WW2: German Intellectuals Tells It Like It Is

[Martinus]

It's from a Polish newspaper so the translation may be a bit heavy.

The Ill-Fated Pact
Bartosz T. Wieliński

The German and Soviet invasion of Poland was a prelude to a destructive war and the communist enslavement of eastern Europe, 140 German intellectuals write in a declaration.

'We thus respond to those in Russia who are trying to defend Stalin. They don't seem to be living in the 21st century,' says CSU deputy Hartmut Koschyk, one of the declaration's signatories.

The declaration is an appeal to Europe to not forget, while celebrating the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Iron Curtain, the circumstances in which the continent was originally divided seventy years ago.

'We are aware, and this is a painful awareness, that without the German-started World War II neither the communist regimes in Central and Eastern Europe nor the division of Europe and Germany would have happened,' write the German intellectuals. Rather than identifying 1 September 1939 - the day of the German invasion of Poland - as the beginning of the tragedy, they point at 23 August 1939, when the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact was signed in Moscow. In it, the Third Reich and the Soviet Union divided Central Europe between themselves. 'It was an ill-fated pact,' reads the declaration.

The declaration was initiated by Marianne Birthler, head of the Stasi Records Authority and the Foundation for Research into the DDR Dictatorship, and former DDR dissident, Wolfgang Templin. It was signed by nearly 140 persons, including, among others, ex-president of the Bundestag, Prof Rita Süssmuth, the first head of the Stasi Records Authority, Joachim Gauck, historians Arnulf Baring, Dieter Bingen and Heirinch Winkler, journalists and politicians.

The declaration is unprecedented. To avoid being accused of historical revisionism - diminishing German responsibility for WWII - Germans seldom speak about Russia's responsibility for the war. Politicians usually steer well clear of the subject in order not to damage relations with Moscow. Yet the declaration leaves no doubt about what communism meant for eastern Europe.

'In the countries of Central and Eastern Europe and part of Germany, all weakened by the war and Nazi rule, the Soviet Union introduced a new regime. That had disastrous consequences for society, the economy and culture, as well as for the masses of people who were persecuted or lost their lives because they stood in the communists' way,' reads the declaration.

Markus Meckel (SPD), one of the signatories, assures Gazeta that no one wants to whitewash Nazi Germany. 'But we need to remember that there was another totalitarianism which also committed crimes and left scars on central Europe's collective memory. People in the West have to finally acknowledge this,' says Mr Meckel.

Moreover, the German declaration comes at a time when a group of Russian historians, acting on the Kremlin's orders, is trying to defend the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact. They are arguing that Stalin wanted to buy himself time to prepare for the war against Germany, that he was forced to sign the pact by the inflexible position of Poland which didn't want an alliance with Russia. Some have gone as far as to suggest that it is Poland that bears responsibility for the wear because it refused to meet Hitler's 'moderate' demands and surrender the 'Gdańsk corridor.'

Mr Meckel adds that the declaration is also an appeal to Russia to start an honest debate about the past. 'They should finally confront the vision of history of the Poles or the Balts,' says the SPD deputy. The signatories Gazeta has talked to hope that chancellor Angela Merkel speaks in a similar tone during the 1 September celebrations on Westerplatte, Gdańsk.

The German declaration is also a homage to the democratic opposition in Poland, Czech Republic and Hungary. 'We will never forget that it was especially the Poles who, fighting for our freedom and theirs, dealt the first blows to the communist regime,' reads the declaration.

The anniversary of the outbreak of World War II will also be celebrated by Germany's Catholic bishops. Together with Polish priests they will hold a mass on 30 August in Berlin. A joint declaration may be issued.

Źródło: Gazeta Wyborcza

Well kudos to German intellectuals, considering Russian revisionism which is being swallowed whole by German and Israeli politicians, judging from the recent statements by Merkel and Peres.

[Martinus]

Gah could someone correct the typo in the title? 

[barkdreg]

Interesting. But let's not forget that it all started with WWI. So we can blame it all on the Serbs.

[Faeelin]

Interesting. But let's not forget that it all started with WWI. So we can blame it all on the Serbs.

