Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact

[Long Dong Silver]

Excuse my naivete, but some things about the decisions of the Soviet Union and Stalinists just don't add up.

Why did Stalin, and the world communist movement in general during the thirties/forties, oppose World War Two up until Germany's invasion of the USSR? And why didn't Stalin invade Germany when Hitler began his rise to power? Aren't communists supposedly dedicated to fighting fascism in all it's forms? When Hitler was murdering communists during his rise, the supposedly communist government of the Soviet Union just did nothing. Do Stalinists now agree with this decision? If so, how could you justify it?

and sorry if this has been asked before

[B0LSHEVIK]

It was (and still is) called holding the party line. In the early 30's, I doubt that Russia had the material strength to invade a fully industrialized country like Weimar. Also, Stalin couldnt trust the liberal democracies, because in many cases, they showed to be more timid of communism (even Stalins degenerated version) than fascism. So had he invaded, and thus been seen as the aggressor, its very likely the democracies would have sided with Hitler, because, remember, Hitler was elected.

On one hand, the M-R pact was an act of self preservation, made possible because to a large extent, the Soviet bureaucracy had long ceased to be actually revolutionary. And on the other hand, it was an act of treason and collaboration. For while Hitler was murdering more socialists (in all our tendencies) than jews in the holocaust, Stalin-Hitler were busy carving up eastern europe into spheres of influence.

Personally, I think hindsight is flawless. But to be critical, while Hitler was building up his war machine and gaining experience in Spain, Stalin was persecuting the Red Army and other 'trot-fascists' in some of his witch-hunts. What a waste. Also, had he invaded Germany as a pre-emptive strike. I doubt he would have had any success. Just look how the Winter War went against Finland. The red army needed training and experience. Both came during the great war.

[ComradeOm]

An invasion would not have been needed. The basic truth is that Germany could not have gone to war in 1939 without the NAP. It could not have risked war on two fronts; the German generals simply would not have tolerated this. Nor could the Nazi war machine have kept rolling without those vital Soviet supplies. Simply abstaining from signing the pact with Hitler - note: not even securing a full alliance with the Western Powers - would have been enough to stymie the fascist offence across Europe

I go into some more detail on the NAP, the alternatives and the position/readiness of the Red Army in this thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/russian-state-archive-t141122/index.html?t=141122)

[Born in the USSR]

And what's wrong with Molotov-Ribbentrop pact?Stalin managed to set two imperialistic groups at loggerheads by redirecting the Nazi aggression from east to west,to get two years of peaceful respite and to push the western border for 300 km to the west.All condemnations of the pact on the normal language are translated as follows:"What an outrage that the Nazi invasion has not begun 300 km closer to Moscow".If this crap repeat those who called themselves leftists,then they are either fools,or provokers.

[Rjevan]

and sorry if this has been asked before
It has indeed been asked before. ;)

Here is a basic read on the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact from a "Stalinist" perspective:
http://marxism.halkcephesi.net/Bill%20Bland/german%20soviet%20pact.htm

And maybe you're interested in the last thread, where the role and effects of as well as alternatives to the M-R Pact are discussed: http://www.revleft.com/vb/russian-state-archive-t141122/index.html

[Reznov]

Also, Fascist is something we RevLefters like to use a petty insult nowadays.

[Red Commissar]

The Soviet Union had attempted to reach an agreement with France and the United Kingdom in regards to containing Germany, but this never materialized. As a result Maxim Litvinov fell out of favor and was replaced by Molotov before they went ahead and formed a non-aggression pact.

[Invader Zim]

The Soviet Union had attempted to reach an agreement with France and the United Kingdom in regards to containing Germany, but this never materialized. As a result Maxim Litvinov fell out of favor and was replaced by Molotov before they went ahead and formed a non-aggression pact.

