Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

The German Soviet Pact and the Allies

Discussion in 'Prelude to War & Poland 1939' started by racgs, Aug 24, 2015.

  1. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    10,745
    Likes Received:
    877
    Location:
    Michigan
    Perhaps but semantics are important. It's also worth noteing that the Russian Empire was one of the allies in WWI.
    The situation had changed since the invasion of Poland though hadn't it? If the Soviets aren't in the war against Germany it is going to be a much costlier war as far as the West is concerned. The primary duty of a country's government is to the interest of its citizens.
    Was the annexation really "illegal"? Certainly not in the sense of breaking national laws. What got the declaration of war from the British and the French was not the illegality or legality of the action but the fact that both powers had specifically guaranteed Poland against German aggression. The Soviets were not mentioned one way or another in said guarantee. Note that the Soviets also claimed that they were protecting the Poles much as the Poles a short time befere claimed about the Checks.
    Reading comprehension problems? Your conclusion was questionable due to being based on fallacies and arrived at via questionable "logic".
    One has to look at why he was making a statement as well as what he says to get the real import behind it. His writings make it clear that he ultimately planned on war with at least France.
    Again with the questionable logic. When two countries agree to attack and divide another it is clearly an alliance and much more than a non-aggression pact. Not at all sure where the "Soviet troops on German land" (capitalization corrections mine) comes from or what it has to do with the topic at hand.
    But what's in them and are they real? Offering peace at the status quo isn't much of a peace offer in late 39 is it? Now if he was offering to remove German troops from Poland ...

    Having a bit of coherency issues I see. During the revolution there may have been some Soviet on Soviet fighting but even then I don't think it reached the level of a declaration of war.
     
  2. patriceXXI

    patriceXXI New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2017
    Messages:
    6
    Likes Received:
    0
    Have you ever read Churchill's essays on the Bolsheviks? noting the UK aided the enemy in the Russian civil war and saw communism as a threat to world stability. German revitalization and expansion of power in mainland europe; Russia was seen as a potential malevolent stem to this end.

    Yes and why not stay neutral and let a nationalist government fight it out with a internationalist government while you conduct your affairs.

    Yes it was no better than the German invasion, where at least the poles had a fight, not a backdoor invasion against an unsuspecting government. Both the invasion and occupation of a sovereign government is illegal as specified by the league of nations and as protested by the polish government in exile. The USSR was kicked out of the league of nations for the winter war.

    As much as I may sound like a German revisionist you sound like a Soviet scholar. They partitioned the annexed land into the Belarusian ssr and Ukrainian ssr.


    so state those fallacies and questionable logic instead of blindly declaring it.
    no he didn't, I reckon you are using Mein kampf for this argument, which he speculated on a war with France and the UK and how he would go about conducting it. This is the opposite of "living space" which he stated was the correct course for Germany, going east not west. It's worthy noting that this doctrine was discussed and taught by German academia and he was not the originator of it.

    All of his diplomatic actions in seizing land was to prevent war with the west not propagate it. His notion that the allies would fold as he invaded Poland was proven wrong.

    Hitler and his staff knew France fielded the most powerful army in Europe and that an unprepared and blockaded Germany would leave Germany in a precarious position with little hope of winning a protracted war. This was one of the reasons the more mainstream German staff agreed to the sickle cut strategy, which was more than a gamble.


    They agreed to borders, exchanging of certain technology and resources, and spheres of influence, as they thought they were now the new leaders of central and eastern Europe. The distinction is clear as both new war with each other was inevitable after the fall of France, rightfully so it was a 10 year non aggression pact with secret protocols for dividing states setup after ww1.

    If it was an alliance why weren't efforts made to help in the ensuing battles in France or britian? Why didn't Germany aid in the winter war if they were a part of an alliance?


    Yes the peace offerings were real and every historian will attest to this. As for removing German troops from Poland? I thought an annexation wasn't illegal, what about removing Soviet troops? The situation was clear Poland was now partitioned between two powerful states, it was as real as ever. It's also worth noting that after the fall of France numerous peace offerings were made and the French expected the British to appease to the Germans and operate under conditions like Germany did under versailles. Due to the decisive nature of the battle of France, France, expected to make concessions.


    I meant had the UK and France declared war on the Soviets after they had invaded on the 17th that a treaty would have probably been drafted acknowledging the annexation of poland by Germany and SU.




    In essence I believe the allies blind eye to the German like invasions and annexations by the Soviet union is inexcusable, more so in that they even used wars propagated against traditional western allies in order to wage economic warfare against Germany is inexcusable.

    Also the reason for invading Denmark then Norway was that Britain was preparing to "occupy" Norway to sever the narvik port in order to deny Germany iron ore is ironic.
     
