Pit One Side Against the Other - Stalin's 1939 Plan for Soviet Domination of Europe

Discussions on all aspects of the USSR, from the Russian Civil War till the end of the Great Patriotic War and the war against Japan. Hosted by Art.
User avatar
wm
Member
Posts: 6381
Joined: 29 Dec 2006 20:11
Location: Poland

Re: Pit One Side Against the Other - Stalin's 1939 Plan for Soviet Domination of Europe

Post by wm » 07 May 2021 09:22

George Suboczewski, that stage director writing for the WaPo? Never heard of him.

Yes, there is no doubt those are Hitler's words - that's why Rosenberg itemized them.
The reason was simple - there were no enough (even bad) Germans for more than a single strip. Hitler actually created that strip and populated it with good Germans from all over Eastern Europe but then basically ran out of Germans.
And even if - to the East for several hundred kilometres there was Poland, not Russia.

That stronger than in the West (i.e., the Siegfried Line) wall would require years to build, hundreds of thousands of workers, and billions of dollars.
It wasn't a let's-abandon-it tomorrow structure by any stretch of the imagination.

User avatar
wm
Member
Posts: 6381
Joined: 29 Dec 2006 20:11
Location: Poland

Re: Pit One Side Against the Other - Stalin's 1939 Plan for Soviet Domination of Europe

Post by wm » 07 May 2021 09:31

Yes, Hitler wrote "we can primarily have in mind only Russia and her vassal border states" but did he say the lands would be conquered?
Because the word he used was "acquired."
France was going to be conquered and destroyed but the land acquired.
Did he say how much land he needed? All of it or just a strip or two? No.

Hitler's sole goal was European or world domination, Lebensraum was a mere tool to achieve it. And as the strip demonstrated Germany didn't need, wasn't even been able to assimilate, that much Lebensraum.

Hitler wanted to acquire some land in the East, Stalin wanted to acquire some land in the West - two sides of the same coin, the Hiter-Stalin pact was a perfect solution to that.

User avatar
Steve
Member
Posts: 828
Joined: 03 Aug 2002 01:58
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Pit One Side Against the Other - Stalin's 1939 Plan for Soviet Domination of Europe

Post by Steve » 07 May 2021 22:17

“That stronger than in the West (i.e., the Siegfried Line) wall would require years to build, hundreds of thousands of workers, and billions of dollars.
It wasn't a let's-abandon-it tomorrow structure by any stretch of the imagination”

Are you sure towarzysz wm that this is not a stretch of your imagination?

“France was going to be conquered and destroyed but the land acquired.”

So Poland was conquered and destroyed but Danzig etc was acquired. I shall have to ponder this as I must confess I am lost.

Hitler wanted to acquire some land in the East, Stalin wanted to acquire some land in the West - two sides of the same coin, the Hiter-Stalin pact was a perfect solution to that.

It did suit both sides at the time but Hitler never saw it as a permanent solution, as soon as he had won in the west he started thinking of destroying the Soviet Union.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 11997
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Pit One Side Against the Other - Stalin's 1939 Plan for Soviet Domination of Europe

Post by ljadw » 08 May 2021 09:32

Steve wrote:
06 May 2021 20:33
“Did really Hitler say in Mein Kampf he would invade Poland and then Russia? Where?
Did he even say he was going to invade Russia? Where?”

And so, we National Socialists consciously draw a line beneath the foreign policy tendency of our pre–War period. We take up where we broke off six hundred years ago. We stop the endless German movement to the south and west, and turn our gaze toward the land in the East. At long last, we break off the colonial and commercial policy of the pre–War period and shift to the soil policy of the future.
If we speak of soil in Europe today, we can primarily have in mind only Russia and her vassal border states.

Taken from Mein Kampf Vol.2 Chapter 14.

In the quote from Rosenburg it is not very clear if it is Hitler saying “Whether the [German] settlement zone can be pushed forward after a few decades is something the future will reveal.” or whether these are Rosenburg’s thoughts on the matter. However by July 31 1940 Hitler was talking to his military leaders about smashing Russia.

