere. The Versailles Treaty was one of the reasons for the coming to power of Adolf Hitler.

In 1933, Germany ceases to comply with the restrictions of the Treaty of Versailles and begins to build up its armed forces.

In 1936 Hitler gets Mussolini to agree to the annexation of Austria. In the same year, Germany concludes with Japan the Anti-Comintern Pact (a pact on the fight against communism). In 1938 Germany annexes Austria. In the same year, as a result of the Munich Agreement, Germany divides Czechoslovakia with the participation of Poland and Hungary.

In 1939 Germany begins the Polish campaign. The partition of Poland is being conducted ... jointly with the USSR, in accordance with the secret protocol to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.

In 1940 Germany occupies Denmark, Norway, Belgium and the Netherlands. In the same year, France surrenders. Germany goes to war with Great Britain.

From the listed facts it is clear that the war was gaining momentum and Hitler was not going to stop there. It is especially noteworthy that Germany consistently attacked everyone with whom it had previously entered into agreements on the division of other countries. With the participation of Great Britain and Poland, Czechoslovakia was divided. After that, Poland itself was occupied and war was declared on Great Britain. The partition of Poland was carried out with the participation of the USSR - is it any wonder that the USSR itself became Hitler's next target?

And what happened on the part of the Soviet Union itself?

1939-1940 - Soviet-Finnish war. 1940 - the accession to the Soviet Union of the Baltic States, Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina (previously part of Romania). The participation of the USSR in the partition of Poland has already been mentioned.

And although the Soviet Union did not conduct such large-scale acquisitions of neighboring territories as Germany, it would be wrong to call the USSR's policy passive.

Both states - both Germany and the USSR - pursued a policy of seizing and annexing neighboring territories. The two totalitarian powers were moving towards each other.

By 1941, the situation was like this that on the same continent there were two totalitarian regimes and each of them declared its idea as the only correct one. The general idea of ​​German Nazism was the idea of ​​the superiority of the Aryan race over others. The general idea of ​​communism was the idea of ​​the superiority of the Soviet system over all others. The goal of Nazism is to ensure the well-being of its people at the expense of other nations. The goal of communism is the so-called "world revolution". Both totalitarian regimes each moved towards their own goal, planting their ideas in the border areas. They moved at different speeds, but their meeting was inevitable and given the territorial proximity - the meeting could not be postponed for a long time.

What theoretical possibilities were there to avoid a collision of two totalitarian regimes?

1 - The fall of one of the regimes due to internal problems. However, we know that the Stalinist regime was internally stable enough to survive until the death of the "father of all nations." The Hitler regime also did not experience serious internal problems until the moment when the war acquired a character unfavorable for Hitrel. Therefore, there is no reason to believe that one of the regimes could have disintegrated by itself before a collision would have occurred. Even if this collision were delayed for several years.

2 - Destruction of one of the modes by external opponents. But who could destroy Hitler faster than the USSR? Great Britain was focused on its own defense, France surrendered, Italy became Hitler's ally, the United States is geographically too far away to destroy Hitler before he goes to war with the USSR.

Was there an opportunity for two totalitarian regimes to meet and coexist peacefully? I guess not.

The plan of attack on the USSR (Barbarossa) was developed by the Wehrmacht in mid-1940 and approved by Hitler by the end of the year. Thus, the USSR became Hitler's goal in advance, long before the start of the war. It should be remembered that back in 1936 Germany signed the Anti-Comintern Pact with Japan. There is not a single serious reason to assume that in 1941 Hitler could have changed his mind and forgot about his long-term plans (which, it should be noted, did not hatch alone, but together with his party colleagues).

There are versions that Stalin had similar plans to attack Germany and capture Europe. But even without them - Hitler's one aspiration to the east was enough for a clash and the start of a war.

What else could have stopped Hitler? Atomic bomb? But in 1941 it did not exist. With the most intensive development that took place during the war, the atomic bomb appeared only in 1945.

Based on these historical facts, I come to the conclusion that the collision of the totalitarian regimes of Germany and the USSR with a large-scale war - since 1940, was already inevitable.

Perhaps earlier, in 1936-1939, there were some opportunities for Great Britain, France and the United States to restrain the growth of the military power of Hitlerite Germany and thereby "defuse" this bomb. But they did not take advantage of those opportunities. Apparently, they simply did not want to interfere with Hitler, since they considered not him, but Stalin, more dangerous. Hitler - in 1936 he was considered a very progressive respectable politician. Time magazine printed his portrait on the cover. Concentration camps did not exist yet. There was a successful European politician, Adolf Hitler, who rallied his nation and brought Germany out of a protracted crisis. They were not afraid of him. They were afraid of Stalin.

And in 1940 it was too late.

All that could have changed in 1940-1941 was the order of events. Hitler could postpone the attack on the USSR until a later date in order to preliminarily break the resistance of Great Britain. What would be different from this? Basically - nothing. Germany's attack on the USSR might not have been so sudden, but a situation might have arisen in which the USSR would have attacked first. I will not speculate about how the course of the war, its duration and losses as a result of any changes in the timing and order of the attack, would have changed. In any case, the losses would have been huge. Two totalitarian systems, two war machines, tuned in to the total destruction of the enemy - they could not have limited themselves to a short war, they would not have retreated from their goal either in 1941 or in 1942. They would not have crumbled on their own. Everything turned out in such a way that these systems had to collide and fight until the destruction of one of them. History developed in such a way that these systems collided on June 22, 1941 and the Soviet Union defeated in a brutal bloody war with the support of its allies - Great Britain and the United States, which, of course, should not be forgotten.

