Vladimir Putin says there was nothing wrong with Soviet Union's pact with Adolf Hitler's Nazi German

[happyslug]

58. There are some problems with your thread, but it is more accurate the the rest of this thread

For example Stalin did NOT start to move the factories to the Urals till after Hitler moved East. i.e 1941 NOT 1939 or 1940.

As to Poland proper, Stalin had agreed to protect Poland, if he was permitted to move Troops into Poland. The British and the French BOTH agreed to this in early 1939, but the Poles veto it. That was the doom of Poland for without Soviet support the Polish Army was going to be crushed no matter what France or Britain did.

France was more anxious to find an agreement with the USSR than was Britain; as a continental power, it was more willing to make concessions, more fearful of the dangers of an agreement between the USSR and Germany. These contrasting attitudes partly explain why the USSR has often been charged with playing a double game in 1939: carrying on open negotiations for an alliance with Britain and France while secretly considering propositions from Germany.

By the end of May drafts were formally presented. In mid-June the main Tripartite negotiations started. The discussion was focused on potential guarantees to central and east European countries should a German aggression arise. The USSR proposed to consider that a political turn towards Germany by the Baltic states would constitute an "indirect aggression" towards the Soviet Union.Britain opposed such proposals, because they feared the Soviets' proposed language could justify a Soviet intervention in Finland and the Baltic states, or push those countries to seek closer relations with Germany. The discussion about a definition of "indirect aggression" became one of the sticking points between the parties, and by mid-July the tripartite political negotiations effectively stalled, while the parties agreed to start negotiations on a military agreement, which the Soviets insisted must be entered into simultaneously with any political agreement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact#Negotiations

France had just finished what has been called a non-violent civil war between its Right Wing and its Left Wing. This infighting prevented France from improving its army from 1936 till 1938. The Right refused to fund the Army as long as the Left was in the Government (i.e. you fund the increase, you get to name the officers of the new units). Thus till 1938 France did NOTHING to improve its Military (France did decide in a new rifle, new planes and even new tanks, but few were built till 1938, and then not enough by 1939 and 1940).

The Poles feared the Soviet Union not only because it was a Communist Dictatorship, but that Poland had conflicts with the Russians as to the border between the two nations. Polish Troops had reached Kiev during the Russian Civil War on 1919-1921 and still retained what is today Ukrainian territory. The border was agreed to by drawing a line between the opposing armies, not because of any natural border etc. Thus what Russia considered Russia was unclear (and what Poland considered Poland was equally unclear).

Given the veto of the the alliance with France and Britain by Poland, Stalin looked for the best deal possible and when Hitler made an offer, Stalin could not turn it down. Given the situation in 1939, I do not think ANY ruler of Russia would have turned down the German Offer made in 1939. That is a defendable position and the one that appears Putin is taking. People on this board may think otherwise, but I do not see Putin saying anything more then, given the situation in Eastern Europe in 1939, it was a deal Stalin could not turn down.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact

Many historians have said the Poles refusal to work with Stalin lead to their own downfall AND remember WWII started as a war to keep Poland free. That war ended with the fall of France and for any cross channel invasion to occur and win, 90% of German troops had to be tied up elsewhere i.e. Russia. Thus the US and Britain looked to Russia to offset Hitler, even at the cost of having to deal with Stalin.

Yes, Stalin was a butcher, but as a whole he kept his bloodlust on the domestic side. Stalin did send troops into China, Iran and Finland (the wars with the Poles was under Lenin) but his attacks were small compared to Hitler's attacks on Poland, Denmark, Norway, Belgium, Netherlands, France, Yugoslavia and Greece. Stalin did NOT attack his Eastern European neighbors, but only occupied them as part of the war Stalin committed to defeat Hitler AFTER Hitler had attacked Russia. Stalin conversion of those Eastern European Nations to Communism took almost two years after the end of WWII. Non-Communists were in several post WWII Governments in Eastern Europe, there did not last long, but it does show Stalin was NOT going in for complete and total control of those nations (Enough control to make sure they follow Moscow was all Stalin wanted).

Hitler killed 13 million people in the death camps, and Millions of people during the actual fighting of WWII and Hitler wanted to remove whole populations out of Eastern Europe, people forget the Jews were only the first of many that had to be eliminated.

