Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact:good or bad?

[tir1944]

What do you think of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact,was it a good thing that the Soviets signed it or was it a bad one?
Do you support the Soviet non-agression pact with Germany?

I personally do because the USSR had to buy as much time as possible.

[Franz Fanonipants]

Why is this even a fucking issue?

Stop this bullshit. This is not history, this is tendency warfare over stupid, nit picking historical what-ifs.

[tir1944]

Why is this even a fucking issue?
It isn't? How come its so controversial thn?



Stop this bullshit. This is not history, this is tendency warfare over stupid, nit picking historical what-ifs.
Calm down.This is a debate about one of the more controversial episodes in the Soviet history.If you don't want to debate you can skip this thread,thank you.

[khlib]

I think the question brings up a lot of ethical issues that any true revolutionary must consider, such as collaborating with an ideological enemy in order to take care of pragmatic concerns...

[Art Vandelay]

Flame Bait

[tir1944]

Not really.
I'd really prefer if people could talk about this rationally without the sectarian bullshit.

[xub3rn00dlex]

In b4 STALLLLLLIIINNNNN RULLLLZzzzz

[Franz Fanonipants]

I think the question brings up a lot of ethical issues that any true revolutionary must consider, such as collaborating with an ideological enemy in order to take care of pragmatic concerns...

The question has far more utility in this form than "DO U THINK STALIN WAS RAD OR STANK!?"

[tfb]

I think that this is a good thread and I want to see how it turns out. Something someone here said almost got me to support the pact once. :blushing:

[NewSocialist]

:rolleyes: turd1944 is at it again....


I personally do because the USSR had to buy as much time as possible.

you support it because youre a fucking fascist nazbol troll from Scumfront or the “Socialist“ Phailanx. *every* thread you start further solidifies my view on this. why dont you run along back to where it is you came from and talk about hating “cosmopolitans“ and the missing the “good old days“ of the Nazi-Soviet pact with your little fascoid comrades.

[khad]

Better question is do you support the 1934 Polish non-aggression pact with Germany?

[Nox]

It contributed to the USSR's victory, so I see no problem with it.

[tir1944]

you support it because youre a fucking fascist nazbol troll from Scumfront or the “Socialist“ Phailanx. *every* thread you start further solidifies my view on this. why dont you run along back to where it is you came from and talk about hating “cosmopolitans“ and the missing the “good old days“ of the Nazi-Soviet pact with your little fascoid comrades.
I'm not a nazbol since i disapprove of "Nat.Bolshevism",i'm not a member of SF or SP either,and i never talked about "hating cosmopolitans" or missing "the good old days of the Nazi-Soviet pact" nor do i have fascoid(sic) comrades.
That's all.Also,reported for blatant insinuations against me,trolling and spamming.

[Gustav HK]

I think it was needed. So I support that manoeuvre.

BTW non-agression pact =/= alliance.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

I personally do not see an issue with this question.All progressives have at one time or another done unsavory things to secure a victory.I consider this more along the lines of realpolitik than anything else;the USSR had rather few options and had to do something to prepare for the inevitable war.

[NewSocialist]

I'm not a nazbol since i disapprove of "Nat.Bolshevism",i'm not a member of SF or SP either,and i never talked about "hating cosmopolitans" or missing "the good old days of the Nazi-Soviet pact" nor do i have fascoid(sic) comrades.

as if a troll would admit to any of those things.... :rolleyes:


That's all.Also,reported for blatant insinuations against me,trolling and spamming.

good, hopefully they will closely examine the threads youve started on this forum and determine for themselves if my claims have any validity (I'm not the first person to question your motives on this forum)

[Smyg]

No. Just... no.

[tir1944]

as if a troll would admit to any of those things.... :rolleyes:
Stop slandering me.


Just... no.
Why?

[Iron Felix]

It was basically an alliance to jointly invade Poland and allow Stalin to annex Finland and the Baltic States, and it greatly helped Hitler increase his material resources, greatly helping Hitler in conducting Barbarossa and hurting the Soviet Union. As you might know, German tanks invaded the USSR powered by fuel Stalin just sent to them.

[Revolutionair]

Even though I disapprove of tir's view points, you guys need to stop going so fucking NKVD on his ass.

Maybe he is asking these questions because he is having difficulty agreeing with the Stalinist version of history. By fucking with his mind you will only scare him away from more socialist tendencies.

[Smyg]

Why?
What Iron Felix said, with a strong notion of "never fucking cooperate with fucking fascists" added.

[∞]

It might have prevented the Cold War if it hadn't happened, it might have...

[tir1944]

Maybe he is asking these questions because he is having difficulty agreeing with the Stalinist version of history. By fucking with his mind you will only scare him away from more socialist tendencies. I know the basics (more or less) of history,but i'm always interested in what others think.



What Iron Felix said, with a strong notion of "never fucking cooperate with fucking fascists" added. Yes,so it would have been better to leave millions of Poles,Belorussians,Ukrainians and Jews to suffer under the Nazi boot?
Also what Iron Felix wrote in nonsense,but he's somehow got banned now...



It might have prevented the Cold War if it hadn't happened, it might have...
Could you elaborate a bit more?

[Per Levy]

Yes,so it would have been better to leave millions of Poles,Belorussians,Ukrainians and Jews to suffer under the Nazi boot?

they did suffer under the nazi boot, just a little bit later but just as terrible. and the soviet union almost loose the war because of terrible actions by the ruling elite. despite the extra time the soviet union was hardly prepared for a war, and it didnt help that many able military personal got purged before the war.

[Commissar Rykov]

Even though I disapprove of tir's view points, you guys need to stop going so fucking NKVD on his ass.