We won that inevitable war.

We suffered huge losses, but we won.

And no matter what mistakes in the preparation and conduct of the war were committed by Stalin and / or the Soviet military leaders, the main historical event of 1941 - the beginning of the Great Patriotic War - was not their mistake. As of 1941, this was a historical inevitability.

I came to this understanding as a result of studying the historical background of the Second World War. Perhaps you have learned or understood something new for yourself.

A meeting of the Conservative Perspective Discussion Club was held in St. Petersburg yesterday. The club is a joint project of the Russian Narodnaya Line, the St. Petersburg branch of the Russian Assembly and the North-West Institute of Management of the Russian Academy of National Economy and Public Administration under the President of Russia (SZIU RANEPA).

Editor-in-chief of "Russian Narodnaya Liniya", Chairman of the international public organization "Russian Assembly" Anatoly Dmitrievich Stepanov Opening the meeting, he noted that without February there would have been no October. Today, the February revolution is of particular relevance, which shook the foundations of the state. In February 1917, the Bolsheviks could not take power in the monarchical state, but in October, when the power weakened and devalued, the radicals were at the head of the state. From the point of view of the present moment, this topic is relevant in connection with the incessant attempts to arrange a color revolution. The 5th anniversary of the failed attempt to make such a revolution in Russia makes us look with alarm at the events of a century ago. Why did the February revolution take place? Why did society and the state become hostile to each other? Why did the right-wing forces find themselves on the sidelines of the historical process? These questions arise when comprehending the lessons of the February revolution.

Director of the North-West Institute of Management of the Russian Academy of National Economy and Public Administration under the President of Russia, Doctor of Economics, Candidate of Historical Sciences, Professor Vladimir Alexandrovich Shamakhov I am sure that in 2017 the topic raised will be the main one, taking into account everything that will happen in Russia next year. The world does not distinguish between the February and October revolutions, which are perceived as a single Russian revolution - the most important historical event that changed the path not only of Russia, but also of the world. The scientist considers it wrong to understand the vicissitudes of the past without projecting those historical events onto the present and the future. It is unacceptable to limit the comprehension of revolutionary events within the framework of a populist, showman format. The revolution should be studied from a scientific point of view, taking into account different points of view. Studying that historical experience will provide some lessons. Vladimir Alexandrovich considers it necessary to involve young people in this process.

Then the main report "Lessons of February: the 100th anniversary of the revolution in Russia" was made by the doctor of historical sciences Andrey Alexandrovich Ivanov... The scientist is convinced that the revolution was almost inevitable, since the collapse of the existing state order was inevitable. If only for the simple reason that he practically did not suit anyone, with the exception of a small group of guards. Oppositional and revolutionary forces were replenished with representatives of various classes and estates, including the nobility and clergy. The conservative forces were not happy with the changes that had taken place since 1905. The nobility ceased to be the force that built the state. The system was doomed.

The historian criticized the views prevailing in the patriotic environment that the revolution was made by Freemasons, foreigners and foreign agents. Everyone is to blame. The creators of the February revolution were generals, millionaire entrepreneurs, liberal leaders of the zemstvo movement, nobles, Grand Dukes, the parliamentary elite, state dignitaries and even monarchists (V.V.Shulgin, V.M. Purishkevich, etc.).

The speaker asked the question: "Did this mean that life in Russia was unbearable, that the government was mediocre, that the potential of the monarchy was exhausted?" Of course not. Russia was developing rapidly economically, however, the First World War worsened the economic situation. Society was convinced that it couldn't be worse. The historian is convinced that it was hardly possible at all to avoid a state collapse. Russia has been rolling towards revolution since the reforms of Alexander II; under Alexander III, the processes were frozen.

The Black Hundred (right-wing) parties, which became a formidable counter-revolutionary force in 1905-1907, in February 1917 were unable not only to stop the revolution that had begun in the capital of the Empire, but also to offer it at least some organized resistance. The right camp met the February revolution in a state of complete confusion, deep despondency and, with the awareness of its own doom, was in a state of disintegration. In addition, the alienation of monarchical structures from government power, which shunned them, had an effect. The Russian rightists believed that it was the state power that should act as the main counter-revolutionary force, and their task was only to help it in this "crusade", as it was during the 1905 revolution.

The tragedy of the position of the right was intensified by the fact that, having lost the support of the broad masses by 1917, they clearly saw the approaching revolutionary storm. Moreover, they managed with great predictive accuracy to predict both their defeat and the sad result of the activities of the liberal opposition, which ended with the collapse of the imperial statehood and the triumph of left radicalism. The right-wingers turned out to be prophets, the liberals who came to power as a result of the February revolution demonstrated a complete inability to govern.

