Putin – What Was Wrong with Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact?

[ljadw]

1)Strawman : where did I say that Hitler's policy was considered morally wright ?
And,it is not correct to say that violence and brutality were going out of fashion : they were not,and they still are not .

That's the way I interpret your continual defense of Stalin's actions: saying he would be stupid not to invade his neighbours when he had the chance, saying we can't call it morally wrong, calling into question whether the USSR invasion of Poland was bad given Nazi Germany was already doing it, Stalin was only taking back what once was part of Russia etc. Given they were co-belligerents with a similarly expansionistic foreign policy, I put Hitler and Stalin together. Your arguments for Stalin doing nothing wrong can be applied equally to Hitler.

2)Not correct : in november 1939,Halifax was visiting Germany and told the Germans that Britain was not opposed to a German domination of Europe east of the Rhine,as long this did not result in war .

I am not aware of this occurring, care to provide a source indicating he had the support of the British government?

.

1)I am not defending the actions of Stalin : I am objecting to the judging of foreign policy by the use of things as morality : morality has no place here .The foreign policy of the SU was not different of that of other big powers as the US and Britain :they all tried (and try) to increase their political power/to conserve their conquests .There is nothing moral or immoral in this .
Before WWI,Japan and Russia tried to dominate the Far East,resulting in war :you can't use words as moral/immoral to judge these actions .

After WWI,Britain and France were dividing the Middle East amongst each other:this was not moral or immoral

The US,always ready to lecture the wicked European states on morality : Wilson(the mixture of missionary and weapons-trader) was sending troops to a lot of Latin American countries.
Stalin (the red czar) was doing what the others were doing.

2)About Halifax :he was a member of the British Cabinet when he visited Berchtesgaden in november 1937 and he told Hitler that Britain would not seek to maintain the existing settlement in Central Europe,as long as the changes came without a general war (Source : the origins of the second world war by Taylor P 175).
And Halifax was only parotting what the Foreign Secretary Eden was saying :Britain recognised that a closer connexion between Germany and Austria would have to come about sometime .Translation : Britain would not oppose the Anschluss (same source) .
And France ? :Chautemps and Bonnet said :no objection to a marked extension of German influence in Austria through evolutionary means .No objection to the reorganisation of CZ into a nation of nationalities .(same source)

One can discuss if this was a reasonable policy or not (IMHO:it was reasonable),but I object to the use of words as morality or immorality: these are good for the Salvation Army but not for a foreign policy .I shudder at the idea of a foreign policy based on the principle of morality:Jimmy Carter has shown us the nefast results of such a thing,and the results of the policy of the present inhabitant of the Oval Room are not better .

[ljadw]

Hi ML59,

That may be so, but it doesn't seem to address the thread's question.

Besides, even if others behaved badly, it doesn't excuse the USSR or Nazi Germany.



Cheers,

Sid.

A historian should not judge,he should tell what happened and why it happened .

[ML59]

At the end, that pact cannot be judged differently from most of the other pacts signed by the major powers in XIX or early XX century. It was a cynical, pragmatic, temporary solution for two different sets of geo-strategical needs that served well, if only very briefly, the interest of the two parties. Nevertheless, its importance has not to be overestimated, it didn't create any new alliance or continental block, it was not pre-requisite for the German attack to Poland and didn't keep USSR out of a major conflict and probably never intended to do so. It was a tool to gain time and space, something that USSR dearly needed before facing a war in Europe. The bolshevik strategy, at that time, was still favoring the idea of staying out of the European war as much as possible in order to be ready to confront, after all the contending countries bled themselves white, the surviving power on the continent from a position of force. Unfortunately for them the collapse of France in only two months created a completely new and unpleasant scenario that rendered basically obsolete the pact in a matter of few months.

