Putin – What Was Wrong with Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact?

Discussions on WW2 in Eastern Europe.
Locked
StefanSiverud
Member
Posts: 321
Joined: 29 Dec 2012, 17:03
Location: Sweden

Re: Putin – What Was Wrong with Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact?

#91

Post by StefanSiverud » 25 Nov 2014, 18:14

ljadw wrote: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 .
As shown by wm in this thread: http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 1&t=211524 and here, Poland did not declare war on either invader. There was no difference, both invaders did the same thing, even giving the protection of minorities as justification for their aggression. I can see why some would see nothing wrong with this.
ljadw wrote: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 .
A state of war does not have to be declared. If a war is fought, there is a war.
The reason there was no peace treaty was the USSR claimed there was no Polish state when the war started, thereby giving a (lousy) reason for violating the 1932 non-aggression pact. A peace treaty requires two parties, at least. If one party is denying the existence of the other, there can be no treaty.
Whether other nations officially declared there was a war between the USSR and Poland or not (why would they, except to say they're neutral?) does not matter. Several states declared neutrality in the European war before and after the Polish war had ended, there was no need to name belligerents.
ljadw wrote: Why would starting a war without a declaration of war be a war crime ?
See the Hague 1907 III Convention relative to the opening of hostilities, for instance.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15585
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: Putin – What Was Wrong with Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact?

#92

Post by ljadw » 25 Nov 2014, 19:34

StefanSiverud wrote:

The reason there was no peace treaty was the USSR claimed there was no Polish state when the war started, thereby giving a (lousy) reason for violating the 1932 non-aggression pact.

[.
This is not correct : after Katyn,the SU broke off the relations with Poland;this implies that before Katyn (probably in 1941) the diplomatic relations between both countries were restored,thus that the SU recognized the existence of a Polish government and a Polish state .

There was no peace treaty between both countries because both countries had decided that there was no war between each other .

As such,an invasion does not mean war .When Kuweit was invaded by Iraq,this did not mean that both countries were at war .


User avatar
wm
Member
Posts: 8753
Joined: 29 Dec 2006, 21:11
Location: Poland

Re: Putin – What Was Wrong with Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact?

#93

Post by wm » 25 Nov 2014, 19:58

ljadw wrote: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 .
The Hague Conventions don't say anything about peace treaties and generally about how to end a war properly.
They concern themselves with how to start a war properly, with capitulations, armistices.
It's up to the warring parties, they may stay buthurt indefinitely if they wish.
ljadw wrote: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 ?
Only the initiator of hostilities is required to declare war. It seems those men in Hague disliked sneaky, dastardly wars. It have to be done in a civilized manner - Pearl Harbors are forbidden.
Poland notified the neutral Powers and without delay, as required by the Hague Conventions.
Then the Polish Embassy in the USSR evacuated its personnel, breaking off the diplomatic relations - although the USSR did it already earlier. The diplomatic relations were established again on 30 July 1941, by the Sikorski–Mayski Agreement:
1. The Government of the U.S.S.R. recognizes the Soviet-German treaties of 1939 as to territorial changes in Poland as having lost their validity. The Polish Government declares Poland is not bound by any agreement with any third power which is directed against the USSR.
2. Diplomatic relations will be restored between the two governments upon the signing of this agreement, and an immediate exchange of Ambassadors will be arranged.
It's not the job of neutral countries to recognize anything, they are only required to acknowledge the notification of the existence of a state of war.
ljadw wrote: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 .
Because the good old, almost ancient at that time Hague Conventions said so - they require a declaration. And because the belligerent parties are usually touchy about their violations and like to hang the violators, it is reasonable to respect the conventions.
Last edited by wm on 25 Nov 2014, 20:37, edited 1 time in total.

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 12:19

Re: Putin – What Was Wrong with Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact?

#94

Post by Sid Guttridge » 25 Nov 2014, 20:35

Hi ML59,

Sorry, but my proposition stands.

Nazi Germany and the USSR were intent on extinguishing the independent national existence of the minor states between them, and did so. The minor states were more intent on redrawing borders than extinguishing each other's national existences.

