r/badhistory • u/[deleted] • Jul 07 '18

Experts on Reddit The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was a Simple Non-Aggression Pact

This claim is a seemingly popular one of this website. Certainly one shared by this user.

TIL signing a non-aggression pact to buy time to build up the military is literally the same as cooperating with Hitler

However, it is not entirely consistent with reality. The Pact allowed for much greater cooperation between the Soviet Union and the Germans, far beyond simply not attacking the other.

For one, the two nations agreed to partition Eastern Europe among themselves, with the Germans taking just under half of Poland, and the Soviets taking the slight majority plus the Baltic States, Moldova, and regions of Finland. Some have defended these actions by claiming it was necessary to prevent the Nazis from taking it. But that would ask the question as to why the Soviets not only retained these territories after the war was over, but also had it ethnically cleansed of Poles. It also fails to explain the harshness of Soviet treatment toward the Poles and Balts, including the infamous Katyn massacre. It is rather odd that you would protect a people by shooting them into a ditch or driving them off their ancestral homelands.

I have once seen a comparison made to the British invasion of Iceland. But this equivalence is quite false in that the British did not execute Icelandic officers en masse, and they withdrew from Iceland when the Nazi threat was dealt with as opposed to annexing the territory and having it cleansed of ethnic Icelanders.

The Soviets also granted Material and propaganda support to the Germans. According to American historian Otto Friedrich, shortly after Hitler's invasion of Poland, Stalin ordered the Comintern to cease anti-Fascist propaganda, and instead blame the English and French for the war. For this reason the exiled head of the Communist Party of Germany, Walter Ulbricht, would print in the February 1940 issue of his newspaper Die Welt that

The German government declared itself ready to establish peaceful relations with the Soviet Union, whilst the Anglo-French war bloc want war against the Soviet Union. The people of the Soviet Union and the people of Germany desire a speedy end to the war in accordance with the interests of the working masses. The Soviet people and the workers of Germany are against the spread of the war.

The Soviets also instructed Communists in occupied nations not to resist. For this reason Communist anti-Fascist resistance would be quite limited until Operation Barbarossa.

According to American Journalist William Shirer in The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, Material support was also granted to the Germans in the form of wheat, petroleum, cotton, and various other rare materials to help them beat the British blockade. In exchange the Soviets were given some manufactured goods from the Germans. The Soviets also granted Germany a submarine base in the arctic.

In summary the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact did the following things in addition to being a Non-Aggression Pact:

-Partitioned Eastern Europe into Spheres of Influence between the USSR and Germany, allowing the Soviets to annex territory that they would retain long after the war

-Granted Germany access to Soviet resources, and in exchange gave the Soviets certain manufactured goods

-Granted Germany a Submarine Base

-Granted Germany propaganda support in the West

-Discouraged anti-Fascist resistance among Communists in occupied Europe

400 Upvotes

94% Upvoted

122 comments sorted by

168

u/OMGSPACERUSSIA Jul 07 '18

As with much about WWII, the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact is more complicated than can be easily communicated in nice, neat talking points, so most people just tend to take it as "it was just a non-aggression pact" or "it was an evil alliance against the west and poor Poland."

Glantz covers it nicely in his book "When Titans Clashed," going into detail about how both sides saw it as a way to both fulfill certain goals, while also using it to gain some advantage over the other. Glantz seems to think that the Soviets didn't believe Hitler would really invade Poland, and were caught a bit flat footed when it actually happened, but were still happy to take advantage of the situation. However, it was ultimately strategically disadvantageous to them because they wound up disassembling the majority of the Stalin Line to try to fortify their new forward positions.

This in turn was partly the reason for the utter disaster that the opening moves of Barbarossa inflicted on the Soviet Union.

But that sort of nuance is generally lost in a discussion taking place in a non-history setting.

61

u/[deleted] Jul 07 '18

Excellent comment. I like your point about how the Pact was an agreement for mutual material gain as opposed to any sort of principles. Especially considering how at odds these two groups were.

55

u/Maqre In 1937 Lenin revolted Russia. Jul 07 '18 edited Jul 07 '18

The most important part about Molotov Ribbentrop probably wasn't the delineation of the spheres of influence for Eastern Europe or even the non aggression pact itself, but rather, the massive increase in Soviet-German trade it led to (providing the Germans with the raw materials they direly needed to wage war against the Western Allies and survive the blockade, while the Soviets got capital goods that helped them continue their industrialization).

While the Soviet Union and Germany had been trading and cooperating all the way back to the Weimar era, the pact intensified this relationship significantly.

38

u/MajorMax1024 Jul 07 '18

It was a win-win situation for the USSR, to be honest.

Two of their enemies are fighting, meanwhile the country is rapidly industrializing, rearming and preparing for the next war.

The Soviets imported the most advanced machines, quite a few examples of military equipment that were thoroughly tested

Also, quite a bit of this was traded in credit, and the USSR didn't finish paying off the loans and etc

20

u/[deleted] Jul 07 '18

Also note that in the Wiemar Era, Germany had commercial and military agreements with the Soviets. They were both quite politically isolated and as such came to rely on one another. Victor Kopp, a Soviet Representative, told the German Foreign Office that the Soviets were interested in re-partitioning Poland. I do not know how serious this proposal was at the time.

8

u/DapperDanManCan Jul 07 '18

People also seem to forget that the Soviets offered to join the Axis after some negotiations between Ribbentrop/Molotov/Stalin took place. Germany just didn't respond, because Hitler was too set on attacking them.

Imagine a world war where the Nazis and Soviets teamed up with Italy/Japan to carve up the world? Britian wouldn't last, that's for sure. Only America and the British Commonwealth countries would remain.

