The German Soviet Pact and the Allies

You would not last long in the SU,very quickly you would visit the Loebianka hotel (which was not that luxurious as the Huntsville hotel) : you continue to argue as an American,immersed in 40 years Cold War propaganda, and not as a communist .

What you describe is correct, but your conclusions are not correct .What the Kremlin was observing was a German expansion ...against which there was no Western reaction,they observed also the refusal of the West to draw the SU in the European affairs (the opinion outside the USSR was : the USSR is good were it is,but they are no gentlemen :no need to do political business with them :the USSR was in quarantine).And now, suddenly , some subordinate Western delegates went to Moscow with the message : can we expect your intervention,if we need it ? Will you do the fighting against Germany if needed ? And on the Soviet reply : what will you do ? The British answer was : we will send 2 divisions and the French said ...blahblah (later they started a small offensive in the Saar).

At least,the Germans sent someone important :Ribbentrop.

And when the Soviets said : to help Poland, we need to enter Poland, the Western answer was : this is out of the question .


Conclusion : the opinion of the Kremlin was that it was a trick and that the West wanted the SU risking a war to save Poland and if there was a war, that the SU would fight for the interests of the City .Thus, it was very unwise to expect that Stalin would fight for the City . Britain and France did not need him at Munich, thus why should he present himself now ?

If Britain and France were strong, they did not need him, if they need him, they were weak .

Reality was that they wanted him to prevent WWII, which was not the business of Stalin .

 

Saying (in post 36) that " the communist parties are allowed to exist and have representation in the government of both countries " proves that there is something wrong with history education in the US . The British communists never had a representation in the British government, and neither did the French communists before WWII .

That the German communists were persecuted in Germany was no problem for the Kremlin : comunists were persecuted in Poland, Italy, later in Iraq, Spain, Portugal, etc,but this did not prevent the Kremlin to do business with these countries : before WWII the USSR was selling a lot of oil to Italy, starting from the principle that the Lires of Mussolini were as good as the RM of Hitler . And Mussolini had no objections to do business with the USSR: the oil of Baku was as good as the oil of Pennsylvania .

 

LJAD is correct. There was no communist representation in GB or France prior to WW2. In fact everything was done to prevent their rise. Churchill made sure of that in his early years.

I also agree with LJADs logic. Russia was an outcast after WWI as was Germany. The Soviet Union was never taken seriously by the European powers and was never allowed nor included in any of their affairs. In fact it was Stalin who first proposed an alliance with GB and France against Germany. He was shut down. What a surprise. As far as Stalin was concerned, he was on his own, thus he did what needed to be done for the greater of the Soviet Union (or so he thought). He watched how Hitler rose to power and broke promise after promise and treaty after treaty. Western leaders did nothing but appease him.

Stalin decided to play the same game and signed a treaty with Ribbentrop hoping to buy time as he knew Hitler would go after France first. Unfortunately for the Soviet Union and her citizens, Salin was naive enough to never imagine that Hitler would betray him as well. A war with Britain helped this as he couldn't imagine that Hitler would attack prior to finishing off GB.... Seems Hitler fooled everyone.

 

Let's not be so quick, the Soviet controlled French Communist Party had 72 deputies in 1936.
The 1935 Franco-Soviet Treaty of Mutual Assistance was proposed by Louis Barthou, the French foreign minister.

Although Kiev-Rus had nothing in common with Russia. It had ceased to exist over 200 years before Ivan III consolidated the early Russia, itself a tributary vassal territory to the Golden Horde.

The Curzon Line was a demarcation line between the Poles and the Soviets proposed by Lord Curzon in order to stop the Polish-Soviet war. The border itself was established by the 1921 Treaty of Riga, signed by Poland in and the Soviet Russia - being desirous of putting an end to the war and of concluding a final, lasting and honourable peace.

There are some old issues between Poland and Ukraine, rather insignificant in the great scheme of things. Poland regards Ukraine a friendly country, and its existence essential for Polish security.