I have read a review of Carly’s book by a Polish reviewer George Suboczewski which really did leave me wondering if we had read the same book. It would be a shame if people in Poland who have clearly not read the book have formed their opinion of it from Polish reviewers to whom the mere mention of the Red Army entering Poland throws into a tizzy.
It is very questionable to use Hitler's words as proofs for Hitler's intentions . The same for the words of Stalin, Daladier, Chamberlain, FDR ....
Mein Kampf is not the Bible of National Socialism .
And,what Hitler said on July 31 is totally irrelevant,as the decision to attack the USSR was only taken in the winter of 1940-1941 .
About Stalin : he never had the intention to fight against Germany to prevent a German occupation of Poland .
He knew that Poland would oppose the entry of Soviet troops, that was the reason why he asked this entry and to use this as an excuse not to help Poland .
No one could help Poland in 1939 : the only way for Poland to survive was a Soviet refusal to a German attack and a German refusal to a Soviet attack . And this since 1939 .

User avatar
Steve
Member
Posts: 828
Joined: 03 Aug 2002 01:58
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Pit One Side Against the Other - Stalin's 1939 Plan for Soviet Domination of Europe

Post by Steve » 08 May 2021 12:24

With a large number of politicians you should never use their words as proof of their intentions. I once attended a meeting where a long standing British MP said that he thought the main motivation for about a third of MPs was to be a minister with a chauffer driven car. However, I think Hitler has a fairly good record for doing what he said he intended to do. He was a pragmatist as his pact with Stalin shows but he eventually broke the pact.

Hitler asked Jodl on 29 July 1940 about deploying the army in the east and attacking Russia in the autumn. On July 31 he met his military leaders at the Berghof and said “the sooner Russia is crushed the better”. That matches up nicely with what he wrote in Mein Kampf. It does seem that Hitler was vacillating by the time of the talks with Molotov in November 1940 and if they had brought about the result he wanted he may have changed his mind. On the first day of the talks though he put out a directive which said “all already orally ordered preparations for the east to be continued”. Whether anything Molotov said would have changed his mind for any length of time is I think a moot point.

I think Stalin was serious about doing a deal with the British and French; Voroshilov during the negotiation in August had been given the authority to sign a military convention. Stalin did not place all his money on one horse though he always seems to have been open to a deal with Hitler. If the USSR joined the British and French against Germany then entry of Soviet troops into Poland (I appreciate that there was not much to choose between Stalin and Hitler) was a reasonable request. As the Soviets pointed out for the Polish army to be destroyed before the entry of Soviet troops would make the situation worse. The French and the British both agreed that Poland could not be defended unless Soviet troops were allowed to enter. Whether they would have ever left is another question.

Poland made a huge blunder in thinking it could hold onto Danzig against a resurgent Germany and it was all downhill from then on.

User avatar
Yuri
Member
Posts: 1421
Joined: 01 Jun 2006 11:24
Location: Russia

Re: Pit One Side Against the Other - Stalin's 1939 Plan for Soviet Domination of Europe

Post by Yuri » 08 May 2021 14:12

ljadw wrote:
08 May 2021 09:32
About Stalin : he never had the intention to fight against Germany to prevent a German occupation of Poland .
He knew that Poland would oppose the entry of Soviet troops, that was the reason why he asked this entry and to use this as an excuse not to help Poland .
No one could help Poland in 1939 : the only way for Poland to survive was a Soviet refusal to a German attack and a German refusal to a Soviet attack . And this since 1939 .
For the Soviet Union, the Franco-Anglo-Soviet Treaty had an undoubted advantage over the Soviet-German Pact.
For the Soviet Union, a full-fledged and comprehensive military-political alliance with the two European powers Great Britain and France was worth it to send troops into Poland. If you compare, which is more profitable:
- a) territorial acquisitions, the possibility of which resulted from the Soviet-German Pact, or
- b) a full-scale military-political alliance with the two great European powers,
then for the Soviet Union, paragraph b) (the treaty with Great Britain and France) provides a clear advantage.
This is a clear advantage The Soviet Union was willing to pay for the entry of the Red Army into Poland to conduct military operations against Germany. Actually, the Soviet Union did not need Poland, here mr. ljadw Right. However, by fighting on the territory of Poland, the Soviet Union would not protect Poland, but the advantages provided by a full-scale Franco-British-Soviet Treaty. As you can see, mr. ljadw does not take this into account.
In addition, just like most Western researchers, he apparently does not take into account the fact that for the Soviet Union, in addition to the military aspect, the trade and economic aspect of cooperation with the partner with whom the agreement will be concluded (Germany or France and Great Britain) was also important.
If you choose with whom it is better to have full-fledged trade and economic relations, then Great Britain and France are clear favorites before Germany.
BUT, Without the conditions on which the Soviet Union insisted, the treaty would not have had the advantages for which the Soviet Union agreed to send Red Army troops into Poland to fight against Germany.