Maybe he is asking these questions because he is having difficulty agreeing with the Stalinist version of history. By fucking with his mind you will only scare him away from more socialist tendencies.
^This. I am growing rather tired of people jumping on every thread created by tir just to troll and flame while ironically accusing him of the same. Get the fuck over yourselves if you can't even respond to his threads without having your head completely up your ass then find something else to do it isn't remotely contructive or helpful and is in fact becoming quite irritating.

[∞]

Could you elaborate a bit more?

I always get the inclination that if Stalin had a more aggressive stance on Germany, that the Allies wouldn't view them as opportunistic and the USSR would have generally more positive rep with the 1st-world. However, that is just a possibility.

[Commissar Rykov]

I always get the inclination that if Stalin had a more aggressive stance on Germany, that the Allies wouldn't view them as opportunistic and the USSR would have generally more positive rep with the 1st-world. However, that is just a possibility.
That is a possibility but I have to wonder if the West just wouldn't have thrown in with Hitler if the Soviets took a more aggressive approach. Then Hitler would just have to say, "Look I was right they want Germany under the Judeo-Bolshevik Horde, etc." I don't know how much more the USSR could have done other than giving some coherent and rational orders to German Communists in not cooperating with the NSDAP before they came to power. If that would have made much of a difference I doubt that as well as the German Junkers and Bourgeoisie were rather nervous of the growing political power of the Communists anyways and hence why they got Hitler into power to crush opposition to their rule. He just happened to crush more than they wanted.

[NewSocialist]

^This. I am growing rather tired of people jumping on every thread created by tir just to troll and flame while ironically accusing him of the same. Get the fuck over yourselves if you can't even respond to his threads without having your head completely up your ass then find something else to do it isn't remotely contructive or helpful and is in fact becoming quite irritating.

what irritates me is an obvious fascist troll being allowed to spread filth on a leftist forum which is supposed to have a no platform policy. just because the guy pleades ignorance or benevolent motives when he's called out on his trolling doesnt mean he should be able to get away with it. I know youre a former fascist and all, and its great youve changed your ways and became a leftist, but it *does not* mean Revleft should adopt an open platform policy for crypto-fascists!

[tir1944]

they did suffer under the nazi boot, just a little bit later but just as terrible.The Nazis got to the outskirts of Moscow and killed some 14 million civilians.However,had Stalin left "Eastern Poland" to Hitler all Jews living there would have soon been liquidated.But in 1941 many Jews joined the Partisans or the RKKA,attacking the German rear...


and the soviet union almost loose the war because of terrible actions by the ruling elite.What actions?


despite the extra time the soviet union was hardly prepared for a war, and it didnt help that many able military personal got purged before the war. The Soviet Union was prepared,although not enough.The Nazis striked at the worst moment.

[tir1944]

what irritates me is an obvious fascist troll being allowed to spread filth on a leftist forum which is supposed to have a no platform policy.Shut up.


just because the guy pleades ignorance or benevolent motives when he's called out on his trolling doesnt mean he should be able to get away with it. I know youre a former fascist and all, and its great youve changed your ways and became a leftist, but it *does not* mean Revleft should adopt an open platform policy for crypto-fascists! Are you on crack or something?
Where did i ever post anything even remotely pro-fascist?
Get a hold of yourself and stop trolling,for fucks sake.

[Zealot]

I always get the inclination that if Stalin had a more aggressive stance on Germany, that the Allies wouldn't view them as opportunistic and the USSR would have generally more positive rep with the 1st-world. However, that is just a possibility.

Actually they did, the SU were the first to propose sanctions and collective security measures but the western powers refused to co-operate. So Stalin was basically flanked on both sides, the allies had hoped Russia and Germany would go to war without having to get themselves involved because they didn't really see Germany as a threat at the time and probably would have supported Hitler if he hadn't broken so many agreements.

[Nox]

what irritates me is an obvious fascist troll being allowed to spread filth on a leftist forum which is supposed to have a no platform policy. just because the guy pleades ignorance or benevolent motives when he's called out on his trolling doesnt mean he should be able to get away with it. I know youre a former fascist and all, and its great youve changed your ways and became a leftist, but it *does not* mean Revleft should adopt an open platform policy for crypto-fascists!

It a bit bold to call someone with over 1,000 posts a fascist.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

It a bit bold to call someone with over 1,000 posts a fascist.

Especially when those posts were your typical Marxist-Leninist musings about Stalin,Mao,Castro,etc.

[Commissar Rykov]

Actually they did, the SU were the first to propose sanctions and collective security measures but the western powers refused to co-operate. So Stalin was basically flanked on both sides, the allies had hoped Russia and Germany would go to war without having to get themselves involved because they didn't really see Germany as a threat at the time and probably would have supported Hitler if he hadn't broken so many agreements.
That was one of the main reasons the Soviets weren't allowed at the Munich Agreement because they were completely against it and wanted to invoke sanctions on Germany. That didn't work so well for Chamberlain who wanted to keep Hitler as a bulwark against Communist expansion into the West.

[Panda Tse Tung]

they did suffer under the nazi boot, just a little bit later but just as terrible. and the soviet union almost loose the war because of terrible actions by the ruling elite. despite the extra time the soviet union was hardly prepared for a war, and it didnt help that many able military personal got purged before the war.
This is ridiculous slander.
Had the Soviet Union done nothing they wouldn't have had ANY time to prepare for this war. And of course they weren't 'ready', but the time they saved they did use to move production to the east and create shitloads of weapons, build the army and spread anti-nazi propaganda. Additionally they took area's to create buffers which prevented the Nazi's from simply sweeping into the USSR straight into their major cities(the baltic states, that piece of Finland, half of Poland, etc...).
You might disagree with the pact on a moral basis, but that moral basis means fuck all when Nazi tanks are rolling through your cities and destroy your revolution.