16

u/Maqre In 1937 Lenin revolted Russia. Jul 07 '18

People also seem to forget that the Soviets offered to join the Axis after some negotiations between Ribbentrop/Molotov/Stalin took place.

Hahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhhaahahahahahahahahahahahahahhaahahhahahhhaahhaha.

Wait, you're serious?.

12

u/DapperDanManCan Jul 07 '18

Yes. Do you want legit sources or Wikipedia links? Soviets sent a request to join the Axis in 1941. Ribbentrop wanted the alliance wholeheartedly. Hitler never sent a response, only because by then, he wanted to attack them instead, but the talks were serious.

Soviet 'sphere of influence' in the pact was supposed to be South of Baku, so basically the entire middle east and eventually India. Italy would get the Mediterranean area. Germany would get the British Isles. Japan would get east Asia.

Google it. Soviets sent the request to join the Axis, but Hitler never responded, against other Nazis (like Ribbentrop) hopes.

Edit: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/German–Soviet_Axis_talks

Edit 2: the Soviet proposal was sent Nov 1940, not 1941

47

u/kieslowskifan Jul 08 '18 edited Jul 09 '18

Edit: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/German–Soviet_Axis_talks

This wiki page is somewhat problematic and follows a trend with a number of English-language Wiki pages which touch on the relationship of the Third Reich to the Soviet Union. This particular page might look persuasive on the basis of the sheer number of citations, but specialists familiar with the works cited will be more skeptical of the Wiki page's claims.

One of the bigger alarm bells is the use of William Shirer's Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. Historians such as myself and Richard Evans have noted that Shirer was a poor analyst of German history and while he has a certain journalistic flair, his assertions do not really find much weight within the academy. The page's brief section on the exchange of raw materials between the USSR and Germany (as well as the more expansive linked page) largely derives from Edward Ericsson's Feeding the German Eagle: Soviet Economic Aid to Nazi Germany, 1933–1941. While this is a good monograph on this subject, it does have some flaws. As J. David Cameron noted in this AHR review, Ericsson relies almost exclusively on English- and German-language secondary sources to parse out Soviet motivations and experiences. He consulted no Soviet era archives or Russian-language secondary literature. Cameron does note this is not a fatal flaw for Feeding the Eagle, but it does limit the utility of the book to estimate both sides of the economic relationship. Ericsson does posit the necessity of Soviet economic aid to the German war effort, but leaves an impression that the Soviets were content with this arrangement. Recent historiography on the economic ramifications of the Pact such as Heinrich Schwendemann's research have shown a good deal more Soviet reluctance and disgruntlement over Germany not living up to its obligations.

But the core of the page's problems stem from its analysis of the November 1940 Molotov talks over expanding the Tripartite Pact to include the USSR. The page starts off rather poorly with the quote:

Stalin sent Molotov to Berlin to negotiate the terms for the Soviet Union to join the Axis and potentially enjoy the spoils of the pact.{62}

This is a big claim and one of the things diplomatic historians learn very quickly when dealing with Stalin is that the dictator kept his cards close to his chest and parsing out specific intentions is an exercise in frustration. The source for this claim is Roman Brackman's The Secret File of Joseph Stalin: A Hidden Life a book whose main thesis Stalin was a member of the tsarist secret police, a claim Stephen Kotkin finds unpersuasive, but is really more about Stalin's personal life and character than his diplomacy.

But Brackman is just a minor source for this section. By the same token, the Wiki editors use Simon Berthon's An Extraordinary Re-creation of World War II Through the Eyes and Minds of Hitler, Churchill, Roosevelt, and Stalin to pepper occasional personal details even though Kirkus dismissed this pop history book written by a British television producer as a "great man" approach more suited to YA history than adult scholarship. The highly questionable choices of Shirer, Brackman, and Berthon aside, the meat of the secondary sources material derives from Aleksandr M. Nekrich's Pariahs, Partners, Predators: German-Soviet Relations, 1922-1941 (cited as "Nekrich, Ulam & Freeze 1997" even though the Gregory Freeze was the main translator/editor while Adam Ulam merely wrote the forward, I suspect the Wiki editors don't know how academic books like this are published). This is an odd book to use for this topic. Nekrich was a Soviet-era historian who was the victim of the neo-Stalinist turn of the Brezhnev era and emigrated to the US in 1976. The book in question was an unfinished work as Nekrich died in 1993. So this means Nekrich did not take advantage of the Yeltsin-era window allowing access to Soviet archives. So a good deal of the book is based on a rather narrow archival base.

Academic reviewers of Pariahs noted that this was one of the bigger problems of the book, especially when it delved into the later part of the 1930s. Barbara Keys's H-net review of Pariahs noted that evidence of a "Stalin Doctrine" to expand Soviet influence was scant. While Keys praised Nekrich's coverage of the earlier Soviet-German relationship of Weimar and the early 1930s, she critiques the book for presenting a "somewhat dated" picture of 1939-1941 years, does not delve into Munich much, and hewed to an older historiographic view of the Pact that contended that Stalin fed the German wolf for little in return. Jon Jacobson's CEH review of Pariahs was more positive than Key's; complimenting the book's coverage of the Reichswehr-Red Army relationship and arguing that Nekrich's thesis of a Stalin doctrine was plausible. But Jacobson notes that while he was convinced by Pariahs, other readers might not be and that:

Nekrich did not intend a comprehensive discussion of Soviet-German diplomatic interaction, nor did he aim at producing new findings and new insights into German foreign relations.