 

Curzon line prevented ethnic cleansing and polonization of teritories that have nothing in common with Poland and Poles. Unfortunately for Germans there was not such an obstacle at the west to prevent Polish expansion to Oder-Niesse line. Potsdam was an utter injustice that should be made good once.

 

And the treaty was signed by Laval, but it had no importance, because the Cordon Sanitaire (Poland and Romania ) excluded any Soviet intervention in Europe:in 1920 the Soviets were at the front door of Warsaw,the policy of Britain and France was to prevent that this should happen again,but to defeat Germany and to conquer Berlin, the Soviets had to pass through Warsaw,something Stalin knew very well :a French-British-Soviet war alliance would mean the end of Poland as an independent state ,as Britain and France opposed a Soviet march through Poland, the conclusion of the Kremlin was that Britain and France did not want such an alliance,but had secret evil plans . Thus the Kremlin said : no .

 

I would not qualify Stalin as naive : there were 2 possibilities

No war between the West and Germany and in this case, Stalin would not start a war with Germany

A war between the West and Germany and in this case both would exhaust each other,and Stalin would not whine .

Poland was faced with 2 impossible options

To say yes to Hitler and becoming a German satellite

To say no to Hitler and ask the help of Stalin and becoming a Soviet satellite .

When people are faced with the choice between Scylla and Charibdis they do as the ostrich and hope everything will finish well :

There would be no war : the generals would topple Hitler

The war will end after a week with the Polish army parading under the Brandenburger Gate

The war will end after a week with Gamelin and Gort parading under the Brandenburger Gate

In 1920 something similar happened : war between the SU and Poland and the Red Army before Warsaw,Poland did not ask the help of the Reichswehr,because the only thing the Reichswehr would do was to reoccupy the Polish territories Germany lost at Versailles and playing cards while the Soviets would occupy Warsaw . And Poland could not expect any help from the West . In 1920 Poland was rescued by the miracle of Warsaw, they expected that the Madonna of Czestochowa would again lead the Polish army to victory,but in 1939 the Madonna was absent .

 

Poland and Romania simply existed, if their existence prevented the Soviets from conquering Berlin it was a good thing. By that time Europe had seen enough aggression already.

The Soviets never asked Poland for a defense treaty or some other common defense agreement, a non-existent request can't be refused.

The Soviets actually attempted to conquer Germany in 1923 by starting an armed rebellion there, as they had their army in place already - it was called the Communist Party of Germany.

Walter Krivitsky,a Soviet intelligence officer, who with other Soviet operatives in Germany led the uprising described in detail that, failed because of Soviet leaders vacilitation, operation in his book In Stalin's Secret Service. For this he got murdered by Stalin's henchmen in 1941 in Washington.

 

The Polish Government in Exile never demanded the Oder-Neisse line.
The Polish Government in Exile never demanded the ethnic cleansing of those territories.

Those were Stalin's ideas - fully supported by Churchill, the border, the ethnic cleansing.

 

Thank you for the correction on Communist's being part of the ruling government, but the greater truth remains I think as they did have MP's in Britain and double digit's of seat's in France's legislative body. In Hitler's Germany Communist's were hunted down, in the west they could participate in the political process by voting and they had significant power in the trade union's of both countries.

The isolation of the SU went both ways, partly due to the west's fear of the spread of radical/revolutionary (to them at least) political idea's and deliberate isolationism imposed by the Soviet leadership who saw western ideals equally contagious. Thank you again for pointing out as I have posited Stalin sought out a anti-Nazi alliance (despite LJAd's continued insistence no such event happened). Indeed it failed to come to pass, partially because western intransigence and partly because Stalin wanted consideration for adjusting the political relationship's in countries not directly involved.

Of course all nations act in their own interest's foremost, that is normal. You say he saw Hitler break every promise he made politically and yet he could not imagine Hitler breaking his promise to him. For such a man who knew what Hitler said and did this seems incomprehensible, especially if you by into the 'buying time theory'. You don't need to buy time if you are sure you have a ironclad guarantee.

