Putin – What Was Wrong with Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact?

[wm]

No, they were occupied because the bolshevik leadership, Stalin and most of his acolytes, were convinced since 1937-38 that a major European war was imminent and, having failed to reach a strategic alliance with GB and France, tried with every means at their disposal to improve the strategic position of USSR, gaining strategic depth and putting the nervous gangles of the country as far as possible from the western border.

He explained it differently:

A war is on between two groups of capitalist countries...for the re-division of the world, for the domination of the world!
We see nothing wrong in their having a good hard fight and weakening each other.

It would be fine if at the hands of Germany the position of the richest capitalist countries (especially England) were shaken. Hitler, without understanding it or desiring it, is shaking and undermining the capitalist system....
We can maneuver, pit one side against the other to set them fighting with each other as fiercely as possible. The non-aggression pact is to a certain degree helping Germany.
Next time we we’ll urge on the other side.
Stalin on 7 September 1939

[Attrition]

~~~~~extinguishing 4/5 minor countries and annexing parts of two other larger ones~~~~~

Which ones?

Which is to say, did Stalin take over anywhere not under Russian control in 1914?

[wm]

Those territories were under Russian control, but they had the right to self-determination, among others because of:

the proletariat, of Russia is faced with a twofold or, rather, a two-sided task: to combat nationalism of every kind, above all, Great-Russian nationalism; to recognise, not only fully equal rights, for all nations in general, but also equality of rights as regards polity, i.e., the right of nations to self-determination, to secession.
V.I.Lenin, The Right of Nations to Self-Determination (1914)

Victorious socialism must achieve complete democracy and, consequently, not only bring about the complete equality of nations, but also give effect to the right of oppressed nations to self-determination, i.e., the right to free political secession.
V.I.Lenin, The Right of Nations to Self-Determination The Socialist Revolution and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination (1916)

The Soviet government will [..] guarantee all the nations inhabiting Russia the genuine right to self-determination.
V.I.Lenin, To Workers, Soldiers, and Peasants! (1918)

We do not only recognise, but we also give full support to the principle of self-determination, wherever it is directed against feudal, capitalist and imperialist states.
Leon Trotsky, Between Red and White (1922)

The Russian Soviet Republic is organized on the basis of a free union of free nations, as a federation of soviet national republics.
1918 Constitution of the RSFSR

To every Union Republic is reserved the right freely to secede from the U.S.S.R.
1936 Constitution of the USSR

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi ljadw,

Without the Molotiov-Ribbentrop Pact Hitler might well not have dared to attack Poland following the Anglo-French guarantees to Poland. As it was, he postponed the attack for nearly a week when Italy wouldn't participate against France and the UK. How much less likely was he to attack Poland if the USSR's position was still in doubt?

The pact covered Hitler's back against a two-front war by giving Stalin a free hand in Latvia, Estonia and Finland and later Lithuania and awarded him Romanian Bessarabia (now largely Moldova).

The proposition that the Baltic States and Finland were likely to attack the Soviet Union is ludicrous. They didn't even have a defensive pact between themselves, let alone with any offensive pact with outside "capitalistic states".

Stalin was engaged in unilateral naked aggression against the minor states under cover of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. It was not defensive at all. Putin is being disingenuous.

Cheers,

Sid.

[ljadw]

"Ludicrous" is a wrong argument :what was decisive is what the Kremlin was thinking and this was the following:

1)Marx had said that capitalism would disappear,but the more capitalism was in danger,the more dangerous it would be

2)After (and already at the end) of WWI,capitalist states had invaded the SU : US,Japan,Britain, France,Poland ,Germany

3)Because of the economic crisis,capitalism was in danger :it had to call fascism as saviour (the communists never understood/refused to understand the essence of nazism)

4)The result of these 3 points was that the SU was a panic-ridden state,where paranoia and espionitis were ruling .Der Tag (as would say the Kaiser) ,the day of the final battle between communism and capitalism was nearing,and....the SU was not ready .That's was the reason why Stalin did everything to avoid to be involved in a war :If Britain and France declared war on Germany,they would defeat Germany (as in WWI) and would be exhausted,and,the SU would be saved .Thus no reason for the SU to be involved .If OTOH,Britain and France did not declare war on Germany,the danger was even much greater : if the SU did declare war and won against Germany,the SU would be exhausted and would be an easy prey for the capitalist states.