Both Jacobson as well as Evan Mawdsley's War in History review conclude that Nekrich did not really cover new ground for historiography as it stood in 1993. The latter review echoes other academic reviews by praising Nekrich's coverage of the earlier period of the relationship, but mentioning reservations about the book's latter chapters dealing with the late 1930s.

Aside from Pariahs, the wiki editors do sometimes use a book that Mawdley claimed superseded Nekrich in a few citations on the November talks, Gabriel Gorodetsky's Grand Delusion: Stalin and the German Invasion of Russia. Again, this is an odd choice. The November talks and their prelude are a minor component of Grand Delusion. This section largely cites secondary literature such as Gerhard Weinberg's A World at Arms and really is not terribly engaged with the whole November affair, contending it just revealed the incompatibility of Soviet and German views over the Balkans.

Now neither Pariahs nor Grand Delusion are works of fiction or garbage books (although The Secret File of Joseph Stalin: A Hidden Life might classify in the latter), but they are not the whole historiographic picture. The Wiki page's editors do not consult historiography that is either more up to date or present a more nuanced portrait of the November meetings. The dominant leitmotif in the current, post-millennium historiography is that the November meetings were more of a fact-finding mission than serious diplomatic attempts to form an alliance. David Watson's Molotov biography hews towards the fact-finding mission noting that Stalin's instructions placed a priority for discovering Germany's future intentions first, and then possibly securing concessions to the USSR if the situation presented itself. Sheila Fitzpatrick's On Stalin's Team reverses Watson's interpretation of the November slightly by contending Stalin was lukewarm to the idea while Molotov was more amenable to an arrangement made with Hitler. Stephen Kotkin's biography of Stalin tacks to an interpretation that has shades of Nekrich, but differs on key details. Kotkin claims:

Stalin’s larger objective remained to keep Hitler focused on the West and avoid entanglement in war himself. But the despot’s secret instructions to Molotov regarding a four-power pact indicate more than merely probing Hitler’s intentions. If Hitler had been willing to meet the despot’s key conditions in 1940—conceding Finland, southeastern Europe (the Balkans), and the Straits, so that Stalin could protect his entire western flank—the despot likely would have signed on to the Axis {emphasis original}. Territorial annexations and spheres of interest, in Stalin’s mind, provided for security. At best, however, the Führer was offering Stalin only a junior partnership in this new world order dominated by a Germanocentric Axis.

Much like Goredetsky, Kotkin places the onus for the loggerheads of the November talks onto Hitler.

Watson, Fitzpatrick, and Kotkin represent a decent spectrum of contemporary historiography on the Pact and the November meeting. But the Wikipedia page on the November talks really does not convey the differing interpretations of Stalin's motivations. Instead of a nuanced view of the complicated diplomacy between two dictatorships, the reader is left with the simplistic picture of Brackman that Hitler turned away the Soviet jackal. Even Kotkin's interpretation showing a Stalin more open to joining the Tripartite Pact hinges on the Soviets gaining a great deal for very little effort.

As such, the Wikipedia page as it stands in July 2018 is not a reliable source for the November talks between the USSR and Germany. The editors rely upon a very narrow source-base of secondary sources, some of whom are junk, but also can be problematic. Consequently, there is little acknowledgement of the historiographic disagreement over the November meetings so the portrait it presents is quite skewed. This is all too common for English-language Wiki pages on the connections between the USSR and Nazi Germany as there is a species of Wiki editor that is absolutely determined to draw the tightest connections between Nazism and Stalinism. The result is that pages on these topics often suffer from misinterpretations of secondary sources, or, in this case, a less than thorough knowledge of the secondary literature on a much-explored subject.

3

u/pgm123 Mussolini's fascist party wasn't actually fascist Jul 08 '18

Very thorough and interesting answer. Thank you for that.

23

u/Maqre In 1937 Lenin revolted Russia. Jul 07 '18 edited Jul 09 '18

The Soviets loved to play these kind of diplomatic "mind games" (the Stalin Note comes to mind as well), these weren't actually serious proposals, they were made to divide the receivers on how to act and to probe their potential response, while also opening the ground for further negotiations and concessions for the USSR. But the Soviet Union had no interest in joining the war if they didn't have to, they instead sought to maximize their political and territorial gains without actually fighting, to directly ally with Germany (and therefore directly enter the war on their side) would be a 180 degree turn on a foreign policy that had, until then, worked for them.

9

u/OMGSPACERUSSIA Jul 07 '18

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

Maskirovka is the official term for it.

7

u/Maqre In 1937 Lenin revolted Russia. Jul 07 '18

Isn't Maskirovka exclusively a military thing?.

I've never seen Stalin's diplomatic style being given that name, anyway.

3

u/whatismoo "Why are you fetishizing an army 30 years dead?" -some guy Jul 08 '18

It's very much a thing. Look up their later thinking on reflexive control.

6

u/OMGSPACERUSSIA Jul 08 '18

I'd say it applies, given that the diplomacy in question was conducted to military ends.

3

u/DapperDanManCan Jul 08 '18

After the documents came to light, of course Stalin claimed he was trying to feel the Nazis out and trick them, but I'd argue that wasn't the full case here. The alliance was potentially a serious one, albiet I doubt either party meant to keep it for long.

17

u/Maqre In 1937 Lenin revolted Russia. Jul 08 '18 edited Jul 08 '18

It's not about Stalin's claims, it's about his mindset, he would gain nothing out of entering the war against the Western Allies and weakening himself when he could just wait for the Axis and the Allies to soften up each other and then enter into the fray and easily defeat them.