But Balkan nationalism was only a serious issue because of the disastrous outcome of the Russo-Ottoman War of 1878. So we can still blame it on the Russians.

[Alatriste]

They are arguing that Stalin wanted to buy himself time to prepare for the war against Germany, that he was forced to sign the pact by the inflexible position of Poland which didn't want an alliance with Russia.

To be completely honest I tend to agree with this, tough 'forced' is far too strong a term (and with hindsight it's quite evident that Stalin desired to 'reconquer' all the territories lost in Brest Litowsk). However, the following part

Some have gone as far as to suggest that it is Poland that bears responsibility for the war because it refused to meet Hitler's 'moderate' demands and surrender the 'Gdańsk corridor.

...is 100% unadulterated, pure, pristine bullshit. The end of Czechoslovakia did show to everyone what meeting Hitler's 'moderate' demands meant, i.e. unmoderate demands barely half a year later.

[Valmy]

To be completely honest I tend to agree with this,

So Stalin thought that moving the Germans closer and giving their Army, still rebuilding from the Versailles treaty, time to rebuild itself was actually advantageous to the Soviet Union?  With the German economy being far larger so they could increase their forces far faster than the Soviets?  Wow what an idiot.

That is the worst excuse I have heard since some Western Allies apologists claimed giving the Germans the Czech lands, along with the Skoda works, bought them time to...I don't know...fall further behind the German war machine.

I find it really hard to believe that everybody thought it was far preferable to let the Germans get stronger than to attack them when they were still weak.  Maybe a sense of fairplay and sportsmanship was dominating the minds of European leaders in the 1930s.

[jimmy olsen]

Well kudos to German intellectuals, considering Russian revisionism which is being swallowed whole by German and Israeli politicians, judging from the recent statements by Merkel and Peres.

Can we see these statements?

[Ideologue]

To be completely honest I tend to agree with this,

So Stalin thought that moving the Germans closer and giving their Army, still rebuilding from the Versailles treaty, time to rebuild itself was actually advantageous to the Soviet Union?  With the German economy being far larger so they could increase their forces far faster than the Soviets?  Wow what an idiot.

For what it's worth, I believe the Wehrmacht was no longer still rebuilding in August 1939, when the M-R Pact was made reality.  The RKKA, of course, was in complete shambles--Stalin was deluded as to how bad it really was, as evidenced by his decision to invade a country that could actually defend itself in November, but iirc he did realize it was no match for Germany.

Stalin was also convinced that the Allies would sacrifice Russia to save themselves.  And he was probably right about that.  France and Britain didn't do shit to save Poland, and I fully expect that they would have done less watching the two countries they feared and hated most slitting each others' throats while they jerked each other off behind the Maginot Line.  So Stalin sacrificed them first.  I can't really fault the reasoning behind this.

The thing is, no one outside Germany expected France to fold in mid-1940.  Surely no one expected that Germany would suffer so little to completely destroy their perennial rival.  It was easy to presume that France in 1940 was readier than in 1870 or 1914.  Even in 1871, it took Germany longer, and cost Germany more, and France was not as fully prostrated as in 1940.  To any contemporary observer, this was an unbelievable outcome.  Stalin probably thought that by giving Germany Poland he'd buy two and a half or three years to repair the RKKA, not a mere twenty-two months, and he thought it would take less time to get the RKKA back up to snuff.

Morally, of course, taking the Baltics and Poland is still indefensible, but the non-aggression pact in itself makes great rational sense to me.

[Valmy]

France and Britain didn't do shit to save Poland, and I fully expect that they would have done less watching the two countries they feared and hated most slitting each others' throats while they jerked each other off behind the Maginot Line.

Oh no not this shit again.  They fucking started World War II what the hell were they supposed to do?  Jesus fucking christ I can see hammering France and Britain when they fuck up but the whining about one of the times they actually did the right thing is just bullshit.

By the way it was no political decision to sit behind the Maginot line that was Gamelin's "strategy" (until France and Britain had mobilized their Empires supposedly) and not one that his Prime Minister endorsed or wanted and he spent most of the phony war desperate to fire Gamelin.  This is misinformed nonsense at best and simply slander at worst.