[ComradeOm]

Actually they did, the SU were the first to propose sanctions and collective security measures but the western powers refused to co-operate. So Stalin was basically flanked on both sides, the allies had hoped Russia and Germany would go to war without having to get themselves involved because they didn't really see Germany as a threat at the time and probably would have supported Hitler if he hadn't broken so many agreements.Didn't see Germany as a threat at the time? The Nazi-Soviet NAP was signed in August 1939: a week before Germany invaded Poland, two months after Britain had commenced its peacetime draft for war and five months after London and Paris had committed themselves to Poland's independence. There was absolutely no question in late August 1939 that Germany was on a course for war with the Allies. The only real unknown was what Moscow's stance would be. Ultimately the promise of territorial gains won over the lukewarm approach from Britain

But then you talk of "both sides" when the reality is that there was always a third option: do nothing. Just because Moscow was unable to reach agreement with the Allies does not mean that it should have jumped into bed with Hitler. A state of 'armed neutrality', in which the USSR prepared for war but made no commitments to either side, would have presented Hitler with an unsolvable dilemma. There is no way in which Germany could have fought a two front war against both France and the USSR. To commit to either would leave the other front horribly exposed* and beg defeat. This was simply beyond Germany in 1939/40

And Hitler's generals knew it. Had he tried to take the Reich into such a suicidal war then the most likely outcome is a military coup, of the sort seriously contemplated during the Austrian crisis. Soviet collaboration was the key strategic factor that allowed for Hitler's conquest of Europe. And people knew this at the time - it is exactly why news of the NAP was considered such a diplomatic bombshell. This is to say nothing of the Soviet economic aid that kept the German war machine ticking over until the fall of France

*It worked with Poland because that campaign was over in a matter of weeks and Soviet cooperation ensured that all attention could be turned to France


Had the Soviet Union done nothing they wouldn't have had ANY time to prepare for this warWhat do you think they'd been doing for the previous decade? The Soviet defence burden was second only to that of Germany's and it produced the largest army and air force in the world in 1939. That most of this was hindered by purges of the military and later strategic fiascos (http://www.revleft.com/vb/russian-state-archive-t141122/index.html?p=1855319) has nothing to do with time


Additionally they took area's to create buffers which prevented the Nazi's from simply sweeping into the USSR straight into their major cities(the baltic states, that piece of Finland, half of Poland, etc...).Out of curiosity, how did abandoning previously fortified positions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin_Line) and moving the bulk of the army into the border areas in indefensible deployments actually work out in reality?


The Nazis got to the outskirts of Moscow and killed some 14 million civilians.However,had Stalin left "Eastern Poland" to Hitler all Jews living there would have soon been liquidated.But in 1941 many Jews joined the Partisans or the RKKA,attacking the German rear...Many Jews were also amongst the 400k plus inhabitants of the occupied Polish and Baltic lands that were deported by the NKVD. Just saying...


The Soviet Union was prepared,although not enough.The Nazis striked at the worst moment.Well yes, it probably would have been better if some idiot hadn't decided to purge the military some years previously and then embark on a series of botched organisational reforms. By 1941, according to Glantz, the typical Red Army commander was serving two ranks above their level of experience. Most simply couldn't handle the size of the formations under their control

[dodger]

40YRS Ago working in a London hotel I got talking to a POLE, very interesting, of course I was largely ignorant at the time. I would have asked him more pertinent questions now. I don't recall how the subject came up...he told me he was from the Polish controlled part of Ukraine, they were landowners, gentry, the Red army swept through. In due course he and a large part of his family were taken from his home and put on a train to Siberia. He was aged 15yrs. They were well treated. On the journey which was arduous there were stops for food and relaxation. Sick people were taken off. The camp their final destination was 120miles from the railhead. I had visions of snow and barbed wire, he laughed, no nothing like that. No need for barbed wire..miles from any proper road and as I said 120 miles from railway. The cold? No it was summer....terrible midges and mosquitoes, millions. Did they work you to death? they sent me to school I was semi literate.. What was the worst thing? We were forced to attend a dental clinic. What was best thing then? In the school holiday we helped with the harvest, the Russian menfolk were called up in the army , plenty of food and drink and music to lift our spirits. The Russian girls got me tipsy and chased me, when they caught me , I was de-bagged. You see my hair was red when I was younger....they had never seen anybody before like that. They wanted to see if I had red pubes. They teased me for weeks after. So how did you end up here?...My older brother had already volunteered for red army but I was told I would have to go to Persia because it had already been agreed with British and Poles in London. My name was on their list. So off he went , North Africa and Italy. What happened to your brother ? He survived and went to live in Poland...never returned to our home. Became branch secretary of communist party but was kicked out , lack of zeal. The rest of your family? All the ones who went with the NKVD that day survived the war. Those who escaped the net, stayed behind,perished when the war came...we only had sketchy accounts. terrible times.

Yes looking back there was a lot more I could have asked him.

[tir1944]

A state of 'armed neutrality', in which the USSR prepared for war but made no commitments to either side, would have presented Hitler with an unsolvable dilemma. There is no way in which Germany could have fought a two front war against both France and the USSR. To commit to either would leave the other front horribly exposed* and beg defeat.
Bro the Allieds spent almost a year doing nothing but sitting in their warm bunkers in what was called a Sitzkrieg.Despite their overwhelming numerical and other superiority over the Germans.
The French did pull off some lame offensive but it was stopped by the French Command.
The Allieds would happily sit in their forts watching the Nazi Germany and the USSR bleed each other.


