This has been brought up in similar threads and posts, but I guess I still would like other view points or explanations. The Soviet Union was an oppressive authoritarian state that signed a non-aggression pact with another oppressive authoritarian state, National Socialist Germany. The Soviet Union waged war on Finland, participated in the German war with Poland, occupied the Baltic States, moved its troops around elsewhere in Eastern Europe. The Western Powers declared war on Germany, one part of this pact, but not the USSR, who also violated the order of the peace. Why was this so? Shouldn't Russia have had war declared on it by the West due to Finland, the carving up of Poland, and the Baltic's?
Basically, the Problem with that is that Russia did not come into Poland until several days after the Germans opened their invasion. Russia did not invade Finland until after the occupation of Poland. Meanwhile, the Western Allies were not really prepared to wage war on Germany and expected to have their hands full just fighting Germany. A Russian war would have greatly complicated matters by driving Russia further into the Axis camp and making the war against Germany that much harder. I am sure others will add to this in much greater detail.
The Allies weren't world's policemen. They, rather reasonably, were protecting their own interests and nothing else. Britain/France and Poland were allies against Germany, but not the USSR - there Poland was alone. Similarity they weren't in alliance with Finland or the Baltic States. It should be mentioned Finland's "brethren": Norway and Sweden didn't even lift a finger to help Finland. So if the neighbors didn't want to help, why should have some distant strangers? Although the Allies were trying to help Finland and planned a hit-and-run attack on the USSR, but the goal was to disrupt the German-Soviet cooperation, not to save Finland or defeat the USSR.
Remember too that the Allies' ultimatum was directed at Germany-not the USSR. They had given the latter country no warning so under the "rules" of that time it would be wrong just to declare war. Besides, as noted above, Germany was seen as the major threat to Britain and France, not the Soviets.
Much happened prior to the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact... Soviet Union watched how the Western European countries appeased Hitler time and time again then refused an alliance against Germany. Stalin was alone. Hitler's intentions for Russia were known. He attempted to buy time and space for the upcoming war... After June 22nd 1941 GB declared war on Finland in a symbolic sign of solidarity.
I think came down to economics and culture more than anything. The centers of the monetary world, and of the civilized world had to be New York and London, not Berlin, an oppressed, authoritarian non-democracy.
There wasn't really any law that forbade assistance to a victim of an aggression. Most countries, including the USSR, renounced the right to use war to solve political conflicts. But the Soviet attack on Poland was clearly a military, not a political conflict.
The Soviets never were sincere in their negotiations, their goal wasn't simply peace. The price they demanded was the right to intervene in the neighbouring countries: the Baltic States, Poland, Romania on the slightest pretext (the so called indirect aggression clause), which in the end would result in Soviet expansion into Eastern Europe. The British, especially Chamberlain wasn't prepared to pay such a price. Although as we know they eventually changed their minds.
Weren't sincere? How can you be so sure? Those lands mentioned were part of the Russian Emprire less than 25 years earlier and had large Russian speaking populations. Stalin viewed these lands as Russian. Peace would benefit all involved would it not? "Demanded the right to intervene in Poland, Baltic States Romania" These are NATO countries now. Clearly someone else has intervened...
I believe Churchill knew that without the USSR they could not win the war. They kept on waiting and finally got the "gift" as Barbarossa started. Hitler was gonna lose the war.
The Western Powers despised Communism and didn't trust the USSR. Part of the reason they appeased Hitler and allowed him to build up and violate the Versailles treaty was to keep Stalin in check.
