Jump to content


We Need Your Help - Become a Site Supporter

For 16 years we've been delivering WWII discussion and research, help support our efforts for the next 16 years. Become a WW2 Forums Patron!


Photo
- - - - -

The German Soviet Pact and the Allies


  • Please log in to reply
54 replies to this topic

#26 Tamino

Tamino

    Doc - The Deplorable

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,462 posts
  • LocationUntersteiermark

Posted 12 September 2016 - 12:00 PM

This question has frustrated me for many years.  I have asked this question to many "scholars" and have yet to get an answer:  The USSR and Germany make a pact.  Germany invades Poland as does the USSR.  England and France declare war on Germany but not on USSR .  USSR anexes the Baltic states and still no declaration of war by the Allies.  USSR invades Finland and Allies do not declare war....Why did the Allies not declare war on USSR for its aggression against these countries?  You do realize that World War 2 was promulgated by the invasion of Poland...(and sadly it appears that at the end of the war this heady ideal of "defending ' Poland was forgotten....)

You don't see the real problem because you're caught in a hide-and-show game. The real question is:

 

France and Britain have conquered practically the whole globe, by merciless outright aggression, in breach of all rules of humanity. Why they got away with it without at least honest historic question? What has absolved them from all the crimes and attrocities they've committed across the globe in the name of freedom and democracy.?


Edited by Tamino, 12 September 2016 - 12:02 PM.

flag_eu.png


#27 Belasar

Belasar

    Court Jester

  • Administrators
  • 7,438 posts

Posted 12 September 2016 - 01:54 PM

NO : in 1914 Germany declared war on Russia and attacked her, France remained impertubable til Germany invaded France .There was also NO French offensive ,but a counter-offensive after the Germans invaded France . The French-Russian treaty stipulated clearly that if Germany declared war on Russia, France should immediately declare war on Germany and attack her, what France didn't .

There was no reason at all for Stalin to join France and Britain (2 countries who had tried to crush communism) in a war against Germany because Germany had attacked Poland (an other country that had invaded Russia to crush communism )

US did not declare war on Germany in september 1939, why should the USSR do it ?

 

Now you are being deliberately obtuse, actually doubly so.

 

The march to war in 1914 is well documented and in its own way a dark comedy of errors based upon the plans of mice and men. Every participant had their own agenda, though their stated goals were generally at odds with that agenda. Each participant thought they could control the beast they unleashed and soon learned their folly.

 

Each nation had a mobilization plan, that once enacted set them on a course that essentially could not be undone lest chaos ruled. Serbia funds the assassination of the heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne to destabilize the Balkan's, Austro-Hungarian's use the loss of a Archduke they didn't really care for as a excuse to eliminate Serbia, Russia mobilizes her army (which is a de-facto DoW) to maintain her status in the Balkans, but targets East Prussia, Germany declares on Russia to protect her only ally, yet sends her army to France.

 

Germany declared on Russia first in response to Russia's threat to her ally Austro-Hungary, but it was Russia who attacked Germany first, while Germany attacks France first. There was no need for France to declare on Germany since they were already on the march TO France, fighting Germany was inevitable.

 

You keep saying there was no reason for the SU to join the Anglo-French, yet you continue to fail to explain why Stalin (They're coming to get me!) negotiated  to do that very thing!

 

Maybe the US didn't declare on Germany in 1939 because they didn't have '100 divisions' to throw in to battle and Germany wasn't invading a county we shared a border with (say Canada) and had not specifically stated he intended to turn the US a vast Aryan Colony.

 

Logic can be a bummer. 

 

I said doubled down didn't I. You did that when you dragged what happened to a previous Russian government to explain the phobia's of a succeeding Russian government even though those events was exactly what they wanted to create the succeeding Russian Government. Introducing a irrelevant, contradictory and off topic factoid to divert a discussion is a classic case of being obtuse.     


Wars are rarely fought in black and white, but in infinite shades of grey

(Poppy is occasionaly correct, or so I hear)


#28 LJAd

LJAd

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,995 posts

Posted 12 September 2016 - 02:13 PM

Since when France or Britain were trying to crush communism?

You don't know that France , Britain, Japan, the US intervened in the Russian Civil War to crush the communists ?

