http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8218887.stm
Quote
In the fourth of a series of articles marking the outbreak of World War II 70 years ago, the BBC Russian Service's Artyom Krechetnikov assesses Soviet leader Joseph Stalin's motivations behind the 1939 Soviet-Nazi pact.
Soviet government documents released since the USSR's collapse give us a clear idea of what drove Stalin's thinking in concluding the non-aggression treaty - the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact - with Nazi Germany.
On 19 August 1939, just days before the agreement was signed in Moscow, in a speech to a hastily-convened session of the Politburo, Stalin said the "question of war and peace is entering a decisive phase".
He predicted that the outcome would depend entirely on whichever strategic position the USSR decided to adopt.
Should the Soviet Union form an alliance with France and Britain, he opined, Germany would be forced to abandon its territorial demands on Poland.
This, Stalin suggested, would avoid the threat of imminent war, but it would make "the subsequent development of events dangerous for the Soviet Union".
Should the USSR sign a treaty with Germany, Stalin suggested, Berlin would "undoubtedly attack Poland, leading to a war with the inevitable involvement of France and England".
Looking ahead, Stalin suggested that "under these circumstances, we, finding ourselves in a beneficial situation, can simply await our turn [to extract maximum advantage]".
What is clear is that Stalin not only appeared unconcerned about the prospect of an attack from Nazi Germany, he actually considered such an attack impossible.
"Our aim is to ensure Germany can continue to fight for as long as possible, in order to exhaust and ruin England and France," he said. "They must not be in a condition to rout Germany.
"Our position is thus clear… remaining neutral, we aid Germany economically, with raw materials and foodstuffs. It is important for us that the war continues as long as possible, in order that both sides exhaust their forces."
Criticism
Many western historians believe that the Anglo-French security guarantees given to Poland effectively turned Stalin into the arbiter of Europe.
On 3 May 1939, Stalin replaced the pro-Western, Jewish Foreign Minister Litvinov, with Vyacheslav Molotov. It was a strong signal that he wanted to improve relations with the Nazis.
Official Russian history asserts that Stalin believed that Germany, even if it were to emerge from war as a victor, would be so exhausted that it would be unable to wage war with the USSR for at least a decade.
The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact drew unequivocal criticism from Communists outside the USSR.
Stalin invited the head of the Comintern, the international Communist organisation founded in Moscow, to explain his thinking.
"Hitler does not understand or want this, but he is undermining the capitalist system," he said. "What we can do is manoeuvre around the two sides, push one of the sides to attack the other."
In a written note to foreign Communist parties, Stalin asserted: "The salvation of English-French imperialism would be a violation of Communist principles. These principles in no way exclude a temporary agreement with our common enemy, Fascism."
So was there an alternative?
In the spring and summer of 1939, Stalin could have forged an alliance with Western democracies. Such a move may have prevented a world war, with Europe's borders remaining unchanged.
The problem with this, for Stalin, was that it would have delayed what he viewed as the "final global victory of Communism" for an indeterminable period.
Stalin's actions and deeds made it clear that he could not conceive a protracted period of "peaceful co-existence", the notion that came to determine the Soviet Union's policy towards the capitalist world after Stalin's death.
Stalin and Hitler were united by their desire to destroy the old world order, and to rebuild it as they wanted.
Arguably, this made Soviet-Nazi friendship as inevitable as was its rapid, explosive end.
Some comments:
First of all, this throws some doubts on the usual interpretation of Soviet foreign policy 1933-39. If Stalin didn't fear Germany and didn't consider beneficial in the long run an alliance with France and Britain, why did he support the Popular Fronts? Why did he join the League of Nations, help the Spanish Republic and the Guomindang in China, and support the Czechs?
Of course, it would have taken a man with balls of stainless steel - and no wish to live - to have asked these questions to comrade Stalin. Probably the best explanation is that he changed his mind in late 1938 or the first months of 1939 and decided France and Britain would never go to war against Germany allied with the USSR... that they wanted to use him to contain German ambitions in the West, but wouldn't lift a finger if Hitler attacked Russia.
And his position is quite clear here
Quote"Hitler does not understand or want this, but he is undermining the capitalist system," he said. "What we can do is manoeuvre around the two sides, push one of the sides to attack the other."
Well, if France and Britain wouldn't attack Germany, not even with Soviet help, then perhaps Germany would be more suitably aggressive!
In addition, Polish stubborn refusal to ally with the USSR probably made him suspect that they were willing to reach a deal with Hitler and ally with Germany instead. And the chunk of Czech territory Poland had grabbed after Munich pushed in the same direction.
Other comments:
- Stalin considered the Franco-British alliance stronger than Germany, and believed the USSR would have to help Hitler "with raw materials and foodstuffs" in order to reach the desired stalemate. In other words, the USSR would nullify the blockade that had worked so well in the Great War, allowing Germany to fight indefinitely... it would be 1916 forever, or for so long as Stalin wished.