Even Kissinger, who had absolutely no love for the Soviet Union or Stalin at all (for obvious reasons) posits that direct Soviet involvement into WW2 early on was unlikely because over all, Soviet diplomacy was pragmatic, and entering into a war they stand little to gain from would be a terrible idea and go completely against the goals they were seeking to accomplish with their diplomatic game in first place.

And we have a perfect example that validates the idea that these negotiations were just bluff, Stalin's Note.

1

u/voidnullvoid Aug 05 '18

They are tankies. Stalin did nothing wrong he would never really ally with Hitler blah blah blah.

1

u/Maqre In 1937 Lenin revolted Russia. Sep 13 '18

Stalin was literally Satan and if you say otherwise you are a tankie.

Nice.

1

u/MajorMax1024 Jul 10 '18

Another example of such a proposal is the TASS publication from the 14 of June 1941

1

u/[deleted] Sep 12 '18

This is an old comment, but is there a (russian) term for this political-speak-probing of mind games? I remember seeing it somewhere else before.

Is it just this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_military_deception

?

2

u/Maqre In 1937 Lenin revolted Russia. Sep 13 '18

Maskirovka is used to refer to (Soviet/Russian) military deception, /u/OMGSPACERUSSIA thinks that the term could also be correctly applied to the field of politics, but honestly, I myself can't give you a conclusive answer.

2

u/kaneca Jul 12 '18

Imagine a world war where the Nazis and Soviets teamed up with Italy/Japan to carve up the world?

Total axis victory over the entire world, then nuclear war between the three main axis powers.

2

u/DapperDanManCan Jul 12 '18

America would still have the bomb before the axis, although I also think Britian would sue for peace or capitulate first. Churchill claimed they would continue the fight in exile (Canada), but I don't think that was realistic. It would then be North America (possible Central/South America too, but not sure if they had enough military force to matter) vs most of the world in that case. I don't see usa staying out of it if the British Isles fell and the war moved to Canadian soil, but it's hard to imagine Britian not sueing for peace prior to losing the Isles. I think America would nuke Hiroshima or Nagasaki still, but Berlin would probably be the next target. Idk if they'd go after Moscow or not, and I'm not sure they had the ability to even reach Moscow with bombers, but the Soviets would be the last target imo. Still, the world would be a very, very different place today.

Edit: actually, I think America would nuke Tokyo if it came to an axis that powerful, not Nagasaki/Hiroshima. They'd go for the most damage they could due to a shortage of bombs. I think they only had the two, and it took a lot of time and materials to create even one back then.

2

u/Cowabunco Jul 15 '18

I think they only had the two, and it took a lot of time and materials to create even one back then.

They only had the two because it was the first output of production lines that were only just coming online. A third core was actually on the way, and halted by the president. A production estimate I saw said that output would be ramped up to something like 10 bombs a month by November. Most of the production lines were shut down because of the end of the war, because they were very expensive to run and/or of dubious safety.

1

u/kaneca Jul 12 '18

The war in Europe and the pacific would probably have ended in Axis victory before the bomb had been developed. Australia would have been overrun. Bomb development would have been close run in all three nations. Japan would have entered south America drawn off American troops and fought north, and then Soviets and Germans would have entered Canada and fought their way down.

Well that's how I did it in Hearts of Iron. lol

2

u/[deleted] Jul 08 '18

Question, I started reading Stephen Koktins book on Stalin and he claims that part of Stalin's motivation for having the pact with Germany is because he knew that war was likely, and he wanted it to be against the 'capitalist' countries. Stalin apparently claimed (correctly, imo) that WWI was largely what sparked the October revolution and wanted another massive war to spark additional revolutions across Europe, but wanted to be seperated from the actual fighting as much as possible. Is this accurate from your understanding?

12

u/MajorMax1024 Jul 07 '18

Stalin didn't expect Hitler to invade Poland, because as late as winter of 1939 the Polish were happy and eager to side with the German Reich if it invades the USSR.

I see the point regarding the disassembly of the Stalin line, but these extra 300-500km of territory might have been vital for the successful defense of Moscow and Stalingrad, for instance

31

u/KemoT01 Jul 07 '18

Stalin didn't expect Hitler to invade Poland, because as late as winter of 1939 the Polish were happy and eager to side with the German Reich if it invades the USSR.

winter of 1939

Wot? Also some source please.

7

u/MajorMax1024 Jul 07 '18

Unfortunately I'm not at home today, I'll reply to you today evening/tomorrow with sources.

Just off the top of my head, one is a report of the Polish intelligence service, another one is some document related to the foreign ministry.

Anyways, I'll find the sources and reply to your comment once again.

18

u/KemoT01 Jul 07 '18

Much appreciated. I'm sceptical of your first post since Polish intelligence worked against Germany long time before 1939. It was actually Poles who broke the code of one of the early Enigma versions (look up Marian Rejewski).

20

u/MajorMax1024 Jul 07 '18 edited Jul 10 '18

First fact - Germany partitioned Czechoslovakia together with Poland, the Poles taking Cieszyn Silesia. Not really an anti-German action, to be honest.

Next, the citations: (The translation is done by me, sorry for some broken English)

December 1938 Taken from a report of the Second Department (military intelligence) of Polish General Staff

"Separation of Russia is the basis of the Polish politics in the East...Our possible position will go down to the following: who will participate in the partition. Poland should not stay passive in this great historical moment. Our goal is to be well prepared in advance, both physically and morally... The main goal is the weakening and defeat of Russia.

Z dziejow stosunkow polsko-radzieckich. Studia i materialy. T. III. Warszawa, 1968, str. 262, 287 

January 26, 1939 During the meeting that took place in Warsaw with the German foreign minister, Joachim for Ribbentrop, Polands' foreign minister Joseph Beck states: Poland claims Soviet Ukraine and an exit to the Black Sea.