[durb]

As a Finn I can say something what was wrong with Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, which was of course OK in Machiavellian way of thinking. In Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement the big guys (Hitler&Stalin) agreed that Finland was going to belong to Soviet sphere and occupied by Soviets if they considered it necessary. During Winter War Germany respected this agreement, criticized Finns being too stubborn and made all transit traffic via Germany to Finland impossible (this was considerable annoyance for Finns). Had Finland not resisted the consequences of Molotov-Ribbentrop deal and there not having been looming the possibility of French/British intervention (thanks mainly to Mr. Daladier), Finland would probaly have joined the family of Soviet nations like Baltic countries. It is not always necessary for small countries just to accept passively what the big ones decide. Sometimes it is better to resist than to be "reasonable". Of course Finland lost the war in the end and lost considerable amount of territory, but remained independent and avoided foreign occupation - this would not have been achieved by appeasing the big guys.

Poland tried to do the very same as Finland, but unfortunately it was geographically in more difficult position and its terrain was more friendly for an massive attack of big mechanized army than the forest-lake terrain in Finland in winter time. But what other choices Poland had than the "futile" resistance? Being a reduced satellite and second-rate "Hilfsvolk" for Germany? Letting Red Army to march in Poland as an ally against Germans? - would Red Army had left for good? - this good question combined to strong Polish anticommunism and memories of 1919-1921 Soviet-Polish war? - No way. Poor Poland had just bad choices and after Molotov-Ribbentrop deal its sad destiny was sealed.

[StefanSiverud]

Forum error, (database something something), double post.

[StefanSiverud]

1)I am not defending the actions of Stalin : I am objecting to the judging of foreign policy by the use of things as morality : morality has no place here .The foreign policy of the SU was not different of that of other big powers as the US and Britain :they all tried (and try) to increase their political power/to conserve their conquests .There is nothing moral or immoral in this .
Before WWI,Japan and Russia tried to dominate the Far East,resulting in war :you can't use words as moral/immoral to judge these actions .

After WWI,Britain and France were dividing the Middle East amongst each other:this was not moral or immoral

The US,always ready to lecture the wicked European states on morality : Wilson(the mixture of missionary and weapons-trader) was sending troops to a lot of Latin American countries.
Stalin (the red czar) was doing what the others were doing.

Very well. I disagree, but let's leave it at that.

2)About Halifax :he was a member of the British Cabinet when he visited Berchtesgaden in november 1937 and he told Hitler that Britain would not seek to maintain the existing settlement in Central Europe,as long as the changes came without a general war (Source : the origins of the second world war by Taylor P 175).
And Halifax was only parotting what the Foreign Secretary Eden was saying :Britain recognised that a closer connexion between Germany and Austria would have to come about sometime .Translation : Britain would not oppose the Anschluss (same source) .
And France ? :Chautemps and Bonnet said :no objection to a marked extension of German influence in Austria through evolutionary means .No objection to the reorganisation of CZ into a nation of nationalities .(same source)

Ah, the 1937 visit. Regardless of the date, what was said by Halifax and Eden was that Britain was not opposed to borders changing through peaceful means and they considered increased German influence in Austria - a country with which they shared a language and culture - natural.
None of this constitutes acceptance of German domination of Europe east of the Rhine. On the contrary, Halifax made it clear to Hitler Germany would not have a free hand in Europe, but restoration of former colonies might be discussed - see for instance Gerhard Weinberg's Hitler's Foreign Policy 1933-1939: The Road to World War II. Either way, it's not as if it mattered; some people can't be reasoned with.

EDIT: I notice you failed to comment on the lack of a formal declaration of war between Poland and Nazi Germany. Your suggestion that there was a difference between the "official [...] state of war" between Germany and Poland and the "undeclared war" between the USSR and Poland simply isn't true.

[ML59]