Many Jews were also amongst the 400k plus inhabitants of the occupied Polish and Baltic lands that were deported by the NKVD. Just saying...
Source for this 400k?


Well yes, it probably would have been better if some idiot hadn't decided to purge the military some years previously and then embark on a series of botched organisational reforms. By 1941, according to Glantz, the typical Red Army commander was serving two ranks above their level of experience. Most simply couldn't handle the size of the formations under their control
Yes,it would have been great to let traitors,spies and idiots like Blucher stay in the Army...:rolleyes:

[Panda Tse Tung]

two months after Britain had commenced its peacetime draft for war Are you suggesting they needed war preperations despite the UK being one of the largest empires of it's time :rolleyes:.


What do you think they'd been doing for the previous decade? The Soviet defence burden was second only to that of Germany's and it produced the largest army and air force in the world in 1939. That most of this was hindered by purges of the military and later strategic fiascos (http://www.revleft.com/vb/russian-state-archive-t141122/index.html?p=1855319) has nothing to do with timeThe purges we're required do to collaborative elements in the army. And boo fucking hoo strategic mistakes we're made during the war. Luckily the Soviet Union was the only country who did that... owait...



Out of curiosity, how did abandoning previously fortified positions (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin_Line) and moving the bulk of the army into the border areas in indefensible deployments actually work out in reality?Maybe thanks to the Molotov line? A lack of manpower to sustain both lines?
Edit: remember the Soviet Union was not 1 front.

[Zealot]

Didn't see Germany as a threat at the time? The Nazi-Soviet NAP was signed in August 1939 a week before Germany invaded Poland, two months after Britain had commenced its peacetime draft for war and five months after London and Paris had committed themselves to Poland's independence. There was absolutely no question in late August 1939 that Germany was on a course for war with the Allies. The only real unknown was what Moscow's stance would be. Ultimately the promise of territorial gains won over the lukewarm approach from Britain

I was talking about the period leading up to the pact, yes they weren't seen as a threat and Hitler didn't see them as a threat either. He had the idea he could march into the East without opposition from the west and he was almost right. They failed to provide ANY meaningful support to Poland AT ALL, which is why at the beginning WWII was known as the "Phoney War". So much for "committing themselves to Poland's independence". So like I said, they were still hoping the Soviets and the Nazis would go to war without having to involve themselves. It was only when Churchill, a firm opponent of Chamberlain's appeasement policies, got into power that they started actually considering the possibility that Britain was in danger.


But then you talk of "both sides" when the reality is that there was always a third option: do nothing. Just because Moscow was unable to reach agreement with the Allies does not mean that it should have jumped into bed with Hitler. A state of 'armed neutrality', in which the USSR prepared for war but made no commitments to either side, would have presented Hitler with an unsolvable dilemma.

Do nothing? um... Jumped into bed with Hitler? Hitler had been boasting his intentions of invading Russia since the 1920's and he was a known anti-communist hellbent on destroying those who opposed his plans. Stalin would have known this which is why it was necessary to buy more time.


There is no way in which Germany could have fought a two front war against both France and the USSR. To commit to either would leave the other front horribly exposed* and beg defeat. This was simply beyond Germany in 1939/40

What are you on about? The battle of France happened a year later which meant he had a full year to take out the Soviet Union before taking France. Furthermore that war was over in a matter of weeks, lol. Even further, Hitler wouldn't have made a two front war because that's what they done in WWI.

[Rooster]

Are you suggesting they needed war preperations despite the UK being one of the largest empires of it's time :rolleyes:.

The UK being able to be a global empire because it was a naval power.

[dodger]

Another camp another Pole. They called me an antisocial element. Why? My father worked for a German company, he was an agent. It was a logging camp...we had to work. We were given enough calories to carry out our work. One day I was called into the office....you are going to Persia. It was 20 below. I thought I was hearing things. Well was he pro German? He just grinned. Not in North Africa....that changed everything. That food critic says you make the best mayonnaise in the world...bet you never learned that in the army.

Another survivor

[tir1944]

Let's not forget that in 1939 the Allieds (excluding "minor" nations such as Canada,NZ etc...) were militarily superior to Germany in every way.
But that didn't stop them from sitting and watching Germany invade lone Poland,despite the Wehrmach having left just a handful of divisions on the German-French border...

[Panda Tse Tung]

The UK being able to be a global empire because it was a naval power.
An you think they could have sustained their power in a country like India without at least a substaintial military force?

[Zealot]

The UK being able to be a global empire because it was a naval power.

Are you seriously implying that they had no other military means besides naval power? I guess that's why the Battle of Britain was fought and won almost entirely by air forces, oh wait...

[ComradeOm]

Bro the Allieds spent almost a year doing nothing but sitting in their warm bunkers in what was called a Sitzkrieg.Despite their overwhelming numerical and other superiority over the Germans.
The French did pull off some lame offensive but it was stopped by the French Command.
The Allieds would happily sit in their forts watching the Nazi Germany and the USSR bleed each otherThey sat still because their policy was to fight a long war in the exception that superior arms and material would prevail. Now unless you can see some way in which a Nazi invasion of Russia doesn't bleed the Wehrmacht white (and for the record, Germany was in absolutely no position to 'do a Barbarossa' in the first half of 1940) or the Nazi economy doesn't crash due to lack of plunder or Soviet supplies... well, then that's a fair assumption to make


Source for this 400k?Wheatcroft, The Scale and Nature of Nazi and Soviet Repression and Mass Killings. He actually gives the range 410k-600k for Poles alone, while Edele (Stalinist Society) gives an upper limit of a million for deportees from the territories occupied by the Soviets following the NAP

But you really should know by now that when you ask for a source I'm more than happy to provide one


Yes,it would have been great to let traitors,spies and idiots like Blucher stay in the Army...:rolleyes:And we know that they were traitors and spies because Stalin shot them. Yes, we've been through this before

What is certain is that a whole generation of modernist commanders, such as Tukhachevsky, were executed not two years before WWII broke out. Their work was marginalised (hah, armoured warfare, that'll never catch on!) and they were replaced by inexperienced commanders who were simply not capable of meeting the German invasion. In the summer of 1941 it reached the point where STAVKA had to issue directives to instruct its field officers who to conduct embarrassingly simple manoeuvres and actions. But who would have thought that killing off a good chunk of your generals before a war would have backfired so badly?