User avatar
wm
Member
Posts: 6381
Joined: 29 Dec 2006 20:11
Location: Poland

Re: Pit One Side Against the Other - Stalin's 1939 Plan for Soviet Domination of Europe

Post by wm » 08 May 2021 14:48

Steve wrote:
08 May 2021 12:24
Hitler asked Jodl on 29 July 1940 about deploying the army in the east and attacking Russia in the autumn. On July 31 he met his military leaders at the Berghof and said “the sooner Russia is crushed the better”. That matches up nicely with what he wrote in Mein Kampf.

Except there are no "let's attack Russia" in Mein Kampf and the reason for the invasion was an (absolutely unforeseen earlier) military necessity, not Lebensraum.
So how did he arrive at his decision to attack the Soviet Union before he defeated Britain? This is, it seems to me the decisive question of the war.
Hitler was convinced that Churchill was waiting for either the United States or the USSR to enter the war against Germany.
In Hitler's judgment, the United States would not be in a position to intervene in Europe until 1943: the Soviet Union would be ready by the autumn of 1942. The Russo-German pact was useless as a guarantee of peace. Stalin would wait for the German forces to weaken sufficiently as a result of their military efforts in the West and then overwhelm Europe with little risk to himself.
Hitler intended to prevent this, whatever the cost.
Germany could not fight on numerous fronts at the same time, and so it became his design to knock out one enemy after the other either by negotiation or warfare.
Secretly he always hoped for an understanding with Great Britain.
At Hitler's Side: The Memoirs of Hitler's Luftwaffe Adjutant by Nicolaus von Below
Actually one of the slogans plastered all over Germany would be: Britain will be defeated in Russia.

User avatar
wm
Member
Posts: 6381
Joined: 29 Dec 2006 20:11
Location: Poland

Re: Pit One Side Against the Other - Stalin's 1939 Plan for Soviet Domination of Europe

Post by wm » 08 May 2021 15:05

ljadw wrote:
08 May 2021 09:32
It is very questionable to use Hitler's words as proofs for Hitler's intentions . The same for the words of Stalin, Daladier, Chamberlain, FDR ....
Mein Kampf is not the Bible of National Socialism .
I don't think Stalin and Hitler lied much. Both were informed by their respective ideologies, they were true believers, didn't see anything wrong with what they were doing, believed they were morally right, that they were the "good guys."

According to communist ideology, all bourgeois nations were evil, led by inherently hostile toward socialism classes.
Some of them might appear relatively less dangerous but according to the cornerstone of Stalinism the "aggravation of the class struggle" they would eventually become a deadly threat anyway, it was only a matter of time.

From that point, it was absurd to help any bourgeois nation - "pit one side against the other" was the only proper, the only moral way.
What Stalin did was actually good politics - for communism but for Russia too.