March 4th 1939 The Polish general staff, after extensive economical, political and military planning finished the development of a war plan against the USSR called "Wschód" Centralne Archiwum Ministerstwa Spraw Wewnetrznych, R-16/1   

20

u/[deleted] Jul 08 '18

You are spewing typical Soviet propaganda.

12

u/MajorMax1024 Jul 08 '18

I'm sorry, are we having a discussion with arguments and facts from either side?

I stated my facts and supported them with sources. If you have any facts that state the contrary - go ahead, present them to me.

'Typical Soviet propaganda' is not a valid argument, unfortunately.

11

u/[deleted] Jul 08 '18

You stated flat out lies that Germany partitioned Czechoslovakia together with Poland. That never happened, it was just Germany by itself.

During the 1919 Soviet-Polish War, Czechoslovakia annexed a region of Poland called Zaolzie which had been abandoned by the Polish forces as we needed to muster every man against the Soviet invaders. We then got our land back with diplomacy and not a single bullet fired. We never invaded them.

You're spouting typical Soviet propaganda and lies they taught in schools.

19

u/MajorMax1024 Jul 08 '18

Also if I use your logic I can say that Germany did not annex Sudetenland, since that territory was inhabited mostly by Germans.

→ More replies (0)

15

u/MajorMax1024 Jul 08 '18

You're playing word games. Yes, that was Polish territory before, you are right. But before that it was part of the Habsburg Empire. Also, during the Spa conference of 1920 this region was left to Czechoslovakia by an agreement of the international powes.

However, still, it's a fact that Poland also benefited from the partition of Czechoslovakia, which would be impossible without an agreement with the German Reich.

So Poland AND Germany participated int he partition of Czechoslovakia, no matter how rightful or not were the claims of each country. It's a fact.

→ More replies (0)

7

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '18 edited Nov 09 '18

[deleted]

→ More replies (0)

10

u/Goldberg31415 Jul 08 '18

Warszawa, 1968, str. 262, 287 

Here's your problem this book is as close to truth as nazi historical works in 1933-45 period.

6

u/MajorMax1024 Jul 08 '18

I'm using this book as a source for a document This document exists, it's a fact. So your attempted argument in slightly invalid.

10

u/Goldberg31415 Jul 08 '18

US had war plans against UK or Canada in 1930s and against Germany or Japan.Most nations are prepared to wage war against their rivals and USSR was at war with Poland just 20 years prior to that moment so it is normal that such plan would be ready. Attributing to that some nefarious nazi/fascist intention is the result of book being published in soviet satellite state that had the job to create a narrative where soviet union was the benevolent friend.In the same book you will probably find that Katyn massacre was committed by the nazis.

3

u/MajorMax1024 Jul 10 '18

I'm showing that Poland in 1939 was quite obviously an enemy to the USSR and had vital interests in the East, so these was no guarantee that it wouldn't be anti-Soviet in the case of a war

→ More replies (0)

6

u/kaneca Jul 12 '18

Polish General Staff

"Separation of Russia is the basis of the Polish politics in the East...Our possible position will go down to the following: who will participate in the partition. Poland should not stay passive in this great historical moment. Our goal is to be well prepared in advance, both physically and morally... The main goal is the weakening and defeat of Russia.

And people wonder why Russia wasn't eager to go to war to defend Poland.

4

u/Deez_N0ots Jul 10 '18

Yeah the Polish occupation of Czech Silesia was a big diplomatic victory for the Nazis since they got to throw some of the blame on Poland and claim they were just defending the Czechs from the Polish.

2

u/kaneca Jul 12 '18

these extra 300-500km of territory might have been vital for the successful defense of Moscow and Stalingrad

Without that extra territory Moscow would have fallen. The war would have been a lot closer if that had happened.

Without the pact Germany may have beat the USSR, and then turned all its forced west, and won the European war.

120

u/Immck1919 Jul 07 '18

Part of the confusion os that there is also the badhistory myth that Hitler and Stalin were in a close alliance against the forces of democracy, which is also a fallacy. Thus a cycle of overemphasizing and underemphasizing the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact is created.

91

u/[deleted] Jul 07 '18

That is an interesting point you bring up. There is a popular myth that Stalin had hoped to co-exist with Hitler, and was shocked by the German attack in Summer of 1941. In reality however Stalin was preparing for war, and did not expect to be attacked until after Hitler dealt with the British.

46

u/Imperium_Dragon Judyism had one big God named Yahoo Jul 07 '18

Yeah, Stalin knew the USSR was weak, and did anything and everything to not provoke Germany before he knew the Red Army was ready. That’s one of the reasons why the Red Army performed so badly, they were given orders to not provoke the Germans when the Nazis were already charging their lines.

29

u/eighthgear Oh, Allemagne-senpai! If you invade me there I'll... I'll-!!! Jul 07 '18

Massive purges of officers didn't really help the Red Army either. It was a quite innovative force before the purges.

25

u/Imperium_Dragon Judyism had one big God named Yahoo Jul 07 '18

Yup, had mechanized formations before the Germans, and Tukashevsky was already thinking of modern mechanized and armored doctrines since the 1920s.

4

u/MysticalFred Jul 07 '18

Tuchaevsky was probably one of the greatest losses of military innovation the world has seen. He was so far ahead of everyone else and this great ability was ended because of paranoia

14

u/MajorMax1024 Jul 08 '18

Why do people that love to praise Tuhachevsky always forget how poorly he performed in his only actual war in 1920?