All the weakness and lack of vitality of the "recipes" proposed by representatives of the right camp lay in the fact that by that time there was no decisive power in the country, no administration ready to take on personal responsibility, no generals loyal to the monarch, or united monarchist parties. Therefore, the seemingly harmonious and logical proposals of the right could not be implemented in February 1917.

Despite the understanding that the revolution was becoming inevitable, practically none of the right-wingers allowed the idea that it would happen in February 1917.

The liberals, for their part, through the media shattered the people's faith in the government, the state and the Tsar. As a result, the power was desacralized and the people lost confidence in the state power as such.

The monarchy fell not because its enemies were strong, but because its defenders were weak. There were no people in power capable of delaying the onset of the revolution.

The right-wingers expected the revolution to come from above, not from below. They failed to predict who would be the driving force behind the February revolution.

The "voluntary" abdication of Emperor Nicholas II from the throne, which freed the right-wingers from the oath, only increased their confusion. The appeal of Nicholas II also played a role, who in his last address to his subjects asked them "at all costs" to continue the war with Germany, calling for "close unity and rallying of all the forces of the people for the speedy achievement of victory." As a result, the monarchists were forced to submit to the monarch's will and abandon the struggle with the Provisional Government in the name of Russia's victory over Germany, which could only be possible if the army maintained obedience to a single power, and would not be drawn into civil confrontation.

But besides all that has been said, there was another extremely important point that the right-wingers realized only in emigration: the revolution that broke out in 1917, in contrast to the revolution of 1905, took place under national, patriotic banners. If the creators of the 1905 revolution, which began during the Russian-Japanese war, adhered to defeatist sentiments and anti-patriotic rhetoric, then the "heroes of February" called for patriotism, war to a victorious end and the elimination of the "German" dynasty, which allegedly interfered with the triumph of Russian national interests. Taking into account past mistakes, the leaders of the liberal opposition managed to play the patriotic card, depriving the right of their main trump card - the monopoly on patriotism. Patriotic rhetoric allowed the liberal opposition (unlike during the first Russian revolution) to establish close contact with the highest ranks of the army and win them over to its side.

Liberal media have instilled in people the conviction that it is impossible to live like this, they managed to reorient society.

Under these conditions, the rapid collapse of the Russian monarchists became a foregone conclusion and inevitable. The weakness and fragmentation of the monarchist forces, the self-elimination of the government, the "voluntary" abdication of the Tsar and the national character of the revolution, which met with the broadest support in all strata of Russian society, deprived the political struggle for the restoration of autocracy of meaning - it was not blessed by either the Tsar, the Church or the people and did not promise anything but serious troubles to the supporters of the monarchy.

The report raised many questions. Why didn't the conservative media have a significant impact on public opinion? Was the victory of the Bolsheviks a foregone conclusion? Why did the state system cease to suit all strata of society? What is the role of Great Britain in the events of February 1917? What were the main contradictions of society on the eve of the revolution? What were the moods of the peasantry during the February revolution? What should be the main lesson of February for our contemporaries? What is the role of the Church in these events? Was the abdication of Nicholas II?

After Andrei Alexandrovich answered the questions in detail, the participants in the meeting made remarks.

Deputy Chairman of the Commission of the Public Chamber of Russia for the Harmonization of Interethnic and Interreligious Relations, Director of the Center for Ethno-Religious Research, Chairman of the Department for Relations between Church and Society of the St. Petersburg Diocese Archpriest Alexander Pelin noted with regret that the Holy Synod had welcomed the February revolution and called on to pray for the "noble" Provisional Government. Nicholas II did not support the proposals of the Pre-Council Presence to carry out reforms, primarily to restore the Patriarchate. By that time, the synodal system turned out to be incompetent. The emperor felt himself in the role of a restraining person, but did not have the rank of bishop. Father asked himself a question: would the monarchy be renewed if Nicholas II were elected Patriarch? One of the reasons for the collapse of the autocracy, in his opinion, is the fact that the Patriarchate was restored only in the course of revolutionary events, and not earlier, for example, in 1905-07.

Another reason for the collapse of the regime is that Russia followed the path of developed modernity, having joined the European paradigm. This led to the fall of the authority of faith and religion, science took their place. There was a desacralization of all spheres of human activity. The main lesson of the February revolution - the desacralization of public space - poses a threat to national security.

Doctor of Philosophy, Director of the Russian Institute of Art History of the Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation, Professor Alexander Leonidovich Kazin noted that the meaning of Russian socio-cultural revolutions is manifested in the fact that the people cut off the decayed elites. The February revolution came precisely because the elite had rotted away. The elite that came to replace it lasted no more than 9 months. In the 1930s, Stalin made a revolution, cutting off the Trotskyist, internationalist elite. The Russian Orthodox civilization, the philosopher noted, is restoring its existence through social and cultural upheavals.

Doctor of Psychology, Professor, Honored Scientist of Russia Valentin Evgenievich Semyonov drew an analogy between the beginning of the XX and the beginning of the XXI century. Both periods are characterized by a high decile coefficient, a gap between rich and poor, and a spiritual and moral crisis. Comparative analysis shows that the lessons of history are not taken into account, and our people are unlearned. Today is also a dangerous situation. Our national leader Vladimir Putin is surrounded by liberals, which can lead to dire consequences. The patriots fail to reach the authorities.

