Stalin's bid for a new world order (BBC on the Nazi-Soviet Pact)

[Faeelin]

How did Russia break the pact?

I generally consider Russia invading Poland, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, and Finland as a rather blatant disregard for article 3.  The part that requires them to lend assistance to League of Nations members who have been attacked?

Given French perfidy by 1939, and the way they sort of dilly-dallied in terms of trying to build a Russian alliance, I actually think Stalin's decisions were correct.

Edit: I admit the decision to attack Finland was questionable in hindsight.

[Valmy]

Given French perfidy by 1939, and the way they sort of dilly-dallied in terms of trying to build a Russian alliance, I actually think Stalin's decisions were correct.

Edit: I admit the decision to attack Finland was questionable in hindsight.

French perfidy?  France didn't attack anybody and honored their alliance with Poland.  The Soviets invaded four independent nations who never threatened it and bullied land out of a fifth.

What should they have done?  Launched a pre-emptive attack?

[Faeelin]

French perfidy?  France didn't attack anybody and honored their alliance with Poland.  The Soviets invaded four independent nations who never threatened it and bullied land out of a fifth.

What should they have done?  Launched a pre-emptive attack?

See: Munich. See: French involvement, or lack thereof, in the Spanish Civil War, where a democratically elected neighboring government was overthrown by right wing and fascist elements, while they did nothing.

Any decent history of the period covers this, TBH. But I admit getting the French to stand firm at Munich is hard.

[Ancient Demon]

There isn't anything in that article I consider surprising. It's the most intuitive explanation availiable.

[Neil]

Yeah that was pretty shitty.  Of course the French Communists had no trouble going on strike against the Imperialist War...and then later on claimed they had opposed the Nazis all along while all the collaborators were Capitalists.

Reminds me of a documentary the CBC did a few years ago about the music of groups in the US and Canada that had ties to the communist movement (mainly folk music groups).  After the pact between the Nazis and the USSR the songs were vehemently anti-war and when Germany attacked the USSR the songs changed to singing the virtues of war.

Organized labour was the same.  It's pretty easy to identify the enemies of humanity.

[CountDeMoney]

But the woman behind him is applauding.

She looks pretty grim though.  Who knows?

Obviously they were watching a parade.  And you always applaud at a parade. Even with Nazis.

[dps]

Anyway I am well aware of the failures of the West I asked for proof that Stalin felt they way you portray him as feeling.  I never saw any evidence to suggest Stalin felt the West was weak or feeble.

Well, given that the Western Allies (UK and France) did behave as though they were weak and feeble from Hitler's rise to power in 1933 almost to the outbreak of the war, all he'd have to do was observe their actions (or lack thereof) to come to that conclusion.

[Alatriste]

French perfidy?  France didn't attack anybody and honored their alliance with Poland.  The Soviets invaded four independent nations who never threatened it and bullied land out of a fifth.

What should they have done?  Launched a pre-emptive attack?

See: Munich. See: French involvement, or lack thereof, in the Spanish Civil War, where a democratically elected neighboring government was overthrown by right wing and fascist elements, while they did nothing.

Any decent history of the period covers this, TBH. But I admit getting the French to stand firm at Munich is hard.

Actually they did help the Spanish Republic during the first months... but they stopped when Chamberlain quietly told them that should a general war start because of Spain, Britain wouldn't consider itself obligued to honor its alliance with France (altough to be fair that wasn't the only reason, the matter was enormously polemic in France and the Radicals were threatening to abandon the Popular Front and cause the downfall of the government of Léon Blum if he kept supplying weapons to the Republic).

Besides I'm, to be honest, quite incensed when people do accuse France of weakness during 1933-39... implying quite shamelessly that Britain was forced to appease Hitler due to French 'perfidy', or moral defects, or whatever. Quite simply, the opposite was true: France was forced to follow Chamberlain's policy of appeasement because France alone couldn't defeat Germany. Appeasement was since the start a British idea that French governments accepted because they felt they had no other option.

And no, a preemptive attack wasn't a realistic option. That was what the French did when they occupied the Rhineland from 1923 to 1930, and the results were a disaster from every point of view. Expelling German forces from Rhineland by force in 1936, for example, would have been militarily easy but the consequences would have been nightmarish and in the end the French army sooner or later would have to leave again. It was pointless...

There was a abrupt shift in the public opinion everywhere - but above all in Britain and the United States - after March 1939. Until then many saw German expansionism as merely the Germans uniting themselves, just like any other nation. Hadn't the Austrians received German soldiers with enthusiasm? What was the difference between Poland wanting the parts of Silesia inhabited by Poles in 1919 and Germany wanting the same in the Sudeten in 1938? The charade ended when Germany annexed shamelessly Bohemia and Moravia, one of Hitler's greatest mistakes and probably the most ignored today, and suddenly many impossible things became not only possible but unavoidable. One of them was Chamberlain changing his tune... but not to the point of accepting that an alliance with the USSR was the best and probably the only way to contain Hitler (not that such alliance would have been free of cost, however, far from it)

[Alatriste]

There isn't anything in that article I consider surprising. It's the most intuitive explanation availiable.

The only thing mildly surprising IMHO is that Stalin apparently believed France and Britain would win the war easily if the USSR didn't help Germany, i.e. that he didn't sign the Pact because he feared Germany and felt Russia needed to buy time, but because he wanted all the 'capitalist powers' to exhaust themselves and believed Germany would be far too weak for that without Soviet help.

[HisMajestyBOB]

Actually we are not really sure who that guy is and where and when that picture was taken but it is usually associated with the Fall of France in 1940.

More specifically, you tend to see it with newsreel footage of the Wehrmacht parading through Paris.  One thing I always wondered though was why show up & watch the damned thing if it upsets you so much.