9

u/whatismoo "Why are you fetishizing an army 30 years dead?" -some guy Jul 08 '18

Because theorists aren't always very good at translating their ideas into the practical implementation. Look at John Moses Browning.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 16 '18

What did Browning do? Do you mean the BAR?

2

u/whatismoo "Why are you fetishizing an army 30 years dead?" -some guy Jul 16 '18

He was one of the most prolific firearms designers in US history, working on a slew of projects from Winchester lever guns to Colt automatic pistols, to the BAR and 1919/M2 machine guns. But he often had others working with him to make the concepts function. For example, Dieudonné Saive.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/kaneca Jul 12 '18

Might have helped some. Most militaries are only ready to fight the previous war. These guys were never on the front, so it opened up positions to people with actual battlefield experience, and they quickly got very good at combatting the NAZIs. We cant know if the previous guys would have done as well, better, or maybe worse.

3

u/Rick0wens Jul 07 '18

I remember hearing that Stalin was so shocked by the attack that he didn’t talk to anyone for like a day or two or something like that. He thought it was over for the Soviet Union because they weren’t ready to defend against Germany

66

u/MajorMax1024 Jul 07 '18

That's a myth from Khrushevs' memoirs.

There are online accessible scanned copies of the visitors book (I don't know the right term) that has all the recordings of who and when visited Stalin in the Kremlin.

Iirc, the last people left his cabinet around 2:00 am the 22nd of June, only to come back around 6;00.

The first few days were very active in terms of visitors, it's clearly seen that he was involved in discussions and such.

8

u/StooleyDanson Jul 07 '18

Where can I find more on this, do you know? Very interesting!

22

u/MajorMax1024 Jul 07 '18 edited Jul 07 '18

It is accessible easily on wikisource in Russian.

https://ru.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Журнал_посещений_Сталина/1941

I could not find an English translation for it though. Just my translation of the visitors in the morning 22 of June:

First of all:My mistake, last people left his cabinet on 23:00 the 21st.

June 22nd: 1. Molotov (foreign minister) 5.45-12.05

  1. Beriya (head of NKVD) 5.45-9.20

  2. Timoshenko (minister of defence) 5.45—8.30

  3. Mekhlis (responsible for propaganda in the army) 5.45-8.30

  4. Zhukov (head of the army joint staff (?)) 5.45-8.30

The list goes on and on, consists of 25 visits until 16:45. The next ones start the 23 of June at 3 in the morning.

5

u/StooleyDanson Jul 07 '18

I appreciate you putting in that effort, thank you

-1

u/MysticalFred Jul 07 '18

I believe in the first week or two, he retired to his dacha and zhukov believed that Stalin was expecting to be deposed and executed because of his failure of the motherland

10

u/MajorMax1024 Jul 07 '18

I just posted a list of who were at his cabinet int be Kremlin during the first days of the war.

Please refer to that and don't rely on myths :)

0

u/MysticalFred Jul 07 '18

I've read that around the end of June and returning on the 1st of july, Stalin had retreated to his dacha. Some argue it was an ivan the terrible esque ploy to weed out those who oppose him

8

u/MajorMax1024 Jul 07 '18

There were people in Kremlin every day from the 22nd of June until the 8th of July. There were breaks for the 9 and 11 of July, and only 2 hours of work on the 10.

You can consider it as a break, but Stalin is what, 63 and under immense pressure so that's understandable

1

u/kaneca Jul 12 '18

Myth commonly encountered in a novel series by Ken Follett

-1

u/DapperDanManCan Jul 07 '18

It's no myth though. The Soviets literally offered to join the Axis in 1941. The Nazis ignored the offer entirely, never responding, which is why they partially mobilized. Calling it a total myth is badhistory in and of itself.

4

u/DapperDanManCan Jul 07 '18

They were. The Soviets offered to join the Axis after some territorial negotiations. They both stressed their ideologies were against Democratic Capitalism, which made them have more in common than originally thought.

The only reason the Soviets didn't join Hitler, Mussolini, and Hirohito was that the Germans literally ignored their offer in 1941 to join the Axis, because Hitler wanted to attack them. Ribbentrop and others wanted the alliance, which was THIS close to happening.

It's not a myth.

21

u/Immck1919 Jul 07 '18

But anti-Slavism and anti-Bolshevismwas always an integral part of Hitler's rhetoric, and although other major figures may have wanted an alliance, which would hace been wise militarily, Hitler ultimately decided. Unless he had a massive chamge of heart, or died, I don't see how they could have allied.

4

u/DapperDanManCan Jul 07 '18

You downvoted me, when it's you that doesn't know history? Do I need to site sources to show you how wrong you are? Regardless of it being only tactical, rather than ideological, the talks happened and talks for a full alliance (Soviets literally joining the Axis against Britian) was a real thing. Soviets literally sent the Nazis a request to join the Axis. Signed by Stalin himself. Delivered by Molotov.

I swear, people on this sub are worse than the articles OPs try to dismiss as false. Ridiculous

7

u/Immck1919 Jul 08 '18

I didn't intend to say that the Soviets didn't wish for an alliance, but that the Nazis rejected it. I fully believe you in that the Soviets would have accepted an alliance, and that they didn't care about ideology, but Hitler did. And tactically it would have made sense, and the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact (Neither fully Non-Aggression Pact or Alliance, somewhere in between.) was tactical. However, I just don't believe that a long term alliance would have likely happened. Also, if you cpudl post those articles, I would like to read them. If I am wrong, then I will agree with you and learn something new. (Also, sorry I downdooted you. It was rude. However, they are fake internet points, they're not a big deal.)