Doctor of Economics, Professor Valery Nikolaevich Andreev drew attention to the ethnic composition of the elite of the Russian Empire. The nobility consisted of only 44% Russians, while the population as a whole - 76%. Who will die for such an elite? - the scientist asked a rhetorical question. He urged not to avoid discussing the national idea, which does not in the least interfere with imperial building. Otherwise, the situation may repeat itself. After all, the people refused to defend the USSR, because they did not consider it Russia. And at the present time, Valery Nikolaevich believes, everything is heading towards the fact that the people will cease to support the current state.

Russian thinker, public figure, publicist, editor-in-chief of the philosophical and historical journal "Russian Self-Consciousness" Boris Georgievich Dvernitsky called on to comprehend the February revolution from a Christian point of view. We live in the interval between the First and Second Comings of Christ. In this connection, the disclosure of the Logos is necessary in order to educate a person who will not succumb to the Antichrist.

There have been four types of revolution in the history of Russia. Spiritual, when the Baptism of Rus took place. Thanks to this revolution, our people have found the ideals of Holy Russia and spiritual unity. John the Terrible became the leader of the second, Silver Revolution. At this time, the idea of ​​Moscow - the Third Rome - was proclaimed. Russia has realized its responsibility for world Orthodoxy. The third revolution was made by Peter the Great. He tried to create an Orthodox Russian empire, which was engaged in the Christianization of the peoples living on the territory of Russia. At this time, the concept is being introduced ministries... The Iron Revolution was led by Stalin. Circumstances required a strong leader capable of withstanding evil.

The February revolution, the philosopher believes, was inevitable. But there will be no repetition, although confusion and schism are possible. Our society is split. Therefore, it is necessary to find such an understanding of history that will unite us.

Professor of the North-West Institute of Management of the Russian Academy of National Economy and Public Administration under the President of Russia, Doctor of Philosophy Alexander Ivanovich Kugay noted that Russia is characterized by a personalistic model of power. According to him, the role of the individual in the history of Russia is enormous. The scientist suggested that if Nicholas II had other qualities, he would be forgiven a lot. But he did not have a decisive will.

Doctor of Geological and Mineralogical Sciences, Chief Researcher, St. Petersburg State University Sergey Kirillovich Simakov considers it necessary, when interpreting the revolutionary events of that time, to take into account the encirclement of Russia and the influence of Europe. Since 1613, Russia has been transformed into a semi-European state ruled by the spirit of the European elite. In the course of the revolution, people came to power who were more in line with the Eurasian, semi-Asian character of our country. In 1917, Russia graduated from the European path and went towards Asia. The ascent to Asia, which began then, continues.

Member of the Board of the Bryansk community in St. Petersburg "Peresvet" Alexander Pavlovich Tsybulsky devoted his speech to the spiritual and religious crisis on the eve of the February revolution, which began with the schism of the 17th century. Then there was a rejection of faith, a kind of spiritual breakdown. In our time, there seems to be a symphony of the authorities, but there is no massive influx into the temples.

Archpriest Alexander Pelin agreed with the speaker on the need to take into account the spiritual aspect of the revolution. The priest spoke out against the nationalization of the Church. A contractual relationship should be established between the state and the Church, which would not make the Church a state one, but would allow her to participate in the life of society. The federal law "On freedom of conscience and on religious associations", according to Father Alexander, has a Protestant spirit. If Russia loses the spiritual essence and inner mystery of Orthodoxy, then we will become profane and protest.

Member of the Russian Psychological Society Andrey Alekseevich Lokiev spoke about the psychological background of the influence of the Church and the clergy. Religion gives meaning to life. The value for the Russian people is the possibility of heroic deeds, selfless devotion. In the West, comfort is recognized as a value. It was Orthodoxy that gave the Russian people the opportunity for heroic deeds. The February revolution took place because the elite could not lead the people, as a result, the people lost faith in exploit and trust in the Church. The people followed the Bolsheviks because they called for a heroic deed. For people were tired of being complacent, they were ready to go to perform the feat.

Head of the Center for Ontological Research Igor Evgenievich Shuvalov considers the main lesson of the February revolution to be the neglect of synergy and the structuring of society. By 1917, many simulacra appeared in Russia. The people were not structured, and such a society easily lends itself to propaganda and manipulation. The current automated society must be synergistically structured. He expressed regret that there is no accumulation of results based on the results of numerous round tables. The discussion goes in a circle. Igor Evgenievich called for greater openness, synergy, and sincerity.

Candidate of Historical Sciences Dmitry Igorevich Stogov admitted that many of his colleagues, including patriotic ones, are perplexed why Nicholas II abdicated, why he did not suppress the revolution. The problem is that then in Russia there were no real forces on which the Emperor could rely. Everywhere in the field, police officials were closely associated with liberal and even revolutionary circles. According to the scientist, anti-Russian forces began to penetrate into power, at least from the end of the 18th century, then the first symptoms of this phenomenon were already clearly visible. The current situation is reminiscent of the pre-revolutionary period at the beginning of the 20th century. Vladimir Putin is shackled by the liberal-cosmopolitan elite, which cannot but cause bewilderment among patriotic citizens. In order to reverse the situation, the historian is sure, it is necessary to educate the patriotic elite from kindergarten.