Dear durb,

the pact was signed by Germany and USSR, not Finland or Poland. So, to say that it was wrong because it meant the acceptance of the inclusion of Finland in the Soviet sphere of interest is quite pointless and irrelevant in the context. I believe you're well aware that great powers were (and still are) used to divide the world in "spheres of influence" where one of them believe to have the right of imposing its own political, economic, military agenda at the expense of other great powers. So, in which respect is Molotov-Ribbentrop pact different from the Churchill-Stalin pact that divided East Europe in British/Western and Soviet Sphere of influence? For which reason you believe Stalin didn't support the Greek communist ELLAS armed insurrection against Greek royalist and British forces?
For which reason USA intervened tens of times in Central America and South america in the past 100 years? Because they are samaritans or because they have a well defined geo-political doctrine (the Monroe doctrine) that considers those areas as their own backyard and dictate full freedom of action to protect American interests there?
Finland was just a small piece in much greater chess game; it has been fortunate enough to survive WW2, their very bad political choice of putting herself on the side of Germany could have caused a major disaster, luckily the Russians had their hands fully occupied in dealing with the Germans and were happy enough to put Finland out of the war as soon as possible and move all troops to the main theaters of operation. Nevertheless, they basically dictated the Finnish internal political agenda for almost 50 years, and for that it was not necessary to occupy the country.

[durb]

Just one comment - the choice of Finland to approach Germany was dictated by the rules of great chess game of big boys. In that game Western Allies could have done nothing if Soviets would have decided to make Finland as a member the family of Soviet nations. The period of 1940 was a time of immense pressure practiced by Soviets and any hope to get aid from western powers was crushed when Germany won the battle over France (and had occupied Norway and Danmark). All indicates that Soviets were planning to annex Finland to Soviet Union in 1941 and they asked free hands for that in Berlin when Molotov visited there in November 1940 - to remind Germans that it was a part of the deal made (Mol-Rib). Fortunately for Finns Hitler had changed his mind and went for Barbarossa. It practically saved Finland because it gave the necessary backup to resist Soviets - it led to military, but not to political alliance between Germany and Finland. But what was the choice? To be annexed to Soviet Union?

Finland was the only "Axis" nation to have democratic system and which did not persecute its Jewish citizens in any way. The so-called Continuation War was lost, but Finland was never occupied by Soviet troops. Thus it retained democratic system and market economy, although in the foreign policy one had to be careful with the Soviets. In Finland there was a freedom of speech and no one was thrown to jail because of critizing Soviet system or Finnish foreign policy. You just has to make logical choices when strong Soviet Union is your neighbour and when you can make also very profitable export business with it - this did not mean that Finland was a communist satellite. There was a huge difference of "finlandization" situation compared to Soviet occupation with all of its consequences.

[ljadw]

EDIT: I notice you failed to comment on the lack of a formal declaration of war between Poland and Nazi Germany. Your suggestion that there was a difference between the "official [...] state of war" between Germany and Poland and the "undeclared war" between the USSR and Poland simply isn't true.

From what I have read: Poland declared war on Germany on 1 september 1939,but never declared war on the SU ;the Polish commander asked his forces not to fight against the Soviets;on 11/4/1939,FRD declared that there was a state of war between Germany and Britain/France and the British dominions,but the SU was not mentioned.Poland even did not break off the relations with the SU:the diplomatic relations were broken by the SU .
All this indicates that for Poland,its allies and the neutral countries,there was a difference between the German and Soviet invasion .

[wm]

For 38/39,the stocks were 8.8;for 42/43 :2.5 Does that indicate a danger of starvation for 42/43 ?

Te available quantity in 37/38 was 25.8:was there a danger of starvation ?

It's stocks at the end of the year, so there were at least seven months to the next harvest.
In 1938 they needed 8.8 million tons to survive that months, but at the beginning of 1941 only 3.1 was available. In June from those 3.1 only 1.381 remained.
Without the Soviets shipments the stocks would run out in June, and a new good old Turnip Winter would last about two months.

It is the same about the monthly rubber stocks :september 1939:28.2 thousand of tons/june 1940: 13.9 thousand.

It means the stocks were dwindling and no possibility of resupply, but Barbarossa needed a lot of rubber.
Without the Soviet trans-shipments, in May 1941 there would be no rubber at all in Germany.

All colonial "racist" empires were morally unjust, and that was already apparent just after WW1, when for the first time, after the Bolshevik revolution, socialist and communist egalitarian ideas started to spread out and actually formed the basis of much political movements seeking for freedom from colonial rule.

Although the first notable organization was the American Anti-Imperialist League in 1898, well before the Bolsheviks came into existence.