Largely because the west mistrusted the USSR as much as it did Nazi Germany (if not more) and also believed that the Red Army, after the purges, was incapable of sustaining a war against a large, well armed, trained and competent military of a major economic power. Additionaly the intelligence assessments available at the time concluded (incorrectly) that Germany was far better armed than it actually was. Furthermore, unless you are intent on bluffing, it is unwise to threaten war unless you have the military resources to hand to back your threat. Britain certainly didn't until well into 1939 (and indeed, given the state of the RAF and BEF arguably later) and France's military preperations revolved around conducting a defensive war, and then a war of attrition. That was the thinking behind the British refusal to deal with the USSR, they believed it would provoke a costly war which Britain may well have lost (through lack of preperation) and would remove the possibility that the Axis powers could still be reasoned with. Looking back retrospectively it is easy to pick holes in the policy chosen, but given the (mis)information available at the time the reasoning behind the policy isn't nearly as flawed.

[PolishTrotsky]

Excuse my naivete, but some things about the decisions of the Soviet Union and Stalinists just don't add up.

Why did Stalin, and the world communist movement in general during the thirties/forties, oppose World War Two up until Germany's invasion of the USSR? And why didn't Stalin invade Germany when Hitler began his rise to power? Aren't communists supposedly dedicated to fighting fascism in all it's forms? When Hitler was murdering communists during his rise, the supposedly communist government of the Soviet Union just did nothing. Do Stalinists now agree with this decision? If so, how could you justify it?

and sorry if this has been asked before
Because, no offense to Stalin or Stalinists, Josef Stalin and Adolf Hitler were very Similar. They each commited mass genocides, etc. Another reason was the It is very well possible that Stalin A)feared Hitler and the Wehrmacht B) Saw Hitler's Plans as an Oppurtunity to take over Eastern Europe, Or C) Both. Again, No offense to any Stalinists.

[red cat]

Because, no offense to Stalin or Stalinists, Josef Stalin and Adolf Hitler were very Similar. They each commited mass genocides, etc. Another reason was the It is very well possible that Stalin A)feared Hitler and the Wehrmacht B) Saw Hitler's Plans as an Oppurtunity to take over Eastern Europe, Or C) Both. Again, No offense to any Stalinists.

I have not seen many Trots as polite as you. Keep it up bro. :lol:

Talking about your claim of Stalin having committed genocides, can you detail how the deaths under Stalin were qualitatively and quantitatively equivalent to a genocide and comparable to those committed by Hitler?

[red cat]

Excuse my naivete, but some things about the decisions of the Soviet Union and Stalinists just don't add up.

Why did Stalin, and the world communist movement in general during the thirties/forties, oppose World War Two up until Germany's invasion of the USSR? And why didn't Stalin invade Germany when Hitler began his rise to power? Aren't communists supposedly dedicated to fighting fascism in all it's forms? When Hitler was murdering communists during his rise, the supposedly communist government of the Soviet Union just did nothing. Do Stalinists now agree with this decision? If so, how could you justify it?

and sorry if this has been asked before

Fascism is a form of capitalism . The fascist powers were initially promoted by other western capitalist states to put an end to the USSR, which was recovering from the damages done by the ruling classes during the revolutionary war.

Had USSR attacked Germany, it would have been counter-attacked by all western powers together. In this situation, it was a militarily correct decision of Stalin to set capitalists/fascists against one another.

[deadmeat1471]

This may have been posted before.... But I enjoyed it :D

search youtube for 'Complete history of the Soviet Union'

(this was a mispost in the wrong thread, but check it anyway! :D)

[deadmeat1471]

Excuse my naivete, but some things about the decisions of the Soviet Union and Stalinists just don't add up.

Why did Stalin, and the world communist movement in general during the thirties/forties, oppose World War Two up until Germany's invasion of the USSR? And why didn't Stalin invade Germany when Hitler began his rise to power? Aren't communists supposedly dedicated to fighting fascism in all it's forms? When Hitler was murdering communists during his rise, the supposedly communist government of the Soviet Union just did nothing. Do Stalinists now agree with this decision? If so, how could you justify it?

and sorry if this has been asked before

I think, in a perfect world, the USSR would have Invaded Germany long before '41 if they had the material strength to do so.
In my opinion it was purely practical for the USSR to try and maintain peace while the political reforms, most notably in the Army were completed and the Soviet army was in a position to invade.

Also, previous to Poland, it would not have been politically viable to invade, due to European anti-war feeling. It would have put the USSR in jepardy with Europeans.

Also, I cant say for certain on this, but the USSR always had an eye to the east at Japan since the war (1901?).