Putin – What Was Wrong with Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact?

[ljadw]

If they were wise,they kept their mouth shut .Besides,the reason of the Soviet invasion was not the defence of the SU against a German attack .

[ML59]

Surprisingly many Soviet generals and high rank officials were naive enough to be very adamant in their judgement of political and military situation. It was part of the ethos of a real communist to be frank and honest, this is one of the many reasons that allowed a master of deception like Stalin to get the upper hand and outplay all of his political competitors.
Nevertheless, during the war time, this attitude more and more proved to be one of the key of success of the Soviet High Command that learned to trust the judgement of his generals and staff officers much more than what Hitler was used to do.

And the annexation of the Baltic states, as well as the war with Finland, were both part of the overall strategy of USSR to prepare herself to the coming European war.

[Attrition]

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.

Tell that to the Irish, Tasmanians and Cherokee, Iraqis, Afghans, Vietnamese, Indonesians, East Timorese, real Australians, Aztecs, meso-Americans etc ad infinitum.

[Attrition]

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?

Why do you call it a "big chunk of Poland" when it was equally arguably, big chunks of Belarus and Ukraine? Don't forget that the Polish fascists tried to steal Ukraine in 1919.

[wm]

It reminded me of those Jews writing their stories for the Oyneg Shabes–Ringelblum Archives in 1940/41.
They mentioned frequently that after enjoying for some time the sweet life in the USSR, they were ready to go back to the pre-war, fascist Poland on all fours, backwards, and singing the Polish anthem all the way...

[Attrition]

It reminded me of those Jews writing their stories for the Oyneg Shabes–Ringelblum Archives in 1940/41.
They mentioned frequently that after enjoying for some time the sweet life in the USSR, there were ready to go back to the pre-war, fascist Poland on all fours, backwards, and singing the Polish anthem all the way...

Why discriminate against Jews?

[Karelia]

...

And the annexation of the Baltic states, as well as the war with Finland, were both part of the overall strategy of USSR to prepare herself to the coming European war.

Were not. The overall strategy of the USSR was to expand - first to get back the ex-Russian Empire and then push to the Atlantic. That very nearly happened at the end of the war but was prevented by the British at the last moment. The overall goal was the communist (=Russian) world domination, which was no secret to anybody.

Stalin was only using the opportunity (the Alliance with Germany) to get the first bites. Yes, the USSR was indeed preparing for the new war: the one Stalin wanted to start between Germany and the West.

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.

Tell that to the Irish, Tasmanians and Cherokee, Iraqis, Afghans, Vietnamese, Indonesians, East Timorese, real Australians, Aztecs, meso-Americans etc ad infinitum.

Did you actually read my post? Here it is again above.

I only wrote "human" in comparison with those biggest evils, not in general. I'm not trying to defend any empires, but the sheer numbers (of intentioanally killed) per same amount of time are not the same.

Why do you call it a "big chunk of Poland" when it was equally arguably, big chunks of Belarus and Ukraine? Don't forget that the Polish fascists tried to steal Ukraine in 1919.

Maybe because AFAIK in many of those chunks of mixed populations the Poles were the biggest ethnic group, although not the outright majority. The other ethnic groups - e.g. the Ukrainians, the Belorussians and the Jews - were often smaller.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... census.png

We should not forget either, that the Imperial Russia and the soviet bolsheviks did/tried to steal Poland since the 1700's.

[ML59]

Were not. The overall strategy of the USSR was to expand - first to get back the ex-Russian Empire and then push to the Atlantic. That very nearly happened at the end of the war but was prevented by the British at the last moment. The overall goal was the communist (=Russian) world domination, which was no secret to anybody.
Stalin was only using the opportunity (the Alliance with Germany) to get the first bites. Yes, the USSR was indeed preparing for the new war: the one Stalin wanted to start between Germany and the West.

This is historically untrue. USSR never had the goal of becoming a world-dominating empire in the classical meaning; on the contrary, the bolsheviks, who believed in the historical mission of the communist ideology and that, in the long term, capitalism would collapse under its own contradictions, realized in the inter war years that the time of world-wide working class revolution was still far away and adopted the "socialism in one country" theory that dictated the political and strategic agenda up to the war.

I only wrote "human" in comparison with those biggest evils, not in general. I'm not trying to defend any empires, but the sheer numbers (of intentioanally killed) per same amount of time are not the same.