The SU could not afford to be involved in a war .

About the Italian "defection" ,Fall Weiss was delayed, but,it still was executed .Hitler did not ask Italy to participate against France and Britain, but,he hoped that a declaration of fealty by Mussolini would prevent a declaration of war from France and Britain .

[ljadw]

No, they were occupied because the bolshevik leadership, Stalin and most of his acolytes, were convinced since 1937-38 that a major European war was imminent and, having failed to reach a strategic alliance with GB and France, tried with every means at their disposal to improve the strategic position of USSR, gaining strategic depth and putting the nervous gangles of the country as far as possible from the western border.

He explained it differently:

A war is on between two groups of capitalist countries...for the re-division of the world, for the domination of the world!
We see nothing wrong in their having a good hard fight and weakening each other.

It would be fine if at the hands of Germany the position of the richest capitalist countries (especially England) were shaken. Hitler, without understanding it or desiring it, is shaking and undermining the capitalist system....
We can maneuver, pit one side against the other to set them fighting with each other as fiercely as possible. The non-aggression pact is to a certain degree helping Germany.
Next time we we’ll urge on the other side.
Stalin on 7 September 1939

If I am not wrong,the declaration of Stalin has been proved to be a forgery .

[wm]

It is from The Diary of Georgi Dimitrov, the most loyal "lap dog" of Stalin. The diary was written personally by him for his own use. I've never seen any claims it's a forgery.
He wrote that after a meeting between Stalin, Molotov, Zhdanov and him at the Kremlin.

A day later, he issued this Directive on the Outbreak of War, 8th September, 1939:

The current war is imperialist and unjust. The bourgeoisie of all the warring states is to be held responsible for it. This war cannot be supported by the working class of these countries, not to mention its communist parties. This war is not waged against fascism by the bourgeoisie despite the affirmations of Chamberlain and the leaders of social-democracy. This war takes place between two groups of capitalist countries for world domination. The international proletariat should not defend fascist Poland which had refused the assistance of the Soviet Union and which oppresses other nationalities.

The communist parties are against the Munichites since they always wanted to create a genuine anti-fascist front with the participation of the USSR, but the bourgeoisie of England and France pushed aside the USSR in order to wage a war of pillage.

This war has radically changed the situation: the division of the capitalist states between fascist and democratic is not in force any longer. As a result it is necessary to change tactics.

The tactics of the communist party of the belligerent countries at this point is to expose its imperialist character, have communist deputies vote against war credits, tell the masses that the war will give nothing but privation and suffering. In the neutral countries the communist parties should expose those governments who on the one hand remain neutral in their country but on the other support the war in other countries in order to take advantage of it, as the government of the USA does with respect to Japan and China. The communist parties of all countries should be on the offensive against the treacherous stand of social-democracy. The communist parties, specially the French, American, and Belgian, who oppose these directives should immediately correct their political line.

[Karelia]

Without the M/R Pact,Hitler would take the whole of Poland,including the Eastern regions,which for Stalin was a mortal danger for the SU .

No, without M-R pact Hitler wouldn't have dared to attack and risk having to fight a war on two fronts.

Why was Stalin occupying the Baltic states ? Because they were capitalistic states and could ally with the other capitalistic states to attack the SU : after 11/11 /1918,German forces were fighting in the Baltics with the consent of Britain and France . (and it was the same for Finland) .

Stalin occupied the Baltics and Bessarabia and attacked Finland in order to renew the Russian Empire. It was just pure imperialism, which has always been in fashion in Russia/the USSR - even today.

The single German division in Finland in 1918 was never any threat to Russia, neither did it even attempt any operations against Russia proper.

Stalin's strategy was double : in the short term,the SU would follow a defensive strategy.In the long term,the Soviet strategy would depend on the results of the war between France,Britain,Poland and Germany .

Stalin's strategy - as always in Russia - was offensive. Naturally he preferred the others to do as much of the actual fighting as possible for him - like in Poland in 1939.

The M/R pact was the result of Hitler's decision to attack Poland ,not the inverse .

No. Hitler's decision to attack only finalized and was been made possible after and because of the M-R pact.

