Was the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact necessary?

Discussions on High Command, strategy and the Armed Forces (Wehrmacht) in general.
User avatar
AiBosq
Member
Posts: 19
Joined: 29 Mar 2021, 19:09
Location: USA

Was the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact necessary?

#1

Post by AiBosq » 28 May 2021, 23:33

Did they need to hand over the Baltics, Bessarabia, and Eastern Poland or could they have gotten a non-aggression pact without the secret territorial agreements? Especially when it comes to the Baltic states and Bessarabia, they would have been in a much better position during the war. I understand the Germans were desperate for a pact, but would the Soviets have agreed or no?

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

Re: Was the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact necessary?

#2

Post by wm » 29 May 2021, 00:06

From the Soviet (or even maybe Russian) point of view, it was a good move. That France would fail so ignominiously was impossible to predict pre-1940.


User avatar
Steve
Member
Posts: 982
Joined: 03 Aug 2002, 02:58
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Was the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact necessary?

#3

Post by Steve » 30 May 2021, 20:10

If Hitler wanted to eliminate the possibility of a two front war then he needed an agreement with Stalin who would ask a high price. Hitler, Ribbentrop and State Secretary Weizsacker discussed at the end of July the basis of an agreement with the Soviet Union. The Germans suggested dividing Poland based on the rivers Narev, Vistula and San. Finland and Estonia were to be in the Soviet sphere of interest, Latvia would be divided along the Dvina river and Lithuania together with Vilna would go to Germany. Stalin wanted all of Latvia and also expressed interest in Bessarabia; the Germans agreed to Latvia and said they had no interest in Bessarabia.

When Ribbentrop visited Moscow on September 27 1939 he had a surprise as Stalin wanted to revise the agreement. He now wanted Lithuania and offered to swap a part of Poland inhabited by ethnic Poles for it. Ribbentrop tried to secure for Germany the recently Polish oil producing areas of Drohobycz and Boryslav but Stalin said that this area was considered part of Ukraine by the Ukrainian people and he could not disappoint them. He offered instead the annual oil output of the wells 300,000 tons in exchange for the equivalent in coal and steel tubes also the area between East Prussia and Lithuania known as the Suwalki triangle. Ribbentrop phoned Hitler who after a delay phoned back to say he agreed. Stalin clearly took advantage of Hitler who was facing the prospect of a long war in the west.

Taken from Hitler and Stalin by Alan Bullock also Hitler 1936 – 1945 Nemesis by Ian Kershaw.

There is a theory that the Soviets in their handling of the German Soviet negotiations had been very clever. They had a mole in the British Foreign Office named John Herbert King a cipher clerk. When reports on how the 1939 British and French negotiations for an alliance with the Soviets were going reached London King deciphered them and also presumably sent instructions to Moscow. He handed over everything to his NKVD handler. The Soviets were always one step ahead of the British and French in negotiations.

https://spartacus-educational.com/John_Herbert_King.htm

They Soviets passed some of Kings Information to the German embassy in London and presumably were selective about what was passed on. Was information passed to the Germans that would make them think that the British French negotiations with the Soviets were going well? If so could this have influenced the Germans over what they were prepared to concede to Stalin and the speed with which an agreement was reached?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Herbert_King

col kapa
Member
Posts: 14
Joined: 19 Apr 2017, 19:29
Location: Oxford

Re: Was the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact necessary?

#4

Post by col kapa » 10 Jul 2021, 13:42

The interesting question is that Stalin could have achieved delaying conflict by accepting the offered treaty with France and Britain-this would have made the Germans think much harder about a Polish invasion in 1939. Stalin chose the German treaty because it land grabbed the neighbouring states and ensured the destruction of Poland-a state that Stalin had no intention of doing anything other than destroying. Also Stalin was aware that the Anglo French treaty with Poland was only triggered by German aggression (not Soviet). Great for Stalin as he gained territory and was no doubt looking forward to an Anglo French war with the Germans as this would weaken all his potential enemy's enabling the Soviet union to get stronger. Therefore in my opinion it was both Stalin and Hitler that were responsible for the start of ww2 in 1939. Not much is spoken about this Soviet responsibility-probably because the Soviets became an eventual ally

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

Re: Was the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact necessary?

#5

Post by wm » 10 Jul 2021, 15:55

The Allies defended the existing (and beneficial) European order. But for Stalin and the USSR, a stable capitalist Europe was a deadly, long-term threat. He couldn't possibly defend the existing, beneficial to his enemies, order.

thaddeus_c
Member
Posts: 816
Joined: 22 Jan 2014, 04:16

Re: Was the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact necessary?

#6

Post by thaddeus_c » 04 Jan 2022, 07:29

my view Germany guaranteed their invasion of the USSR with the deal they struck, dealing away Poland, Finland, and the Baltics? that was their little trading bloc that had replaced trade with the Soviets.

Poland and Romania were in a defensive pact, a deal could have been made to divide both of those? certainly any treaty with the Allies is not going to gain any territory for the Soviets in and of itself

possibly they could have conceded other areas, such as Bulgaria and the Turkish Straits (let the Soviets try to take the latter)

rcocean
Member
Posts: 686
Joined: 30 Mar 2008, 01:48

Re: Was the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact necessary?

#7

Post by rcocean » 04 Jan 2022, 19:27

The Germans had Lithuania but agreed to trade it for more of Poland. Basically, the Germans were no position to keep the Soviets out of Estonia and Latvia or Berbesssia. Or even Eastern Poland. What was Hilter going to do, go to war with Stalin?

Hitler thought, once the pact with Stalin was signed, the French/UK would see that any war over Poland was senseless. But of course, he didn't understand they wanted war no matter what. The Craziness of the UK/France during the timeperiod is shown by their desire to send aid to Finland, and their drawing up plans to bomb Baku!

