The time of two hours

Neville Chamberlain and Adolf Hitler. September 1938.

Vladimir Pastukhov has repeatedly talked about the struggle in the Western elites and the company of two "parties". One perceives Putin's aggression against Ukraine as a "regional conflict", which, in principle, can not be allowed to go beyond the regional framework. Do not let the global, "world" to develop into the war. The other believes that the global world war is already going on. That this is existential war - for basic values, for the way of life itself, for what the world order will be in the near future.

So far, the struggle between these "parties" is with varying success, and its outcome is by no means predetermined. What is the Putin Kremlin counting on. In this light, Pastukhov’s reasoning is very curious about why, during the war with Hitler, the Collective Churchill defeated the “collective Chamberlain”.

Pastukhov expressed the idea that the choice of the "collective West" between Chamberlain and Churchill was actually a choice between Hitler and Stalin. It was clear that it was necessary to focus on the fight against one of these villains, at least covering his eyes on the villains of the other. To make some kind of compromise and even an alliance with it possible.

Why did the liberal West make a choice in favor of Stalin as a less unacceptable evil? Pastukhov himself believes that the Holocaust turned out to be decisive. It was the desire to physically destroy the whole nation that put Hitler over the brink of acceptability. However, when Churchill and Roosevelt decided about the war with Hitler to destroy and entered the alliance with Satan No. 2 for this, the Nazis just subjected the Jews of discrimination. They were deprived of their rights, deported, driven into a ghetto, pursued a policy of racial segregation and apartheid. But there was no woman or gas chambers Aushwitz.

For all the monstrous of the tragedy of the Jewish people, it is incorrect to reduce the Nazism to the newcomer. Eudophobia is only one of its manifestations. By the way, among today's American "isolationists" opposing the help of Ukraine, one can meet the statement that Hitler was brought to the Holocaust. It was not necessary to drive him into a corner. Like the very rat. Modern American isolationism is many times. There are left-handed fighters with "American imperialism", and pacifists-dumisors, and the extremely right-wing fans of Mr. Kolta and the Social Darwinist principle "Let everyone protect himself." But how much the current “collective chambers” remains the same “collective chamberlah”!

The Bolshevik Project was terrible. Stalin worsened him even more. Nevertheless, it was, albeit ugly, albeit a dead end, but a process of a branch of a large European "modernization project" generated by Renaissance and Enlightenment. With all the horror of the liberal-capitalist world before the Bolshevism, who swept the sacred property for him, at a critical moment for himself, this world was able to see in him, albeit spoiled, albeit a relative who had gone along the curve.

But Hitler - he was completely "alien." Like in modern thrillers. He encroached on something more basic than private property. And the West felt it. I realized how the triumph of the Hitler’s “new world order” would turn into the “dark centuries” of barbarism.

You can, of course, say that it was just Hitler who did not leave the West a chance for a compromise. And if he were a little more flexible, they would have agreed with him perfectly. But this does not remove the question "why." For all the severity and the seeming intransigence of the confrontation of the Cold War, it never resulted in a global "hot" war. But the confrontation with Hitler spilled. This is just a historical fact. And he gives us the right to at least assume that the liberal West with the USSR had more in common than Hitler.

There is such a historical school of "revisionists". It is characterized by ignoring the ideological factor in history. This leads, in particular, to the denial of the concept of "totalitarianism" as such. Another idea popular in this school: the two world wars of the 20th century are just two stages of the same world war with a single background. The fundamental difference between these wars is also ignored.

The First World War was no coincidence in public consciousness as "imperialist". It really was the Empire war for the redistribution of the "spheres of influence." For the territory and other resources. And opponents were little different from each other. Such a large feudal disassembly.

The Second World War was a war for values, for the project of a socio-political structure and the world order as a whole. And although the slogan of the struggle for "living space" was drawn on Nazi banners, it was conducted not so much for the territory as for the right to take the territory by force. For the right to take by force what is not given to you.

Previously, people ate each other. Then they stopped. Previously, people selected the territory from each other, overlapped the border force. Then they stopped. And they decided: this is no longer possible. We will not return to it. This is progress. But a certain impudent came and said: why is it impossible for me, if before people did this before? And I will return you to it. Because you remained the same.

In order not to return to this, people had to fight. The Second World War was a war between the idea of ​​progress and its denial. It was a battle for the right for a better future. The confrontation of the West and the USSR was a dispute about the best future. The confrontation with Hitler was a dispute of the future and the past. The same dispute is the current confrontation of the West and Putin. And again, his outcome depends on whether the collective churchal of the collective Chamberlain will defeat.