Deputy of the Municipal Council of the Gavan District of the city of St. Petersburg Vadim Viktorovich Rybin believes that the role of Great Britain in unleashing the February revolution is enormous. As evidence, he cited a 1913 British intelligence report to the British government. In this document, Russia is presented as the main geopolitical rival of Great Britain.

Professor at the National Research University Higher School of Economics in St. Petersburg Alexander Sergeevich Skorobogatov believes that it is educated people who pose a danger to Russia. This is evidenced by the February revolution, the dissident movement during the Soviet Union and the current liberal intelligentsia. The fact that education is negatively correlated with religiosity testifies to the nature of the educational system, oriented towards Western achievements in the field of science and culture. The liberal media played a huge role in unleashing the February revolution, which had a significant impact on the consciousness of the people. Unfortunately, the tsarist government left the press at the mercy of the liberals. One of the important lessons from February is that you must not lose control of the media.

Orthodox jurist Konstantin Borisovich Erofeev perceives the February revolution as a situation when Russia, having disintegrated, fell in front of a weaker enemy. Now our country, maneuvering between the West and the East, can repeat this mistake.

According to the Doctor of Philosophy Professor Alexey Nikolaevich Shvechikov, when comprehending the February revolution, the spiritual factor is underestimated. During the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich, there was the highest point of spirituality in the entire history of Russia. Since then, our country has never risen to such a level again. In 1917, relations between the Tsar and the hierarchy were tense. Misunderstanding between them arose a long time ago. Now the situation is also imperfect. If you do not engage in spiritual work, the consequences can be dire.

Orthodox publicist priest Sergiy Chechanichev believes that during the February revolution, the authorities were slandered, and the people were deceived. Society committed Judas' sin, lost the ability to distinguish between good and evil, ceased to perceive reality, began to feed on illusions. That is why society has embraced the revolution. The speaker is convinced that the overthrow of Nicholas II took place through a conspiracy.

They say that every doctor has his own cemetery. Consultants also have it, only few people admit it. You know, it is very scary to see danger in a person's card and not be able to convince him of its reality. But let me tell you about everything in order.

A long time ago, in 2000, I passed my license and bought my first car. It was a red Volkswagen Golf at the age of 13. As my stepfather said: "It would be better if you bought yourself a Zaporozhets to begin with." I said that because fear made me not very good at driving. Because of this, in the early days of independent driving, I managed to mix up the gas and brake pedals and knocked out 3 cars in the parking lot. I had to rent a garage.

Since they were looking for a garage quickly and not far from the house, they took the first one that came across. To get into it, you had to try - it was located at an angle to the main street. I got into the garage with difficulty, the scratched left door embarrassed me, but what could I do? I learned from my mistakes. Once a neighbor, seeing my efforts as a millimeter woman, offered his help - he drove my car into the garage. So I met my neighbor Leonid Mikhailovich and learned that on this part of the street everyone communicates as in a good communal apartment and his garage is the center of communication.

In my golf, I only changed filters and oil (I was really lucky with the car), and watched how the neighbors carefully pored over their "horses", looked for the cause of the breakdown, retrieved parts, repaired, washed, rubbed! In any weather! Of course, they drove more than mine, not every car can withstand our roads.

If you have ever participated in a team at least once in your life, where everything is for one and one for all, then you will understand me. I have never met such a sincere friendship, mutual assistance, mutual assistance anywhere else. We celebrated birthdays and the first Friday of the week, in the summer we grilled kebabs for no reason, but in order to just get together and talk to everyone. I repeat: the center of our Universe was Leonid Mikhailovich, just Lenya or simply Mikhalych.

I have one photograph left. Mikhalych sits to my left. That was such a simple relationship.

Leonid Mikhailovich turned out to be a first-class auto repairman. It seems to me that he could disassemble and assemble any engine with his eyes closed. He had several garages, and he earned money by repairing other people's cars and resale of restored cars. How it was all legally formalized, did he pay taxes ... guess for yourself ... and he also worked as a locksmith at the factory.

Then I got married and left for Germany.

In August 2017, I visited my parents in Gomel. The phone rings (my mom is using my phone number now). Mikhalych!

- Ohhh, how are you? So are you in Gomel? Let me come to you now, at least see you?

Mikhalych arrived happy, smiling and first of all he handed me his passport: “Vo, threw the guests and rushed to you. Today I am 60 years old! "

To be honest, I was puzzled by his act. On my birthday, call my mother to find out when I’ll arrive, then leave the guests ... And now I think that it was his chance, an inspiration, his sense of self-preservation, a manifestation of his star-savior "lunar virtue", if he would react to our meeting in a different way.

And I was just getting ready to visit a friend, I took a Chinese calendar with me. When Lenya said about 60 years old and showed me his passport, I was alarmed. Because at that time I already had several examples when people born in 1957 did not survive their duplicate in 2017.

What is a duplicate?

This is a doubling of energies.

The sequence of combinations of heavenly trunks and earthly branches has a 60-tiric cycle, that is, it repeats every 60 years, 60 months, 60 days and 60 hours. It is this cyclical nature that helps in predicting or planning events.

That is, the mention of 60 years affected me like a red rag on a bull - danger!