I am equally critical of the Anglo-French over Munich, they should have indicated they would have fought over Czechoslovakia's borders. The difference is they unlike the SU did not have a massive military to deploy. Neither the RN or the Maginot Line would work well stopping a German invasion of Czechoslovakia, or Poland for that matter.

Allowing Germany the opportunity to eliminate the other two 'Great' powers in Europe only leaves you alone to face Hitler's victorious armies. He gambled and Russia won a Pyrric victory.

 

Stalin did not ask the visit of the French/British second rang delegation to Moscow in august 1939.

About Munich : no one could help CZ : not the USSR , unless one thinks that Poland and Romania would have admitted the Red Army on their territory : CZ had no border with the USSR .

Not Britain and France : they had no forces that could be in Berlin before the WM would be in Prague, besides Britain never had guaranteed the CZ borders and France never had promised that it would march through Germany : it was the same in 1939 .The only thing Britain and France could do was to start a war of revenge that would destroy the continent and eliminate them as big powers . They did not do it in 1938 because there was no war, if there was a war, they would have done it, they did it in 1939 because there was a German aggression against Poland, there was no such thing against CZ

They had no leg to stand on in 1938 ..

 

I think we agree on most. I will state that I don't think Stalin ever doubted that Hitler would eventually break the treaty. I think Stalin was thinking from a strategical and logical view. He simply couldn't imagine that Hitler would voluntarily enter Germany into a two front war. It's precisely why Stalin didn't believe the reports (which were also changing almost daily) of a planned invasion and considered them Western Provocations.

I wouldn't call the Soviet victory pyrrhic tho. The cost was very high yes but Germany's defeat was complete just as was Soviet victory.

 

Generally we have always agreed more often than not, so thank you. Stalin's thinking might have seen as strategic from his point of view but I can not see it as logical, or even wise. Considering how quickly he broke the Munich accord no agreement with him an be a long term affair. Basically it counted upon a repeat of the trench warfare of WW I to be viable.

As to the nature of the Soviet victory, if not Pyrrhic, it was not too short of that mark. More Soviet citizens lost their lives than any other nation and 3 to 4 times the number of German lost despite having to fight the US and British Commonwealth at the same time. An area larger than northwest Europe was devastated by the German invasion, yet Germany (West) fully recovered in a generation. It could be posited that the Soviet Union was mortally wounded and simply took a couple of generations to expire from wounds suffered in battle.

It was mentioned that the Soviet Union was not offered the respect deserved. In my humble opinion respect is equal parts earned and given. Looked at From the West's perspective there was little to respect. The rapidity in which the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was enacted they could be forgiven for concluding it had been in the works from the start. We know now it wasn't, but the moves made (dismembering Poland, annexing the Baltic state's and Bessarabia, the Winter War) in the wake of the Pact indicated that Stain was a defacto Nazi ally from the perspective of the Anglo-French.

Stalin did what he accused the West of trying to do, basically involving them in a war to deplete them while sitting back to collect the spoils in the aftermath. I hope you can agree the West did not intend to do this to the SU based upon their actual actions. They could have cut Poland loose (no DoW on 9/3/38) if they wanted to, let Hitler focus on his impending invasion of Russia and sat back to enjoy the show. They acted on principle, how ever belatedly (should have done so at Munich) and thus earned respect. Stalin did not, he acted on pure self interest and in my opinion greed.

Stalin, and by extension the Soviet people, was exceptionally fortunate that Churchill was not the anti-communist they made him out to be but rather a realpolitik leader. Imagine a different speech to Parliament made by Winston, a Stalin like approach:

" I come here today to inform you that Germany has Invaded the Soviet Union. Stalin, who supped with the Devil, forgot to bring a long enough spoon and now pays the price for his failure to join us in September of 1939 to stop Naaazi aggression. A battle we have fought for nearly two years and for the last year, alone"

*Applause*

" We hope the Soviet people throw back the invader and demonstrate the same resolution shown by the People of Britain and her Commonwealth in this great struggle"

* Applause and cheers*

" Though we fight the same foe it must not be mistaken as a alliance. We are cobeligerent's in this struggle. There are far too few differences between Stalin's empire and that of Herr Hitler. We will, however, continue this fight to liberate the Free nations of Europe from the Naazi Jackboot!"