This is very questionable. King Leopold II of Belgium was able to exterminate, in less than 25 years, about half the native population (estimated at 20 millions) of what was then called Belgium Congo, of which an estimated one million through direct killing, mostly hanging. For your information, Belgian officials were regularly used to cut off hands or arms to male natives that didn't fill up their quotas for rubber; for the same "crime", women were generally amputated of their breast. Very human, yeah?
The British Prime Minister Mr Churchill, forbidding the use of any British or Commonwealth merchant ship to bring food supplies to the Bengalis, is directly responsible for the death, in few months, of more than 2,5 millions civilians that were under his own responsibility and control. Very sensible man, indeed.
I could go on for pages and pages.
Do you think those are mean and minor facts? Or maybe you think that the life of poor black African natives or dark Bengalis is not equal to that of any Polish, Ukrainian, Belorussian, Lithuanian or whatever European human beings?

[Attrition]

~~~~~Maybe because AFAIK in many of those chunks of mixed populations the Poles were the biggest ethnic group, although not the outright majority. The other ethnic groups - e.g. the Ukrainians, the Belorussians and the Jews - were often smaller.~~~~~

Then why did the USSR-German border roughly follow the course of the Curzon Line? Notice also that the definition of an "ethnic group" is arbitrary, a movable feast which dissolves as soon as you study the details. What is a Pole? Anyone who says so, anyone who speaks the language, anyone who has some Polish as well as other languages, anyone who speaks Polish and is a nominal catholic....?

[ML59]

The Curzon line was drafted not by Stalin neither by Hitler but nonetheless than Lord Curzon, a British aristocratic and conservative diplomatic that had no sympathy at all for communism or socialism. Nevertheless, all major western powers agreed that his proposal about the demarkation line between Poland, Lithuania and USSR was an acceptable compromise for all parties involved. Due to the fortune of war, Poland was able to military occupy a large territory east of the Curzon line and to incorporate it into the new founded Polish state. But in no way people that defined themselves as ethnic Poles were a majority in those territories, the grand total of Poles in those area not exceeding 20% of the total, mostly concentrated in towns and cities. In the nationalistic climax of early to middle XX century, that was hardly an ideal situation and the Polish authorities didn't waste much time before realizing that political and demographic initiatives were necessary in order to keep strict control of the region and Polonize it as much as possible.

[Karelia]

This is historically untrue. USSR never had the goal of becoming a world-dominating empire in the classical meaning; on the contrary, the bolsheviks, who believed in the historical mission of the communist ideology and that, in the long term, capitalism would collapse under its own contradictions, realized in the inter war years that the time of world-wide working class revolution was still far away and adopted the "socialism in one country" theory that dictated the political and strategic agenda up to the war.

Well, although what you write about "socialism in one country" etc. is correct, the new war was supposed to change that. The hardships to be suffered in that war would now encourage the working classes of the capitalist countries to revolt and help the communists to get power - just like it nearly happened after the WW1.

Even if the world domination of the communism was not supposed to be an empire in the classical meaning, it was still supposed to be a communist empire - lead by the USSR. Just remember the Eastern Block during the Cold War. Can't see much fundamental difference there.

This is very questionable. King Leopold II of Belgium was able to exterminate, in less than 25 years, about half the native population (estimated at 20 millions) of what was then called Belgium Congo, of which an estimated one million through direct killing, mostly hanging. For your information, Belgian officials were regularly used to cut off hands or arms to male natives that didn't fill up their quotas for rubber; for the same "crime", women were generally amputated of their breast. Very human, yeah?

You are correct about the extent of atrocities in Congo - except that Congo was not a colony in a traditional colonial sense. It was a private "colony" of the King Leopold II himself, not of Belgium. After Congo was taken away from him the worst atrocities ended.

For me Belgium does not meet the criteria of a traditional colonial major power.

I was aware of the amputations etc. Not human at all.

The British Prime Minister Mr Churchill, forbidding the use of any British or Commonwealth merchant ship to bring food supplies to the Bengalis, is directly responsible for the death, in few months, of more than 2,5 millions civilians that were under his own responsibility and control. Very sensible man, indeed.
I could go on for pages and pages.
Do you think those are mean and minor facts? Or maybe you think that the life of poor black African natives or dark Bengalis is not equal to that of any Polish, Ukrainian, Belorussian, Lithuanian or whatever European human beings?

