Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why did Stalin sign the NA pact with Hitler

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Why did Stalin sign the NA pact with Hitler

    One of the things that has always confused me was why sign the pact with Hitler. Nobody in their right mind things that Hitler is going to go straight to war with the Soviets he still needs to deal with the West. No Eastern Poland means that he can fortify in depth at his original borders. For Finland or the Baltic States what is Hitler going to do launch a Barbarossa. From what i have seen Stalin gained time to prepare with hitler and breathing space. But was it worth it. He could of gotten the breathing space and time anyways even with no pact.

  • #2
    Well, Fance and the Soviet Union had signed a mutual assistance pact in 1935. Perhaps the SU was getting the feeling Germany was going to go after France soon and wanted a way out of the 1935 pact with France by signing a non-aggression pact with Germany in 1939. Beyond that, just the semblance of buying more time.

    Comment


    • #3
      Oh noes, this again!

      Of course, he did it because he wanted more babies for breakfast and this has totally nothing to do with Britain and France's policies.

      See another 100 comments full of conventional propaganda wisdom telling how honourable and naive the Allies were and how dishonest and scheming Stalin was.
      www.histours.ru

      Siege of Leningrad battlefield tour

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by ShAA View Post
        Oh noes, this again!

        Of course, he did it because he wanted more babies for breakfast and this has totally nothing to do with Britain and France's policies.

        See another 100 comments full of conventional propaganda wisdom telling how honourable and naive the Allies were and how dishonest and scheming Stalin was.
        Well, I'm willing to be educated. Why do you think it was done? I'm happy to admit I'm no expert on the subject.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by llkinak View Post
          Well, Fance and the Soviet Union had signed a mutual assistance pact in 1935. Perhaps the SU was getting the feeling Germany was going to go after France soon and wanted a way out of the 1935 pact with France by signing a non-aggression pact with Germany in 1939. Beyond that, just the semblance of buying more time.
          Just 2 weeks after the signing of this pact USSR signed a mutual assistance pact with Czechoslovakia, which had already been bound by such agreement with France. As you probably know, according to the pact, the USSR was obliged to help the Czechs only after the French DOW on Germany. As France betrayed its ally, which signed the same kind of paper, and snubbed the USSR by refusing to invite the USSR to the Munich Conference, how could the USSR possibly put any trust in this agreement?

          Besides, the French were never serious about this pact, seeing it as a means of alienating the USSR from Germany and nothing like a real alliance. No practical measures to be taken in case of German aggression were discussed - something what Poland paid for dearly when it signed its own agreement with the Allies. To make a long story short, it was a useless piece of paper and a good example of Britain and France's half-arsed approach to containing the Nazi menace, based on hypothetical unobliging alliances, theoretical measures and strongly worded statements.

          EDIT: Here's the link to my post where I quoted an excellent paper on the negotiations of the British and French missions in Moscow in summer 1939. http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forum...3&postcount=72

          I believe it's useless to start any discussion on the Soviet-German Non-Aggression Pact without examining the positions and actions of the Allies, which in my opinion were a major factor leading to the conclusion of the Pact. As their previous diplomatic actions in 1934-1939 and their positions at the Moscow talks eventually created the situation where a direct pact with Hitler remained the only option for Stalin, it is quite understandable why the Western press and pop-historians prefer to keep mum about this, pushing instead the usual BS about Stalin's evil plans of world Communist domination.
          Last edited by ShAA; 21 Dec 12, 17:32.
          www.histours.ru

          Siege of Leningrad battlefield tour

          Comment


          • #6
            Shaa I said there wad nothing really gained by signing it for Stalin

            Comment


            • #7
              Let me ask you something, ShAA. Considering that Poland and Romania blocked Soviet access to Czechoslovakia in what way could the USSR have held to their part of the agreement if France had declared war on Germany instead of appeasing Hitler at Munich? Would Poland and/or Romania have agreed for Soviet troop transit through their territory?

              Now let's jump several months ahead after Hitler absorbed Bohemia and Moravia. The same condition as above applies. Would Poland and Romania have permitted Soviet troops to cross their territory if Germany attacked Poland?
              "I think I understand what military fame is; to be killed on the field of battle and have your name misspelled in the newspapers." William Tecumseh Sherman

              Comment


              • #8
                LH,

                Have you read anything at all about the war or are you just trolling. The USSR had everything to gain from buying two years to get the USSR ready to face the Nazi threat. The Red Army, like every other army, needed to expand, rearm and modernize. It was not ready for war on it's own and Stalin did not think Britain and France would fight. Stalin had hoped for more time but it ran out. While Stalin was paranoid and a dictator, he was not an idiot. Eastern Poland gave the USSR 200 km of extra depth and pushed the frontier west. Reclaiming the Baltic States also pushed the potential enemy frontier from the Luga River in Estonia back to the in East Prussia.

                The only one taking the Nazis seriously about war in 1938 and 39 was the USSR. Britain and France were still thinking (until Mar 39) appeasement while Hitler was getting ready for war.
                Last edited by The Purist; 21 Dec 12, 21:27.
                The Purist

                Words ought to be a little wild, for they are the assault of thoughts on the unthinking - John Maynard Keynes.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Would u day that Stalin cant muscle his way in baltics and I remember reading that Soviet losses were so high because they were in east Poland and not in there 39 fortifications I dont think Hitler is going to Stalin any earlier than he did with the pact

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Then there was also the Baltic aspect...

