Question about Soviet Historiography

[Razgovory]

We have a couple of people here from the old Soviet Union and at least one more from the Eastern Bloc.  You don't have to be from there to answer this though.  How did the Soviets explain their actions in the first part of Second World War?  The part where they were fighting on the wrong side and were defacto allies with the Nazis?  These are presumably uncomfortable facts for the Reds, who (correctly) portrayed the Nazis as an irredeemable evil.  I know they denied secret clauses of the M-R Pact, but it's hard to deny the joint invasion of Poland.

[Valmy]

From the Stalin apologists on the Paradox boards they were buying time and trying to push the fascists to the west as much as possible.  I presume that was also why they had the French Communist party attempt to undermine the French war effort.  Wanted to force the Germans as far west and they could.

[Ed Anger]

I wish I still had my little history booklets from the Soviet Embassy. The Estonia one was a gas.

[derspiess]

I wish I still had my little history booklets from the Soviet Embassy. The Estonia one was a gas.

My East German one about East Germany is great.  They enjoyed all the freedoms a Western democracy had, plus all the awesome economic benefits of socialism (in which everyone voluntarily and enthusiastically participated).

[Martim Silva]

Don't have much time, but a quick explanation:

How did the Soviets explain their actions in the first part of Second World War?  The part where they were fighting on the wrong side and were defacto allies with the Nazis?

The Union was fighting on the wrong side? The Union never fought alongside the fascists.

'Defacto allies'? You mean, trade as in time of peace means 'defacto allies'? Guess the Swiss, the Swedes and the Turks will be amazed to find out that they were 'defacto allies' of the Fascists.

I know they denied secret clauses of the M-R Pact, but it's hard to deny the joint invasion of Poland.

You mean, going for Poland to take back the territories that were historically Russian, taken by force in the aftermath of the 1920 fiasco (less than 2 decades ago) and had a Polish minority? Getting what is rightfully yours is no wrong. If it was, then France was in the wrong when it declared war on Germany in 1914 to recover its eastern provinces.

To me more to the point about the Pact, since its contents have been revealed:

1. Before the start of the War, the Western Powers did approach the Union with proposals of an alliance. Which was kinda nice, since they had so far treated the Union with contempt at best and total attempts at isolation at worst.

That said, their proposals pretty much involved a two-front war against Germany in which - it was quite clear - the Union would do the lion's share of the fighting, with the western powers waiting to take advantage. And the rewards for after the war would be dubious at best for the Union [suffice to remember that in WWI Russia was part of the Allies and ended up ceding Finland, the Baltic States, western Belorussia, Bessarabia and part of the Caucasus], but would certainly remove a great foe for the Westerners.

So thanks, but no thanks (and what happened later to Poland proved that the westerners indended to sit behind the Maginot Line as much as possible and let the others do all the fighting).

2.  Remember that in 1939 all bar (some in) Germany assumed the war would be fought in a similar way to WWI. That meant trenches and massive losses. MUCH better to sit it out at start, let all capitalists slaughter themselves and only enter when both sides were exhausted (a similar, but reverse, argument has been made for the Western Allies by, I believe, Pat Buchanan).

Also, many at the time said that the advent of modern air bombardment could destroy civilization. There was a genuine fear of those air machines.

3. While the Western Capitalists only offered the spilling of much blood for basically nothing to the Union, Hitler was in the position to offer an unpposed reconquest of lost territories, with minimal amount of bloodletting (and the Western Allies denied the Union the chance to get any of the historically Russian Empire land back). And then the said prospect of watching the other sides bleed each other dry. A very nice deal (later changed to let most of Finland in the German sphere, while giving Lithuania to the Union - the original pact gave Lithuania to Germany and Finland to the Union).

4. Also, the Red Army was in the process of reestructuring its command and modernizing (the first T-34s would only be delivered to service in mid-1940, for example). The process would take years to complete. Better wait until your Army is ready to fight a war before getting into one.

Conclusion: Deciding in 1939 to keep the country out of war and wait to make further gains was an excellent tactic by the Kremlin. Too bad nobody was expecting Blitzkrieg and the French falling as fast as they did. But, then again, History always looks different with a 20/20 hindsight.

[Eddie Teach]

[suffice to remember that in WWI Russia was part of the Allies and ended up ceding Finland, the Baltic States, western Belorussia, Bessarabia and part of the Caucasus],

Nobody's fault but their own.

[garbon]

How did "the Union" have so many "lost" territories?

[Martim Silva]

How did "the Union" have so many "lost" territories?

Because the Western Powers didn't saw fit to allow the Union any seat at the peace treaties, given that the Union was socialist and they were not, thus not recognizing the government of the Union.

The Union's borders in 1939 were the result of bilateral treaties with the respective countries, often achieved after much bloodletting by the Red Army. And, in some cases like Poland and Finland, the enemies of the Union counted with the active help of the Western Powers (De Gaulle saw action with the Poles in the Ukraine, for example) or Germany.

And those same western powers then took the opportunity to isolate the Union in what they called a 'sanitary cordon' of buffer states, friendly to them.

Oh, and to sum what History books said:

- the Capitalists, as is usual in ther Imperialist world view, were about to, once again, go to war with each other. The Union took a chance in their war to liberate large parts of the former Russian Empire from the clutches of their reactionary western-puppet governments, and preventing them from being overrun by the Fascists.

But the war in the west ended fast, and in 1941 the Fascists launched a surprise attack on the peaceful Union, triggering the Great Patriotic War.

[grumbler]

So the apologists argue that the capitalists were basically Hitler without the funny mustache, and that Stalin (an even bloodier dictator than Hitler) was the only good guy?  I guess that's why unions have such a poor rep in much of the West! 

But thanks, Martim, for your post.  I, myself, can never keep all of those lies straight, and, when I can't have lunch with the former ambassador from the union I know you will at least spout the line.

[grumbler]

Oh, and the poor "peaceful Union" that had just invaded every neighboring western country bar Turkey?  Boo hoo for them.

[Barrister]

So the apologists argue that the capitalists were basically Hitler without the funny mustache, and that Stalin (an even bloodier dictator than Hitler) was the only good guy?  I guess that's why unions have such a poor rep in much of the West! 

But thanks, Martim, for your post.  I, myself, can never keep all of those lies straight, and, when I can't have lunch with the former ambassador from the union I know you will at least spout the line.

Although I have my suspicions, Martim never said he agreed with the Soviet view of history.  The question was asked, and he answered.

[Ideologue]

It also helps that Poland as well as the Baltics didn't want to be allied with the Soviets regardless of what happened (I think the Poles wouldn't agree to Soviet deployments even in the event of a German invasion) and Britain and France didn't push the East Euros.  I may be remembering wrongly--been about seven years since I studied the subject--but Soviet historians harp on this diplomatic isolation.  The USSR had to take what it could get, which was the M-R Pact.  But it's okay because everything worked out fine.

[Barrister]

But it's okay because everything worked out fine.

[Ideologue]

Well, until '91, when civilization fell.

[Razgovory]

So the apologists argue that the capitalists were basically Hitler without the funny mustache, and that Stalin (an even bloodier dictator than Hitler) was the only good guy?  I guess that's why unions have such a poor rep in much of the West! 

But thanks, Martim, for your post.  I, myself, can never keep all of those lies straight, and, when I can't have lunch with the former ambassador from the union I know you will at least spout the line.

Although I have my suspicions, Martim never said he agreed with the Soviet view of history.  The question was asked, and he answered.

That is fair.  The Soviets never fought on the same side as the Germans but insofar that they did, it was fully justified.