World War II began with a coordinated attack on Poland conducted by the Third Reich and the USSR, led by Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin respectively. As of 1 September 1939, the very first day of World War Two, both totalitarian regimes held joint military action against Poland. Starting from 1 September, German bombers were guided onto their targets in Poland from a radio station located in Minsk
In accordance with the secret protocol as to Hitler-Stalin Pact, also known as the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, the new allies – Germany and the Soviet Union – were to jointly invade Poland. Red Army troops were to march into Poland three days following the Reich’s attack. Joseph Stalin, however, did not adhere to the protocol, with his troops advancing into Poland only 17 days after the Germans hit. The delay was caused by concerns over the propaganda discourse in the West, which Stalin wanted to focus on Germany solely.
The class struggle is a cornerstone of Karl Marx’s philosophy. It requires a restructuring of society in accordance with communism. When put in practice, this brought about genocide: the killing of 10 to 15 percent of a given society as well as annihilating its elites and those strata of society that were unwelcome in a communist state. For communists they stood in the way of communist rule and of harnessing entire societies under a totalitarian regime.
The communists spent the decade prior trying to form an anti-Nazi coalition force, such as the Anglo-French-Soviet Alliance which was pitched by the communists and rejected by the British and French. The communists hated the Nazis from the beginning, as the Nazi party rose to prominence by killing communists and labor organizers, cemented bourgeois rule, and was violently racist and imperialist, while the communists opposed all of that.
When the many talks of alliances with the west all fell short, the Soviets reluctantly agreed to sign a non-agression pact, in order to delay the coming war that everyone knew was happening soon. Throughout the last decade, Britain, France, and other western countries had formed pacts with Nazi Germany, such as the Four-Power Pact, the German-French-Non-Agression Pact, and more. Molotov-Ribbentrop was unique among the non-agression pacts with Nazi Germany in that it was right on the eve of war, and was the first between the USSR and Nazi Germany. It was a last resort, when the west was content from the beginning with working alongside Hitler.
Harry Truman, in 1941 in front of the Senate, stated:
If we see that Germany is winning we ought to help Russia, and if Russia is winning we ought to help Germany, and that way let them kill as many as possible, although I don’t want to see Hitler victorious under any circumstances.
Not only that, but it was the Soviet Union that was responsible for 4/5ths of total Nazi deaths, and winning the war against the Nazis. The Soviet Union did not agree to invade Poland with the Nazis, it was about spheres of influence and red lines the Nazis should not cross in Poland. When the USSR went into Poland, it stayed mostly to areas Poland had invaded and annexed a few decades prior. Should the Soviets have let Poland get entirely taken over by the Nazis, standing idle? The West made it clear that they were never going to help anyone against the Nazis until it was their turn to be targeted.
The Soviets absolutely did agree to invade, and claiming otherwise is historical revisionism. The source you linked tactically omits several facts that completely undermine the narrative presented, such as the fact that the Red Army coordinated with the Luftwaffe from Minsk during the Nazi invasion, that the agreed borders of the “spheres of influence” split a sovereign nation down the middle (which is impossible if Poland had remained sovereign), the joint military victory parade in Brest, etcetera.
Should the Soviets have let Poland get entirely taken over by the Nazis, standing idle?
If there was a genuine concern the Soviets could have guaranteed Polish independence against the Nazis. They did not, instead they jointly agreed to invade and divide the country.
The West made it clear that they were never going to help anyone against the Nazis until it was their turn to be targeted.
The UK and France declared war 2 days after Hitler invaded Poland (Hitler did not expect the UK to guarantee Poland, causing him to delay the invasion by a week while he deliberated on whether to go forward). Military spending in both the UK and France was significantly ramped up after Hitler first started showing aggression, but neither believed themselves to be ready for a war. War requires preparation, and they weren’t so delusional to believe they’d be able to avoid war forever. What neither the UK nor France expected however was that Nazi Germany’s war machine would ramp up significantly faster than their own.
What’s historical revisionism is claiming the parade to celebrate the Nazis being pushed out of areas of Poland by the Soviets was a celebration of allyship, or claiming the “spheres of influence” were a real plan for dividing Europe and not a way for the Soviets to dissuade the Nazis from pressing too far while ramping up for war. Both the Soviets and the Nazis knew war was coming between them, the treaty was always on borrowed time and in no-way signaled long-term planning on either side, the Soviets wanted to stop the Nazi threat and the Nazis intended on wiping out the Soviets, “spheres of influence” be damned.
The Eastern Pactwas the hopeful alliance between Poland and the Soviets (among others like Lithuania) against the Nazis, but this fell through due to France and Britain working against it, and Polish hatred of Russians. From the French ambassador to Poland at the time:
If, in reality, the most serious danger for Poland is Germany, “the Russian”, whatever the regime to which he is subject, always appears to the Poles as “enemy n° 1”: if the German remains an adversary, he is no less a European and a man of order; the Russian is, for the Pole, a barbarian, an Asian, a dissolving and corrupting element, with whom any contact would be perilous, any compromise fatal.
