Guilt and Repentance
The beginning of the XXI century can well be described as a time of repentance, and the repentance of the innocent. Whites who have never been slaves should bow before blacks who have never been slaves. Normal heterosexual men and women who create families, raise children, should give honors and jobs to homosexuals and transgender people, some of whom already do not understand what gender they belong to.
It is characteristic that those who actually committed inhuman crimes are not going to repent of them at all. The United States of America is in no hurry to recognize the illegitimacy of Operation Iraqi Freedom and the bombing of Yugoslavia, as well as a huge number of other war crimes committed by the US armed forces in different parts of the world. Japan did not condemn the actions of Detachment 731, which conducted inhuman experiments on humans - many of its members lived long lives as respected people - doctors and academics, including repeatedly visiting the United States to exchange experiences.
Turkey completely rejects all accusations of the Armenian genocide, and peace-loving Belgium has not repented for the crimes committed in the Congo. Only in 2020, the king of Belgium apologized in a letter on the occasion of the 60th anniversary of the liberation of the Congo - they say, what was, then passed.
After the collapse of the USSR and a significant reduction in its heiress - the Russian Federation, military, ideological and economic opportunities to defend their own interests, a lot of people appeared who wanted to blame the Russians, primarily Russians.
The former Soviet republics and the countries of the Soviet bloc, which received the long-awaited freedom, often expressed in the opportunity to return to the feudal system, loudly began to demand recognition of the USSR's guilt in their occupation, demand repentance and compensation for the damage caused. Especially zealous and zealous in this undertaking were Poland and the Baltic countries - Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia. Yes, and other countries of Eastern Europe, no, no, and even remember about the "Soviet occupation", which brought them incalculable suffering.
Against this background, there are more and more attempts to put Nazi Germany and the USSR on the same level, which even 50 years ago could not be presented to anyone even in a nightmare.
With all this, the population of the countries of Eastern Europe, and the population of most other republics of the USSR, often lived much better than the population of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (RSFSR).
There are many articles and studies showing what a huge impact the USSR had on the development of the former Soviet republics and the countries of the Soviet bloc, what investments were made in their industry and infrastructure. At the same time, the intensified economic development of the republics of the former USSR does not justify in their eyes the "occupation" - they say being free they could achieve more - obviously, it is understood that in this case their economy would not be built on the USSR, but would be sponsored by the United States.
However, there are other factors that fully justify the accession of the countries of Eastern Europe to the USSR (in the form of Soviet republics or countries of the Soviet bloc).
Nazi accomplices
It just so happened that the countries of Eastern Europe did not set out to become great powers. For a limited period of history, Poland - the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth claimed this title, however, it quickly lost its influence, partly or completely part of Austria, Prussia, Germany, the Russian Empire, and later in the USSR.
Unable to independently expand the sphere of their vital interests, the countries of Eastern Europe voluntarily or voluntarily and forcibly participated in military conflicts of other powers. In particular, during the Second World War, the Axis countries included Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria.
In the Baltic countries, after the occupation, which took place quickly and almost bloodlessly, volunteer detachments were formed, including the SS troops. And often the "henchmen" acted much more brutally than even their German patrons. After the collapse of the USSR, in many countries, Nazi henchmen were rehabilitated, they willingly go to marches and share memories of the past.
Despite the fact that the expectations of the peoples of the Baltic republics did not come true - for Nazi Germany they were still an "inferior race", anti-Soviet protests continued until the end of the war (and even after it). It should be noted that not everyone supported the Nazi regime - there was a partisan movement. Nevertheless, it can be argued that nationalist sentiments in the Baltic countries were dominant.
Let us assume that the USSR did not begin to annex the Baltic countries, Poland, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria to the Soviet bloc. What would this lead to? Would they live peacefully and happily as independent countries, without entering any military blocs, something like "Eastern European Switzerland"?
No, the answer here will be unequivocal - the countries of Eastern Europe would automatically become puppets of the United States and subsequently members of the North Atlantic Alliance (NATO).
Thus, the first factor justifying the accession of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia to the USSR, and Poland, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria to the Soviet bloc, is their guaranteed voluntary transfer to the side of a potential enemy in the person of the United States and its satellites
American Eastern Europe
It was clear to all participants in the Second World War that it was only a preamble to the subsequent redistribution of the world. The muscles of the USA and the USSR, pumping up their muscles during the war, inevitably had to cling to each other's throats.