#29 LJAd

LJAd

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,995 posts

Posted 12 September 2016 - 02:41 PM

Now you are being deliberately obtuse, actually doubly so.
 
The march to war in 1914 is well documented and in its own way a dark comedy of errors based upon the plans of mice and men. Every participant had their own agenda, though their stated goals were generally at odds with that agenda. Each participant thought they could control the beast they unleashed and soon learned their folly.
 
Each nation had a mobilization plan, that once enacted set them on a course that essentially could not be undone lest chaos ruled. Serbia funds the assassination of the heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne to destabilize the Balkan's, Austro-Hungarian's use the loss of a Archduke they didn't really care for as a excuse to eliminate Serbia, Russia mobilizes her army (which is a de-facto DoW) to maintain her status in the Balkans, but targets East Prussia, Germany declares on Russia to protect her only ally, yet sends her army to France.
 
Germany declared on Russia first in response to Russia's threat to her ally Austro-Hungary, but it was Russia who attacked Germany first, while Germany attacks France first. There was no need for France to declare on Germany since they were already on the march TO France, fighting Germany was inevitable.
 
You keep saying there was no reason for the SU to join the Anglo-French, yet you continue to fail to explain why Stalin (They're coming to get me!) negotiated  to do that very thing!


I am dreaming : you are parotting The Sleepwalkers !

There was no comedy of errors : only one country wanted war in 1914 = Germany, for reasons who were obvious to anyone .

The murderers of Sarajevo were citizens of AH and in a letter to the Kaiser (which is available on the net) , the Austrian emperor said : we can't prove that Serbia is responsible .That's why AH did nothing during a whole month .
Russia was not threatening AH: AH did NOT ask Germany for help against Russia and in the German DoW (available on the net ) ,Germany did not say that Russia was threatening AH . Russia did also not threaten Germany,as it was mobilizing only small forces on the German border .

The content of the German DoW on Russia was a flat lie ,the same for the DoW on France .

The fact is that Germany was mobilizing the first ,that Germany started a war against Russia and against France and that all the other countries (including AH ) tried to avoid a general war . Germany wanted this war since 1905, because only such a war could give Germany what it wanted :domination of Europe .

France was indifferent to the German-Russian war,because the French-Russian alliance was dead since several years ,the alliance was a deadborn child :for France the significance of the alliance was that Russia would help France if France was attacked by Germany, not the opposite . It was the same for Russia :the French would fight and die for Russia, not the opposite .



About Stalin : it is not so that Stalin was negotiating his entry in the war, neither did the French and the British :they were travelling to Moscow only for propaganda reasons and to try to prevent a world war ,but the USSR should do the dirty work .

Stalin was a suspicious man and he demanded an answer on the following question :

In 1914 capitalist France and Britain were looking the other way when capitalist Germany attacked capitalist Russia . Now these 2 capitalist countries wanted communist SU to take the risk of facing a war with capitalist Germany . Why should they help the SU ? Would they do not the same as in 1914 ?

If one is looking at the question without hindsight, Stalin's suspicions were justified .

Britain and France always said : we will handle Germany, no need for a Soviet intervention (not that the Sovjets proposed their help),and now,suddenly, Britain and France changed their strategy ;they asked for Soviet help= the USSR should do the fighting and they would be the spectators .

This was the opinion of Stalin .

Edited by LJAd, 12 September 2016 - 03:00 PM.


#30 Takao

Takao

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,782 posts
  • LocationReading, PA

Posted 12 September 2016 - 02:48 PM

You don't know that France , Britain, Japan, the US intervened in the Russian Civil War to crush the communists ?

Umm, the US and Japan did not intervene in the Russian Civil War "to crush the communists".



#31 Tamino

Tamino

    Doc - The Deplorable

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,462 posts
  • LocationUntersteiermark

Posted 12 September 2016 - 03:39 PM

To understand origins of wars of the past century you should look who stood behind the key decisions. Ironically, rivalry within British royal family pushed the world into the greatest misery ever:

 

TakyToe.jpg


flag_eu.png


#32 LJAd

LJAd

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,995 posts

Posted 12 September 2016 - 05:41 PM

Umm, the US and Japan did not intervene in the Russian Civil War "to crush the communists".