— Léon Noël, [17], 1938-06-31, Warsaw, p. 975-976
The UK and France regularly sabotaged talks of alliances with the Soviets and made their non-aggression pacts far earlier, doing far more trade and having far more Nazi synpathy among their publics and ruling class. Churchill is a famous fan of the Nazis until his hand was forced.
When the many talks of alliances with the west all fell short, the Soviets reluctantly agreed to sign a non-agression pact, in order to delay the coming war that everyone knew was happening soon.
Same people excusing Soviet pact with Nazis bemoan Finland for doing the same. Where is the consistency. Not saying you are doing that but it’s always interested me.
The Soviet Union did not agree to invade Poland with the Nazis
The article is hilarious desperate in doing handwringing and trying to sidestep the whole thing. “Well akshually it didn’t invade Poland because the government had ceased to exist!” But it also claims Soviet Union couldn’t have invaded Poland because Poland didn’t declare war on Soviet Union. Lmao
Some of the author’s arguments come off as technicalities, but the underlying facts of the situation do come from real evidence, which is more the purpose of linking that source. The fact that there wasn’t an agreement to invade Poland, but instead borders that the Nazis should not cross and which the Nazis did anyways and the Soviets kicked them back, fundamentally changes the “ally” narrative.
Less the arguments, more the evidence: there was nothing like a secret agreement to invade Poland, there were informalized areas the Nazis were to not go beyond and areas the Soviets were not to go beyond. This would be indicative of a percieved alliance if it wasn’t for the fact that at the same time, the Soviet Union was preparing for war with the Nazis and the Nazis the same for the Soviet Union, it was just a way to buy a bit of extra time as the west refused to join the Soviets until the war had become unavoidable on their turf.
In the event of a territorial and political rearrangement in the areas belonging to the Baltic States (Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania), the northern boundary of Lithuania shall represent the boundary of the spheres of influence of Germany and U.S.S.R. In this connection the interest of Lithuania in the Vilnius area is recognized by each party.
Article II
edit
In the event of a territorial and political rearrangement of the areas belonging to the Polish state, the spheres of influence of Germany and the U.S.S.R. shall be bounded approximately by the line of the rivers Narew, Vistula and San.
The question of whether the interests of both parties make desirable the maintenance of an independent Polish state and how such a state should be bounded can only be definitely determined in the course of further political developments.
In any event both governments will resolve this question by means of a friendly agreement.
Are we really pretending we don’t know what “In the event of a territorial and political rearrangement of the areas belonging to the Polish state” means
Yes, this was not an agreement to invade jointly, the USSR entered Poland 17 days after the Nazis did. This was the Soviet Union providing a “no-go” line for the Nazis in the event of Nazi invasion, largely including areas Poland had invaded and annexed from Lithuania and Ukraine a couple decades prior.
the Soviets reluctantly agreed to sign a non-agression pact
Putting aside all the usual arguments that get dismissed: What were the complex and mitigating factors that required supplying the Nazi war machine with more raw materials (oil, iron, grain, cotton, rubber, et al.) after the invasion of Poland? At the same time that the famously duplicitous Americans were enacting German tariffs and shifting economic support entirely to the Allies?
World War II began with a coordinated attack on Poland conducted by the Third Reich and the USSR
Oh? What date did this “coordinated attack” take place, and how was the coordination handled? Presuming coordinating the movements of two different armies for such a large scale operation would have required a lot of back and forth signaling and planning, all of which would have become public record when the soviet archives were opened.
Yeah, I found the an accessable copy and it doesn’t actually contain any of the things I was asking about. I’m guessing you were hoping nobody would check?
(1)
The communists spent the decade prior trying to form an anti-Nazi coalition force, such as the Anglo-French-Soviet Alliance which was pitched by the communists and rejected by the British and French. The communists hated the Nazis from the beginning, as the Nazi party rose to prominence by killing communists and labor organizers, cemented bourgeois rule, and was violently racist and imperialist, while the communists opposed all of that.
When the many talks of alliances with the west all fell short, the Soviets reluctantly agreed to sign a non-agression pact, in order to delay the coming war that everyone knew was happening soon. Throughout the last decade, Britain, France, and other western countries had formed pacts with Nazi Germany, such as the Four-Power Pact, the German-French-Non-Agression Pact, and more. Molotov-Ribbentrop was unique among the non-agression pacts with Nazi Germany in that it was right on the eve of war, and was the first between the USSR and Nazi Germany. It was a last resort, when the west was content from the beginning with working alongside Hitler.
Harry Truman, in 1941 in front of the Senate, stated:
Not only that, but it was the Soviet Union that was responsible for 4/5ths of total Nazi deaths, and winning the war against the Nazis. The Soviet Union did not agree to invade Poland with the Nazis, it was about spheres of influence and red lines the Nazis should not cross in Poland. When the USSR went into Poland, it stayed mostly to areas Poland had invaded and annexed a few decades prior. Should the Soviets have let Poland get entirely taken over by the Nazis, standing idle? The West made it clear that they were never going to help anyone against the Nazis until it was their turn to be targeted.