So Stalin sacrificed them first.  I can't really fault the reasoning behind this.

Stalin had no clairovoyance, how could he possibly have known how things were going to turn out?  Most people figured the French and the British were bluffing and nothing would happen.  Where would he be then?  Sitting in front of the German Wehrmacht totally fucked.  Or he could have a Poland buffer state in front of him...

Morally, of course, taking the Baltics and Poland is still indefensible, but the non-aggression pact in itself makes great rational sense to me.

It only made sense given Stalins quite mistaken pathological belief that the Westerners were lying and would not support Poland.  Given that they did, the result was that an attempt to destroy the Nazis cheaply with Western support was thrown away so the USSR could get obliterated later.

The thing is, no one outside Germany expected France to fold in mid-1940.  Surely no one expected that Germany would suffer so little to completely destroy their perennial rival.  It was easy to presume that France in 1940 was readier than in 1870 or 1914.  Even in 1871, it took Germany longer, and cost Germany more, and France was not as fully prostrated as in 1940.  To any contemporary observer, this was an unbelievable outcome.  Stalin probably thought that by giving Germany Poland he'd buy two and a half or three years to repair the RKKA, not a mere twenty-two months, and he thought it would take less time to get the RKKA back up to snuff.

If Stalin really felt this way, and he was just buying time to fight Germany, why did he continue to do things like invade Finland and take territory once the conflict started?  Wouldn't that be the time to oppose Germany?  When they had a dangerous rival on their other front?

[Admiral Yi]

Stalin was also convinced that the Allies would sacrifice Russia to save themselves.  And he was probably right about that.  France and Britain didn't do shit to save Poland, and I fully expect that they would have done less watching the two countries they feared and hated most slitting each others' throats while they jerked each other off behind the Maginot Line.  So Stalin sacrificed them first.  I can't really fault the reasoning behind this.

Since M-R predates the invasion of Poland, France/UK's inactivity then didn't figure into the decision making.  It was Czechoslovakia that laid the foundation for M-R.

[Sheilbh]

It was Czechoslovakia that laid the foundation for M-R.

But Munich was needed, from a British perspective, because we'd only started re-arming in 36/7.  If it had come to war in 38 Britain would barely have an RAF.

[Valmy]

But Munich was needed, from a British perspective, because we'd only started re-arming in 36/7.  If it had come to war in 38 Britain would barely have an RAF.

That was what the French airforce said as well.  It was nonsense, the combined forces of Czechoslovakia, France, and the UK were a better match for Germany than the situation the west would find itself in in 1939.

Plus the Soviets would have protected the Czechs who were one of the few pro-Russian peoples on Eastern Europe.

[Malthus]

It was Czechoslovakia that laid the foundation for M-R.

But Munich was needed, from a British perspective, because we'd only started re-arming in 36/7.  If it had come to war in 38 Britain would barely have an RAF.

This may or may not be factually accurate, but it has the flavour of a post facto reason. Chamberlin was I think quite sincere in believing he could buy peace.

On its face, and lacking hindsight, it wasn't a totally unreasonable point of view. The notion was that Hitler and the Germans were rightly pissed off by the mishmash made of Germany by the post WW1 settlement, that all of his master race stuff was puffery for domestic consumption, and that if he was allowed a "fair settlement" he'd settle down and behave like Franco and Mussolini.

All crap of course, but as of yet not obviously crap.

[Valmy]

Yes I have a hard time believing the British thought they were going to still be fighting if they gave it at Munich and were playing for time.  If they did believe that then they could not have miscalculated worse.

[Sheilbh]

That was what the French airforce said as well.  It was nonsense, the combined forces of Czechoslovakia, France, and the UK were a better match for Germany than the situation the west would find itself in in 1939.

I disagree.  1939 wasn't perfect for the allies but the best time would have been 1936 or earlier, when Germany was still sufficiently weak, or some point after 1938.  In 1938 the UK and France were at a bad point. 

I doubt the Soviets would intervene unless they had real material benefit to gain from it.