Opinion, or fact? Which "western power"? As we are talking appeasement and Versaille, that'll be post 1935? I mean, this utter despite for the USSR must be why the "Western Powers" so eagerly embraced the Anti-Comintern Pact, no? Let's first consider why "the Western Powers" might not trust the USSR... ... it was clear that Russia, like Germany in the 1920s and 1930s, was a "revisionist" country vis-à-vis the postwar settlement at Versailles: i.e., Lenin, the lodestar of both Russian and German foreign policy was to recapture their pre–World War I borders — what they both considered the "true" borders of their respective states. It should be noted that every political party or tendency in Russia and Germany, whether ruling the state or in opposition, agreed with this aim of full restoration of national territory. Further, already in the writings of Marx,never mind publications by Comintern, (or speeches by Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin) do not really inspire and encourage co-operation between 'bourgeois imperialists' and Communist leaders. Their propaganda was reminiscent of '1984', the switch from physically attacking Social Democrats (described as 'Social Fascists') to peace-loving Antifacists... 'The Fascist beasts were Fascist beasts, but our [the Communists] main preoccupation was the Troskyite heretics and socialist schismatics' - Arthur Koestler, German Communist 'It is impossible to struggle against fascism without struggling against social democracy.' - André Marty, French Communist in L'Humanité Feb 6 1934 But suddenly all this ended; no more violence against socialists and democrats... Bourgeois democracy, previously castigated as 'Fascism in disguise' was now suddenly praised as 'a guarantee of freedom' Let's examine what Georgi Dimitroff, chief of the Comintern, and the man most closely identified with the new policy had to say; 'The flexible Bolshevik tactics, which are the application of the general tactical line of the Seventh Congress of the Communist International to a specific question arise of necessity from the whole present-day international situation.' Was he alone in his opinion? 'Our [Communist Party] struggle is for the dictatorship of the proletariat, for Soviets, we ... do not give up our aims. But... the immediate task now is not the struggle for the dictatorship of the proletariat but the development of the anti-fascist struggle.' -José Díaz, Spanish Communist Leader, February 1936 In the struggle for Soviet power, it is possible - during a political crisis - to establish an anti-fascist popular front, so long as the masses are still not ready for a Soviet government. Later on, when conditions have improved, we can continue the struggle for a proletarian dictatorship... the goal of our fight is a Soviet Germany.' -Walter Ulbricht, German Communist And so on, across Europe, and the US. Thus, the USSR was directing and coordinating Communist parties' propaganda across the globe, and had not given up on undermining the 'Bourgeois' democracies, they were just far less of a threat, to the USSR! So explain to me, what is there to trust? As a reason to appease Hitler, containing Stalin is pretty low on the scale. Primarily, appeasement came about because the general opinion was that Germany had been hard done by. Then when the nature of the beast made itself apparent, it was to buy time for the democracies to rearm.
The Capitalist business leaders were threatened more by Communism, and they control the lobbyists, special interests, they have the money, and their concern is the governments concern.
Which "Capitalist business leaders"? Which "lobbyists", in 1935, in the UK, France and US? What "special interests"? Because I know of no such homogeneous grouping. In this light, the "Franco-Soviet Treaty of Mutual Assistance" of 1935 is willed out of existence. It was the Soviets themselves that drew down on trade with the West in the early 30's, proving themselves to be both an unreliable supplier and an unreliable customer. 'Soviet purchases in the West dropped from 3.8 billion rubles in 1931 to 841 billion rubles in 1935. American sales to Russia plummeted from around $100 million in 1931 to $12 million in 1932.' Prior to the draw down such "Capitalist business leaders" as: - Henry Ford, so despised the USSR, he agreed to assist the Soviet automobile industry. - W. Averell Harriman; same with the mining of magnesium - Other American business men (can't have been Capitalists, then, eh?) established "The American Commercial Association to Promote Trade with Russia"; also the "American-Russian Chamber of Commerce", and the "Allied American Corporation." - Chase National Bank of New York led other banks in exploring ways to increase credit for trade with Russia. In the face of the Depression, it was American businessmen that were pushing for US recognition of the USSR. Which FDR did in 1933...
The rise of Mussolini. that IMO started the whole "fascist" mess, was heavily supported by a number of Italian industrialists that were afraid of socialist inspired social reforms. The evolution in other countries that ended up with a right wing dictator was not identical, but help from the industrialist (and in some instances large land owners) was a factor in most right wing power grabs. But I would agree that it was a mixed affair. A lot of industrialists were more interested on selling tp the USSR than fighting them, but soviet inspired trade unions inside their factories were an entirely different matter . The prediction that "We will hang the last capitalist with the rope he just sold us" holds more than a bit of truth, though in the end it turned out that it was the opposite, the demand for consumer goods the centralized planning was unable to meet eventually brought the house down.
The hard right business fascists were anti-labor, anti-labor union, for low wages, less workers rights. The Fascists were great at oppressing the worker, low wages, destroying trade unions, and keeping profits higher while costs lower.
This whole thing was a classic case of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". It's how international politics still works.
Yes, thank you for that. A number of posters on various forums seem to think that the British and French could save all of Europe. The British and Allies did try to help, we sent boys antitank rifles and Brewster Buffaloes that were both quite effective in Finnish hands. What's more, we sent over Count Dooku, ScaraManga and the wizard Saruman to help the Finns, what more could you want?
It just seemed hypocritical, and I understand England and France weren't the world police... But Russia signed the non-aggression pact with Germany, They invaded Poland from the East, invaded and occupied other countries and areas, were a totalitarian oppressive state. Those actions could be considered just as much of a threat to peace, civilization, humanity, etc. that Nazi Germany posed.