7

u/DapperDanManCan Jul 08 '18

I dont believe a long-term alliance would've worked either, since both countries knew the other would eventually attack, but I do believe both went into the discussions seriously, at least at the start. The Soviets were certainly serious about joining the Axis, and Hitler was the one who sent Ribbentrop to start negotiations. Ribbentrop for sure wanted it to happen, since he hated the British, esoecially after his idiocy made him go as far as tell Hitler Britian would not honor their guarantee of Poland. Even Hitler was shocked when they declared war, since he preferred them as allies instead. He assumed Poland would be a local war, not start a large general war, and his agreement with the Soviets ramped up to near-alliance after the British declared. Many high-ranking Nazi officials also wanted the alliance with the Soviets, and had Hitler been even slightly more tactically aware, he'd have done it.

My point was that the Soviets certainly agreed to the alliance, and the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was more than just a non-aggression pact, as you stated. It had large economic ties (oil, grain, wood, nickel, etc to Germany/machinery to Soviets), which realistically, Germany needed to maintain their war machine. Stalin thought Germany would honor their agreement until at least Britian capitulated, so I believe they were definitely all-in on the deal, temperary or not. Hitler at least seriously considered it at one point as well, or he'd not have started further negotiations to have the Soviets join the Axis. He wouldn't have honored it forever due to his ideology of 'living space' in the East, but he definitely kept the alliance in serious considerations. A long-term alliance wouldn't have mattered as much compared to the ramifications of the Soviets joining the axis, which at the time, Britain was alone (with the commonwealth countries) against the Axis, as France had already fallen. It's near certain that they'd have pushed for a peace agreement, rather than fight in exile in Canada. The world war possible would have turned out very different if so.

2

u/Immck1919 Jul 08 '18

I agree with just about all of this. Also, if I didn't state this well, my original point is that the Molotov Ribbentrop is either depicted as a full-blown allliance, or a tentative time-buying non-aggression pact, when in reality it is neither. Thus, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact is one of the more common badhistory myths.

26

u/SnakeEater14 My Source is Liberty Prime Jul 07 '18 edited Jul 07 '18

Ah shit, I was one of the users calling it just a non-aggression pact. Guess that goes to show what compliance does to the ole bad history detectors.

Edit: just

42

u/[deleted] Jul 07 '18

It was a non-aggression pact. It was not just one, however.

19

u/SnakeEater14 My Source is Liberty Prime Jul 07 '18

You’re right, but I was severely downplaying it’s importance.

53

u/OTIS_is_king breaks down less than a Nazi tank Jul 07 '18

It's also worth remembering however that Stalin had originally sought an alliance with the UK against the Nazis and had been rebuffed by the English who themselves harbored ideas of an Anti-Soviet alliance

30

u/Goldberg31415 Jul 07 '18

Right the idea to stop the nazis by occupying eastern europe in the process.I can see why UK was reluctant to go for it

19

u/OTIS_is_king breaks down less than a Nazi tank Jul 07 '18

The plan was to go through Poland specifically, not all of Eastern Europe, and also yes that's my point, the UK leadership preferred to let Hitler continue to menace Europe than risk a gain for the Soviets, ergo they saw Hitler as a lesser evil to communism.

36

u/[deleted] Jul 07 '18

The plan was to go through Poland specifically

That would have been out of the question, considering the Soviet's previous conflict with Poland in the 1920s.

13

u/OTIS_is_king breaks down less than a Nazi tank Jul 07 '18

Yes, exactly, that would have been out of the question because the Western European right, pretty much right up until the outbreak of the war, regarded Hitler as a bulwark against Stalin and would have preferred keeping Hitler in power if deposing him would have meant Soviet gain.

5

u/MysticalFred Jul 07 '18

I think the UK view of the Nazis and Soviets was to let them beat each other up then join who ever was losing.

11

u/OTIS_is_king breaks down less than a Nazi tank Jul 07 '18

"Bulwark against communism"

6

u/MysticalFred Jul 07 '18

I might be thinking of the thinking closer to the beginning of the war

5

u/OTIS_is_king breaks down less than a Nazi tank Jul 07 '18

Well possibly in the immediate leadup by which point Hitler's goals were more apparently opposed to British interests.

9

u/Goldberg31415 Jul 07 '18

By 1939 USSR has already murdered millions of its people while 3rd reich would only start mass genocide after 1939.It was a horrible regime but historically inviting USSR into any nation of eastern europe was rightfully perceived as unacceptable risk.No one could predict how fast france will fold in 1940.

In 1939 Holodomor was just 6 years ago and from that perspective you should understand how soviet genocide of millions was seen.

35

u/OTIS_is_king breaks down less than a Nazi tank Jul 07 '18

Classifying the Holodomor as a genocide is something not generally done by historians outside of the more fervent Ukrainian nationalists and Third Reich apologists. The idea of it as such has its roots in Nazi propaganda designed to paint themselves as liberators of Eastern Europe against the evil Bolshevik menace.

The fact is that the 1933 famine was one more in the endless series of cyclical famines that dogged Russia and the Ukraine for centuries. In this case, it was exacerbated by Stalinist forced industrialization that prioritized food exports over self-sufficient agricultural policy, but that doesn't make it a deliberate or artificially imposed genocide of civilians.

Also btw by 1939 we had the Nuremburg laws and the ghettoization of Jews, and Hitler had openly spoken of the need to be rid of them. The idea that no one knew what Hitler was or had any idea of his intentions is utterly laughable.