                    One of the sticking points of the tripartite (France, Britain, Soviet) negotiations was the Soviet insistence that any political turn towards Germany from any of the Baltic states (term which at the time included also Finland) would count as an 'indirect aggression' against the Soviet Union. Given the vagueness of the statement it was nothing but demand for carte blanche from France and Britain for the Soviet Union to operate against the Baltic states.

                    Since Britain and France could not grant such Soviets took a deal with the Germans who did grant pretty much exactly that in the secret protocols of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Which Soviets almost immediately used to gain foothold inside Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia and started an unprovoked war of an aggression against Finland with Soviet occupation and annexation of the other Baltic states following soon after.
                    It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion, it is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed. The hands acquire shaking, the shaking becomes a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Lionhearti View Post
                      One of the things that has always confused me was why sign the pact with Hitler. Nobody in their right mind things that Hitler is going to go straight to war with the Soviets he still needs to deal with the West. No Eastern Poland means that he can fortify in depth at his original borders. For Finland or the Baltic States what is Hitler going to do launch a Barbarossa. From what i have seen Stalin gained time to prepare with hitler and breathing space. But was it worth it. He could of gotten the breathing space and time anyways even with no pact.
                      Jägermeister. Stalin was addicted to it and Herr Hitler promised him an endless supplyof it if he would just sign his Iosif Dzhugashvili on the dotted line.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Hi Jack,

                        Firstly, I apologise for not answering to your detailed post in the "Stalingrad Protocols" thread. I still keep it in mind and I'll answer it later. I didn't want the answer to be short and incomplete and somehow I didn't get myself to write it. I hope I'll do it in the next few days.

                        Originally posted by Jack Torrance View Post
                        Let me ask you something, ShAA. Considering that Poland and Romania blocked Soviet access to Czechoslovakia in what way could the USSR have held to their part of the agreement if France had declared war on Germany instead of appeasing Hitler at Munich? Would Poland and/or Romania have agreed for Soviet troop transit through their territory?
                        I don't want to write all the same things all over again, but you can check this thread. I saw an excellent chronology of the crisis at one website, but it's in Russian so I can't post it here.

                        The main problem is not so much in the attitudes of Poland and Romania as in the defeatist positions of Britain and France, which were resigned with losing their ground at negotiations from the start. Had the Allies issued guarantees to Poland and Romania that they would declare war on the Soviet Union in case it breached its obligations and kept its troops on their territories, it would've been more than enough. If Poland remained paranoidly reluctant, they could've reminded it that its entire defense plan depended on the actions of its Western Allies (oh, the irony!) and that it had better play nice to allow the Russians deal with Hitler. Stalin wasn't totally insane to get into a fight with Germany, Britain and France all together and he would stick to his promises, especially when his army was in the midst of a major purge. From the military point of view there was nothing the Poles could fear - an army stretched along Polish roads with all its logistics could be easily defeated by a much smaller force by cutting it in numerous small cauldrons, had Stalin really decided to attack.

                        However, neither of the Allies, especially Britain, really wanted to do anything with the Communists or any strengthening of their influence in Europe. And the pro-Nazi sentiment in the British and French governments was far stronger than pro-Soviet ones (I'm speaking of decision makers, not minor MPs).

                        In fact, this plan could've worked great for the Allies - they could've stopped Hitler already in 1938 without suffering a single casualty.

                        Now let's jump several months ahead after Hitler absorbed Bohemia and Moravia. The same condition as above applies. Would Poland and Romania have permitted Soviet troops to cross their territory if Germany attacked Poland?
                        Well, by that time Poland had already become if not ally, then an accomplice of Germany in partitioning Czechoslovakia, so this point is moot, and Romania, beside being a much less convenient corridor, would not have dared act against Germany and its new Polish friend. The window of opportunity for such action closed in October, 1938.

                        www.histours.ru

                        Siege of Leningrad battlefield tour

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Lionhearti View Post
                          Shaa I said there wad nothing really gained by signing it for Stalin
                          You might try answering my post first. Or do you answer only those posts that fit your theories?
                          www.histours.ru

                          Siege of Leningrad battlefield tour

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Lionhearti View Post
                            One of the things that has always confused me was why sign the pact with Hitler. Nobody in their right mind things that Hitler is going to go straight to war with the Soviets he still needs to deal with the West. No Eastern Poland means that he can fortify in depth at his original borders. For Finland or the Baltic States what is Hitler going to do launch a Barbarossa. From what i have seen Stalin gained time to prepare with hitler and breathing space. But was it worth it. He could of gotten the breathing space and time anyways even with no pact.

                            TTNSBN
                            You start from the wrong direction :ask yourself :what else could do Stalin ? Let's say :not signing a pact with Adolf :and,if Adolf still was attacking Poland ? What than : only 2 options
                            1) do nothing while Adolf was taking the WHOLE of Poland
                            2)joining B+F (and doing the fighting) with as result the statu quo
                            The third option was the best (for JV):a treaty with Adolf to prevent him from taking East Poland ,and,with as bonus :the Baltics,etc.
                            The explanation that Stalin gained time,etc is a post war excuse :there was no danger that Adolf would attack the SU .
                            Last point :for Stalin,Hitler attacking Poland or not, was six of one and half a dozen of the other

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              It suited him.
                              Indyref2 - still, "Yes."

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X