The Croats, Slovenes, Bosnians etc., did not have national states at the time and are therefore not relevant here, not least because Yugoslavia was not one of the states directly threatened by the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. These were Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Finland and Romania.

Similarly, whatever their failings, other powers' colonial empires are not relevant here.

This thread's title is "Putin – What Was Wrong with Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact?"

What was wrong with it was that it was a pact of aggression designed to extinguish the independent national existence of the minor states between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. It was highly successful in 1939-40, especially for the USSR.

Cheers,

Sid.

StefanSiverud
Member
Posts: 321
Joined: 29 Dec 2012, 17:03
Location: Sweden

Re: Putin – What Was Wrong with Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact?

#95

Post by StefanSiverud » 25 Nov 2014, 20:40

ljadw wrote:
StefanSiverud wrote:

The reason there was no peace treaty was the USSR claimed there was no Polish state when the war started, thereby giving a (lousy) reason for violating the 1932 non-aggression pact.

[.
This is not correct : after Katyn,the SU broke off the relations with Poland;this implies that before Katyn (probably in 1941) the diplomatic relations between both countries were restored,thus that the SU recognized the existence of a Polish government and a Polish state .
Yes, once attacked the USSR admitted there was in fact a Polish government - the same one they had claimed non-existant - because it might be of use to them. This only goes to show how false the previous denial of Poland's existence was.

I'm not sure if you're trolling or what else, either way it's ridiculous. I'm leaving.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15585
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: Putin – What Was Wrong with Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact?

#96

Post by ljadw » 25 Nov 2014, 21:47

wm wrote:
ljadw wrote: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 .
Because the good old, almost ancient at that time Hague Conventions said so - they require a declaration. And because the belligerent parties are usually touchy about their violations and like to hang the violators, it is reasonable to respect the conventions.
Starting a war without DOW is no war crime : one can start a war of aggression with DOW.

If starting a war without DOW would be a war crime,than would be guilty of war crime those

who started the ME wars of 1948,1956,1967,1973,1980,the 2 Gulf Wars.

Who attacked without DOW North Vietnam and Cambodja

Who attacked Serbia,Syria, Libya, Congo,etc,etc

Who attacked in 1961 (using tools) Cuba .

In 1939,the SU started a war of aggression against Finland,without DOW,but,if the SU had used a DOW,it still would be a war of aggression .

But,was this war of aggression a war crime ? As the SU (or the Soviet leaders) never were condemned by a tribunal,can one say that the SU was guilty of war crime ?

Besides,what was the difference between what was doing the SU in 1939 and what were doing the US in 1961 (Bay of Pigs) ?

User avatar
Karelia
Member
Posts: 382
Joined: 28 May 2012, 15:55
Location: Pohojanmaa, Finland

Re: Putin – What Was Wrong with Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact?

#97

Post by Karelia » 25 Nov 2014, 22:50

ljadw wrote: 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
Maybe the USSR was not "saved" because of the LL, but she could not have reached Germany without it either.
ljadw wrote: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 .
One should remember, that prior the WW1 Russia had been colonizing Poland brutally for more than a hundred years. Of course the Poles wanted to pay back. Also the now Western parts of Byelorussia and Ukraine had lots of Poles living there - often as a largest population group, if not as an outright majority.
ljadw wrote: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 .
The German attack did not "create a situation were it was possible for the USSR to extend her influence". The German AND soviet attacks were deliberately planned and made possible by the M-R pact.
ljadw wrote:...
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 .
How soviet way of thinking! Naturally those countries (not "territories"!) did never BELONG to the Russian Empire, they had simply been occupied. Quite a different thing!
ML59 wrote:Other than Hitler's dream of an eastern "lebensraum", i.e. a gigantic colonial empire directly bordering with the Reich, almost all the European countries during interwar years were actively seeking nationalistic policies that sometimes turned to open ethnic cleansing or repression of ethnic minorities. Poland, Hungary, Romania, Finland, Lithuania, Latvia, Czechoslovakia were all engaged in pursuing strictly nationalistic or hyper-nationalistic goals.
...
All powers of that time followed their own imperial or nationalistic goals, with the exclusions of Lichtenstein and Switzerland, maybe.
I'm not quite sure what "nationalistic policies" during the interwar years you are referring to in the case of Finland. Please clarify.

