Putin – What Was Wrong with Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact?

[Karelia]

More precisely the USSR together with Germany caused the WW2 to break out -

proof ?

See the title of this thread. There's your proof.

[ljadw]

That's no proof .

A proof would be a proof that without the Pact with the SU,Germany would not have attacked Poland .

[ML59]

"What if" is never a good way to study or explain past history. Much better to stick to facts historically proven. And what has been proven is that detailed plan to invade Poland were prepared and set into motion before the signature of Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.

[Fliegende Untertasse]

The SU was using the outbreak of WWII to increase its empire:the moralist brigade will cry :a disgrace,but after WWI,Britain,France ,Italy,Belgium were increasing their empires : why the 2 standards norm ?

Quod licet Jovi non licet bovi ? What was allowed to the Western states was not allowed to the SU ?

Yuo forgot Japan.
And Germany . hey they were only after some Lebensraum. What was so bad about that . Why these double standards ?

Anyway Italy and Japan were kicked out of league of nations because of Manchuria and Abessinia.

[ljadw]

As far as I know,Japan left voluntaryly the League

[wm]

That's no proof .

A proof would be a proof that without the Pact with the SU,Germany would not have attacked Poland .

Well it wasn't about saving Poland, even the Poles knew they were going to get it, their feeble propaganda efforts notwithstanding.
The plan was to build an effective and credible deterrence against Germany. If not sufficient to field a better and larger army thanks to the resources of the free world, strangle and isolate the Third Reich with a blockade (just as in the Great War) and then force it to back down/surrender.
The Hitler-Stalin cooperation made a mockery of that simple, robust, and cost-effective plan.

I still am looking at some one who could give ONE,ONE serious reason,why the SU would felt obliged to intervene in a capitalistic war between 4 countries who less than 20 years before had invaded Russie and intervened in the Russian Civil War to crush the communist revolution .

Well, a politician holding a grudge about something that happened a long time ago is just a sore loser. The Soviets were putschists, terrorists twenty years earlier. But in the thirties the Soviet Union was a legitimate political power that enjoyed a lot of goodwill from all around the world. The Russian Civil War was irrelevant by then.

The SU was using the outbreak of WWII to increase its empire:the moralist brigade will cry :a disgrace,but after WWI,Britain,France ,Italy,Belgium were increasing their empires : why the 2 standards norm ?

At that time it was known that empire building was not worth it. That international cooperation, peace (or rather avoiding modern, destructive wars) were much more profitable.
The Soviet empire started disintegrate just a few years after it had been established (Yugoslavia, China, Albania and then the rest) - so it really wasn't worth it.
Russia didn't need an empire (but especially didn't need the Soviets), because she was a huge country, an empire already.
Russia needed stability and economic growth, like China today nothing more.
Wars, empires, naked force were so so nineteen century by then - risky and unprofitable.
So the Soviet Union should have intervened because it was in its best interest, as that empire building eventually brought its own destruction.

[durb]

From the point of view of the governements of Soviet Union and Germany there was nothing wrong with Molotov-Ribbentrop pact - both got what they wanted at that point (Aug.1939).

For Poland and Baltic countries it meant such consequences which ended their independences and led to hostile occupation. Finland survived from the consequences of the pact somewhat amputated.

Of course such Russian claims that Baltic countries joined voluntarily in Soviet Union (thanks to Mol.-Rib. pact) are very insulting to the people of Baltic countries. Unfortunately there is still in Russia people and historians believing in official Soviet history. Despite the current political winds which seem to put the history books back in Soviet era there are in Russia researchers who have really studied facts and criticised the official Soviet version of history. For example about Winter War there are some noteworthy publications by researches like Juri Kilin. I do not believe that the current political winds will stop all critical history research in Russia - there is no way to put the clock completely back in time.

One question regarding Polish history views. To me it seems that currently Soviets are seen more evil occupiers than Germans during WW2 - at least I have seen in different forums currently much more critical Polish comments on Soviets than on German occupation. Maybe this has something to do with postwar time during which German occupation time was dealt more profoundly than things like Katyn. And after Soviet and communist system collapse it has been the time to deal more with Soviet war crimes. Or are there other reasons? Are Germans considered in Polish history nowadays somewhat "softer" than the Soviets when it comes to occupation time?

[ML59]

One question regarding Polish history views. To me it seems that currently Soviets are seen more evil occupiers than Germans during WW2 - at least I have seen in different forums currently much more critical Polish comments on Soviets than on German occupation. Maybe this has something to do with postwar time during which German occupation time was dealt more profoundly than things like Katyn. And after Soviet and communist system collapse it has been the time to deal more with Soviet war crimes. Or are there other reasons? Are Germans considered in Polish history nowadays somewhat "softer" than the Soviets when it comes to occupation time?