*Applause*

" We will provide our men with every weapon and tool of war we can possibly produce to bring this war to a rapid conclusion, we will rally the Free nations of the world to this great task. We will not flag or fail in this great undertaking. We will see this.to the end. We will prevail and see freedom restored to Europe. We stood resolute at the beginning and we will be standing resolute at the end when peace returns to the blighted nation's of Europe!

* Applause and wild cheers*

Churchill did not have to go to Russia at some personal risk. He did not have to offer all the aid possible. He could have taken a Finnish approach where Britain fought for her reasons alone. He could have nixed the idea of Lend-Lease/aid in the bud. In short be the anti-communist Stalin thought he was.

Russia doesn't collapse with the loss of Western aid, but the cost of victory becomes much greater. Perhaps by 10 or 15 percent. Perhaps they are lucky to reach the German frontier or maybe the Vistula by the time the Western Allies crush Germany proper. All the effort to get aid to Russia, (fuel, ships, money, lives etc.) redirected to fight Germany in the West, likely bringing victory there sooner.

This could have happened if a Stalin led the West, fortunately for the Soviet Union, a Churchill and Roosevelt led them. The difference between a Soviet strategic thought and logic and a Western one.

 

Yes we have and as usual a very well thought out and constructive post to which I must thank you. This will be the last however. We can't be getting all mushy and crap or we'll be an danger of being devoured by some of these vultures, besides I have a reputation to uphold here.

IMO, there was a very big difference between the Munich and the Molotv agreements. Unlike the Munich, the Molotov pact virtually fed Germany with everything she needed to build up her military and finance a war. The promise of nonaggression was Ofcourse a bonus. As far as Stalin saw it, this gave Russia and Germany time to concentrate on their national interests. Stalin always knew that Hitler would eventually break the treaty, he simply thought it wouldn't happen while the war in the west wasnt finished. This is quite reasonable considering Germany's delimma during the Great War. To bite the hands that feed you seemed crazy and perhaps was the sole reason for Stalins skepticism when confronted with numerous reports alleging Hitler intentions prior to finishing off GB. Only a mad man would do this. Hitler proved to be just that.

When speaking of a "pyrrhic" victory, it's generally a reference to a nations military capability on the battlefield or lack there off. As a result large casualties would result. This isn't what happened on the eastern front. While Ofcourse, the Soviet Union suffered from shortages of many sorts when the war commenced, I am more inclined to believe that the main reason for such high casualty rates amongst the military and civilians in the USSR were the direct result of Germany's policies in the region. No one could imagine that over 3 million Soviet POWs would be systematically starved while in captivity or Germany's intentions for the city of Leningrad. Had Germany conducted itself in the East in the same manner which it had in the West, the casualty rate would have been far lower. I very much doubt that 20,000 villages would have simply been wiped off the map along with over 9000 towns and cities. This destruction was a direct result of Nazi policies towards a people considered "sub-human".

German and Russian relationship didn't start in 1939 but much earlier. Where was the "respect" towards Russia when the Versailles treaty was signed? Russia fought alongside the allies and not only received nothing (in terms of political friendship etc.) but was also forced to fight the same nations during its own revolution. Ofcourse there is an argument of "well Russia signed a seperate truce" and a valid point/argument. The fact remains, however while losing millions for the same cause Russia was left out of all European affairs. A strong distrust amongst the Bolsheviks arose forthose very nations who sided with the "whites" during a civil war. I am a strong believer that Europe was afraid of Communism. When you put communism and Russia together..... Scary!

I don't think Stalin ever accused the west of trying to forge a war between Germany and Russia. If war was to break out between Germany and the West, I don't think Stalin was in any hurry to come to theyre rescue either.

Yes we do agree that the west did not intend to do this to the SU. I will say that it wasn't only principle that forced France's and GB's hand. Had they let Poland to simply fall without backing her as promised, then they would risk having their "word" questioned. For all countries especially those that are world players and have colonies, it is imperative that others believe and trust them. It wasn't just "principles" that drove them to do the right thing but also self interests.