AFAIK there was no "nationalistic policy" of Finland then. Of course there were some smallish political minorities with such policies, but the Finnish governments did not have them.
Sid Guttridge wrote: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.

Furthermore, the USSR and Nazi Germany differed fundamentally from all the minor Central/Eastern/Balkan minor powers you mention. The latter were in disagreement over where to draw their mutual borders, not the existence of each others' independent national existence. By contrast, through the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, Nazi Germany and the USSR agreed to extinguish the independent national existence of at least four states. The first of these was Poland and this was done within six weeks of the Pact being signed.

Putin was being fundamentally dishonest about the nature of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. It was not defensive, as neither contracting party had a mutual land border with the other. It was offensive against several minor states that had the misfortune to lie between them. Within 10 months, all had been swallowed up, mostly by the USSR.

Cheers,

Sid.
Exactly - except there were five states to be extinguished: Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland.
ML59 wrote:...
Furthermore, I have also difficulties in understanding why should be the existence of any of the big and very racist colonial Empires of that time, like that of France, UK , Belgium and Nederland, to name the largest ones, to be considered fully legitimate and "legal" and consider as un-just and immoral only the empires, real or not, pursued by Russians or Japanese. 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.
The "old" empires were already beginning to be seen as old fashioned, harmful and morally unjust. The British Empire had already started to disintegrate. That process was going to be long and difficult. The existence of those old relics and remnants of a different era was not a valid excuse for the soviets and the Japanese to do the same crime now.
ML59 wrote: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.
The Poles had a point in not accepting the Curzon line. The areas in question had mixed population of at least Poles, Ukrainians, Belorussians and Jews. AFAIK the Poles were in most parts the largest ethnic group, if not the outright majority. The soviets (Russians) had the least rights to the areas.
ML59 wrote: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.
I must disagree with you partly
- the M-R pact was created to start a war. Some other pacts tried to avoid a war. Totally different!
- the M-R pact DID create a new alliance - deliberately made to please the greed of those two dictators
- the M-R pact WAS prerequisite for the German - and soviet - attack on Poland. Without it Hitler wouldn't have dared to
- the M-R pact was a tool for Stalin to get Germany into war with the West, which was his plan. That was a total success for Stalin

I agree with you, that the rapid collapse of France was a disappointment for Stalin.
ML59 wrote: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?
Although both pacts were immoral, the difference of course is, that the M-R pact was created to start a war. The C-S pact was created to handle the situation after the war the previous pact had created.
ML59 wrote:...
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.
It was not a "very bad political choice", since Finland did not have a choice! To avoid the looming new soviet attack the only possibility was to seek for help from the only possible source - Germany.

After the war the soviets were expecting Finland to follow the example of Poland, Hungary and so on, but for various reasons the soviets were not successful in that either - mostly because Finland was not occupied by the soviet army.

It was therefore NOT the soviet plan to leave Finland alone, it was something they settled for afterwards.

durb
Member
Posts: 627
Joined: 06 May 2014, 10:31

Re: Putin – What Was Wrong with Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact?

#98

Post by durb » 26 Nov 2014, 00:19

If one wants to ask really what was wrong with Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, the simply answer is that it was a decision of two major powers without asking the opinion of those who were really involved (like Poles, Balts, Finns). The consequences was that big part of Europe was demolished between Hitler and Stalin letting ruins and millions of dead on those areas involved with the Mol-Rib. pact. It also left lot of bitterness and wounds which took decades to heal (and are not necessarily healed even today). Also the München conference in 1938 was a conference of "big powers" dealing Czechoslovakia without Czech participation - and Chamberlain will never get rid of the bad fame that he justly or injustly earned by the München deal.