This is the very same question I'd like to ask to our Polish friends used to post here: was really Nazi Germany, for them, a better enemy than Soviet Union?
I suspect the whole question is so deeply imbued of political meanings (communism and anti-communism) still raging Europe today that a dispassionate approach, for most, is quite difficult to achieve.

[ljadw]

[quote="wm"
The plan was to build an effective and credible deterrence against Germany. If not sufficient to field a better and larger army thanks to the resources of the free world, strangle and isolate the Third Reich with a blockade (just as in the Great War) and then force it to back down/surrender.
The Hitler-Stalin cooperation made a mockery of that simple, robust, and cost-effective plan.


So the Soviet Union should have intervened because it was in its best interest, as that empire building eventually brought its own destruction.[/quote]



1): this is not correct : Germany was not saved from strangulation because of the pact with the SU .After 22 june 1941,there was no pact with the SU,and Britain and France were forced to use other means than the blockade to defeat Germany . The theory that Germany was saved by the deliveries from Stalin is as correct as the theory that the SU was saved by the LL deliveries : thus :not crrect


2) This is hindsight and should not be used :every one was doing empire building;Poland also; in 1920,Poland was advancing to Kiew,and later, it demanded colonies .

The German attack on Poland ,which resulted in the outbreak of WWII,created a situation where it was possible for the SU to extend its influence . Stalin would have been a fool not to do this .

[StefanSiverud]

The German attack on Poland ,which resulted in the outbreak of WWII,created a situation where it was possible for the SU to extend its influence . Stalin would have been a fool not to do this .

Quite a twisted way of looking at it, especially in the post-Machiavellian era of the 20th century.

With the same line of thinking, Nazi Germany did nothing wrong occupying Norway, Denmark, BeNeLux, Yugoslavia, Greece and so on. After all, it was there for the taking, easy pickings. Hitler would have been a fool not to.

Does replacing Stalin with Hitler in this way help you see what you're actually saying?

[ljadw]

Did I say that Germany did nothing wrong ?

Besides:Stalin took back territories which in the past belonged to the Russian Empire ,while Hitler invaded countries which never were a part of Germany .

Other points : why would the 20th century be post-Machiavellian ? And why would there be anything wrong with a Machiavellian policy ?
And,for Germany,there was nothing for the taking,there were no easy pickings .

Last point : there was no "and so on" .

[StefanSiverud]

Did I say that Germany did nothing wrong ?

If Nazi Germany did wrong, so did the USSR. You can't have it both ways.

Besides:Stalin took back territories which in the past belonged to the Russian Empire ,while Hitler invaded countries which never were a part of Germany .

If we are to play that game, the invasion of Poland was just. Hitler was merely taking back territories that were once German.

Other points : why would the 20th century be post-Machiavellian ? And why would there be anything wrong with a Machiavellian policy ?
And,for Germany,there was nothing for the taking,there were no easy pickings .

The Machiavellian ideals started giving way to less chauvinistic ones far earlier, but with the end of WW1 and the changes in the first years thereafter, I would argue no country even halfway civilized was trying to follow the Machiavellian ideals any more. Those leaders that had done so found themselves deposed or dead.
EDIT: Of course, they returned quite soon in ideologies to the far left and right.

I would argue at least Denmark and BeNeLux were as easy to occupy for Germany as were those countries attacked by the USSR, including Finland, as a whole.

Last point : there was no "and so on" .

My examples was not a complete list of neutral countries occupied by/incorporated into Nazi Germany through various means. There were indeed more.

[ljadw]

If Nazi Germany did wrong, so did the USSR. You can't have it both ways.


If we are to play that game, the invasion of Poland was just. Hitler was merely taking back territories that were once German.

Other points :
The Machiavellian ideals started giving way to less chauvinistic ones far earlier, but with the end of WW1 and the changes in the first years thereafter, I would argue no country even halfway civilized was trying to follow the Machiavellian ideals any more. Those leaders that had done so found themselves deposed or dead.
EDIT: Of course, they returned quite soon in ideologies to the far left and right.

I would argue at least Denmark and BeNeLux were as easy to occupy for Germany as were those countries attacked by the USSR, including Finland, as a whole.

.

Here you got it wrong,because you are arguing using the "soft" arguments of the 21th century,which have no place in a discussion about what happened more than 70 years ago.

Saying that the foreign policy of Hitler and Stalin was wrong is starting from a wrong POV.Saying that a foreign policy was morally wrong,is good for journalists, bishop Tutu,Mother Theresa,and such people .

