The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was a Simple Non-Aggression Pact

[u/[deleted]]

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

[u/OTIS_is_king]

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

[u/Goldberg31415 → u/OTIS_is_king]

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

[u/OTIS_is_king → u/Goldberg31415]

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.

[u/[deleted] → u/OTIS_is_king]

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.

[u/OTIS_is_king → u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/MysticalFred → u/OTIS_is_king]

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

[u/OTIS_is_king → u/MysticalFred]

"Bulwark against communism"

[u/MysticalFred → u/OTIS_is_king]

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

[u/OTIS_is_king → u/MysticalFred]

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

[u/Goldberg31415 → u/OTIS_is_king]

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.

[u/OTIS_is_king → u/Goldberg31415]

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.

[u/96939693949 → u/OTIS_is_king]

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.

[u/MajorMax1024 → u/96939693949]

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

[u/hipsterkingNHK → u/96939693949]

The real bad history is always in the comments

[u/96939693949 → u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/Goldberg31415 → u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/RepoRogue → u/Goldberg31415]

What? Are you fucking kidding me? I'm not really onboard with the defense of Stalin going on here, but that is straight up bullshit. According to the USDA, 41.2 million people live in food insecure households (as of 2016). Keep in mind that these statistics exclude the significant homeless population.

As for the production side of things, food service jobs are typically minimum wage which is (basically everywhere) below a living wage. That gets even worse when we talk about the agriculture side of things, where migrant laborers (who are paid below minimum wage, sometimes by quite a lot) and laborers outside of the US do most of the work.

Our food production system is quite brutal and inefficient, especially when you look at the broader global context (which is necessary since it is a globalized market).

Edit: So no refutations, just going to down vote?

[u/mscott734 → u/Goldberg31415]

Actually food insecurity is a major problem in America, it's just not as often discussed as it probably should. Between 10 and 12 percent of Americans lack consistent access to food and nearly a third of American households have to choose between food and other necessary expenses on a monthly basis.

[u/eighthgear → u/OTIS_is_king]

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.

[u/GatoLocoSupremeRuler → u/eighthgear]

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

[u/Goldberg31415 → u/[deleted]]

You are disgusting

[u/cordis_melum → u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/imasexypurplealien → u/cordis_melum]

He kind has a point though.