I opened the calendar and found Mikhalych's date of birth.

Cyclicity is paradoxical in that it can repeat the month of birth of a person, especially since in 60 years the months changed 12 times and stood in the same position as at birth. See how it looks.

That is, the current moment has duplicated the year and month of bazi Leonid Mikhailovich. The Chinese say about the duplicate: "One must go." Or a person or time. Since the year and month are responsible for the health and society of a person, then at such moments a situation of confrontation arises - in your environment there is someone who considers himself entitled to claim your place. Especially when the robbers of wealth are doubling.

One more point.

For 60 years, a person passes half of the pillars of fortune. This means that he finds himself in a beat that is directly opposite to his monthly pillar. This is a direct collision, the so-called anti-duplication. ALL people pass this test !!!

In earthly life, this time corresponds to retirement - a person's life changes by 180 degrees. Then he went to work and was needed by everyone, and now he sits at home and watches TV alone. Of course, a lot depends on whether the collision is beneficial, whether it is confirmed over the years, and so on. Here I showed you the very principle of changing energies during the transition to the 7th dozen.

Mikhalych's joy was precisely due to his retirement.

- Everything! Enough! I don't owe anyone anything else. And I'm tired of poking around in cars. I will raise the prices. Whoever doesn't like it - the door is open, I'm not holding anyone. I will work for my own pleasure, when and how much I want. It will be enough for me. I want to travel, see the world.

In this spirit, Mikhalych painted my future life for me.

And I have a red rag looming before my eyes.

After all, there is a third factor- fiery punishment. You know that fiery punishment means betrayal and stabs in the back, in other words, relationship problems. By the personality types and the pillars that shape the punishment, we can guess where to expect trouble.

In Mikhalych's card, fiery punishment was formed due to the coming pillar of luck. That is, the prerequisites for punishment were in the card in the form of harm to the Snake and the Monkey. And tact with the Tiger closed the circuit and a reaction began.

- Lyonya, - I asked carefully. - Are you all right? With clients? With a "roof"?

- Oh, again you are with your Chinese nonsense! Now no one decides for me. Im free person.

... Leonid Mikhailovich was killed a week later - on August 31, 2017 at the entrance of his own house. Rather, family and friends believe he was killed. The police believe that a happy healthy man, who had just retired and planned his life for many years ahead, died from the fact that he himself fell and hit the back of his head on a step and broke his skull.

The date of the tragedy, personally, leaves no doubt in my mind that it was precisely a murder. Fiery punishment in all its glory in the date activates the punishment in the card. I would look for the organizers of the murder among the clients.

But the police officers from the Chinese academies did not finish, so they wrote off the case as an accident. Mikhalych's daughter is going to fight for the truth ... let's see what happens.

Sorry for the sad story, but that's life.

Learn BaZi and take care of yourself!

Irina Makovetskaya,

Feng Shui International Forum Consultant

100 years ago, great powers forgot the art of compromise

It is enough to know the date of the disintegration of the state to understand what's what. And the political system, and the economy, and society, and even the army in 1917 entered a period of crisis. And this despite the fact that in Germany and Austria the situation was in many ways no less desperate, and the Entente, including Russia, was heading towards inevitable victory.

In the year of the centenary of the Sarajevo murder and the beginning of the war, it is impossible to get rid of the question: "Could Russia have avoided active participation in the all-European confrontation?" As you know, shortly before the war, politicians and thinkers who were dissatisfied with the deterioration of relations with Germany, our traditional ally, made themselves known in Russia. So what should be awarded a moral victory to the Russian Germanophiles and sigh that they lost a behind-the-scenes battle in 1914?

But one cannot but take into account the balance of power in Germany. For tango you need two, for political dancing - even more so. Were the Germans ready to make peace with Russia? Ten years before the war - rather, yes. And they strove to destroy the Russian-French alliance, which we will talk about in more detail. But in 1914 the anti-Russian party, contrary to Bismarck's traditions, prevailed among the German "hawks". Germany really needed to expand its territory - and the Polish, Belarusian and Little Russian territories were considered the most attractive space for expansion. Even with a benevolent attitude of Russia towards Berlin, personally towards Kaiser Wilhelm, it would hardly have been possible to moderate the appetites of German imperialism.

The pre-war situation in international politics was somewhat reminiscent of the eve of the Seven Years War, which fell on the years of the reign of Empress Elizabeth Petrovna in Russia. Like Nicholas II, she pursued a policy of peace, for a decade and a half the country did not wage wars.

And the Russian Empire entered the war, in many respects, defending French interests. Russia and France were rarely allies, but before the Seven Years War and before World War I, Paris and St. Petersburg were on the same side of the barricades.

During the Seven Years War, the Russian troops acquired the fame of the most patient and powerful. No one could compare with the Russian grenadiers in bayonet combat. The Prussians were skeptical of the Russian commanders, but Saltykov, Panin and, above all, Rumyantsev showed themselves brightly. They beat Frederick, beat the best Prussian army in the world. For several years, East Prussia, with its capital in Konigsberg, was part of the Russian Empire. And then, overnight, everything was lost ... The death of Empress Elizabeth, the coming to power of the "Holstein" Pyotr Fedorovich - and Russia abruptly changes its political course. By order of the emperor, the Russian army turns its bayonets against the recent allies - the Austrians. And he returns all the conquests to Frederick. The people were left with a residue from a senseless war - noticeable even from the drawn-out soldiers' songs:

He gave me something to drink, my mother, the Prussian king,

He gave me three drinks, all three different:

Like his first drinker - a lead bullet,

As his second drink - a sharp peak,

Like his third drinker - a sharp saber ...