This, however, seems to me an egregious mistake
Quote
Many western historians believe that the Anglo-French security guarantees given to Poland effectively turned Stalin into the arbiter of Europe.
In my opinion it wasn't the policy of guarantees what turned Stalin into the arbiter of Europe. That was merely the result of German policy in 1938 and 1939. With or without the guarantees once Hitler committed himself and started acting in an openly aggressive way against his neighbours the USSR unavoidably became the key of the strategic situation, because only a Triple Alliance could conceivably dissuade him; quite obviously, France and Britain didn't suffice.
Martinus approves of this thread.
I often think it was a good thing France was defeated so quickly. France and Britain were unlikely to defeat the Nazis anyway and in the event it just made Stalin's stupid plan appear even more stupid and screwed the Soviets even more.
Hmm, well that *would* help explain the zeal with which Stalin ordered local communists in western Europe to sabotage Allied war effort in 1939 & 1940.
Quote from: derspiess on August 25, 2009, 09:16:42 AM
Hmm, well that *would* help explain the zeal with which Stalin ordered local communists in western Europe to sabotage Allied war effort in 1939 & 1940.
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.
Quote from: Valmy on August 25, 2009, 07:44:00 AM
I often think it was a good thing France was defeated so quickly.
You make this dude cry:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ralphmag.org%2FCV%2Fcrying-frenchman500x368.gif&hash=f60f2c0d06be1d552451d5651b779c7db4f1fbb0)
Quote from: derspiess on August 25, 2009, 09:19:19 AM
You make this dude cry:
Better the Germans and the Soviets smash the shit out of each other than the Germans and the Western Allies.
Quote from: derspiess on August 25, 2009, 09:19:19 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 25, 2009, 07:44:00 AM
I often think it was a good thing France was defeated so quickly.
You make this dude cry:
That's such an iconic photo. I wonder if that "dude" was thinking..."Fuck...60 years from now, my pic will be all over the Internet.....waaaaaah"
"At least I'm not star wars kid."
What is that guy crying for?
Quote from: Siege on August 25, 2009, 09:40:59 AM
What is that guy crying for?
The Nazis just defeated France and are going to put all his Jew friends to death.
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.
Quote from: Siege on August 25, 2009, 09:40:59 AM
What is that guy crying for?
Germans came & took his country.
Quote from: derspiess on August 25, 2009, 09:42:44 AM
Germans came & took his country.
A common affliction at the time.
Quote from: Valmy on August 25, 2009, 09:42:07 AM
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.
But the woman behind him is applauding.
Quote from: Siege on August 25, 2009, 09:48:05 AM
But the woman behind him is applauding.
She looks pretty grim though. Who knows?
Quote from: derspiess on August 25, 2009, 09:44:22 AM
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.
Things like that were usually staged for the newsreels back then. It was probably an image the film crew wanted so they got it.
Quote from: Valmy on August 25, 2009, 09:43:30 AM
Quote from: derspiess on August 25, 2009, 09:42:44 AM
Germans came & took his country.
A common affliction at the time.
Yeah exactly. Geez. Guy was probably spoiled rotten as a kid. "Maaah...Germany took my country.".....Grow the fuck up. you're not the only one. Sheesh.
Quote from: Valmy on August 25, 2009, 09:18:04 AM
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.
I'm not sure how serious to take this article, since Stalin viewed the West as weak and feeble after a decade of appeasement.
Quote from: Faeelin on August 25, 2009, 10:32:37 AM
I'm not sure how serious to take this article, since Stalin viewed the West as weak and feeble after a decade of appeasement.
You have proof of this? He most certainly never thought any such thing. He naturally presumed (being Stalin) their appeasement was part of some dastardly and cynical British plot.
It sounds like you are projecting Hitler's feelings on Stalin.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 25, 2009, 10:28:21 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 25, 2009, 09:18:04 AM
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.
That's interesting-- do you have any other info on these groups?
Quote from: Valmy on August 25, 2009, 10:35:28 AM
You have proof of this? He most certainly never thought any such thing. He naturally presumed (being Stalin) their appeasement was part of some dastardly and cynical British plot.
It sounds like you are projecting Hitler's feelings on Stalin.
Look at Soviet proposals for a collective security pact in East Asia, which fell by the wayside; its efforts at a Franco-Russian alliance, which France abandoned because of opposition from the right; the failure of the West to stand up at Munich, despite Stalin's offers of support; their failure to get the Poles to agree to Soviet transit rights through Poland in the event of war with Hitler.
Quote from: Faeelin on August 25, 2009, 10:52:42 AM
Look at Soviet proposals for a collective security pact in East Asia, which fell by the wayside; its efforts at a Franco-Russian alliance, which France abandoned because of opposition from the right; the failure of the West to stand up at Munich, despite Stalin's offers of support; their failure to get the Poles to agree to Soviet transit rights through Poland in the event of war with Hitler.