Let's not forget that in 1939 the Allieds (excluding "minor" nations such as Canada,NZ etc...) were militarily superior to Germany in every wayExcept that they weren't. In May 1940, that is the better part of a year's mobilisation, the Allied armies in France were still inferior to Germany in terms of men (numbers of) and aircraft. The one advantage they had, excluding the navy, was in the number of guns available

In September 1939, when they callously scarified Poland, the Allied inferiority in arms was much more marked. This wouldn't last for long of course, in a long war Anglo-French production would outstrip that of Germany, and that's what London and Paris were gambling on. Without an invasion of France, an impossibility without Soviet collaboration, the Allies would have outproduced a collapsing German economy


Are you suggesting they needed war preperations despite the UK being one of the largest empires of it's timeI'm not sure what you mean. If you're seriously asking whether the UK needed to conscript soldiers to fight a world war, and compensate for two decades of dire underinvestment in defence, then yes, yes the UK needed "war preparations". Obviously

Really, think about that for a minute. Historically the UK was able to commit 10 divisions to the defence of France in May 1940. The Nazis invaded with approx 140


An you think they could have sustained their power in a country like India without at least a substaintial military force?That's it: if you don't know what you're talking about then don't talk. The idea that Britain was a military superpower on par with Germany or the Soviet Union or even France just because a good chunk of the atlas was pink is simply false. Outside the naval realm Britain did not possess an impressive military. Which is the whole point about rearmament during the 1930s!

The lack of British manpower, or at least the expense of maintaining a large standing army, is exactly what drove Britain to invest in 'cheap' ways of maintaining the Empire. The most obvious of which was the use of the RAF in 'pacifying' operations in the Middle East and Africa. The alternative to this, particularly in India, was the use of local forces, such as the Indian Army. But in 1939 even this was tiny by European standards and wholly committed to maintaining order in India


And boo fucking hoo strategic mistakes we're made during the war. Luckily the Soviet Union was the only country who did that... owait...What? That's not even a valid case for whataboutism. Very few (read: no) other nations committed strategic blunders that cost them three million casualties within a few months of fighting... and even if they had how does that possibly excuse Soviet deployments that saw almost the entire standing army wiped out in a summer of fighting?


Maybe thanks to the Molotov line? A lack of manpower to sustain both lines?
Edit: remember the Soviet Union was not 1 front.So maybe they shouldn't have abandoned an established line of defence in favour for dissipating the Red Army all along the border? Just a thought


I was talking about the period leading up to the pact, yes they weren't seen as a threat and Hitler didn't see them as a threat either. He had the idea he could march into the East without opposition from the west and he was almost right. They failed to provide ANY meaningful support to Poland AT ALL, which is why at the beginning WWII was known as the "Phoney War". So much for "committing themselves to Poland's independence". So like I said, they were still hoping the Soviets and the Nazis would go to war without having to involve themselves. It was only when Churchill, a firm opponent of Chamberlain's appeasement policies, got into power that they started actually considering the possibility that Britain was in danger.I want to get this straight in my head: it was only in May 1940, that is over full year after the invasion of Czechoslovakia*, that the UK government realised that there might actually be some risk associated with war with Germany. Am I understanding you correctly? I sincerely hope not

The issue is simple. In August 1939 it was apparent that Germany and the Allies were on a course for war. The latter were preparing for a long war (hence the sacrificial role for Poland) but were confident enough of winning. The Soviet Union could have prevented the war, or dramatically shortened its course, by pursuing any option save collaboration with Germany

*Which even the more ardent critic would admit marked the decisive shift away from appeasement. After this point it is no longer possible to suggest that London was offering Germany a free hand in the East


Do nothing? um... Jumped into bed with Hitler? Hitler had been boasting his intentions of invading Russia since the 1920's and he was a known anti-communist hellbent on destroying those who opposed his plans. Stalin would have known this which is why it was necessary to buy more time.So you wouldn't call facilitating Hitler's conquest of Europe, through diplomatic, political and economic aid, in exchange for territorial gains to be a case of 'jumping into bed with Hitler'? Really? I'm not sure how you can construe all that as actually being anti-German...


What are you on about? The battle of France happened a year later which meant he had a full year to take out the Soviet Union before taking FranceSo you think that Nazi Germany could have invaded, conquered and pacified the Soviet Union in a year? I'm not even going to bother with pointing out the logical flaws there, as opposed to the more mundane ones, because we're just on completely different pages here

A year? You really have no idea what you're talking about


Even further, Hitler wouldn't have made a two front war because that's what they done in WWI.Well yes, that was the point that I was making while rubbishing the notion of the Nazis being willing to or capable of fighting a two front war against France and the USSR...

[Zealot]

I love how you're willing to let the UK off the hook for making "preparations" but won't make the same concession to the Soviet Union. I'll respond to the rest of your absurd points tomorrow, I'm off to sleep.

[Rooster]

Are you seriously implying that they had no other military means besides naval power? I guess that's why the Battle of Britain was fought and won almost entirely by air forces, oh wait...