Consider the "alternative history" in which the countries of Eastern Europe have unanimously renounced a military alliance with the United States, and have refused to host NATO airfields and military bases. We followed the path of soft socialism-capitalism - something in between Sweden and Yugoslavia. How long could this situation persist?
At the beginning of the Cold War, in the middle of the 20th century, tanks and aircraft were the main striking force of the opposing sides - there were no intercontinental ballistic missiles at that time. Thus, the presence of a buffer from neutral states in a certain situation was not beneficial to either the USA or the USSR. At the same time, the motivations of the USA and the USSR were different.
The presence of nuclear weapons provided the United States with the opportunity to plan a preemptive war against the USSR, by delivering massive strikes by bomber aircraft against Soviet cities. The goal of the armed forces of the Soviet Union was the opposite - as soon as possible to seize the European continent with ground troops, in order to move American airfields as far as possible from the borders, reducing the likelihood of nuclear strikes on its territory.
In these conditions, would the United States have allowed a buffer of neutral states to exist?
It is highly unlikely. In the best case, the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) would organize coups d'etat in these countries, and in the case of active resistance (we are talking about the die-hard, steadfastly independent countries of Eastern Europe), it would be a full-scale military intervention.
Considering that the USSR lost from the appearance of US airfields and military bases in Eastern Europe, the intervention of the Soviet Union can be considered inevitable, which would lead to the emergence of a military conflict in Eastern Europe, comparable in scale to the wars in Korea and Vietnam.
Thus, the second factor justifying the accession of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia to the USSR, and Poland, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria to the Soviet bloc, is that, even if they did not want to cooperate with the United States, they would either be forced to do so, or their refusal to join would be the cause of a full-scale conflict between the US and the USSR
Nuclear apocalypse
At the end of World War II and during the Cold War, the United States developed dozens of nuclear strike plans. In particular, the "Peancer" plan of December 14, 1945 provided for the release of 196 atomic bombs on 20 cities and industrial centers of the Soviet Union. The Totality plan, developed in 1946, envisaged dropping 20-30 nuclear bombs on Soviet cities - Moscow, Gorky, Kuibyshev, Sverdlovsk, Novosibirsk, Omsk, Saratov, Kazan, Leningrad, Baku, Tashkent, Chelyabinsk, Nizhny Tagil, Magnitogorsk, Molotov, Tbilisi, Stalinsk, Grozny, Irkutsk and Yaroslavl.
Developed in 1949, the Dropshot plan called for the release of 300 atomic and 6 million tons of conventional bombs on 100 Soviet cities. As a result of atomic and conventional bombing, about 100 million Soviet citizens were to be destroyed. In the future, the number of atomic bombs that were supposed to be dropped on Soviet cities only grew.
It would seem that the desire of the countries of Eastern Europe not to fall into the millstone is quite understandable - no matter what happens to the Soviet Union, it is better to be on the side of the winner, and who is this if not the United States with the atomic bomb? After all, there is a successful experience of rendering services to Hitlerite Germany, why not work for the USA now? Maybe later something will be gained from the Soviet legacy, or will they be taken to guard the concentration camp?
However, in fact, everything is far from so simple.
In anticipation of American aggression, the Soviet Union did not sit idly by. Fighters and interceptors were built at a shock pace, new weapons were developed - anti-aircraft missile systems (SAM), capable of stopping the armada of American bombers or minimizing the force of their strike. The tank fist of the USSR could well get out of a nuclear strike and knock the United States out of the European continent, depriving them of the possibility of delivering massive bomb strikes on Soviet territory.
It is logical that the greatest intensity of hostilities would have acquired at the very beginning of the war. If Eastern Europe belonged to the Soviet bloc, fighters and air defense systems of the USSR would shoot down American bombers over the territory of Eastern Europe, the Americans would deliver nuclear strikes against forward Soviet bases and cities (including in Eastern Europe).