No, they were occupied because the bolshevik leadership, Stalin and most of his acolytes, were convinced since 1937-38 that a major European war was imminent and, having failed to reach a strategic alliance with GB and France, tried with every means at their disposal to improve the strategic position of USSR, gaining strategic depth and putting the nervous gangles of the country as far as possible from the western border. The same rationale was behind the request to Finland to cede territories in the south, around Leningrad, in exchange of territories in the north and brought to the Winter War....

If Finland had fully yielded to soviet territorial demands, that would have left Finland totally defenseless and under the mercy of the USSR - which of course was the soviet aim in the first place. Already from the beginning Stalin wanted to occupy all of Finland, not only some limited territories. The "negotiations" were only soviet theater, since the preparations for attack had started already a year earlier.

Which is to say, did Stalin take over anywhere not under Russian control in 1914?

What's your point? Are you trying to hint, that attacking countries formerly occupied by Russian Empire was ok?! Certainly the Russians thought/think so, but not the rest of the World!

...
2)After (and already at the end) of WWI,capitalist states had invaded the SU : US,Japan,Britain, France,Poland ,Germany

No, there was no Soviet Union until 1922. What those countries did was to participate in a civil war with multiple parties. There was no state nor universally accepted government in Russia then.

...
4)The result of these 3 points was that the SU was a panic-ridden state,where paranoia and espionitis were ruling .Der Tag (as would say the Kaiser) ,the day of the final battle between communism and capitalism was nearing,and....the SU was not ready .That's was the reason why Stalin did everything to avoid to be involved in a war :If Britain and France declared war on Germany,they would defeat Germany (as in WWI) and would be exhausted,and,the SU would be saved .Thus no reason for the SU to be involved .If OTOH,Britain and France did not declare war on Germany,the danger was even much greater : if the SU did declare war and won against Germany,the SU would be exhausted and would be an easy prey for the capitalist states.
The SU could not afford to be involved in a war.

The USSR had more tanks than the rest of the World combined in 1939. She had won/was winning two "wars" against Japan, which had defeated Imperial Russia earlier. The soviet spirit was supposed to make the Red Army, which had won in the Civil War all enemies supported by the West, superior. Stalin had no reasons to doubt the effectiveness of the soviet armed forces against any enemies.

Of course Stalin preferred letting others to fight each other. That was his plan. It was not a necessity for the survival of the USSR to ally with Germany, it was a preferred and planned step for Stalin in order to get what he wanted.

About the Italian "defection" ,Fall Weiss was delayed, but,it still was executed .Hitler did not ask Italy to participate against France and Britain, but,he hoped that a declaration of fealty by Mussolini would prevent a declaration of war from France and Britain .

It was very different then. Hitler had crushed Poland much more spectacularly than he had expected. He had proof that he was much stronger than he had hoped for - and that his adversaries were weaker.

He felt he needed support for an attack against Poland, but not anymore in 1940.

[ljadw]

No, without M-R pact Hitler wouldn't have dared to attack and risk having to fight a war on two fronts.

The USSR had more tanks than the rest of the World combined in 1939. .[/quote]


1)Unless there was a military alliance between Poland and the SU,a war on 2 fronts was out of the question

2)That the SU had more tanks than the rest of the world in 1941 proves nothing : the 12000 Soviet tanks in the western military districts disappeared in a few weeks,most of them never firing one shot

[ljadw]

It is from The Diary of Georgi Dimitrov, the most loyal "lap dog" of Stalin. The diary was written personally by him for his own use. I've never seen any claims it's a forgery.
He wrote that after a meeting between Stalin, Molotov, Zhdanov and him at the Kremlin.

A day later, he issued this Directive on the Outbreak of War, 8th September, 1939:

The current war is imperialist and unjust. The bourgeoisie of all the warring states is to be held responsible for it. This war cannot be supported by the working class of these countries, not to mention its communist parties. This war is not waged against fascism by the bourgeoisie despite the affirmations of Chamberlain and the leaders of social-democracy. This war takes place between two groups of capitalist countries for world domination. The international proletariat should not defend fascist Poland which had refused the assistance of the Soviet Union and which oppresses other nationalities.

The communist parties are against the Munichites since they always wanted to create a genuine anti-fascist front with the participation of the USSR, but the bourgeoisie of England and France pushed aside the USSR in order to wage a war of pillage.

This war has radically changed the situation: the division of the capitalist states between fascist and democratic is not in force any longer. As a result it is necessary to change tactics.