They seem to have had zero understanding of how weak they were compared to Germany let alone Germany/USSR Together.

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

Re: Was the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact necessary?

#8

Post by wm » 07 Jan 2022, 01:07

The Baku plan wasn't that bad, it probably would reinforce the (hopefully deadly) blockade of Germany. It wasn't like Stalin was going to bomb London in response.

The aid to Finland was insignificant in the grand scheme of things, it wouldn't weaken the Allies and it was the right thing to do.

DavidFrankenberg
Member
Posts: 1235
Joined: 11 May 2016, 02:09
Location: Earth

Re: Was the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact necessary?

#9

Post by DavidFrankenberg » 07 Jan 2022, 04:36

It was necessary for Hitler in order to conquer France without the russian threat in his back. That's why Hitler took the initiative of the Pact.

It was necessary for Stalin in order to give time and space before the german attack. That's why Stalin signed it with enthusiasm.

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

Re: Was the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact necessary?

#10

Post by wm » 07 Jan 2022, 09:44

Really?
If any country helped the Germans to near triumph in the war, it was the USSR. ...
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. ...

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

User avatar
TheMarcksPlan
Banned
Posts: 3255
Joined: 15 Jan 2019, 23:32
Location: USA

Re: Was the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact necessary?

#11

Post by TheMarcksPlan » 10 Jan 2022, 01:43

wm wrote:
07 Jan 2022, 01:07
The Baku plan wasn't that bad, it probably would reinforce the (hopefully deadly) blockade of Germany.
Wow. I've never heard anybody defend this plan, not even on the internet.
wm wrote:It wasn't like Stalin was going to bomb London in response.
Wow again. Do you really think bombing London is the only way that SU belligerency could have impacted the Allies?
https://twitter.com/themarcksplan
https://www.reddit.com/r/AxisHistoryForum/
https://medium.com/counterfactualww2
"The whole question of whether we win or lose the war depends on the Russians." - FDR, June 1942

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

Re: Was the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact necessary?

#12

Post by wm » 10 Jan 2022, 12:41

I don't know. If you want to claim something it's your job to say it and prove it.

Plans of disrupting the Nazi-Soviet alliance by exploiting both countries' most glaring weakness (dependence on fossil fuels) were discussed and proposed for over two years. That includes "Pike" and "Raspberry."
Hundreds of people took part, including French leaders, Churchill, British/French intelligence services, top military planners of both countries.

I'm not going to call all them crazies just because of that Internet thing.

KDF33
Member
Posts: 1282
Joined: 17 Nov 2012, 02:16

Re: Was the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact necessary?

#13

Post by KDF33 » 11 Jan 2022, 23:18

wm wrote:
10 Jan 2022, 12:41
I don't know. If you want to claim something it's your job to say it and prove it.

Plans of disrupting the Nazi-Soviet alliance by exploiting both countries' most glaring weakness (dependence on fossil fuels) were discussed and proposed for over two years. That includes "Pike" and "Raspberry."
Hundreds of people took part, including French leaders, Churchill, British/French intelligence services, top military planners of both countries.

I'm not going to call all them crazies just because of that Internet thing.
Crazy, no. Deluded, yes. Planning to attack the Soviet Union and risk bringing it into the war as an active partner of Germany has to rank up there with Yamamoto's battle plan for Midway and Fall Blau as one of the most hare-brained schemes of the war.

rcocean
Member
Posts: 686
Joined: 30 Mar 2008, 01:48

Re: Was the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact necessary?

#14

Post by rcocean » 13 Jan 2022, 03:33

wm wrote:
10 Jan 2022, 12:41
I don't know. If you want to claim something it's your job to say it and prove it.
Well, my original point was that the UK/France were so deluded about their own power they not only declared war on Germany without the USSR/USA on their side (and lost Poland and all of western Europe), they were going to attack the USSR and go to war with them.

Given the UK/France lost to Hitler in May/June 1940 and the UK only survived though sheer luck, some hard fighting, FDR's taking their side, and Hitler's mistakes, maybe attacking the USSR by bombing Baku wouldn't have been such a good idea.

And yeah, Stalin wasn't going to "bomb London". He just could've declared war on the UK/France, and invaded Iran and kicked the UK out of the Persian Gulf. Or, he just could've declared war and doubled the help he was giving Germany.

User avatar
TheMarcksPlan
Banned
Posts: 3255
Joined: 15 Jan 2019, 23:32
Location: USA

Re: Was the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact necessary?

#15

Post by TheMarcksPlan » 13 Jan 2022, 05:28

rcocean wrote:And yeah, Stalin wasn't going to "bomb London". He just could've declared war on the UK/France, and invaded Iran and kicked the UK out of the Persian Gulf
Also the SU's submarine fleet was much bigger than Germany's in 1940.

The whole middle east and India would be lost sooner or later.

Most seriously for Britian, Hitler probably postpones Barbarossa while SU remains an ally and is expanding southward (as Hitler wanted) rather than eastward.

Hard to see the endgame to such a war. Stalin's nightmare of German-UK alliance against SU isn't out of the question, neither is SU conquering all of Europe because it mobilizes earlier and attacks Germany while she's focused on UK. US is less eager to enter this war, may not back Japan into a corner. Allies maybe look less unambiguously The Good Guys after bombing SU.
https://twitter.com/themarcksplan
https://www.reddit.com/r/AxisHistoryForum/
https://medium.com/counterfactualww2
"The whole question of whether we win or lose the war depends on the Russians." - FDR, June 1942

Post Reply

Return to “German Strategy & General German Military Discussion”