If the countries of Eastern Europe would have sided with the United States and its allies, everything would have been roughly the same - in the event of an attack by the United States or its real threat, the USSR would inflict powerful strikes on US bases, including those where nuclear weapons would be deployed. American bombers from more distant bases would shoot down over the territory of Eastern Europe. Without nuclear weapons, the USSR would use other types of weapons of mass destruction - chemical, bacteriological. There would have been nothing to lose.
In general, in both versions, the territory of the countries of Eastern Europe with a high probability would turn into a lifeless exclusion zone. Then what difference does it make to which bloc the countries of Eastern Europe would go, at least for them?
The difference is that many times the world has hung by a thread. Get the United States an additional advantage in the form of forward bases on the territory of the countries of Eastern Europe, and they could well decide to implement one of their plans for a nuclear war. And then lifeless Eastern Europe would become a reality.
Thus, the third factor justifying the accession of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia to the USSR, and Poland, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria to the Soviet bloc, is to reduce the likelihood of a third world war with the use of nuclear weapons, during which most of Eastern Europe would be destroyed. warring parties
This buffer, about 500 kilometers wide, could well become a stumbling block in the plans of American strategists, calculating how many bombers with atomic bombs will be shot down and how many will reach their targets. A buffer of 500 kilometers is about an hour of flight for bombers of that time, this is half a day-day, for which the USSR tank wedges will be closer to the coast of the English Channel. This is a significant factor in order to make a decision to start or cancel a nuclear war.
Nowadays
The conclusion made earlier that if they did not join the Soviet bloc, the countries of Eastern Europe would be guaranteed and voluntarily join the US crusade to the East, is fully confirmed by their behavior after the collapse of the USSR.
It would seem that in the conditions of detente, live peacefully and happily for yourself, develop tourism, cooperate with different countries - in the early 90s Russia made unprecedented concessions to the United States and the West, but no, practically all the countries of Eastern Europe of the former Soviet bloc quickly and with gladly joined NATO.
Was this a real need? No, one harm. From all sides, the position of neutral for the countries of Eastern Europe would be more advantageous. Imagine that NATO has made a serious decision to attack Russia. There are great doubts that we will be able to resist using only conventional weapons. In such a situation, it can be considered that the use of at least tactical nuclear weapons (TNW) is practically inevitable.
And where will the first nuclear charges fly?
Certainly not to the USA, Britain or France - it is too dangerous, but the American bases and troops concentrated before the invasion on the territory of Eastern Europe - quite a convenient, one might say, legitimate goal - they themselves climbed into the millstones, voluntarily.
Let's assume the opposite situation, Russia decided to restore the USSR in its former borders and attacked the countries, for example, the Baltic states. How long will it take to capture them - an hour, a day? It is doubtful that even a partisan movement will be organized in the current reality - more likely, new videos will appear on TikTok. Poland will hold out a little longer, but in any scenario in the one-on-one conflict format, the forces are incomparable. And for the countries of Eastern Europe, any military conflict will always be "Zugzwang".
The countries of Eastern Europe cannot stop Russia on their own, no matter how weak it is. NATO will not stand up for them - why then all these "war games", only wasted money? It will join - and again the main hostilities will be conducted on their territory, with the risk of using nuclear weapons by both sides.
What then is the point of NATO membership?
Most likely, this is already a historical habit of being "under someone" as a result of being constantly under the auspices of great powers. It is difficult to live with your own mind, therefore freedom for most countries of Eastern Europe simply means the ability to choose who can be sold at a higher price. If there is a serious economic crisis in the United States, the messengers will immediately run to Germany or Beijing - take it, warm it up, teach your wits. And even about the "Slavic brotherhood" will be remembered - it will be necessary to urgently restore monuments, rewrite history textbooks.
Yes, and at the household level, the desire to join NATO and attempts to demonize Russia are understandable: for the military and officials of all stripes, this is cash injections, for politicians it is an easy way to build a career and justify economic miscalculations and embezzlement. They sold weapons to the side, blew up the warehouses with the remnants - Russia is to blame, specifically - Petrov and Bashirov. The problem is that these are short-term benefits, but in the long-term there is still the same risk of falling into the "nuclear millstones".
Or maybe you should quit aggressive rhetoric, try to live your own mind and build relationships with neighbors without accusations and tantrums?
Maybe the countries of Eastern Europe still have a chance to become truly independent and neutral states?