    Last edited: Jun 6, 2017
  3. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    10,745
    Likes Received:
    877
    Location:
    Michigan
    And your point is? As far as I can see this is irrelevant to the topic at hand.
    ???? What are you talking about? Germany was a clear danger to both France and Britain. They took action to stop her when the Soviets were still siting on the sidelines. Once they were at war that was hardly an option.
    Which is irrelevant to the topic at hand. Who's invasion was better or worse if any is rather subjective in any case. The point was that the British and French had said that they would support the Poles if Germany invaded. When Germany declared war on Poland and invaded they had little choice but to live up to that promise. The actions of the League of Nations are a totally different matter. Furthermore to say that it was "illegal" is to use terminology that it very questionable. It was against the charter of the League of Nations and the League took action because of it.
    I wouldn't say you sound like a German revisionist but like someone with a limited understanding of what was going on. As for me being a Soviet scholar ... some here will get quite a laugh out of that one.
    But not immediately after invading. Indeed they waited on that until after the war was over did they not. My point was at the time they were at least attempting to deflect the wrath of the international community unlike the Germans who were thumbing their noses at it.
    I stated some of them (the fallacies) and you either blew them off or ignored them. As for the questionable logic I'd have an easier time quoteing all the reasonable deductions you have made. Here I'll even do it:
    ...
    All done.
    In part but there are other places in his writings. Note that he intended to completely refute the treaty of Versailles. It would have been obvious to him as well as any others that this required war with France. At times he did think he could ally with Great Britain, but as time went on this became less and less plausible.
    No it's not by any means the opposite the goals may have been different and he certainly didn't plan on doing them at the same time or even particularly close that doesn't mean however that he wasn't planning on them.
    Hardly worth noting as it is irrelevant.
    That is frankly absurd. Provoking the West would prevent war with them? What reality do you live in. His siezures of land could hardly be described as diplomatic actions either. Sending military forces into foreign countries is a fair ways over the line as for as "diplomatic actions" go.
    Something we can actually agree on.
    Which doesn't negate the fact that they allied to attack and partition Poland.
    Why didn't Germany and Italy help Japan at Midway? Why weren't there American divisions at Kursk? Just because two nations are allied doesn't mean they help each other everywhere or even that such help is desired.
    So you know how every historian would respond to this. That's claiming very encyclopedic knowledge. Something you've done more to disprove than to support. An offer of peace as at the status quo was simply not a reasonable offer and thus in a not a "real" offer.
    Sort of like stealing something from somebody and then saying "no hard feelings" means no crime was committed isn't it.
    Let's see a peace agreement between Britain, France, and Germany that requires a nation that's not a party to it to remove it's troops. Are you paying attention to the topic at hand?
    But the British and Fench didn't have to accept it and indeed if their word was to mean anything in international circles they could not accept it.
    Interesting claim given that I've yet to see a discussion on this topic where anyone has been able to source a single one.
    Not sure where you got this idea. Indeed it's pretty clear that there were a vast spectrum of expectations by the French. Indeed there was even a proposal to unite the governments of France and Britain near the end of the campaign. Doesn't sound like the French expected what you seem to think they did at all.
    Not really. They did consider it and even had plans to attack the Soviet oil fields. But declaring war on the Soviets would most definitely not have meant peace with Germany or recognition of German annexation of Poland.
    Ah , so it's a religious matter for you. That explains a lot.
    Or not. Indeed I'd have to look it up but that iron ore trade may have even legitimized British actions in that regard. The British plan wasn't aimed at the conquest of those countries in any case.
     
  4. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    10,745
    Likes Received:
    877
    Location:
    Michigan
  5. Takao

    Takao Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    6,755
    Likes Received:
    1,220
    Location:
    Reading, PA
  6. green slime

    green slime Member Patron  

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2010
    Messages:
    2,866
    Likes Received:
    445
    *Sigh* PatriceXXI hasn't been seen since the 6 posts made on 6th June.

    " Why didn't Germany aid in the winter war if they were a part of an alliance?"
    -PatriceXXI

    Yet with regards to the Winter War in Finland; Germany did aid Soviet Union, by hindering the delivery of supplies to Finland. the Germans forbade transit of armaments and war equipment across its territory (including the occupied Polish territories). Due to the Pact, it was important for Germany to be not seen supporting the Finns in any respect. Finland had been freely given to reside in the Soviet "Sphere of Influence." When the Soviets began bellyaching and making demands, and the Finns request help from Germany, they were turned away. With Finland supposedly falling into the Soviet sphere of influence, the Soviets wouldn't want actual, physical German help; that would weaken their own position, and open up to them having to make other concessions to Germany in compensation.

    The UK has long been an ally of the US, but didn't shoot a bullet in Vietnam. Go figure.
     

Share This Page