Nun ja, dann ziehen wir wieder einmal den Herrn Overy zu Rate.michael mills wrote:Roberto wrote:
My dear Pendragon, I think you are confusing two historical events here.Aggression it was.
But not against Germany, in regard to whom it was in accordance with the Nazi-Soviet non-aggression pact.
The first of these was the Soviet Union's heavying of the Baltic States and Finland in October 1939 to sign non-aggression traties and allow it to establish military bases on their territory. That action was in accordance with the secret protocol to the German-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact of 23 August 1939, and the subsequent Borders and Friendship Treaty of 28 September. For that reason, the Soviet action was not opposed by Germany.
The three Baltic States submitted to Soviet pressure and allowed the stationing of small Soviet garrisons on their territory. Finland however refused to allow a Soviet base at Hangoe, which led to the Winter War.
The second event was the Soviet invasion in force of the Baltic states in June 1940, the incorporation of those states into the Soviet Union through fraudulent elections, and the unleashing of a reign of terror against opposition.
That move was a reaction to German victory in the West. It was not agreed with Germany, and greatly exceeded what Germany had agreed to in 1939. The Soviet occupation of the Baltic states was an aggressive move designed to improve its military position vis-a-vis Germany, by stationing massive forces directly on the German border; it was therefore a hostile move from the German point of view.
By committing an act of aggression against states friendly to Germany, the Soviet Union was in effect committing aggression against Germany itself.
Richard Overy ([i]Russia’s War[/i], page 55) wrote:[…]Having absorbed half of Poland, and temporarily averted the German threat, Stalin was eager to press on with fulfillment of the terms set out in the secret German-Soviet protocols. The Baltic states were asked to sign treaties of mutual assistance in the two weeks following the Polish defeat. The treaties gave the Soviet Union the right to station troops in Baltic bases. A few weeks later, on October 5, similar demands were made of Finland: a naval and air base at the mouth of the Baltic at Hanko and cession of the Karelian isthmus north of Leningrad to provide a better defense of that vital city. In return Finland was offered a large area of Soviet territory in Karelia. The Finns refused and on November 13 negotiations were broken off. Stalin almost certainly would have preferred a political solution, but when the Finns refused to be intimidated he tore up the Soviet-Finnish non-aggression treaty and prepared for a military campaign to bring Finland entirely into the Soviet orbit.[…]
So it seems that the occupation of the Baltic states and Bessarabia was in accordance with the protocols of the Nazi-Soviet non-aggression pact and only the occupation of Bukovina went beyond it, though Overy apparently considers it to have been “conceded in principle in 1939” as well.Richard Overy (as above, pages 60 and following) wrote:[…]The sharp change in the strategic situation prompted Soviet leaders to take the remaining spoils assigned to the Soviet sphere under the terms of the secret protocols of the pact with Germany[emphasis mine]. On June 27, on the pretext that ‘acts of provocation’ from the Baltic states had to be met with force, half a million Soviet soldiers were sent into the three republics, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, which were subject to the same regime of lawless terror that had been imposed in eastern Poland. […]At the end of June it was the turn of Romania. Under strong diplomatic pressure the Government in Bucharest handed back the former Tsarist territory of Bessarabia, as well as part of the Bukovina region that had not been included in the pact.[emphasis mine] The occupation of these areas was begun on June 28 under Zhukov’s supervision, and was completed two days later. The Red Army now lay only 120 miles from the Ploesti oil fields, which provided almost all of Germany’s wartime supply of crude oil.
The sudden expansion of Soviet territory westward, although conceded in principle in 1939, produced fresh anxieties in Berlin.[…]
Such as?michael mills wrote:At the same time as the invasion of the Baltic states, the Soviet Union made threatening moves against Finland.
Evidence?michael mills wrote:It was only the stationing of German troops in that country that averted a resumption of the Soviet-Finnish war at that time.
That’s correct, for a change.michael mills wrote:Indeed, one of Molotov's demands at the Berlin meeting in November 1940 was the removal of German troops from Finland.
Evidence that this was meant to make possible another attack on Finland rather than to eliminate a perceived German threat?
Poor Mills doesn’t have a sense of humor, and any attempt of his to provide some “comic relief” only reveals what a pitiable, sick fellow he is.michael mills wrote: Roberto also wrote:
What have you got against nudism, Draco? Why is naked aggression worse than aggression wearing trousers?Maybe so, but how would that make Hitler's attack on the Soviet Union look like anything better than naked, unprovoked aggression ?
Mind you, I do grant that the sight of thousands of naked German soldiers advancing toward one would be rather daunting, particularly if they were all dosed up on Viagra!
"Nicht schiessen, Kamerad! The rifle I mean".
It also calls to mind that old German saying
“Wo das Herz von voll ist, quillt der Mund über” (What your heart is full of your mouth spurts out).