Maybe they were going to vist the places of interest of Siberia ?

For Stalin they came to crush the communists .


Communism was a sect,that felt threatened by the outside world,and that was swarming with deviationists, "right wing" and "left wing " opponents,that was suspicious not only to non communists,but also to all communists

#33 LJAd

LJAd

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,995 posts

Posted 12 September 2016 - 05:47 PM

To understand origins of wars of the past century you should look who stood behind the key decisions. Ironically, rivalry within British royal family pushed the world into the greatest misery ever:
 
TakyToe.jpg

It was more than that, it was the conviction in Germany that the 18th century was the century of French hegemony, the 19th century the century of British hegemony and that it was now (in the 20th century ) the turn of Germany .

It was the slogan : Am deutschen Wesen soll die Welt genesen :Germany had a mission,the German Kultur would save the world .

#34 wm.

wm.

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 413 posts
  • LocationSilesia Inferior

Posted 12 September 2016 - 07:25 PM

You don't know that France , Britain, Japan, the US intervened in the Russian Civil War to crush the communists ?

 

They intervened to protect their interests, to protect their assets - usually the weapons their sent to Russia and didn't want to end up in inappropriate hands.   

If all those powers really had wanted to crush the communists, they would have crushed them like a house of cards in matter of months - considering that the weak Poland was able to almost do it single-handedly. 



#35 Tamino

Tamino

    Doc - The Deplorable

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,462 posts
  • LocationUntersteiermark

Posted 12 September 2016 - 09:33 PM

It was more than that, it was the conviction in Germany that the 18th century was the century of French hegemony, the 19th century the century of British hegemony and that it was now (in the 20th century ) the turn of Germany .

It was the slogan : Am deutschen Wesen soll die Welt genesen :Germany had a mission,the German Kultur would save the world .

Slogans are what they are - slogans. The truth is different: it is Kaiser Wilhelm, descendant of British queen Victoria who turned Germans into Huns. Here is a speech of Kaiser Wilhelm, the precusor of Hitler - he speaks to his soldiers leaving to China: 

 

Should you encounter the enemy, he will be defeated! No quarter will be given! Prisoners will not be taken! Whoever falls into your hands is forfeited. Just as a thousand years ago the Huns under their King Attila made a name for themselves, one that even today makes them seem mighty in history and legend, may the name German be affirmed by you in such a way in China that no Chinese will ever again dare to look cross-eyed at a German. Maintain discipline. May God’s blessing be with you, the prayers of an entire nation and my good wishes go with you, each and every one. Open the way to civilization once and for all! Now you may depart! Farewell, comrades!

 

Wilhelm was the Führer No. 1, Hitler was the Führer No. 2. Nazis have roots in the British Royal family.


Edited by Tamino, 12 September 2016 - 09:37 PM.

flag_eu.png


#36 Belasar

Belasar

    Court Jester

  • Administrators
  • 7,438 posts

Posted 12 September 2016 - 09:54 PM



If one is looking at the question without hindsight, Stalin's suspicions were justified .

 

 

Hindsight? Hardly, none was needed.

 

Lets sum up shall we.

 

In the summer of 1925 Hitler publishes "Mein Kampf" which lays out in considerable detail what he intends to do in the event he comes to power in Germany. Unlike any other significant European leader/politician he doesn't simply advocate a change in leadership/government in the USSR, he desires to erase Russia as a nation from the map. Exterminate much, if not most, of the population, with the survivor's becoming a ignorant perpetual slave race. Rather more than anything Churchill said or did.

 

After coming to power in 1933 Hitler proceeds to crush all political opposition, including the Communist Party within Germany. Their leadership, and much of the rank and file, are shipped off to the early Concentration Camps, many to never be seen again. In France and Britain by comparison The Communist Party's are allowed to exist and have representation in the governments of both countries. Indeed Moscow had contact, sometimes indirect control of these groups in Britain and France. Rather a different approach isn't it.