I didn't imply; you inferred, you cretin. Britain has historically been a naval power which moved into the airforce. It has for a long time had a small army compared to other European nations. Much of it's armed forces at that time under the Empire was engaged in garrison work but it still wasn't anything compared to Germany.

[ComradeOm]

I love how you're willing to let the UK off the hook for making "preparations" but won't make the same concession to the Soviet UnionTell me, how did you get that from my post? What filter in your head constructed this argument out of nothing?

In the first place, I am not "letting the UK off the hook". The hook for what? Everything has to be a blame game with the likes of you. What I am doing is pointing out the staggering idiocy of stating that the UK was fully ready for war in 1939, and had no need to mobilise or conscript, because she headed a large Empire. This latter argument is simply wrong and reveals a deep ignorance about the subject. It is, in a word, stupid

As it is of course, the USSR was indeed far better prepared for war in 1939 because she had been actively rearming, on a scale far exceeding every nation save Germany, for most of the previous decade. The Soviet Union in Sept 1939 possessed the largest (in terms of men, tanks, guns and planes) armed forces in the world. Britain, crippled by appeasement policies, was at least two years away from full mobilisation

But then the tragedy is that these Soviet advantages were simply thrown away by the leadership. Far from being "preparation", the move into the occupied territories, along with the subsequent catastrophic deployment and orders, would undue a great chunk of the previous decade's work. In was in these border lands that most of the Red Army - poorly positioned, poorly led and bound by Stalin's directives - was destroyed in the opening weeks of the war

[Die Neue Zeit]

But then you talk of "both sides" when the reality is that there was always a third option: do nothing. Just because Moscow was unable to reach agreement with the Allies does not mean that it should have jumped into bed with Hitler. A state of 'armed neutrality', in which the USSR prepared for war but made no commitments to either side, would have presented Hitler with an unsolvable dilemma. There is no way in which Germany could have fought a two front war against both France and the USSR.

There was a fourth option you didn't consider: pull off a Viktor Suvorov-style conspiracy. Sign the Pact, with no subsequent Soviet aid, precisely because you want Hitler to divert forces to the West, and since the post-Purge practitioners of Deep Operations were still offense-oriented, prep 'em to roll West come the Battle of Britain. Take Finland later.

By itself I have no problems with the Pact. The Entente got what was coming to them for their anti-Soviet belligerence. What the Gorbachev regime should have denounced was the subsequent Soviet aid, not the Pact itself.

[Sputnik_1]

What do you think of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact,was it a good thing that the Soviets signed it or was it a bad one?
Do you support the Soviet non-agression pact with Germany?

I personally do because the USSR had to buy as much time as possible.

Yeah, us, polish people, especially loved the thing. But hey! At least this way nazi germany and state capitalist russia could rise quicker and spread terror (also ruining understanding of what communism really is for future generations)

[khad]

Yeah, us, polish people, especially loved the thing. But hey! At least this way nazi germany and state capitalist russia could rise quicker and spread terror (also ruining understanding of what communism really is for future generations)
If you wish to speak for the Polish regime, then you should explain your 1934 non-aggression pact with Germany and your full participation in the territorial partition of Czechoslovakia to the Nazis (other pieces were sliced off and handed to Romania and Hungary).

Nothing less than full hypocrisy to complain about one's own country getting partitioned when you were doing the same to others.

[Commissar Rykov]

If you wish to speak for the Polish regime, then you should explain your 1934 non-aggression pact with Germany and your full participation in the territorial partition of Czechoslovakia to the Nazis (other pieces were sliced off and handed to Romania and Hungary).

Nothing less than full hypocrisy to complain about one's own country getting partitioned when you were doing the same to others.
It is always ok with Nationalists to partition other's nations then it becomes a historical tragedy once it befalls them from their former bedfellows.

[dodger]

Yeah, us, polish people, especially loved the thing. But hey! At least this way nazi germany and state capitalist russia could rise quicker and spread terror (also ruining understanding of what communism really is for future generations)

Maybe if you Poles had not allied with the Nazis in attacking and seizing Silesia your comments would not sound so tragi-comical. Your Polish Colonels in putting impediment to Triple Alliance ensured your fate. Luckily those who had sanctuary in the Soviet Union survived the war. I worked and lived amongst them. Your government scarpered with your gold to London and left you all to your terrible humiliation and misery. A harsh lesson from history that in 70 yrs , some still have not learned. But hey..hey...hey....you are ruled by Brussels now. You have treaty obligations to NATO......let's see where Poland finds itself in the future. Take responsibility yourselves....we have already seen the consequences of leaving things to governments. It has to be acknowledged that the Poles were not the only ones to make poor choices...though trusting in the good intentions of Chamberlain/HALIFAX must rank high in annals of Polish stupidity. Fellow thieves in CZECHOSLOVAKIA, only a matter of time before thieves fall out. Rabid anti communists all....they were blind to their real interests. Churchill the most rabid of them all applauded the red army race to Curzon Line. Give the old devil his due. If you had cleared out 5th columnists before the war instead of waiting until AFTER, you would not have followed Austria and the CZECH fate. I have found Polish people singularly robust, high spirited whatever education or station in life.. 'tis a pity they have been so poorly served by their leaders.

[Sputnik_1]

If you wish to speak for the Polish regime, then you should explain your 1934 non-aggression pact with Germany and your full participation in the territorial partition of Czechoslovakia to the Nazis (other pieces were sliced off and handed to Romania and Hungary).

Nothing less than full hypocrisy to complain about one's own country getting partitioned when you were doing the same to others.

