As you know, State Duma deputy Alexei Zhuravlev, having decided to distinguish himself in the field of falsification of history, introduced a bill to his colleagues that proposes to criminalize falsification of historical facts about the causes and results of World War II, providing for fines and punishments up to five years in prison. years old. Moreover, this article "deputy historian" proposes to introduce in the Criminal Code.
“The assignment of responsibility to the USSR for unleashing the Second World War or denial of the USSR’s main role in the victory over axis countries in World War II, as well as dissemination of information about the identity of the official political ideology of the USSR and Nazism committed in public, shall be punishable by a fine of up to three hundred thousand rubles or the wage or other income of the convicted person for a period of up to two years, either by forced labor for a term of up to three years, or by imprisonment for the same term”, - the draft law says.
“Well, now this has received the status of a bill:“ Recognize Decree of the Congress of People's Deputies of the USSR of December 24, 1989 No. 979-1 “On Political and Legal Assessment of the Soviet-German Non-Aggression Treaty of 1939”
The explanatory note is beautiful.
“The resolution does not comply with the principles of historical justice and was adopted in the conditions of increasing political instability of those years, accompanied by pressure from external forces.”
Now we know for sure the name of the person who knows the "principles of historical justice." And who put such powerful pressure on the USSR in December 1989 that they forced not only to acknowledge the existence of secret protocols, but also to condemn them?
“... The protocol did not provide for changing the borders of other countries in any way, including military. Unlike the ways of today, when "democracy" is exported through the "orange revolutions", by overthrowing legitimate governments. "
Lying. Provided. Both articles of the secret supplementary protocol begin with the words “in the case of territorial and political reorganization ...”, and in the case of Poland it is directly indicated that the territory of the state is divided in half. What else could this mean? It is quite obvious that Germany and the USSR just together provided this “case”. And this clause directly violated the then Soviet-Polish non-aggression treaty of 1932, the second article of which read: “If one of the contracting parties was attacked by a third state or a group of third states, the other contracting party undertakes not to provide, either directly or indirectly, assistance and support to the attacking state throughout the entire conflict. ” In addition, the USSR also grossly violated the Charter of the League of Nations, of which it was then a member: “Members of the League undertake to respect and preserve against any external attack the territorial integrity and existing political independence of all League Members” (Art. 10).
“The Soviet Union signed the treaty with Hitler Germany last and solely for the purpose of delaying the onset of aggression against the USSR. Before that, from 1933 to 1939, Germany concluded 14 similar agreements with other states, 9 of which were bilateral. ”
Firstly, it is not clear what exactly is meant here: Non-aggression pact or secret protocols. Secondly, analogy is a vague concept; the meaning varies from “similar” to “similar”. There were many non-aggression treaties, but there seems to have been no exact analogue to secret protocols.
“...the members of the Commission, who took an active part in its preparation, simultaneously pursued another goal - the creation of an illusion of legitimacy for the Baltic republics to secede from the USSR, who supposedly joined the USSR not of their own will”.
That's just the members of this commission did everything to preserve the Baltic republics as part of the USSR, because to deny the existence of protocols in the conditions of publicity was completely useless, and not to give them a negative assessment would be to solidify with them. The “illusion of legitimacy” was not about the exit, but about the entrance, that’s the problem. The way out of such "illusions of legitimacy" was not needed.
"As a result, the adoption of the Decree became another additional factor in the beginning of the collapse of the Soviet Union and created a" normative "base for further falsifications around the history of the Second World War".
Further, excuse me, why? Rigging? Did the resolution somehow provide a regulatory framework for the falsification of some documents? Rave. Only Lavrov can be cited: "******, ***"