 

Also in 1933 all forms of media (print/radio/film) come under the control of the Propaganda Ministry. Everything proposed by Mein Kampf  and used to get the Nazi Party into power now become amplified by these organ's. Not really needed since there will never be a election again, so no need to keep hyping this, but valuable if your trying to motivate your people see a Eastern Crusade as not only possible or necessary, but desirable. The Nazi Party does not stop there, Education, Sport and even the free time of children has this theme drilled into them. Yes, some media say less than flattering things about the USSR in Britain and France, but by no means all and the Communist's in these countries are not prevented from getting their stories out as a counter.

 

Not looking good for Mother Russia is it?

 

Again, beginning in 1933, Hitler undertakes a massive program of re-armament, one predominately focused on land campaign's. This was no secret, it was in all the papers. France had a massive line of defensive works, The Czech's had a not too shabby one to the south, but nothing of significance facing east, and didn't Hitler write and say something about creating a new German Empire in the East?

 

In 1936 Hitler's Germany helps Franco crush the Soviet supported Republican's.

 

In early 1938 Hitler swallows in one gulp Austria and gains her military and arms to supplement his own. In late 1938 and early 1939 he aims closer to the Soviet Union by taking control of Czechoslovakia  in two big bites, thus adding the famous Skoda arms works to his arsenal, as well as the Czech military's already produced weapons.

 

This is getting serious!

 

Finally in the late summer of 1939 Hitler announces his intention to 'adjust borders' with Poland. He is definitely moving East, toward Mother Russia and in the past 'border adjustment' has meant the end of a counties independent existence. The one and only buffer state between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany is in Hitler's cross hair's. After this Hitler would have a straight shot to Moscow and a chance to make his well known dreams come true. Stalin has one last chance to fight this battle, not on Soviet soil, but on Poland's which eliminates any chance of her getting adventurous against Russia for generations. Stalin has '100 Divisions' to throw into battle, more than Hitler, a chance to gain three allies to split the burden, a chance to fight this war on Polish and German soil. 

 

None of this is hindsight. 

 

Stalin's actions were based neither on logic or reason, but upon uncontrolled paranoia and greed to make a deal with somebody, anybody, willing to satiate his appetite for expansion. Unfortunately millions of Russian's would pay dearly for his greed and lack of foresight, and yes foresight is both real and very different from hindsight. 


Wars are rarely fought in black and white, but in infinite shades of grey

(Poppy is occasionaly correct, or so I hear)


#37 Sloniksp

Sloniksp

    Ставка

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,171 posts

Posted 12 September 2016 - 10:43 PM

Since when France or Britain were trying to crush communism?
Because it was entirely the other way, the Soviets stated many times that the capitalist system would collapse in a matter of a few years, and were trying to undermine it by terrorist means, through the so called Komintern and their total control of all the communist parties all around the world.

Poland didn't invade Russia to crush communism but to regain some Polish territories occupied by the Bolsheviks, themselves an illegitimate rebel movement not much different from ISIS today.
Actually the Poles regarded the USSR a better alternative (because they expected their country would be weak and powerless for many year to come) than the Imperial Russia or even some post-imperial new Russia, and actually supported the Soviets in some ways, for example by refusing to cooperate with the legitimate Russian forces.
It can be said with only slight exaggeration that in the end the Poles saved the USSR from destruction.

Regain Polish lands such as Belarus and Ukraine?

The Bolsheviks the same as ISIS today?!? :rofl: I'm sure Carl Marx would also have a nice laugh. :rofl:

Poles saved the USSR from destruction!?! I have clearly been reading wrong material all these years! Darn.

Edited by Sloniksp, 12 September 2016 - 10:45 PM.

The war against Russia will be such that it cannot be conducted in a knightly fashion. This struggle is one of ideologies and racial differences and will have to be conducted with unprecedented, unmerciful and unrelenting harshness. -Adolf Hitler

#38 steverodgers801

steverodgers801

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,655 posts

Posted 12 September 2016 - 11:08 PM

the British were very active against the soviets right after the revolution. France and Britain seriously considered bombing Baku to help the Finns



#39 wm.

wm.

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 413 posts
  • LocationSilesia Inferior

Posted 13 September 2016 - 01:46 AM

Regain Polish lands such as Belarus and Ukraine?

 

So how many native Russians lived there? None? Exactly. Those territories had been in Polish or Lithuanian hands from 1320 if I'm not mistaken. 