At the beginning of the twentieth century, the situation in the European orchestra was no less acute and contradictory. By 1914, French capital had acquired a great deal of importance in Russia. France was the largest investor in the Russian economy and, of course, every investment was not disinterested. The union was burdensome for our country: Russian diplomacy lost room for maneuver.

The Russian Emperor and the German Kaiser, as you know, were cousins ​​and for many years were considered almost friends. The genealogy of the Romanov and Hohenzollern families is closely intertwined. The two monarchs met in 1884 - that is, by the beginning of the war they had known each other for thirty years. Young Wilhelm then came to Russia with a festive purpose - to award Tsarevich Nikolai Alexandrovich with the German Order of the Black Eagle. It is not known how sincere and friendly their relationship was at that time, but after they met, a fairly active and frank correspondence began.

In those years, the all-powerful Bismarck relied on close cooperation with Russia. Kaiser Frederick III adhered to a different opinion, who, like the great Prussian namesake, fell into dependence on Britain. Bismarck managed to play on the contradictions between father and son: Friedrich was drawn to the West, Wilhelm - to the East. The latter became a frequent guest in Russia, as it seemed, a friend of our country. Nikolai and Wilhelm ... It is impossible to imagine them as enemies in those years. Correspondence testifies to a trusting relationship. True, contemporaries testify that Nikolai Alexandrovich, like his father, Emperor Alexander Alexandrovich, did not favor German relatives. And to the attempts of the familiar attitude of the Germans to the Empress Alexandra - "the Prussian princess" - Nicholas was extremely hostile.

But in their correspondence they showed themselves not only as monarchs, but also as diplomats. And a diplomat needs honed duplicity. It is known that in his circle, Wilhelm called the Emperor Alexander III "a man-barbarian" and spoke of him haughtily. And in a letter to Nikolai, sent after the death of his father, Wilhelm finds heartfelt words - unusual in political correspondence: “A difficult and responsible task ... fell on you unexpectedly and suddenly because of the sudden and premature death of your beloved, bitterly mourned father .. The participation and sincere pain that prevails in my country due to the untimely death of your dear father ... ".

The special relationship between the two monarch relatives was emphasized during the visits of the Russian Tsar to Germany and the German Kaiser to Russia. They received each other with special warmth, on a special scale. We hunted together and took part in maneuvers. Correspondence shows that sometimes cousins ​​asked each other for diplomatic services - in relations with Austria, with England ... Wilhelm supported his brother during the Japanese war.

It is no secret that the main headache of the Germans for many years remained the alliance of Russia and France - in many respects a contradictory and even unnatural union of an autocratic (albeit reformed) monarchy and a republic with an anti-monarchist anthem - the Marseillaise.

Wilhelm very cunningly found arguments against the Russian-French alliance, playing on the monarchist views of Nicholas.

It turned out quite convincingly: “I have some political experience, and I see absolutely undeniable symptoms and therefore, in the name of peace in Europe, I hasten to seriously warn you, my friend. If you are connected with the French by an alliance that has vowed to observe "to the grave" - ​​well, then call these damned scoundrels to order, make them sit still; if not, don't let your people go to France and tell the French that you are allies, and frivolously turn their heads until they lose their minds, otherwise we will have to fight in Europe, instead of fighting for Europe against the East! Think of the terrible responsibility for the brutal bloodshed. Well, goodbye, my dear Nicky, sincere greetings to Alice and believe that I am always your loyal and faithful friend and cousin Willie. "

In another letter, the Kaiser theorizes even more extensively: “The French Republic arose out of the great revolution, it disseminates, and inevitably must disseminate, the ideas of revolution. Do not forget that Forsch - through no fault of his own - sits on the throne by the "grace of God" of the king and queen of France, whose heads were cut off by the French revolutionaries! The blood of their majesties still lies on this country. Look at this country, has it managed to become happy or calm again since then? Didn't she stagger from one bloodshed to the next? Didn't this country go from one war to another in its great moments? And this will continue until that time, until it plunges all of Europe and Russia into streams of blood. Until, in the end, she has the Commune again. Nicky, believe my word, the curse of God has branded these people forever! " In many respects, both Nikolai Alexandrovich and his conservative-minded monarchists shared the Kaiser's rejection of France. But they could not turn back the wheel of history: from now on, too much connected Petersburg and Paris.

Gradually, shadows of a future war appear in the correspondence - although, of course, no one could predict its scale: “A few years ago, a decent person - not German by nationality - told me that he was horrified when, in one fashionable Parisian drawing room, he heard the following the answer of the Russian general to the question asked by the French whether Russia will smash the German army: “Oh, we will be smashed to smithereens. Well, then we will have a republic too. " That is why I am afraid for you, my dear Nicky! Don't forget Skobelev and his plan to kidnap (or kill) the imperial family right at dinner. Therefore, make sure that your generals are not too fond of the French Republic. " Here Willie is openly intriguing, trying to drive a wedge between the Russian tsar and his generals ... A true politician!