The Soviets absolutely did agree to invade, and claiming otherwise is historical revisionism. The source you linked tactically omits several facts that completely undermine the narrative presented, such as the fact that the Red Army coordinated with the Luftwaffe from Minsk during the Nazi invasion, that the agreed borders of the “spheres of influence” split a sovereign nation down the middle (which is impossible if Poland had remained sovereign), the joint military victory parade in Brest, etcetera.
If there was a genuine concern the Soviets could have guaranteed Polish independence against the Nazis. They did not, instead they jointly agreed to invade and divide the country.
The UK and France declared war 2 days after Hitler invaded Poland (Hitler did not expect the UK to guarantee Poland, causing him to delay the invasion by a week while he deliberated on whether to go forward). Military spending in both the UK and France was significantly ramped up after Hitler first started showing aggression, but neither believed themselves to be ready for a war. War requires preparation, and they weren’t so delusional to believe they’d be able to avoid war forever. What neither the UK nor France expected however was that Nazi Germany’s war machine would ramp up significantly faster than their own.
What’s historical revisionism is claiming the parade to celebrate the Nazis being pushed out of areas of Poland by the Soviets was a celebration of allyship, or claiming the “spheres of influence” were a real plan for dividing Europe and not a way for the Soviets to dissuade the Nazis from pressing too far while ramping up for war. Both the Soviets and the Nazis knew war was coming between them, the treaty was always on borrowed time and in no-way signaled long-term planning on either side, the Soviets wanted to stop the Nazi threat and the Nazis intended on wiping out the Soviets, “spheres of influence” be damned.
The Eastern Pact was the hopeful alliance between Poland and the Soviets (among others like Lithuania) against the Nazis, but this fell through due to France and Britain working against it, and Polish hatred of Russians. From the French ambassador to Poland at the time:
The UK and France regularly sabotaged talks of alliances with the Soviets and made their non-aggression pacts far earlier, doing far more trade and having far more Nazi synpathy among their publics and ruling class. Churchill is a famous fan of the Nazis until his hand was forced.
Same people excusing Soviet pact with Nazis bemoan Finland for doing the same. Where is the consistency. Not saying you are doing that but it’s always interested me.
The article is hilarious desperate in doing handwringing and trying to sidestep the whole thing. “Well akshually it didn’t invade Poland because the government had ceased to exist!” But it also claims Soviet Union couldn’t have invaded Poland because Poland didn’t declare war on Soviet Union. Lmao
Some of the author’s arguments come off as technicalities, but the underlying facts of the situation do come from real evidence, which is more the purpose of linking that source. The fact that there wasn’t an agreement to invade Poland, but instead borders that the Nazis should not cross and which the Nazis did anyways and the Soviets kicked them back, fundamentally changes the “ally” narrative.
What are the actual arguments you consider good from it? I didn’t see anything other than handwringing and “well technically”
Less the arguments, more the evidence: there was nothing like a secret agreement to invade Poland, there were informalized areas the Nazis were to not go beyond and areas the Soviets were not to go beyond. This would be indicative of a percieved alliance if it wasn’t for the fact that at the same time, the Soviet Union was preparing for war with the Nazis and the Nazis the same for the Soviet Union, it was just a way to buy a bit of extra time as the west refused to join the Soviets until the war had become unavoidable on their turf.
Secret Protocol, Article I & II
What you quotes supports Cowbees point.
Are we really pretending we don’t know what “In the event of a territorial and political rearrangement of the areas belonging to the Polish state” means
Yes, this was not an agreement to invade jointly, the USSR entered Poland 17 days after the Nazis did. This was the Soviet Union providing a “no-go” line for the Nazis in the event of Nazi invasion, largely including areas Poland had invaded and annexed from Lithuania and Ukraine a couple decades prior.
This was them dividing the country between them for when the war was concluded. Unless we pretend we don’t know what this means
Putting aside all the usual arguments that get dismissed: What were the complex and mitigating factors that required supplying the Nazi war machine with more raw materials (oil, iron, grain, cotton, rubber, et al.) after the invasion of Poland? At the same time that the famously duplicitous Americans were enacting German tariffs and shifting economic support entirely to the Allies?
Oh? What date did this “coordinated attack” take place, and how was the coordination handled? Presuming coordinating the movements of two different armies for such a large scale operation would have required a lot of back and forth signaling and planning, all of which would have become public record when the soviet archives were opened.
It’s well documented indeed. You can read more here if you’re interested.
I don’t have access, unfortunately, though the abstract seems to be about the political situation and doesn’t mention military organization.
They go hand-in-hand, as all wars do. I’ve had a look and it’s on Anna’s archive as well.
Yeah, I found the an accessable copy and it doesn’t actually contain any of the things I was asking about. I’m guessing you were hoping nobody would check?
You sure you read the correct document?
The one I linked clearly cites soviet sources describing the USSR third reich collaborarion untill Barbarossa.
https://annas-archive.org/scidb/10.2307/826217/
I cannot find much about Soviet-German relations in it either.