User avatar
wm
Member
Posts: 6381
Joined: 29 Dec 2006 20:11
Location: Poland

Re: Pit One Side Against the Other - Stalin's 1939 Plan for Soviet Domination of Europe

Post by wm » 08 May 2021 15:24

Steve wrote:
08 May 2021 12:24
Voroshilov during the negotiation in August had been given the authority to sign a military convention.
Actually, according to British/French negotiatiors Voroshilov constantly consulted with Stalin (by phone) at every step of the negotiations. He was just a puppet on a string.
Steve wrote:
08 May 2021 12:24
Poland made a huge blunder in thinking it could hold onto Danzig against a resurgent Germany and it was all downhill from then on.
Why? Poland could hold to Danzig, Danzig is Polish today.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 11997
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Pit One Side Against the Other - Stalin's 1939 Plan for Soviet Domination of Europe

Post by ljadw » 08 May 2021 15:26

The Poles were more realistic than you claim .They knew that they had no chance against Germany and that they had no allies who could help them .But,they were convinced that Hitler would never make a pact with Stalin ,and without this pact a German attack was impossible .
B + F knew that they could not help Poland, they could only wage a war of revenge.Such a war would destroy Europe, Germany and their world position .
Stalin was convinced that B + F did not need him to defeat Germany ,and their insistence to have an alliance with Russia,fortified his belief that they wanted a war between Germany and the USSR,while they would do nothing .He decided that if there was a war between F + B and Germany, he would do nothing and wait till the capitalists destroyed each other and Europe would be defenseless against an advancing Soviet army .
Hitler knew that B +F could not help Poland and he was convinced that because of this,they would not wage a war of revenge .
He was wrong :he thought that when Italy and the Balkan states attacked the Ottoman Empire without any reaction of the Wallies ,or when AH attacked Serbia and Germany Russia,again without reaction from the Wallies,they would do nothing when he attacked Poland,the existence of which was not essential for the position of the Wallies .
He did not understand that the world of 1939 was no longer the world of 1914 and that it was not a war about Poland : it was
a war because some one, here Germany, had started a war and ,starting a war was now considered as a crime.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 11997
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Pit One Side Against the Other - Stalin's 1939 Plan for Soviet Domination of Europe

Post by ljadw » 08 May 2021 15:42

Yuri wrote:
08 May 2021 14:12
ljadw wrote:
08 May 2021 09:32
About Stalin : he never had the intention to fight against Germany to prevent a German occupation of Poland .
He knew that Poland would oppose the entry of Soviet troops, that was the reason why he asked this entry and to use this as an excuse not to help Poland .
No one could help Poland in 1939 : the only way for Poland to survive was a Soviet refusal to a German attack and a German refusal to a Soviet attack . And this since 1939 .
For the Soviet Union, the Franco-Anglo-Soviet Treaty had an undoubted advantage over the Soviet-German Pact.
For the Soviet Union, a full-fledged and comprehensive military-political alliance with the two European powers Great Britain and France was worth it to send troops into Poland. If you compare, which is more profitable:
- a) territorial acquisitions, the possibility of which resulted from the Soviet-German Pact, or
- b) a full-scale military-political alliance with the two great European powers,
then for the Soviet Union, paragraph b) (the treaty with Great Britain and France) provides a clear advantage.
This is a clear advantage The Soviet Union was willing to pay for the entry of the Red Army into Poland to conduct military operations against Germany. Actually, the Soviet Union did not need Poland, here mr. ljadw Right. However, by fighting on the territory of Poland, the Soviet Union would not protect Poland, but the advantages provided by a full-scale Franco-British-Soviet Treaty. As you can see, mr. ljadw does not take this into account.
In addition, just like most Western researchers, he apparently does not take into account the fact that for the Soviet Union, in addition to the military aspect, the trade and economic aspect of cooperation with the partner with whom the agreement will be concluded (Germany or France and Great Britain) was also important.
If you choose with whom it is better to have full-fledged trade and economic relations, then Great Britain and France are clear favorites before Germany.
BUT, Without the conditions on which the Soviet Union insisted, the treaty would not have had the advantages for which the Soviet Union agreed to send Red Army troops into Poland to fight against Germany.
What were the advantages provided by a full-scale Franco-British-Soviet pact ?
And why should the USSR intervene and fight to protect an anti-communist and anti-Russian country (Poland ) against an other anti-communist and anti-Russian country (Germany ) ?
It was Poland that ''occupied '' a part of Russia, not Germany .And Stalin knew that Poland would fight against the Red Army when this would enter Poland .
I doubt also that the economic relations with the Wallies were more important for the USSR than those with Germany .
The reality was that a war between Germany and the Wallies would benefit to the USSR and that a war between Germany and the USSR would benefit the Wallies. A war between the Wallies and the USSR against Germany was excluded .
When Stalin said that he could intervene with 100 divisions and Britain said that they would send 2 divisions to France, Stalin knew enough : the Wallies wanted to lure him in a war with Germany while they would do nothing .It was a trap .