One could argue that it OK for some countries to divide the whole planet in natural spheres of influence. But lets look what it has created in Near East, Africa and parts of Asia: artificial and unstable countries with boundaries settled by European colonial powers without any regard of local ethnical, cultural and economic realities. At worst these leads to "failed states" which are excellent places for extremist organizations to develop in full political powers. The cost of these colonial deals regarding "natural spheres of influence" has been enourmous and it still continues to be paid. At the long run you just can not make decision of fate of people of some geographic are without consulting them first or take in account how they will react. I think that the idea of dividing the world in "natural spheres of influence" without asking the people involved (if they really want to belong to "sphere of influence" of Russia or any other power) is just outfashioned and dangerous.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15585
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: Putin – What Was Wrong with Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact?

#99

Post by ljadw » 26 Nov 2014, 17:01

The importance of the M/R pact is much exaggerated : it did not cause the outbreak of WWII,it was only an attempt by the SU to not get involved in this war.

The importance of the München conference also is much exaggerated : it was an attempt by Britain to prevent the outbreak of WWII for something that was in the British eyes negligible .

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 12:19

Re: Putin – What Was Wrong with Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact?

#100

Post by Sid Guttridge » 26 Nov 2014, 21:54

Hi ljadw,

You write, "The importance of the M/R pact is much exaggerated" I don't think so, for the following reasons (amongst others):

You write, "it did not cause the outbreak of WWII". True, but it allowed Hitler to initiate what became WWII.

You write, "it was only an attempt by the SU to not get involved in this war." Perhaps, but you missed out "but nevertheless to benefit territorially from its outbreak by extinguishing 4/5 minor countries and annexing parts of two other larger ones at no immediate risk to itself"

Cheers,

Sid.

User avatar
Attrition
Member
Posts: 4005
Joined: 29 Oct 2008, 23:53
Location: England

Re: Putin – What Was Wrong with Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact?

#101

Post by Attrition » 26 Nov 2014, 22:28

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

Which ones?

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15585
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: Putin – What Was Wrong with Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact?

#102

Post by ljadw » 26 Nov 2014, 23:12

Sid Guttridge wrote:Hi ljadw,

You write, "The importance of the M/R pact is much exaggerated" I don't think so, for the following reasons (amongst others):

You write, "it did not cause the outbreak of WWII". True, but it allowed Hitler to initiate what became WWII.

You write, "it was only an attempt by the SU to not get involved in this war." Perhaps, but you missed out "but nevertheless to benefit territorially from its outbreak by extinguishing 4/5 minor countries and annexing parts of two other larger ones at no immediate risk to itself"

Cheers,

Sid.
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 .

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'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 .

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

durb
Member
Posts: 627
Joined: 06 May 2014, 10:31

Re: Putin – What Was Wrong with Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact?

#103

Post by durb » 27 Nov 2014, 00:21

Why was Stalin occupying the Baltic states? Well, not because they were capitalist states which by marxist analysis would join more powerful capitalist/imperialist states and let these to use their territory for attack. They were occupied to be sovietized as a Soviet Republics and run by local communists by establishing their authority by the efforts of NKVD to eliminate and deportate so-called suspicious elements to remote parts of Soviet Union. During the Soviet occupation there was also determined russification program going on - bringing Russian settlers to live in those apartmens, whose previous habitants were killed, jailed or deported. Same kind of planes were made of Finland - Stalin did not trust Finnish people and mentioned once that it would be better to remove all suspicious elements from the Finland to far corners of Soviet Union. Russian settlers would have taken their place specially in the western border areas of the possible Soviet or Peoples Republic of Finland. These kinds of plans had nothing to do with the marxist idealism, of which the Soviet version was far away caricature.

I guess that it is difficult to put oneself in the position of small nations if one considers that only big powers and their decisions mean something. Of course Mol.-Rib was OK for Hitler and Stalin in Aug. 1939. But if you try to see it from the point of view of smaller nations geographically involved with the pact, it was far from being OK. The same goes for Czechs - how can you expect them to accept the München deal for being OK and just see the "larger context"? It depends which perspective you choose - the cold analysis of the games of major powers or understanding those people who were forced to live the consequences of such games.

I can see larger contexts and understand them, but understanding some thing as another thing as approving with it. Mol.-Rib is understable pact when one takes in account the goals and totalitarian nature of Germany and Soviet Union in 1939. Its consequences however were unacceptable or better said unpleasant for Poles, Balts, Finns and Romanians.