The tactics of the communist party of the belligerent countries at this point is to expose its imperialist character, have communist deputies vote against war credits, tell the masses that the war will give nothing but privation and suffering. In the neutral countries the communist parties should expose those governments who on the one hand remain neutral in their country but on the other support the war in other countries in order to take advantage of it, as the government of the USA does with respect to Japan and China. The communist parties of all countries should be on the offensive against the treacherous stand of social-democracy. The communist parties, specially the French, American, and Belgian, who oppose these directives should immediately correct their political line.

My mistake : I was confounding with the "speech" of 19 august,which has been proved to be a forgery (by Eberhard Jäckel and others).
But:OTOH,as the content of both speeches was grosso modo the same, I still have my doubt about the veracity of the content of the speech of 8 september .

[Attrition]

Without the M/R Pact,Hitler would take the whole of Poland,including the Eastern regions,which for Stalin was a mortal danger for the SU .

No, without M-R pact Hitler wouldn't have dared to attack and risk having to fight a war on two fronts.

Why was Stalin occupying the Baltic states ? Because they were capitalistic states and could ally with the other capitalistic states to attack the SU : after 11/11 /1918,German forces were fighting in the Baltics with the consent of Britain and France . (and it was the same for Finland) .

Stalin occupied the Baltics and Bessarabia and attacked Finland in order to renew the Russian Empire. It was just pure imperialism, which has always been in fashion in Russia/the USSR - even today.

The single German division in Finland in 1918 was never any threat to Russia, neither did it even attempt any operations against Russia proper.

Stalin's strategy was double : in the short term,the SU would follow a defensive strategy.In the long term,the Soviet strategy would depend on the results of the war between France,Britain,Poland and Germany .

Stalin's strategy - as always in Russia - was offensive. Naturally he preferred the others to do as much of the actual fighting as possible for him - like in Poland in 1939.

The M/R pact was the result of Hitler's decision to attack Poland ,not the inverse .

No. Hitler's decision to attack only finalized and was been made possible after and because of the M-R pact.

No, they were occupied because the bolshevik leadership, Stalin and most of his acolytes, were convinced since 1937-38 that a major European war was imminent and, having failed to reach a strategic alliance with GB and France, tried with every means at their disposal to improve the strategic position of USSR, gaining strategic depth and putting the nervous gangles of the country as far as possible from the western border. The same rationale was behind the request to Finland to cede territories in the south, around Leningrad, in exchange of territories in the north and brought to the Winter War....

If Finland had fully yielded to soviet territorial demands, that would have left Finland totally defenseless and under the mercy of the USSR - which of course was the soviet aim in the first place. Already from the beginning Stalin wanted to occupy all of Finland, not only some limited territories. The "negotiations" were only soviet theater, since the preparations for attack had started already a year earlier.

Which is to say, did Stalin take over anywhere not under Russian control in 1914?

What's your point? Are you trying to hint, that attacking countries formerly occupied by Russian Empire was ok?! Certainly the Russians thought/think so, but not the rest of the World!

...
2)After (and already at the end) of WWI,capitalist states had invaded the SU : US,Japan,Britain, France,Poland ,Germany

No, there was no Soviet Union until 1922. What those countries did was to participate in a civil war with multiple parties. There was no state nor universally accepted government in Russia then.

...
4)The result of these 3 points was that the SU was a panic-ridden state,where paranoia and espionitis were ruling .Der Tag (as would say the Kaiser) ,the day of the final battle between communism and capitalism was nearing,and....the SU was not ready .That's was the reason why Stalin did everything to avoid to be involved in a war :If Britain and France declared war on Germany,they would defeat Germany (as in WWI) and would be exhausted,and,the SU would be saved .Thus no reason for the SU to be involved .If OTOH,Britain and France did not declare war on Germany,the danger was even much greater : if the SU did declare war and won against Germany,the SU would be exhausted and would be an easy prey for the capitalist states.
The SU could not afford to be involved in a war.

The USSR had more tanks than the rest of the World combined in 1939. She had won/was winning two "wars" against Japan, which had defeated Imperial Russia earlier. The soviet spirit was supposed to make the Red Army, which had won in the Civil War all enemies supported by the West, superior. Stalin had no reasons to doubt the effectiveness of the soviet armed forces against any enemies.

Of course Stalin preferred letting others to fight each other. That was his plan. It was not a necessity for the survival of the USSR to ally with Germany, it was a preferred and planned step for Stalin in order to get what he wanted.

