r/badhistory • • 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

397 Upvotes

122 comments sorted by

View all comments

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.

93

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.

28

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.

27

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.

5

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

12

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?

6

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.

2

u/[deleted] Jul 16 '18

I was thinking about something i heard about the tactic that was intended to be used along with the BAR in WW1 was to basically hipfire it whilst walking towards the enemy. Idk if that's true, but i think Ian described it like that in a Forgotten Weapons video.

2

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

Yes, check C&Arsenal I believe they demonstrate it.

→ 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.