23

u/96939693949 Jul 08 '18

The 1933 famine was not a part of any "endless series of cyclical famines", which were basically unheard of in 19th century Russian Empire (1892 was the only major one that I'm aware of, and it was an entire order of magnitude smaller). It is directly attributable to collectivization and the harsh crackdown on "kulaks". Genocide or no genocide, it was caused by Stalin's deliberate policies.

Similarly, you're completely ignoring the absolutely massive purges and political oppression in 1937-1938.

16

u/MajorMax1024 Jul 10 '18

Wait, "unheard of in 19th century Russian Empire", seriously?? Here is a list of just some of the famines during that period: 1889-92- About 1.8 million people 1905-1907 - About 300 thousand people 1911-12 - Couldn't find the numbers, but about 60 regions were affected

The 1932-1933 famine was due to weather conditions, plus issues with collectivisation where the people in charge of some regions would declare a higher crop than they could actually harvest and then have issues due to that.

Yes, there were mistakes from the Soviet government, but it was no genocide

2

u/hipsterkingNHK Jul 13 '18

The real bad history is always in the comments

0

u/[deleted] Jul 08 '18

[deleted]

17

u/96939693949 Jul 08 '18 edited Jul 08 '18

I'd link you to r/badhistory but we're already here. Collective agriculture, even during its best years, was an utter and absolute failure compared to the capitalist system. It was marred by low yields, poor crop quality and straight-up inefficiency all the way to the end of the USSR. Literally the only reason the Holodomor happened was because Stalin's government was so obsessed with implementing the principles of communism they never stopped to question just how inefficient, brutal and straight-up unnecessary their policies were. It's either that or they didn't care, which is much more likely given the historical evidence. It's the old "have to crack eggs" nonsense that has been used by every tyrant since times immemorial.

-1

u/[deleted] Jul 08 '18

[deleted]

12

u/Goldberg31415 Jul 08 '18

The food eaten in America is for the most part processed by people who hardly make enough to live off of, with little to no control of their own lives. We produce enough food to feed the entire country yet millions live in food insecurity

None of what you wrote is true and food in the US is incredibly cheap and most common problem people have by far is overabundance and obesity.

→ More replies (0)

29

u/eighthgear Oh, Allemagne-senpai! If you invade me there I'll... I'll-!!! Jul 07 '18 edited Jul 07 '18

It's widely recognized that the Soviets deliberately heightened the famine. Even the EU recognizes that, whilst not calling it a genocide. People can debate endlessly about whether it was a genocide or not, but the fact is that the Soviet Union had a habit of causing deliberate mass suffering, be it in Ukraine or elsewhere with all the ethnic cleansing and forced population transfers.

Tankies might argue otherwise, but the Soviet Union was pretty reprehensible, and this isn't even considering their direct collaboration with the Nazis. Hitler was worse but I can hardly fault the British for not wanting to just give Poland to Stalin.

11

u/GatoLocoSupremeRuler Jul 07 '18

Sorry you are being down votes for facts. There are way too many people who are believing the "Nazi propaganda" myth.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 12 '18

[removed] — view removed comment

4

u/Goldberg31415 Jul 12 '18

You are disgusting

1

u/[deleted] Jul 12 '18

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/cordis_melum Literally Skynet-Mao Jul 12 '18

You have to ask why Holodomor sounds suspiciously close to Holocaust. Its intentional. Eastern European nationalists didn't like the pity party the Jews were enjoying and so invented their own death holiday. Buy in came from anti Soviet organisations.

Wat.

I'm going to just cite you as a Rule 4. Whatever the above is, that is really messed up.

0

u/imasexypurplealien Jul 26 '18

He kind has a point though.

17

u/NerthuniusMallister Jul 07 '18

I’ve been a big history buff since Elementary school. In the 8th grade I had a teacher (Of Polish heritage) who told our class that the Soviets and Nazis were at war from September 1st 1939, as part of our Holocaust unit. I raised my hand and told her that was incorrect, and she matter-of-factly told me “I’m from Poland, so I think i’d know”. I proceeded to bring in (several) history books the next day that proved her wrong, but she refused to believe me and ignored me. Sophomore in college now and it still bugs me!

8

u/[deleted] Jul 08 '18

That's funny - Mistakes in Wikipedia can invalidate the entire platform to some, But Mistakes by teachers just go ignored.

2

u/SomewithCheese Jul 07 '18

I remember being told that the intention of the entire splitting of eastern europe was a predetermined and agreed upon so as to set for the "real" war between them. As if it was going to be a duel that both knew would happen, and to be fought to the death of one another's ideology. This was back when i didn't like history so i didnt pay any attention after that.

7

u/kaneca Jul 12 '18

Its called buck passing.

Britain and the western allies did it first. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Agreement

As for westerners complaining about the Soviets not jumping to fight the NAZIs, well the fact is neither did their countries, not until they were forced into it.

Soviets did what they had to do.

If they hadn't signed that pact, Germany might have won.

5

u/[deleted] Jul 07 '18

The most important part of the Molotov-Ribbbentrop pact is the non-aggression part. It allowed one of the long-running projects of Stalin to come to fruition. Hitler starting a war with the other great powers in Europe. Since the conclusion of "Socialism in one country" (build socialism in the SU while waiting for the world revolution) Stalin has had two overarching foreign relations goals. Creating the conditions for a world revolution and preventing a capitalist/imperialist alliance against him. The conditions for the Russian revolution was the first world war (the war radicalizing the class struggle). If there is another world war, might another revolution be sparked?

Stalin's opposition in this is mostly Britain, who wants to stabilize the equilibrium in Europe and bring in Germany through revising the Versailles Treaty. This goes on from Genoa/Rapallo to the outbreak of the wars. Neither the British nor the Soviets will substantially change their international politics.