About the Italian "defection" ,Fall Weiss was delayed, but,it still was executed .Hitler did not ask Italy to participate against France and Britain, but,he hoped that a declaration of fealty by Mussolini would prevent a declaration of war from France and Britain .

It was very different then. Hitler had crushed Poland much more spectacularly than he had expected. He had proof that he was much stronger than he had hoped for - and that his adversaries were weaker.

He felt he needed support for an attack against Poland, but not anymore in 1940.

What's the point about asking my point then inferring it? ;O)

If the territories taken over by Stalin in the late 30s and early 40s were former Tsarist territories, that suggests a nationalist policy consistent with socialism in one country ("national" socialism or an empty form of words?) and a restoration of tsarist power under new management, not imperialism per se. Notice that the borders of the USSR in 1940, even after the recovery of western Belarus and western Ukraine from Poland, were less in extent than those of 1914. Notice also that the Stalinists expropriated expropriators in the recovered lands but didn't begin a fundamental rearrangement of the settlement of them like the Germans did and which was commonplace behaviour among the west European and transatlantic military dictatorships. Looked at like this, the difference between Stalinist policy and the practices of the officially imperialist states is one of restraint.

[Karelia]

No, without M-R pact Hitler wouldn't have dared to attack and risk having to fight a war on two fronts.

The USSR had more tanks than the rest of the World combined in 1939. .

1)Unless there was a military alliance between Poland and the SU,a war on 2 fronts was out of the question

2)That the SU had more tanks than the rest of the world in 1941 proves nothing : the 12000 Soviet tanks in the western military districts disappeared in a few weeks,most of them never firing one shot

1) There didn't have to be a military alliance between Poland and the USSR. Without the M-R Pact Hitler could not be sure, how Stalin would react if Germany attacked. As have already been pointed out, Hitler was very unconfident prior the attack - even AFTER the M-R Pact.

2) Irrelevant, since that happened in 1941 and nobody - least the soviets themselves - expected such destruction beforehand. In 1939 Stalin had all the reasons to (unrealistically) believe his army was invincible.

What's the point about asking my point then inferring it? ;O)

In case you did not mean what I thought you ment.

If the territories taken over by Stalin in the late 30s and early 40s were former Tsarist territories, that suggests a nationalist policy consistent with socialism in one country ("national" socialism or an empty form of words?) and a restoration of tsarist power under new management, not imperialism per se. Notice that the borders of the USSR in 1940, even after the recovery of western Belarus and western Ukraine from Poland, were less in extent than those of 1914. Notice also that the Stalinists expropriated expropriators in the recovered lands but didn't begin a fundamental rearrangement of the settlement of them like the Germans did and which was commonplace behaviour among the west European and transatlantic military dictatorships. Looked at like this, the difference between Stalinist policy and the practices of the officially imperialist states is one of restraint.

The Tsarist power was imperialistic, thus restoring it was imperialistic too. The "national" policy in the USSR/Russia was/is always imperialistic, since multiple nations were forced to be part of it. The USSR/Russia was/is not a one nation state - but a "prison of nations".

The soviet persecutions in occupied countries in 1939-41 only resulted in millions to be deported and hundreds of thousands to be killed. It's very difficult to see any "restraint" in those crimes against humanity - which unfortunately was nothing new in the USSR.

[Attrition]

That's the point, it's only because Stalin is called a Stalinist that the crimes of the Stalin regime are treated different to the crimes of analogous regimes, like those in the rest of Europe and the colonised territories beyond. Stalin's crimes are undeniable but not as foul as those of his imperial rivals past and present, that's the restraint.

[Karelia]

Stalin's crimes way exceded those of other regimes - except of course Mao's and Hitler's, who were two other socialist dictators.

The British of course caused a lot of deaths too - e.g. in America and India - but that was done over several hundred years, not during couple of decades. Also a lot of the their killings, as well as those of the Spaniards', was done unintentionally, in the form of the common diseases, against which the natives did not have immunity.

These other empires were much more "human" in comparison with Mao's, Stalin's and Hitler's Empires.

Of course one can go way back in history and find bloody empires too, but only relatively speaking, not absolutely.

[Gooner1]

Did Stalin's generals ever voice an opinion as to the wisdom of occupying a big chunk of Poland with regard to the defence of the Soviet Union against German attack?