I don't give a shit about Poland as a country but I don't understand what to be fucking happy about when talking about Molotov- Ribbentrop pact. I'm not some kind of a patriotic freak, the opposite I'd say. Plus we were talking about Molotov-Ribbentrop. My was just an ironic comment and you've obviously focused on the less important part of it. The point is- there was barely anything really communist about Soviet Russia so i don't understand why people get so excited about it as it only ruined the good name of communism.

[khad]

I don't give a shit about Poland as a country but I don't understand what to be fucking happy about when talking about Molotov- Ribbentrop pact. I'm not some kind of a patriotic freak, the opposite I'd say. Plus we were talking about Molotov-Ribbentrop. My was just an ironic comment and you've obviously focused on the less important part of it. The point is- there was barely anything really communist about Soviet Russia so i don't understand why people get so excited about it as it only ruined the good name of communism.
Without the Polish non-aggression pact with Nazi Germany and the annexations that were happening in Central Europe with Poland's help, there would have been no pact. The USSR had wanted to stop the Czech annexation, but Poland was too busy currying favor with the Nazis. They could have been stopped right then and there.

Yes, I'm saying it's YOUR fault.

[Sputnik_1]

Oh also, I think that the action itself was wrong, my comment was ironic, not patriotic, it could be ironically applied to any situation. Example :
- Oh yeah, funny times those german nationalist getting more and more power, especially for us Jews.
- You hypocrite asshole, you Jews persecuted Christians so shut up.

It's not really a good example, but that how it worked here. You didn't understand what was I trying to say (also cause my sarcasm might not been clear) but eye for an eye strategy is kinda not my favorite.

[Sputnik_1]

would you please understand that i don't give a fuck about what Poland or any other country did wrong as a country? Every aggressive or oppressive action ends up quite tragic for a nation, an ethnic group etc. in that case it was especially Poland. I'm not trying to defend Poland, i couldn't care less :/

[Zealot]

That's it: if you don't know what you're talking about then don't talk. The idea that Britain was a military superpower on par with Germany or the Soviet Union or even France just because a good chunk of the atlas was pink is simply false. Outside the naval realm Britain did not possess an impressive military. Which is the whole point about rearmament during the 1930s!

The lack of British manpower, or at least the expense of maintaining a large standing army, is exactly what drove Britain to invest in 'cheap' ways of maintaining the Empire. The most obvious of which was the use of the RAF in 'pacifying' operations in the Middle East and Africa. The alternative to this, particularly in India, was the use of local forces, such as the Indian Army. But in 1939 even this was tiny by European standards and wholly committed to maintaining order in India

You sound like Hitler who would have believed everything you wrote up there. Unfortunately for him he was completely wrong, the Battle of Britain was fought and won completely by air superiority, like I've said above. Lack of British manpower? Excuse me, but their empire was and still is relatively big and they were prepared to fight for "Queen and Country".


I want to get this straight in my head: it was only in May 1940, that is over full year after the invasion of Czechoslovakia*, that the UK government realised that there might actually be some risk associated with war with Germany. Am I understanding you correctly? I sincerely hope not

The issue is simple. In August 1939 it was apparent that Germany and the Allies were on a course for war. The latter were preparing for a long war (hence the sacrificial role for Poland) but were confident enough of winning. The Soviet Union could have prevented the war, or dramatically shortened its course, by pursuing any option save collaboration with Germany

That's not true at all, before Churchill they had made concession after concession to Germany and Hitler had extended his hand to sign a peace treaty. In fact, he had hoped to use the plans for an invasion of Britain as some sort of bluff to make them sign a peace deal. The Foreign Secretary and the British public were ready to do this but Churchill was more far-seeing than most of the government at the time which is why Chamberlain was made to resign. This became especially true after the invasion of France, there was no question that Germany would invade, when Churchill stated in his "finest hour" speech of June 1940 that "I expect that the Battle of Britain is about to begin".



So you wouldn't call facilitating Hitler's conquest of Europe, through diplomatic, political and economic aid, in exchange for territorial gains to be a case of 'jumping into bed with Hitler'? Really? I'm not sure how you can construe all that as actually being anti-German...

You've completely missed the point, go back and read the whole thread because we've already answered this.


So you think that Nazi Germany could have invaded, conquered and pacified the Soviet Union in a year? I'm not even going to bother with pointing out the logical flaws there, as opposed to the more mundane ones, because we're just on completely different pages here

A year? You really have no idea what you're talking about

Yes they very well could have if not for the extra time afforded by the pact


Tell me, how did you get that from my post? What filter in your head constructed this argument out of nothing?

In the first place, I am not "letting the UK off the hook". The hook for what? Everything has to be a blame game with the likes of you. What I am doing is pointing out the staggering idiocy of stating that the UK was fully ready for war in 1939, and had no need to mobilise or conscript, because she headed a large Empire. This latter argument is simply wrong and reveals a deep ignorance about the subject. It is, in a word, stupid

As it is of course, the USSR was indeed far better prepared for war in 1939 because she had been actively rearming, on a scale far exceeding every nation save Germany, for most of the previous decade. The Soviet Union in Sept 1939 possessed the largest (in terms of men, tanks, guns and planes) armed forces in the world. Britain, crippled by appeasement policies, was at least two years away from full mobilisation

But then the tragedy is that these Soviet advantages were simply thrown away by the leadership. Far from being "preparation", the move into the occupied territories, along with the subsequent catastrophic deployment and orders, would undue a great chunk of the previous decade's work. In was in these border lands that most of the Red Army - poorly positioned, poorly led and bound by Stalin's directives - was destroyed in the opening weeks of the war

You still just don't get it do you? If the west had followed the Soviet Union's initial line of sanctions early on there would have been no need of a pact and no need for Britain to be so worried in the first place! As far as I can see, if anyone is to be blamed, you can blame the west because their anti-communist rhetoric paid it's price at the cost of some 60million lives in WWII. Problem?