You are right about the British crimes against humanity in India, which I too was referring to earlier. Still those three other guys did more.

Don't think you really could go on for pages - at least if you talked about anything relevant.

No - I don't think the lives of the natives are not equal. AFAIK I have not hinted anything like that.

Then why did the USSR-German border roughly follow the course of the Curzon Line?

That really should be asked from Stalin and Hitler, but I would imagine it was easy to make a deal when both parties were gaining a lot. Perhaps it was also because the Ukrainians and the Belorussians lived mostly to the East of that line.

Notice also that the definition of an "ethnic group" is arbitrary, a movable feast which dissolves as soon as you study the details. What is a Pole? Anyone who says so, anyone who speaks the language, anyone who has some Polish as well as other languages, anyone who speaks Polish and is a nominal catholic....?

Am aware of that. In my earlier link the definition was made by language, although other definitions are of course possible. My point however was, that the Poles had very good reasons to consider the lost Eastern Poland as theirs - which you seemed not to agree with at all.

I'm not the one who can say who is more right, but what I CAN say is that the Poles had valid points too. When I think about the history the points opposing the soviet ones are normally the correct ones, so I think I prefer the Polish perspective...

The Curzon line was drafted not by Stalin neither by Hitler but nonetheless than Lord Curzon, a British aristocratic and conservative diplomatic that had no sympathy at all for communism or socialism. Nevertheless, all major western powers agreed with his proposal about the demarkation line between Poland, Lithuania and USSR was an acceptable compromise for all parties involved. Due to the fortune of war, Poland was able to military occupy a large territory east of the Curzon line and to incorporate it into the new founded Polish state. But in no way people that defined themselves as ethnic Poles were a majority in those territories, the grand total of Poles in those area not exceeding 20% of the total, mostly concentrated in towns and cities. In the nationalistic climax of early to middle XX century, that was hardly an ideal situation and the Polish authorities didn't waste much time before realizing that political and demographic initiatives were necessary in order to keep strict control of the region and Polonize it as much as possible.

As I wrote before I never said the Poles were a majority, just that they were often the largest ethnic group in those ethnically mixed areas East of the Curzon Line. Also, as have already been pointed out, the ethnicity percent depends on what is the definition of the ethnicity.

I'm sure all parties involved did their best to show as large ethnic percentages as possible. Personally I don't think anybody can match the ability to twist the statistics as much as the soviets...

[ljadw]

1)The Congo story is propaganda : there were no 20 million inhabitants in Congo,there were no 10 million victims, and there were no orders to cut of arms.

2) For the Bengalen fable : Churchill was as much responsibe as were Stalin for the famine in the Ukraine and Peel for the Irish famine : thus : not .

3)The % of Poles in Eastern Poland was 38,for the Ukrainians : 37

[ML59]

1) Please provide a source for your claim; the atrocities committed were recognized by Belgium itself, so?
2) Churchill was not responsible of the famine itself but was clearly and definitively responsible of denying any assistance to the Bengalis, that were under its own jurisdiction, causing the death of 2,5 million people when food supplies were amply available in India and could be brought to the famine area if transport was authorized by British authorities. Those are facts.So?
3) I'll provide better figures, let me dig them out

[Marcus]

Get back on topic. This topic is about the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, not any other topics.

/Marcus

[ML59]

Am aware of that. In my earlier link the definition was made by language, although other definitions are of course possible. My point however was, that the Poles had very good reasons to consider the lost Eastern Poland as theirs - which you seemed not to agree with at all.

I'm not the one who can say who is more right, but what I CAN say is that the Poles had valid points too. When I think about the history the points opposing the soviet ones are normally the correct ones, so I think I prefer the Polish perspective...

You seem to forget that the Curzon line, a compromise between different visions, was not drafted by the Soviets but by Western powers that were supposed to be in very good terms with the new Polish state. So, you say the Soviets cheated everybody and that their claim to stick to the Curzon line was unacceptable when all western powers suggested exactly the same border way before WW2? Very strange position indeed. It seems your only motivation is a total mistrust of the Soviets, whatsoever the matter. That the Stalinist regime was responsible of a very large number of atrocities doesn't mean that Poland had a right to occupy territories that were largely populated by ethnic groups that didn't recognize themselves as Poles. And that many groups were very reluctant to accept the Polish supremacy was apparent already in early '20s. Political and armed resistance in many areas was alive until WW2, as you know.