Churchill was a brilliant man and politician and so was the speech above and for those reasons is so staunchly studied but he was also very much against communism. While he was a realist it's Roosevelt you would have to thank for the alliance bearing so much fruit. He convinced Churchill that Stalin would play along and he did, never breaking a single promise. Stalin and Churchill were both excellent politicians who while not liking each other did respect one another. Churchill wanted to go to war with the Soviet Union, Roosevelt would hear none of it. It was also Stalin who first proposed the idea of Jews having their own state. Knowing that this was in GB lands he wanted to less her influence. When such plan was announced it was quickly backed by Roosevelt, Churchill immediately conceded.

Both were realists and saw the imminent danger unfolding. Joining forces was the best solution for the fastest resolution.

LL was instrumental in shortening the war and saving countless more lives. The Russians are greatful for the help till this day and have never denied the aid even during Stalins time.

 

I would say in effect if not design they were about equal, with Munich possibly being the more damaging. While the West was hopeful Hitler would be satisfied with the Sudetenland, as the Soviets thought he would equally satisfied with Poland and aid, it allowed for Germany to swallow up without cost the remainder of the Czech republic. Germany got heavy industry from the Czech's that it didn't get from Poland/USSR. That in my opinion makes it equal in my mind, what upsets the balance is the precedent the West set in making a 'buying time at the expense of others' deal with Germany. If they make a self serving deal, why not us?

With respect I'm not sure how or why casualties occur mitigate the nature of a victory, no one goes in desiring or working towards greater losses than your opponent. I get it, The Great Patriotic War is the defining event in modern Russian history. We in America call our vet's The Greatest Generation, yet of all major participants suffer the least in all respects. There is strong resistance here to criticize their choices, their actions. It would be harder still for a Russia to do such a thing. Pow's have never fared well in long conflict's no matter who is the captor. The West did rather well until the very end of the war when they took millions of sick, malnourished, wounded and depressed former Wehrmacht personnel upon the surrender without either the plan or resources to care for them with all the other tasks before them. As a final note even Soviet era records indicate that until the last year of the war Soviet's were suffering higher rates of KIA, WIA and MIA than their German counterparts for the same battles. I agree the majority of Soviet losses were due to German Race policies, but certainly not all.

You are correct, the first contact between the Soviet Union and Germany occurred well before the rise of Hitler, but it was with a radically different Germany than the Nazi Reich who shut these contacts down as soon as they took power. As to the Versailles Treaty, with the possible exception of Great Britain and Serbia, no one came out thinking they got what they deserved. America came away disillusioned which led to a generation of isolationism. Germany thought it too harsh (it was), France thought it not harsh enough. Two former allies dropped their alliances to pursue wars of aggression. Many groups of peoples have their hopes of self determination shattered. To be fair its hard to include a nation involved in a civil war in a treaty and made no easier when that side is not the one they want to see win that civil war. Does that fully absolve them of post war relations, certainly no. It should be recalled that all nations, for their individual reasons, tended to look more inward than outward. As stated, America drifted into isolationism, Britain and France looked to integrate their new imperial acquisitions while tamping down restlessness in the ones they already possessed. Japan and Italy begin to eye grand empires of their own. Their was no great incentive to extend a hand to a entity seemingly dedicated to their destruction if you believed their dogma. Not much for foresight I grant you.

I grant you FDR had greater faith in 'Uncle Joe' than Winston ever did, but at the critical moment (June 1941) it was Churchill embraced the idea of treating the Soviet Union as a full ally and considering who and what he was it did show him as a man willing to set aside his prejudices for the greater good. At this point in time all FDR could offer Churchill was his good wishes for doing this. Until the US enters the war Churchill is the driving force for a Western Allied-Soviet alliance from the side of the west..