But many of Wilhelm's assumptions and worries are now perceived as a face-to-face forecast.

The German emperor's verbose revelations were somewhat weary, but he supported this long-term dialogue, realizing its political importance. And these letters show us how long the powers went to a big war, accumulating contradictions. And how many chances to avoid bloodshed (and besides - and the destruction of monarchies) were missed by the royal cousins. And as a result, both turned out to be losers!

They also met two years before the start of the war. Then it was still possible to prevent a catastrophe ...

Well, and the main monument to untapped opportunities is the peace-loving telegram of the Russian emperor to Wilhelm, sent on the troubled days of mobilization, after the Sarajevo shot: with proposals “to continue negotiations for the welfare of ... states and world peace, dear to all ...”, “long-tested friendship must, with God's help, prevent bloodshed. "

It should be remembered that Russia at one time became the initiator of the Hague process - the first attempt to limit lethal weapons in those years when technological progress seemed to have made the great powers omnipotent.

Nicholas II proposes to resolve the conflict between Austria and Serbia with the help of international law and negotiations. Realizing perfectly well that the keys to the world are in the hands of Berlin, not Vienna, he writes to his cousin Willie ... And the once talkative correspondent leaves the historical telegram without a detailed answer. In his telegrams, Wilhelm does not mention the Hague Conference at all ... “No one threatens the honor or strength of Russia, just as no one has the power to nullify the results of my mediation. My sympathy for you and your empire, which my grandfather passed on to me from his deathbed, has always been sacred to me, and I have always honestly supported Russia when she faced serious difficulties, especially during her last war. You can still keep the peace in Europe if Russia agrees to stop its military preparations, which undoubtedly threaten Germany and Austria-Hungary. Willie "- the Kaiser tried to convince the king. Their correspondence remained friendly in form: the cousins ​​thanked each other "for mediation." And the war was already at the door. The deadly battle between the Russians and the Germans is essentially between the peoples on whom so much depended in Europe.

The Germans were in a hurry. They understood that strategically they were inferior to the Entente states - and sought to act boldly, quickly, in the style of Frederick the Great. Their plan - to destroy the French army and take advantage of Britain's weak ground forces - crashed against the Russian army. Wilhelm did not believe that Russia would join the war so quickly and widely, he counted on Russian slowness. And here the question arises: maybe it would be better indeed to wait, to hesitate? Geographic location allowed Russia to play a role in this war, reminiscent of the role of the United States. True, this is only in hindsight, but on paper it looks smooth. And in real history there were allied obligations, and fears for the western regions of the empire, and the eternal striving for the walls of Constantinople ...

It is known: history does not know the subjunctive mood. But the reconstruction of an event, reflections on possible, but failed scenarios are not idle gossip, but a useful and relevant activity. How do “insurmountable contradictions” arise? sometimes - as if they appear out of thin air. And the art of a reasonable compromise has been saving in politics for centuries. A hundred years ago, the great powers forgot about this art - and only countries that were not located on our cramped continent turned out to be beneficiaries.

Especially for the Centenary

The unhindered entry of Nazi troops into the territory of Czechoslovakia was preceded by an agreement wrested by violence and threats from the then Czechoslovak President Emil Hakha.

“I have decided to declare that I am handing over the fate of the Czech people and the state into the hands of the leader of the German people,”- Hacha said on the air of Czech Radio on his return 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 Hach refused to remove the cabinet from office.

A day later, Hitler in Prague Castle announces the creation of the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia.

Was there an opportunity 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 was sent to the headquarters of the Czechoslovak intelligence services with a proposal for cooperation, signed - "Karl". Its author, as it turns out later, is Paul Thummel (agent A 54), a high-ranking official of the Abwehr who is officially acting against Czechoslovakia. Tummel, a member of the Nazi Party since 1927, is considered a personal friend of Heinrich Himmler.

“At the time when the proposal comes from Tyummel, the position of Czechoslovakia in the international arena was quite satisfactory. Our state concluded a number of treaties with allies, mainly with France, as well as with the countries of the "Little Entente" - that is, with Romania and Yugoslavia, and since May 1935 with the Soviet Union ",- explains historian Jiri Plahi in an interview with Czech Radio.

However, relations with the closest neighbors were problematic, after the Nazis came to power, relations with Germany began to deteriorate sharply, relations with Hungary were also unsatisfactory, and with a certain frequency - 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 Tyummel on March 11, 1939, Czechoslovak politicians refuse to believe such a negative scenario.

“We can say that information about the plans to occupy the Czech lands by Nazi 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 special services. The authors of a number of warning messages were also Czech agents monitoring the demarcation line, as well as those who acted directly in Germany, ”- says the historian Jiri Plahi.

How can one assess, 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 town of Melnik. If we want to open a discussion on the topic: "Did Czechoslovakia need to fight back?" In March 1939, the armed confrontation of the Czechoslovak army would have slowed down the occupation for only a few hours. Such an act could not even be called a courageous gesture, it would be just a massacre. The war was supposed to start in September 1938 ",- concludes the historian Jiri Plahi.