What more proof do you need of Britain's efforts to isolate and destroy the Soviet Union using Germany as their muscle?
I take a bit of annoyance at the portrayal of France "abandoning the pact" when it was the Soviets who were the ones who broke it but hey whatever. Especially how it was Laval's rightwing government, and not Blum's, who signed it to being with.
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 25, 2009, 10:28:21 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 25, 2009, 09:18:04 AM
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.
Orwell noticed similar behavior amongst the left during the Spanish Civil war. All these anti-war types who had sneer at tales of valor now went on about the heroics of the international brigades.
Quote from: derspiess on August 25, 2009, 10:45:12 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 25, 2009, 10:28:21 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 25, 2009, 09:18:04 AM
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.
That's interesting-- do you have any other info on these groups?
I spent a couple minutes searching for a link to CBC documentary I am thinking about but I couldnt find it.
Quote from: Valmy on August 25, 2009, 09:42:07 AM
Quote from: Siege on August 25, 2009, 09:40:59 AM
What is that guy crying for?
The Nazis just defeated France and are going to put all his Jew friends to death.
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.
I've read that the picture (atually a newsreel) was taken when Germany occupied Vichy-France in -42
Quote from: Valmy on August 25, 2009, 11:00:08 AM
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.
How did Russia break the pact?
In any case, Stalin saw them as weak, or at least in favor of a German-Soviet War, IMO after Munich.
Quote from: Faeelin on August 25, 2009, 01:38:48 PM
or at least in favor of a German-Soviet War
Ding ding ding! Stalin turned it around and made it so the Germans and the West would fight, thus giving the British a taste of their own bitter medicine.
QuoteHow 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?
Quote from: Valmy on August 25, 2009, 01:42:36 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on August 25, 2009, 01:38:48 PM
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.
Quote from: Faeelin on August 25, 2009, 01:57:44 PM
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?
Quote from: Valmy on August 25, 2009, 02:20:55 PM
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.
There isn't anything in that article I consider surprising. It's the most intuitive explanation availiable.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 25, 2009, 10:28:21 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 25, 2009, 09:18:04 AM
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.
Quote from: Valmy on August 25, 2009, 09:51:00 AM
Quote from: Siege on August 25, 2009, 09:48:05 AM
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.
Quote from: Valmy on August 25, 2009, 11:00:08 AM
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.
Quote from: Faeelin on August 25, 2009, 07:42:34 PM
Quote from: Valmy on August 25, 2009, 02:20:55 PM
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)
Quote from: Ancient Demon on August 25, 2009, 07:46:35 PM
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.
Quote from: derspiess on August 25, 2009, 09:44:22 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 25, 2009, 09:42:07 AM
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.
Quote
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.
Quote from: Alatriste on August 26, 2009, 01:37:50 AM
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.
Quote from: Alatriste on August 26, 2009, 01:46:55 AM
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.
Quote from: dps on August 25, 2009, 10:21:09 PM
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.
Quote from: Alatriste on August 26, 2009, 01:37:50 AM
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.
Quote from: Alatriste on August 26, 2009, 01:46:55 AM
Quote from: Ancient Demon on August 25, 2009, 07:46:35 PM
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.
Yeah, that was the only surprising part to me as well - although it does nicely explain his later refusal to believe that Germany would attack him, or even that Germany was any kind of short or medium term threat.
He simply underestimated their strength.
Quote from: Valmy on August 26, 2009, 08:29:51 AM
That and the French people were not enthusiastic about another war to say the least.
I generally agree with Shelfs and Allys assessment (not that that stops me from poking fun at the French anyway), but would add to your comment that you could hardly blame for whatever lack of interest in another major war that you can fairly pin on them.
It's not like "winning" WW1 worked out all that well for them.
Quote from: grumbler on August 26, 2009, 05:36:09 AM
The real question is why Stalin didn't re-evaluate the chances of Germany attacking the USSR after the fall of France.
Seems like his personality was such that he didn't re-evaluate anything until he got his own nose bloodied.
Quote from: Berkut on August 26, 2009, 08:57:28 AM
It's not like "winning" WW1 worked out all that well for them.
I blame Wilson. -_-
Quote from: Zoupa on August 26, 2009, 10:48:30 AM
I blame Wilson. -_-
We should have elected TR in 1912.
Quote from: Valmy on August 26, 2009, 10:52:36 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on August 26, 2009, 10:48:30 AM
I blame Wilson. -_-
We should have elected TR in 1912.
Would he have let us carve up the Huns into a bunch of different states?
Quote from: Zoupa on August 26, 2009, 10:57:36 AM
Would he have let us carve up the Huns into a bunch of different states?
Maybe. He for sure would have made sure we entered the war years earlier. Electing Wilson probably saved the US hundreds of thousands of lives actually.