General Jodl, the Head of the German Army during WWII, who was hanged at Nuremberg for supporting Hitler's wars of Aggression stated at his trial, the German Attack in June 1941 was preventive, i.e. to prevent a Soviet Attack.

This was dismissed at the time, but several military historians have recently brought it back up. The reason behind this is Stalin's disposition of his troops in June 1941. Hitler had just delayed the start date of his attack on Russia, so he could handle Yugoslavia and Greece. Yugoslavia had had a coup that replaced a pro Nazo Government with a Anti-Nazi Government AND Italy was losing its war to conquer Greece. That Campaign took a month.

By June 1941 the German Army was back in position to attack Russia. The Russians had been told of this planned attack by their own spies and Churchill. It appears the US also told Stalin of this planned attack. Yet Stalin's troops were position right at the border with their supplies right behind them. If you are going on the defensive, you keep your main troops back to avoid them being hit from the first shell of the enemy. You wait in cover and pounce when the attack least expect it. You have your supplies well behind the lines so you can fall back on them, i.e you get stronger well the attacking force gets weaker.

On the other hand if you want to attack, you move your forces to the border and have their supplies right behind them. The reason for this is the attacking force needs those supplies during its attack and by keeping them near, they minimize the time off the attack to get resupplied.

Now, one of the best time to destroy an army is to attack it before it launches its own attack. You quickly run into the enemy forces and force him to retreat, leaving his supplies to you to use. Remember an army set to attack has its supplies close to its front lines, and thus if forced backward from that line, abandon's its supplies and end up destroyed do to lack of supplies to fight with. Thus preparing for an attack when the enemy can attack is a dangerous position to take, but Hitler and Stalin both did this in June 1941 (Hitler's gamble paid off at least til December 1941).

Thus Stalin's troops were set up to ATTACK not DEFEND. The issue is why? It could be tactical incompetency by Stalin. On a Tactical level Stalin was subgrade, he did some real stupid military maneuvers during WWII (one of which lead to Stalingrad). On the other hand, in his several meetings with Stalin during WWII, the Commander in Chief of the British Army (a man so competent that Churchill REFUSED to leave him command any actual military units, he stayed in London, like George Marshall stayed in DC) after many discussion with Stalin and other Generals and Politicians said that Stalin had the best concept of Military grand Strategy then anyone he had ever meet.

Thus why was Stalin setting up his army to attack? Unlike Hitler, who was a demigod and attacked when he wanted to NOT when his generals said would be the best time to attack, Stalin was a numbers man, he could analyses most things and come out with a solution. Stalin was known to go to a Factory and after a review mention how to improve operations, and the suggestions actually improve production in the factory.

Given this background I do NOT see Stalin putting his men on the border in an attack formation other then to launch an attack. The issue is why, and the answer appears to be Churchill had convinced him to do so. By 1941, Britain was actually stronger then Germany, Britain was producing more arms, ships, weapons then Germany. Had France lasted till 1941, its production total would have added to that British number AND being on the continent able to attack Germany (Which was the actual French Plan in 1940, hold out till 1941, then attack when Britain and France would be stronger then Germany, till then France and Britain were weaker then Germany.

Unfortunately Germany hit first and defeated and took France, Belgium and the Netherlands. In spring of 1940, even before the German attack on France, Germany had taken Denmark and Norway. Thus Britain had no ally on the Continent that was NOT under German Control. That left the Soviet Union.

Thus it appears Churchill was working overtime to get Stalin to attack Hitler. Officially Churchill failed. But some historians suggest Churchill had not. Stalin was going to launch an attack and that is why his troops were set up as they were. The issue is why the delay? Several answers have been proposed, but the one that is most likely (and may be still classified in Britain and the US for it is embarrassing) is that Stalin wanted not only Churchill agreement of such an attack, but also the opposition parties of both the US and Britain. In Britain that was easy, Labour had joined Churchill's Government during the Fall of France in 1940 and the Government of Britain was no longer a Conservative Government but a Unity Government. The head of the Labour party agreed for he was in the Cabinet of Churchill.

What about the US? Could FDR get the leaders of the GOP to sign a documents supporting a Soviet attack on Hitler? I think this is what Stalin was waiting for and never was able to obtain for FDR could NOT get the GOP to agreed (even if FDR tried and I suspect FDR did not for he knew the GOP).