State of the Soviet military in 1939

I think he might have meant threat to them Belasar..Least I hope he did...

As to war wasn't fought for or because of the jews...that is correct...But if the British public had known via media which knew but was not reporting in those days then I cannot see Brtiain allying itself with poland as most folk would have asked what is the moral difference...Good job the press and other media didn't report the programs of both too much then.

 

Sorry for my poor english. I meant "threat".

 

Anyway, Hitler had to be a threat for the the Anglo-French, because as I already wrote, Stalin grab half of Poland, and even if the war had went well for the French, he would have got the other half (unless Germany agree to surrender quickly). He also got the Baltic States and a part of Romania. The fall of France changed everything, of course, but in the end Stalin would anyway end up with much more conquered territories than Hitler wanted in '39. This is why I think that the Allies fought Hitler because they perceived him a threat, and not for "save" invaded countries in Eastern Europe. I gonna repeat: even if France didn't fell in 1940, and the Anglo-French were in Berlin in 1943, I don't think that the Allies would try to kick Stalin out of his conquered domains. So, the war was indeed not a question of "public opinion not tolerating invasions". Perhaps German invasions yes, but not invasions from Stalin and his Army, unless they would be willing to enter in a carnage with the RKKA, which would be much more stronger by 1943 if not had suffered the invasion.

 

I will concede that in the case of the Bassaria and the Baltic States, the Soviets not fought wars for them, because there was no military resistance. However, Stalin acted quiet like Hitler did with the Czechs. If the public just did not wanted to see wars, then ok, Stalin "could pass" in those cases. But the case of Eastern Poland, it was a clear invasion, as well as with Finland. And in case France survived in 1940, defeated Germany and Stalin took the opportunity to invade the rest of Poland, it would be another act of agression.

Alternatively, perhaps Stalin, paranoid as he was, might have pulled out of Poland if troops from Britain, France and perhaps the US were approaching (I'm still supposing here a case were France survives and teaches a lesson to the Germans).

 

Interesting political views: Stalin believed in 1940 that Hitler and the West would fight each other to pieces and Stalin could conquer Europe easily after that. However, for instance Churchill believed perhaps already 1939 that the Soviet Union would be the only power "in Europe" to beat the nazi Germany, which is the reason that there would be no declaration of war to SU, as the war between Hitler and Stalin would be inevitable and would later help in beating Hitler from the West for good.

 

Jenishch... Britains policy was to have no one power in asendency in Europe between the wars...and that included France...Allies we may have been, but perfidious Albion wanted to conentrate on her trade routes to empire..no one nation was wanted as a dominant nation in Europe. Germany, or France.

 

My apology's Jenisch.

Usually we can distinguish from a typo but on occasion it can give a statement a whole different meaning.

 

Well, the Anglo-French alliance was militarily quiet stronger Germany. If we included the US just in the support role, it was even stronger.

Perhaps Stalin felt that the capitalist countries would enter in moral colapse and Socialism could penetrate in Europe. Anyway, a war between the major capitalist European powers, now that the world was just recovering from the depression, was not something good for them. And even with the war going well for the Anglo-French, I still belive that Stalin would seize the opportunity to retain the territories he conquered. The man was killing Polish intelectuals and implementing his Socialism in the country. Stalin probably did not wanted to leave his slice of Poland, and in my view he probably would have invaded the other part as the Anglo-French would be fighting in German soil. Anyhow, historically the war ended with Stalin controlling not only Poland but several other countries.

 

If I recall correctly, Stalin believed so much in the communists´ power that in case Germany attacked the SU, the communists (in Germany alone) would revolt and Hitler´s campaign would be ruined...

 

There's a contradiction I didn't explosed in my previous post.

There some authours who say that the Anglo-France exaggerate in the evaluation of the WM strenght. While there are others like Ernest R. May in his book Strange Victory: Hitlers Conquest of France, who say just the opposite (I still didn't read May's book, but apparentely it's a good one).

 

May's book is shall we say interesting...I've used it to quote from...worth a read....but I would not base history on a lot of what are his personal opinions...Never the less apart from tearing my hair out on reading it...it is definately worth a read.

 

Everyone with interest in WWII is curious if France could have avoided it's historical fate after the war started. This is not an alternative history topic, bu you see, we are discussing a lot about what could have happened if France survived in order to analyze the Soviet actions. lol

 

France does not fall in a month: Having a strategic reserve to stop the sichelschnitt part of the German attack. No Dunkirk.

 

The LW lost 1/3 of their force fighting in France. The French Air Force was not bad at all.

Anyway, let's not discuss why France fell here, but rather than that what Stalin was thinking it would happen in '39.

 

The Molotov-Ribbentrop is certainly a moment of change for Stalin´s projects. After that he was getting eastern Poland, Baltics,Finland, and would be able to have Hitler to be the cushion to take the blows from West first.I wonder though if Stalin would have continued to Sweden if the attack in Dec 1939 to Finland would have been as easy as thought to be, because Hitler would not have liked to see the Kiruna iron fall into Stalin´s hands. Then again, could Stalin stop himself from being greedy and take some more than promised in the pact?

 

Petri, I think Stalin would have advanced more in case France survived. If the Anglo-French took until, let's say, 1943-44 to capture Berlin and defeat the Germans, what would be the state of the Red Army? It would not only be gigantic, but much more effective. Thousands of T-34s, and thousands of modern planes like the IL-2, Pe-2 and the Yaks. And as I already wrote: as the Anglo-French would be entering in Germany, Stalin's troops would be entering in the Nazi slice of Poland. Even with France surving, the war would end up with a state imposing it's will over others by means of force or bullying. This state was the USSR. The Western public opinion may not have approved the German agressions, but the Western leaders were aware that they were more removing a German threat than really fighiting for a moral cause (even if the "offical" reason was the latter). This of course, unless the public opinion also wanted a war with the Red Army, which I don't think it would.

 

Indeed. Thanks for the correction.

 

That seems to be an assumption on your part and not a particularly good one from where I stand. Can you support it?

??? Up setting the status quo essentially meant a war. If they didn't want that they were hardly indifferent.

With 20:20 hindsight one can say that it would have prevented the German invasion of the USSR. At the time it might have lead to some gains for the Soviets and one can assume that he wouldn't do so without them.

Or as he did historically aiding Hitler.

 

About what LJAd wrote that Stalin didn't wanted the status quo preserved, this article tells a different story: http://www.historytoday.com/nicholas-henderson/fatal-guarantee-poland-1939

This excerpt:

As a matter of fact the British Government were not bent, as Soviet propaganda persisted in maintaining then and for the next fifty years, on trying to foment a war between Germany and the Soviet Union in which they would destroy each other while Britain remained unscathed. Such an interpretation could have been a mirror of what the Soviet Union,mutatis mutandis, were at times hoping for themselves. But such a strategy was never the British objective.

They knew only too well that a war between Germany and Russia would result in the domination of the Continent, at any rate for a considerable time, by either Berlin or Moscow.

Somewhat confirms what I was saying: a war between Germany and the Anglo-French would result in the Soviets expanding their influence in the continent. This indeed occured.

 

No,it does not tell a different story :it is saying that Britain did not want to foment a war between Germany and the SU,which is true : such a war would result in a British intervention,which was bad for Britain .