User avatar
Yuri
Member
Posts: 1421
Joined: 01 Jun 2006 11:24
Location: Russia

Re: Pit One Side Against the Other - Stalin's 1939 Plan for Soviet Domination of Europe

Post by Yuri » 08 May 2021 16:56

wm wrote:
08 May 2021 15:05
ljadw wrote:
08 May 2021 09:32
It is very questionable to use Hitler's words as proofs for Hitler's intentions . The same for the words of Stalin, Daladier, Chamberlain, FDR ....
Mein Kampf is not the Bible of National Socialism .
I don't think Stalin and Hitler lied much. Both were informed by their respective ideologies, they were true believers, didn't see anything wrong with what they were doing, believed they were morally right, that they were the "good guys."

According to communist ideology, all bourgeois nations were evil, led by inherently hostile toward socialism classes.
Some of them might appear relatively less dangerous but according to the cornerstone of Stalinism the "aggravation of the class struggle" they would eventually become a deadly threat anyway, it was only a matter of time.

From that point, it was absurd to help any bourgeois nation - "pit one side against the other" was the only proper, the only moral way.
What Stalin did was actually good politics - for communism but for Russia too.
My God!, you have such a mess in your head. Now I understand why you got lost in three pines.
There are no the bourgeois nations, no the workers ' nations. There is a French nation, a German nation, a Polish nation, etc. The French nation, as well as all other nations, are divided into classes: the class of the bourgeoisie (otherwise, the class of capitalists), the class of workers and the class of peasants.
This state can be bourgeois (or capitalist) or workers ' (socialist), and not a nation. A bourgeois state is a state that protects the interests of the bourgeois class (the capitalist class). Capitalist (bourgeois) this is a person who owns the means of production. He (the capitalist) hires workers and pays only a part of the surplus value that the workers create by their labor. Thus, the bourgeois (capitalist) robs the workers. If the workers are outraged and demand that the capitalist pay them all the surplus value created, the bourgeois state will defend the capitalist. The bourgeois state is the state of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.
The Second Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth is a bourgeois-feudal state. Thus, in the Polish state of the model of 1939, along with the class of the bourgeoisie, there was another class of exploiters - the class of feudal lords, which in most other European countries has already disappeared from the historical scene (to die out).
The Polish state of the 1939 model is a state of dictatorship of capitalists and feudal lords.


Krasnaya Armia (KA) = Red Army (RA) is an abbreviated name, the full name of the Workers 'and Peasants' Red Army (WPRA) = Raboche-Krest'yanskaya Krasnaya Armiay (RKKA).
As you know: From the taiga to the British seas, the Red Army is the strongest:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vA-W_MPg9ec
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGoFn1h86kk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3-38YtgRDs

User avatar
Yuri
Member
Posts: 1421
Joined: 01 Jun 2006 11:24
Location: Russia

Re: Pit One Side Against the Other - Stalin's 1939 Plan for Soviet Domination of Europe

Post by Yuri » 08 May 2021 17:27

ljadw wrote:
08 May 2021 15:42
What were the advantages provided by a full-scale Franco-British-Soviet pact ?
And why should the USSR intervene and fight to protect an anti-communist and anti-Russian country (Poland ) against an other anti-communist and anti-Russian country (Germany ) ?
It was Poland that ''occupied '' a part of Russia, not Germany .And Stalin knew that Poland would fight against the Red Army when this would enter Poland .
I doubt also that the economic relations with the Wallies were more important for the USSR than those with Germany .
The reality was that a war between Germany and the Wallies would benefit to the USSR and that a war between Germany and the USSR would benefit the Wallies. A war between the Wallies and the USSR against Germany was excluded .
When Stalin said that he could intervene with 100 divisions and Britain said that they would send 2 divisions to France, Stalin knew enough : the Wallies wanted to lure him in a war with Germany while they would do nothing .It was a trap .
I will answer you, but could you first tell me if you can read Russian? So that I can navigate which sources and expressions I should better represent.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 11997
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Pit One Side Against the Other - Stalin's 1939 Plan for Soviet Domination of Europe