London and Paris did not object against Hitler's foreign policy (they could do nothing against it,and,his policy was not endangering the survival of Britain and France) : they objected against the way this policy was executed .

There was also a difference between Hitler's and Stalin's policy :there was a full-scale war between Poland and Germany,there was no such thing between Poland and the SU(Poland even did not declare war on the SU),thus,Britain and France could ignore what Stalin was doing .

About the Machiavellian ideas : we may consider us as very lucky that there are still intelligent statesmen (not including the present inhabitant of the White House) who are using the Machiavellian ideas (also called realpolitik):we have seen the disasters of foreign policies based on human rights .Such policies would lead mankind to nucleair war .

US intervened when N orth Korea invaded the South,but not when China invaded Tibet,or Indonesia Timor,and,this while there was no difference between these invasions .

It was the same between the both WW's:Lord Curzon supported the SU in the war against Poland,Hoare tried to limit the damage of the war in Abessinia,Eden tried to limit the damage of the Spanish Civil War,Chamberlain tried to demine the Sudeten problem before it would result in a big war .The question is not if a foreign policy was wrong or just,but if one could do something against it .If one can not prevent it,the only reasonable thing is to remain silent

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi ljadw,

You write, "Besides:Stalin took back territories which in the past belonged to the Russian Empire ,while Hitler invaded countries which never were a part of Germany."

Exactly, they had "in the past belonged to the Russian Empire" - i.e. they were NOT part of Russia itself.

Cheers,

Sid.

[wm]

1): this is not correct : Germany was not saved from strangulation because of the pact with the SU .After 22 june 1941,there was no pact with the SU,and Britain and France were forced to use other means than the blockade to defeat Germany . The theory that Germany was saved by the deliveries from Stalin is as correct as the theory that the SU was saved by the LL deliveries : thus :not crrect

Well, a blockade is a slow weapon, it needs time to show its deadly potential. Few months, a year is nothing. Germany wasn't saved by Stalin, but still Stalin was the enabler of the Hitler's victories because:

Soviet strategic and psychological aid was obviously vital, since the Germans had to station only four regular and nine territorial divisions on the eastern border and since Comintern propaganda was slowly eroding French morale.

Ironically, that Hitler could come so close to destroying the USSR was due largely to Stalin’s own efforts.
Stalin's neutrality had allowed the Axis armies to sweep over the rest of Europe.
While not decisive to the Battle for France, the promise of Soviet economic aid, though not yet the actual deliveries, had helped convince the German generals to go along with Hitler’s plans and had allowed the Germans to take risks they might not otherwise have been willing to consider.

Having aided Hitler in eliminating the other major armies in Europe, Stalin now faced the full fury of an even more powerful Wehrmacht. The economic reserves required for this grand venture had also come in great measure from the Soviet Union itself.
Of the various items that the USSR had sent to Germany from 1939 to 1941, oil, manganese, grain, and rubber stand out. Platinum, chrome, phosphates, textiles, wood, and other foodstuffs (particularly soybeans) were also shipped in significant amounts, but the loss of these items could usually be handled by substitution or by increased imports from other countries.
Without Soviet deliveries of these four major items (oil,grain, manganese, and rubber), however, Germany barely could have attacked the Soviet Union, let alone come close to victory.
Germany’s stockpiles of oil, manganese, and grain would have been completely exhausted by the late summer of 1941.
And Germany's rubber supply would have run out half a year earlier. Even with more intense rationing and synthetic production, the Reich surely would have lacked the reserves necessary for a major campaign in the East along the lines of Operation Barbarossa.
In other words, Hitler had been almost completely dependent on Stalin to provide him the resources he need to attack the Soviet Union.

Feeding the German Eagle: Soviet Economic Aid to Nazi Germany, 1933-1941 by Edward E. Ericson

2) This is hindsight and should not be used :every one was doing empire building;Poland also; in 1920,Poland was advancing to Kiew,and later, it demanded colonies .

That demands were secondary goals, anyway they show the desperation of politicians of a country deeply affected by the Great Depression, and without any remedy in sight. Reasonable people in Poland knew well only sustainable economic growth could save Poland anything else was bull-crap.
Border wars after the collapse of the European Empires prove nothing. The borders had to be fought out.
But that empire building was not worth it had been shown already at the beginning of the twentieth century, the Czarist Empire collapsed - lacking internal cohesion, ditto the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Even the British Empire was slowly decolonize itself.

The German attack on Poland ,which resulted in the outbreak of WWII,created a situation where it was possible for the SU to extend its influence . Stalin would have been a fool not to do this .

Certainly but the choice was between security and expansion. And Stalin chose wrong.