Once place I read said it was taken in Toulon, as French troops were retreating to Africa, during the Fall of France. That would explain the applauding and crying.

[Zoupa]

Actually they did help the Spanish Republic during the first months... but they stopped when Chamberlain quietly told them that should a general war start because of Spain, Britain wouldn't consider itself obligued to honor its alliance with France (altough to be fair that wasn't the only reason, the matter was enormously polemic in France and the Radicals were threatening to abandon the Popular Front and cause the downfall of the government of Léon Blum if he kept supplying weapons to the Republic).

Besides I'm, to be honest, quite incensed when people do accuse France of weakness during 1933-39... implying quite shamelessly that Britain was forced to appease Hitler due to French 'perfidy', or moral defects, or whatever. Quite simply, the opposite was true: France was forced to follow Chamberlain's policy of appeasement because France alone couldn't defeat Germany. Appeasement was since the start a British idea that French governments accepted because they felt they had no other option.

And no, a preemptive attack wasn't a realistic option. That was what the French did when they occupied the Rhineland from 1923 to 1930, and the results were a disaster from every point of view. Expelling German forces from Rhineland by force in 1936, for example, would have been militarily easy but the consequences would have been nightmarish and in the end the French army sooner or later would have to leave again. It was pointless...

tut tut. That's not at all in line with Standard Languish policy. You're supposed to ridicule and mock France's lack of moral fiber, call them cowards etc.

You're probably an anti-semite too.

[Sheilbh]

Actually they did help the Spanish Republic during the first months... but they stopped when Chamberlain quietly told them that should a general war start because of Spain, Britain wouldn't consider itself obligued to honor its alliance with France (altough to be fair that wasn't the only reason, the matter was enormously polemic in France and the Radicals were threatening to abandon the Popular Front and cause the downfall of the government of Léon Blum if he kept supplying weapons to the Republic).

Besides I'm, to be honest, quite incensed when people do accuse France of weakness during 1933-39... implying quite shamelessly that Britain was forced to appease Hitler due to French 'perfidy', or moral defects, or whatever. Quite simply, the opposite was true: France was forced to follow Chamberlain's policy of appeasement because France alone couldn't defeat Germany. Appeasement was since the start a British idea that French governments accepted because they felt they had no other option.

And no, a preemptive attack wasn't a realistic option. That was what the French did when they occupied the Rhineland from 1923 to 1930, and the results were a disaster from every point of view. Expelling German forces from Rhineland by force in 1936, for example, would have been militarily easy but the consequences would have been nightmarish and in the end the French army sooner or later would have to leave again. It was pointless...

There was a abrupt shift in the public opinion everywhere - but above all in Britain and the United States - after March 1939. Until then many saw German expansionism as merely the Germans uniting themselves, just like any other nation. Hadn't the Austrians received German soldiers with enthusiasm? What was the difference between Poland wanting the parts of Silesia inhabited by Poles in 1919 and Germany wanting the same in the Sudeten in 1938? The charade ended when Germany annexed shamelessly Bohemia and Moravia, one of Hitler's greatest mistakes and probably the most ignored today, and suddenly many impossible things became not only possible but unavoidable. One of them was Chamberlain changing his tune... but not to the point of accepting that an alliance with the USSR was the best and probably the only way to contain Hitler (not that such alliance would have been free of cost, however, far from it)

This is exactly right and often forgotten or ignored.

[grumbler]

The only thing mildly surprising IMHO is that Stalin apparently believed France and Britain would win the war easily if the USSR didn't help Germany, i.e. that he didn't sign the Pact because he feared Germany and felt Russia needed to buy time, but because he wanted all the 'capitalist powers' to exhaust themselves and believed Germany would be far too weak for that without Soviet help.

I didn't find this mildly surprising at all.  I've been teaching this idea for years.

The fact that Stalin probably knew he was better off buying time was an inducement, but not a cause.

The real question is why Stalin didn't re-evaluate the chances of Germany attacking the USSR after the fall of France.

[Valmy]

Well, given that the Western Allies (UK and France) did behave as though they were weak and feeble from Hitler's rise to power in 1933 almost to the outbreak of the war, all he'd have to do was observe their actions (or lack thereof) to come to that conclusion.

Again you are thinking ideologically like Hitler (Democracy is weak!) and not like a paranoid insecure Russian (well Georgian) like Stalin.  He thought they were using Hitler to destroy the USSR because, well, he was Stalin and saw British plots everywhere.

He was convinced the British were trying to trigger a Germany-USSR war right up to the point Hitler actually invaded, which is why he ignored Britain's warnings of the attack.

[Valmy]

Besides I'm, to be honest, quite incensed when people do accuse France of weakness during 1933-39... implying quite shamelessly that Britain was forced to appease Hitler due to French 'perfidy', or moral defects, or whatever. Quite simply, the opposite was true: France was forced to follow Chamberlain's policy of appeasement because France alone couldn't defeat Germany. Appeasement was since the start a British idea that French governments accepted because they felt they had no other option.

It is projecting backwards.  France lost in 1940 and then the French right wing began a period of shameful collaboration whereas the British kept fighting.  It is sometimes hard to remember it was France who wanted to do the hardline against the Fascists while the Brits constantly threatened to abandon them if they didn't hold back.

France lost its nerve.  I can't blame them too much, they figured whatever they did had to have British support.  If they had broken with the British at any point they would have been judged as reckless warmongers trying to maintain French hegemony in Europe and it would have been Germany who would have been seen as the poor oppressed country just trying to get its Volk back to the Fatherland.  That and the French people were not enthusiastic about another war to say the least.