Were the Belorussians or Ukrainians Russians? Maybe "little Russians"? Did they want to live in the USSR, enjoy the Holodomors, murders, waves of deportations to Siberia? 

Considering how many of them fled the USSR to Poland I would say they strongly preferred Poland. 

 

The fact that Poland proffered the USSR than Russia is firmly established. And the fact that the Poles for the same reason didn't want to support the efforts of Anton Denikin to capture Moscow. Just google "Piłsudski Denikin talks" or see this.

 

Additionally one of the Polish goals was a free, independent Ukraine - for this reason the Ukrainian Army fought on the side of Poland during that war. 



#40 Sloniksp

Sloniksp

    Ставка

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,171 posts

Posted 13 September 2016 - 05:04 AM

So how many native Russians lived there? None? Exactly. Those territories had been in Polish or Lithuanian hands from 1320 if I'm not mistaken.
Were the Belorussians or Ukrainians Russians? Maybe "little Russians"? Did they want to live in the USSR, enjoy the Holodomors, murders, waves of deportations to Siberia?
Considering how many of them fled the USSR to Poland I would say they strongly preferred Poland.

The fact that Poland proffered the USSR than Russia is firmly established. And the fact that the Poles for the same reason didn't want to support the efforts of Anton Denikin to capture Moscow. Just google "Piłsudski Denikin talks" or see this.

Additionally one of the Polish goals was a free, independent Ukraine - for this reason the Ukrainian Army fought on the side of Poland during that war.

My friend why stop at 1320? If memory serves me right, Galica (which is where the overwhelming majority of the Ukrainian nationalists are from) was part of Kiev-Rus more than 1000 years ago then subsequently switched hands from Poland to Austro-Hungarian rule. Poland as a country was only reestablished after WWI. There was a border between Poland and Ukraine, the Curzon Line. That line changed when Marshall Pilsudski attacked during the Russian revolution. Galicia was taken over until 1939.
The Galicians felt repressed to the point of assassinating the Polish interior minister and other officials and they didn't stop there. The Volhynian massacre was the end result.

Strong animosity exists till this day between Poles and Ukrainians. Poland was the first NATO country to file a formal protest against the new government once it realized who they considered national heroes. Stepan Bondera is no hero in Poland.

Not sure what Russia has to do with Poland attacking Belarus aside from Belarus declaring independence from the Russian Empire in 1918(?) Poland attacked Ukraine and Belarus in an attempt to stretch her borders. Didn't go according to plan.

Edited by Sloniksp, 13 September 2016 - 07:17 AM.

  • Belasar likes this
The war against Russia will be such that it cannot be conducted in a knightly fashion. This struggle is one of ideologies and racial differences and will have to be conducted with unprecedented, unmerciful and unrelenting harshness. -Adolf Hitler

#41 LJAd

LJAd

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,995 posts

Posted 13 September 2016 - 06:38 AM

Hindsight? Hardly, none was needed.
 
Lets sum up shall we.
 
In the summer of 1925 Hitler publishes "Mein Kampf" which lays out in considerable detail what he intends to do in the event he comes to power in Germany. Unlike any other significant European leader/politician he doesn't simply advocate a change in leadership/government in the USSR, he desires to erase Russia as a nation from the map. Exterminate much, if not most, of the population, with the survivor's becoming a ignorant perpetual slave race. Rather more than anything Churchill said or did.
 
After coming to power in 1933 Hitler proceeds to crush all political opposition, including the Communist Party within Germany. Their leadership, and much of the rank and file, are shipped off to the early Concentration Camps, many to never be seen again. In France and Britain by comparison The Communist Party's are allowed to exist and have representation in the governments of both countries. Indeed Moscow had contact, sometimes indirect control of these groups in Britain and France. Rather a different approach isn't it.
 
Also in 1933 all forms of media (print/radio/film) come under the control of the Propaganda Ministry. Everything proposed by Mein Kampf  and used to get the Nazi Party into power now become amplified by these organ's. Not really needed since there will never be a election again, so no need to keep hyping this, but valuable if your trying to motivate your people see a Eastern Crusade as not only possible or necessary, but desirable. The Nazi Party does not stop there, Education, Sport and even the free time of children has this theme drilled into them. Yes, some media say less than flattering things about the USSR in Britain and France, but by no means all and the Communist's in these countries are not prevented from getting their stories out as a counter.
 