 

Its worth noting the UK's intention for "aiding" Finland in the winter war was to cut off the railroad/port that Swedish iron ore that was shipping iron ore to Germany, which was critical to the German economy; It was their ulterior motive, not aiding Finland which settleed after they realized no aid from the west was coming . This was the reason why OKW suggested invading Denmark and Norway, to prevent just that. As for the Soviet invasion of Poland, it is a prime example of the hypocrisy of the west, they turned a blind eye to the annexation of finnish territory after a war, the annexation of the Baltic states, the annexation of Romanian territory and the INVASION of their prime ally Poland.

The west could swallow the Soviet union restoring their pre 1917 borders, but Germany, that means war. Hitler wanted a war in the east not the west and had they declared war on the Soviet union the west would have agreed to German/SU annexation of poland, with a treaty.


Also it's worthy to note that the prime mistake of the west, specifically France was not invading Germany after they had invaded Poland as there expedition force was met with little resistance. Manstein notes the prime mistake of the west was not invading Germany right after the polish campaign as the Germans had the majority of their forced tied up in Poland, which put up a better fight than France all things considered.


Tldr: its okay for the Soviet union to restore its territorial integrity but not Germany.

 

So...You believe that the British and French could defeat the now allied powers of Germany and the Soviet Union?

 

Hitler never wanted war with the west, he made numerous peace offerings before the invasion of the low countries and France. It's highly unlikely that Hitler would have allied with Soviets to fight the west as he wanted war with Soviets not the west, declaring war on the Soviets for polish invasion would have ended with a treaty recognizing the German/Soviet annexation.

 

Not really. The "West" was not responsible for insuring the territorial integrity of the rest of the world. Hitler's Germany had broken a number of treaties and was expanding in ways that threatened France and Britain thus their guarantee of intervention if Germany attacked Poland. The Soviet annexations were condemned but there was little the "west" could do about them in any case.

The Soviet Union had no "pre 1917 borders". In any case it's not a matter so much of them being able to "swallow" Soviet annexations as being rather limited in what they could do about them.

????

Looks to me like you are looking at only one side of the coin.

A conclusion drawn from faulty data and questionable logic isn't on a very sound footing.

There are numerous quotes that contradict this found in his and other German works.

Care to present some of them? Did any offer his withdrawal from Poland?

The fact that he allied with the Soviets to partition Poland clearly refutes this pronouncement.

???? a treaty between who and who.

 

Semantics, restoring the borders of the Russian empire and what they could not do is provide aid to them in a war, "In total 4 million tonnes of war materials including food and medical supplies were delivered. The munitions totaled £308m (not including naval munitions supplied), the food and raw materials totaled £120m in 1946 index. In accordance with the Anglo-Soviet Military Supplies Agreement of 27 June 1942, military aid sent from Britain to the Soviet Union during the war was entirely free of charge.|"[55][56] - Lend-Lease - Wikipedia

How so, they both together illegally annexed poland. The Soviet union annexed at gunpoint literally from finland then romania, and the baltic states. They declared war on Germany yet provided lend-lease, crucial intelligence and other sources of aid in a war, hmm. Oh when finland tries to regain their lost land from the denounced russian invasion they declare war on finland. They also did the same to romania, also you didnt make an argument, "A conclusion drawn from faulty data and questionable logic isn't on a very sound footing.", isnt one. A conclusion isnt a conclusion ?

"In 1939, Hitler told the Swiss Commissioner to the League of Nations, Carl Burckhardt, that everything he was undertaking was "directed against Russia" and continued with, "if those in the West are too stupid or too blind to understand this, then I shall be forced to come to an understanding with the Russians to beat the West, and then, after its defeat, turn with all my concerted force against the Soviet Union."
Political views of Adolf Hitler - Wikipedia
The fact that he allied with the Soviets to partition Poland clearly refutes this pronouncement.
a Treaty of Non-aggression turning into soviet troops on german land is a reach.

"On 6 October, he made a peace offer to both Western powers." - Battle of France - Wikipedia
"On 10 October 1939, Britain refused Hitler's offer of peace and on 12 October, France did the same" - Shirer 1990, p. 717
plus others in 1940-41 but im to lazy to check


???? a treaty between who and who.
Had the soviets declared war on the soviets, it would not have ended in a conflict with germany and the soviets but a treaty