ML59
Member
Posts: 414
Joined: 26 Dec 2007, 12:09
Location: GENOVA

Re: Putin – What Was Wrong with Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact?

#104

Post by ML59 » 27 Nov 2014, 00:45

They were occupied to be sovietized as a Soviet Republics and run by local communists by establishing their authority by the efforts of NKVD to eliminate and deportate so-called suspicious elements to remote parts of Soviet Union.
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.
The repression of baltic intellighenzia was a consequence, not the source, of the decision to sovietize, as much as possible, the recently acquired territories in order to avoid the formation of internal anti-soviet 5th columns in case of war.
The same fear of internal opposition in case of war was, according to most historians, the source of the Great Terror of 1937-38 that, not by accident, was mostly aimed towards ethnic groups deemed potentially unreliable (see "Bloodlands")

User avatar
wm
Member
Posts: 8753
Joined: 29 Dec 2006, 21:11
Location: Poland

Re: Putin – What Was Wrong with Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact?

#105

Post by wm » 27 Nov 2014, 04:20

ljadw wrote:If starting a war without DOW would be a war crime,than would be guilty of war crime those
There were other creative choices available:

- they attacked first (Hitler invading Poland, the USSR invading Finland),
- the opponent was not a country (the USSR invading Poland),
- they invited us (usually the USSR was "invited"),
- an internal domestic struggle, a civil war (early Vietnam war),
- nobody cared ( 1941 invasion of Iran ). The crimes weren't prosecuted ex officio, because there wasn't any officio established to prosecute them. It was self serve-justice, one might say victor's justice.

The wars you mentioned fit into one of those categories.
ljadw wrote:The importance of the M/R pact is much exaggerated : it did not cause the outbreak of WWII,it was only an attempt by the SU to not get involved in this war.
Well, even with the Stalin on his side, Hitler wasn't quite sure of himself:
Mussolini’s reply had arrived at 5.45 p.m. At 7.30 p.m. Brauchitsch telephoned Halder to rescind the invasion order. A shaken Hitler had changed his mind.
On 24 August Hitler had prepared a lengthy letter for Mussolini, justifying the alliance with the Soviet Union, and indicating that a strike against Poland was imminent. The letter was delivered by the German Ambassador in Rome on the morning of the 25th. Mussolini’s answer gave the over-confident Hitler an enormous shock. The Duce did not beat about the bush: Italy was in no position to offer military assistance at the present time. Hitler icily dismissed Attolico, the Italian Ambassador. ‘The Italians are behaving just like they did in 1914,’ Paul Schmidt heard Hitler remark. ‘That alters the entire situation,’ judged Goebbels. ‘The Fuhrer ponders and contemplates. That’s a serious blow for him.’ For an hour, the Reich Chancellery rang with comments of disgust at the Axis partner. The word ‘treachery’ was on many lips.

Brauchitsch was hurriedly summoned. When he arrived, around seven that evening, he told Hitler there was still time to halt the attack, and recommended doing so to gain time for the Dictator’s ‘political game’.
Hitler immediately took up the suggestion. At 7.45 p.m. a frantic order was dispatched to Halder to halt the start of hostilities. Keitel emerged from Hitler’s room to tell an adjutant: ‘The march-order must be
rescinded immediately.’
The mood in the Reich Chancellery had not been improved by the message from Daladier on 26 August underlining France’s solidarity with Poland. Things at the hub of the German government seemed chaotic. No one had a clear idea of what was going on. Hewel, head of Ribbentrop’s personal staff, though with different views from those of his boss, warned Hitler not to underestimate the British. He was a better judge of that than his Minister, he asserted. Hitler angrily broke off the discussion.
Brauchitsch thought Hitler did not know what he should do.
from Hitler by Ian Kershaw
If such trifles were able to derail Hitler's plans and put him into a nervous frenzy, what would have happened if Stalin had been indifferent or unfriendly?
Hitler would be left without any allies, and the entire world against him.

Anyway even if, the WW2 would be much different, with a longer war with Poland, a smaller German force available for the battle of France, and most likely without Barbarossa - simply for lack of resources.

Locked

Return to “WW2 in Eastern Europe”