Post by ljadw » 08 May 2021 20:46

Only if a translation is possible .

ljadw
Member
Posts: 11997
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Pit One Side Against the Other - Stalin's 1939 Plan for Soviet Domination of Europe

Post by ljadw » 08 May 2021 21:00

Yuri wrote:
08 May 2021 16:56
wm wrote:
08 May 2021 15:05
ljadw wrote:
08 May 2021 09:32
It is very questionable to use Hitler's words as proofs for Hitler's intentions . The same for the words of Stalin, Daladier, Chamberlain, FDR ....
Mein Kampf is not the Bible of National Socialism .
I don't think Stalin and Hitler lied much. Both were informed by their respective ideologies, they were true believers, didn't see anything wrong with what they were doing, believed they were morally right, that they were the "good guys."

According to communist ideology, all bourgeois nations were evil, led by inherently hostile toward socialism classes.
Some of them might appear relatively less dangerous but according to the cornerstone of Stalinism the "aggravation of the class struggle" they would eventually become a deadly threat anyway, it was only a matter of time.

From that point, it was absurd to help any bourgeois nation - "pit one side against the other" was the only proper, the only moral way.
What Stalin did was actually good politics - for communism but for Russia too.
My God!, you have such a mess in your head. Now I understand why you got lost in three pines.
There are no the bourgeois nations, no the workers ' nations. There is a French nation, a German nation, a Polish nation, etc. The French nation, as well as all other nations, are divided into classes: the class of the bourgeoisie (otherwise, the class of capitalists), the class of workers and the class of peasants.
This state can be bourgeois (or capitalist) or workers ' (socialist), and not a nation. A bourgeois state is a state that protects the interests of the bourgeois class (the capitalist class). Capitalist (bourgeois) this is a person who owns the means of production. He (the capitalist) hires workers and pays only a part of the surplus value that the workers create by their labor. Thus, the bourgeois (capitalist) robs the workers. If the workers are outraged and demand that the capitalist pay them all the surplus value created, the bourgeois state will defend the capitalist. The bourgeois state is the state of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.
The Second Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth is a bourgeois-feudal state. Thus, in the Polish state of the model of 1939, along with the class of the bourgeoisie, there was another class of exploiters - the class of feudal lords, which in most other European countries has already disappeared from the historical scene (to die out).
The Polish state of the 1939 model is a state of dictatorship of capitalists and feudal lords.


Krasnaya Armia (KA) = Red Army (RA) is an abbreviated name, the full name of the Workers 'and Peasants' Red Army (WPRA) = Raboche-Krest'yanskaya Krasnaya Armiay (RKKA).
As you know: From the taiga to the British seas, the Red Army is the strongest:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vA-W_MPg9ec
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGoFn1h86kk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3-38YtgRDs
For Stalin the whole thing was very simple :there were 4 capitalist states/countries who had invaded the USSR in the past .
Now,one of them, Germany, threatened an other one, Poland,and the two others,France and Britain, threatened Germany if this would attack Poland .
The whole thing was not a problem for the USSR, it was the opposite : the USSR would be the beneficiary of a capitalist country .And, now, France and Britain asked him to do their war ,while they would remain neutral and be the beneficiaries of this war .Someone as suspicious as Stalin would not fall in this primitive trap.Especially as the fall of Poland was not a danger for the Wallies .If the fall of Poland was a danger for Britain, Britain would send more than 2 divisions to France and would give Poland military assistance and would send troops to Poland to indicate Hitler that they were serious .
And, for Stalin, the presence of the WM in Warsaw also was not a danger .But the presence of the WM in East Poland was a danger .

Return to “The Soviet Union at War 1917-1945”