Not looking good for Mother Russia is it?
 
Again, beginning in 1933, Hitler undertakes a massive program of re-armament, one predominately focused on land campaign's. This was no secret, it was in all the papers. France had a massive line of defensive works, The Czech's had a not too shabby one to the south, but nothing of significance facing east, and didn't Hitler write and say something about creating a new German Empire in the East?
 
In 1936 Hitler's Germany helps Franco crush the Soviet supported Republican's.
 
In early 1938 Hitler swallows in one gulp Austria and gains her military and arms to supplement his own. In late 1938 and early 1939 he aims closer to the Soviet Union by taking control of Czechoslovakia  in two big bites, thus adding the famous Skoda arms works to his arsenal, as well as the Czech military's already produced weapons.
 
This is getting serious!
 
Finally in the late summer of 1939 Hitler announces his intention to 'adjust borders' with Poland. He is definitely moving East, toward Mother Russia and in the past 'border adjustment' has meant the end of a counties independent existence. The one and only buffer state between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany is in Hitler's cross hair's. After this Hitler would have a straight shot to Moscow and a chance to make his well known dreams come true. Stalin has one last chance to fight this battle, not on Soviet soil, but on Poland's which eliminates any chance of her getting adventurous against Russia for generations. Stalin has '100 Divisions' to throw into battle, more than Hitler, a chance to gain three allies to split the burden, a chance to fight this war on Polish and German soil. 
 
None of this is hindsight. 
 
Stalin's actions were based neither on logic or reason, but upon uncontrolled paranoia and greed to make a deal with somebody, anybody, willing to satiate his appetite for expansion. Unfortunately millions of Russian's would pay dearly for his greed and lack of foresight, and yes foresight is both real and very different from hindsight.



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 .

#42 LJAd

LJAd

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,995 posts

Posted 13 September 2016 - 06:49 AM

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 .

#43 Sloniksp

Sloniksp

    Ставка

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,171 posts

Posted 13 September 2016 - 07:35 AM

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.

Edited by Sloniksp, 13 September 2016 - 07:37 AM.

  • Belasar and Tamino like this
The war against Russia will be such that it cannot be conducted in a knightly fashion. This struggle is one of ideologies and racial differences and will have to be conducted with unprecedented, unmerciful and unrelenting harshness. -Adolf Hitler

#44 wm.

wm.

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 413 posts
  • LocationSilesia Inferior

Posted 13 September 2016 - 08:12 AM

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.

 

 

My friend why stop at 1320? If memory serves me right, Galica (which is where the overwhelming majority of the Ukrainian nationalists are from) was part of Kiev-Rus more than 1000 years ago then subsequently switched hands from Poland to Austro-Hungarian rule. Poland as a country was only reestablished after WWI. There was a border between Poland and Ukraine, the Curzon Line. That line changed when Marshall Pilsudski attacked during the Russian revolution. Galicia was taken over until 1939.

 

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. 

 

 

 

 

 



#45 Tamino

Tamino

    Doc - The Deplorable

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,462 posts
  • LocationUntersteiermark

Posted 13 September 2016 - 08:37 AM

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.


flag_eu.png


#46 LJAd

LJAd

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,995 posts

Posted 13 September 2016 - 10:28 AM

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.


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 .

#47 LJAd

LJAd

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,995 posts

Posted 13 September 2016 - 11:26 AM

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.


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 .

#48 wm.

wm.

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 413 posts
  • LocationSilesia Inferior

Posted 13 September 2016 - 12:55 PM

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 .

 

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. 



#49 wm.

wm.

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 413 posts
  • LocationSilesia Inferior

Posted 13 September 2016 - 01:02 PM

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.

 

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.



#50 Belasar

Belasar

    Court Jester

  • Administrators
  • 7,438 posts

Posted 13 September 2016 - 01:28 PM

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.

 

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. 


Wars are rarely fought in black and white, but in infinite shades of grey

(Poppy is occasionaly correct, or so I hear)





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users