Back to the main topic, what SU did after the German invasion of Poland was to occupy the area east of the Curzon line that was already indicated and accepted, in 1920, by France, Great Britain and USA as the correct border between Soviet Russia and Poland (with the exemption of Byalistock, occupied by the Soviets even if being to the west of that line). The fact that Poland never accepted, in 1920 or in 1943-44 to recognize that border, doesn't mean that their aspiration in annexing all the area east of that line had any other reason than expanding the size and power of the Polish state, ruling about 10 millions of non-polish citizens, notwithstanding the much talked about president Wilson's Fourteen Points and the Self-determination of Peoples principle.

Well, if it was the Self-determination of Peoples when those people were asked if they wanted be a part of Russia (and in fact the Ukrainian People's Republic was an ally of Poland during that war).

If the Self-determination of Peoples principle was so important, why the Czarist Empire ( widely called the Prison of Nations ) wasn't divided along racial and ethnic lines.

The Curzon Line was just a possible armistice line, reflecting a temporary state of the military conflict between Poland and the Soviet Russia.
But the war had not been over yet, and in the end the actual border was established by the Treaty of Riga. The border was accepted by both Poland and the Soviet Russia, and the treaty was registered in League of Nations Treaty Series on August 12, 1921.

From what I have read: Poland declared war on Germany on 1 september 1939,but never declared war on the SU ;the Polish commander asked his forces not to fight against the Soviets;on 11/4/1939,FRD declared that there was a state of war between Germany and Britain/France and the British dominions,but the SU was not mentioned.Poland even did not break off the relations with the SU:the diplomatic relations were broken by the SU .

It was avoiding fighting, but nonetheless there were major battles fought between Poland and the USSR, for example the three days long Battle of Grodno, the defense of the Sarny Fortified Area and others.

But anyway the Convention for the Definition of Aggression signed by Poland and the USSR in 1933 defined and aggressor as:

Article 2
[..] a state which is the first to commit any of the following actions:
- declaration of war upon another State;
- invasion by its armed forces, with or without a declaration of war, of the territory of another State;

And then:

No political, military, economic or other considerations may serve as an excuse or justification for the aggression referred to in Article 2.

So it was an aggression, there were battles fought so it was a war.
The USSR broke the convention of 1933, then committed a war crime by not declaring war, as required by the Laws of War. Obviously only a war initiator is required to declare war.

[Leutnant Von Historian]

Of course we must remember that the period's politic is very different from now. How immoral is they're actions. The good uys also do the same thing

[ljadw]

There was a state of war between Poland and Germany,which ended by a peace treaty.This state of war had legal implications for the situation of German civilians living in Poland and Polish civilians living in Germany,and for the diplomatic relations between both countries .This state of war was recognized by all other countries and resulted in a DOW by Britain and her Dominions and France .

Was Poland declaring a state of war with the SU on 17 september ? Did the allies of Poland declare war on the SU ? Were the Soviet civilians in Polans interned ?Did Poland break off the diplomatic relations ? Was there later a peace treaty with the SU? Did the neutral counties recognize a state of war between Poland and the SU ?

The answer is : NO .

That means that legally and politically,one can not put both invasions on the same level .

[ljadw]

The USSR broke the convention of 1933, then committed a war crime by not declaring war, as required by the Laws of War. Obviously only a war initiator is required to declare war.

Why would starting a war without a declaration of war be a war crime ?

Aggression or not is not depending on not declaring war or declaring war .

[Leutnant Von Historian]

The USSR broke the convention of 1933, then committed a war crime by not declaring war, as required by the Laws of War. Obviously only a war initiator is required to declare war.

Why would starting a war without a declaration of war be a war crime ?

Aggression or not is not depending on not declaring war or declaring war .

Why would countries needed to declared war before starting a war? Surely its more than just because it was common thing to do.
However I did agree that an aggression doesn't depend on declaring a war or not declaring a war.

[Attrition]

Declaring war had domestic consequences like triggering emergency laws which ended civil rights to protect civil rights, prohibited trade and financial relations with countries the state had gone to war against. Obviously it's obsolete now since states are less inclined to hide their fascism behind constitutional fig-leaves.