[dodger]

I don't give a shit about Poland as a country but I don't understand what to be fucking happy about when talking about Molotov- Ribbentrop pact. I'm not some kind of a patriotic freak, the opposite I'd say. Plus we were talking about Molotov-Ribbentrop. My was just an ironic comment and you've obviously focused on the less important part of it. The point is- there was barely anything really communist about Soviet Russia so i don't understand why people get so excited about it as it only ruined the good name of communism.

Dear Sputnik....I leave irony to cleverer people than me in posts.(I try anyway) cold war rhetoric is passe...cabinet papers Soviet archives have seen the light of day. We can better gauge for ourselves the cant and hypocrisy of leaders...the masking of self interest. The ever present fears of those who rule in our name. My niece was shocked to find that the notes she was taking at a meeting in a local golf club was settling the fate of her cousins job. It's the way of the world. We may not like it...but if you want to remain SIMON PURE ....then take a back seat. Rage at those whose hands are less than clean. NICE PEOPLE DO NOT WIN CIVIL WARS----THEY DON'T WIN STRIKES--- THEY DON'T WIN MILITARY VICTORIES--THEY DON'T SAFEGUARD REVOLUTIONARY GAINS--They don't even win Olive Oyles heart. Hard choices. What would you have done in Stalin's or Molotov's position. In 1939 August. Let's all hear what you would have done...easey-peasey , most of the facts are out. We are all keyboard generals and statesman here.you know! Many have taken the trouble to contribute facts and conclusions. What lessons can we take in all this. About national borders sovereignty, class rule . What would make life better for Poland ? I presume that is where you are, Sputnik. I would certainly like to hear why you don't give a shit about Poland as a country, maybe you should start a new thread. I am sure you are no patriotic freak....they are rare as hen's teeth on Revleft.

[ComradeOm]

You sound like Hitler who would have believed everything you wrote up there. Unfortunately for him he was completely wrong, the Battle of Britain was fought and won completely by air superiority, like I've said above. Lack of British manpower? Excuse me, but their empire was and still is relatively big and they were prepared to fight for "Queen and Country".Fine. Then show me where this massive army was. You tell me how many divisions that Britain could fielded in Europe in 1939. I don't want ad hominems, I don't want some fact remembered History Channel sketch and I don't want references to the size of the Empire or the startling fact that the BoB was an aerial battle. What I want are actual figures - it terms of number of divisions, guns, planes, etc available for war with Germany - supporting your ridiculous assertion that Britain had no need to prepare for war

This should be easy enough for you

(Here's somewhere that you might want to start: when the British command did this same exercise in 1938 to predict how many divisions they could send to France in the case of war over Czechoslovakia their answer was '2')


That's not true at all, before Churchill they had made concession after concession to Germany and Hitler had extended his hand to sign a peace treatyBefore Churchill's arrival in power the UK had been at war with Germany for over eight months. In this time thousands of British service personnel had already lost their lives as the country feverishly sought to fully mobilise

You are presenting some Churchill hagiography in which the whole country sat around twiddling their thumbs while the Great Man prepared his return. By 1940 only the most diehard appeasers were ready to sue for peace; certainly they did not reflect the mood of the country or even the political establishment. So no, you can't just airbrush months of war out of the picture in an attempt to project pre-Munich policy forward to 1940


This became especially true after the invasion of France, there was no question that Germany would invade, when Churchill stated in his "finest hour" speech of June 1940 that "I expect that the Battle of Britain is about to begin".Oh, so this was the moment when Britain realised that Nazi Germany was actually at war with the UK and not, as had previously been supposed, the Soviet Union?

Don't answer that


Yes they very well could have if not for the extra time afforded by the pactBased on what? What are you basing this assertion on?

The Nazis employed approx 60 divisions during the invasion of Poland in Sept 1939. Two years later they would fail to conquer Russia with appox 190 divisions; an increase of over 200%. Even this is skewed in that in our scenario it would be necessary to maintain the border with France. It also hides the qualitative leap that the Wehrmacht made between the proving of Blitzkrieg tactics in France and their employment in Barbarossa

In contrast the Red Army of 1939 was still a massive force of approx 110 divisions and a commanding advantage in terms of guns, tanks and planes. This would increase over the next two years but not at the same rate of German mobilisation. In 1939 - assuming no major strategic bouts of idiocy by Stalin - there is simply no way that the Wehrmacht could invade, conquer and occupy all of European Russia. The demands of occupation alone would have been massively draining and sapped Nazi strength for the battle against France

I mean, you accuse me above of 'sounding like Hitler' yet the only possible way in which your scenario (one year conquest) is feasible is if we use the flawed Nazi assumption that lay behind Barbarossa: the Soviets would collapse within six weeks and only mopping up operations would remain. That was stupid in 1941 and would have been stupid in 1939 too


You still just don't get it do you? If the west had followed the Soviet Union's initial line of sanctions early on there would have been no need of a pact and no need for Britain to be so worried in the first place! As far as I can see, if anyone is to be blamed, you can blame the west because their anti-communist rhetoric paid it's price at the cost of some 60million lives in WWII. Problem?How does any of that relate to what you're quoting on rearmament?

And yes, I agree that Soviet proposals on collective security should have been acted on. That doesn't change the fact that the NAP was a critical enabler in facilitating Hitler's conquests. I've explained this and I've provided an alternative to allying with fascists. I'm not going to do it again


Yes, I'm saying it's YOUR faultAre you seriously blaming someone for World War II on the basis of their nationality?

[dodger]

Just a point because a lot of the ground has been covered already I think the Japanese attack in June-july-August 1939 impacted on Soviet thinking, more so that British connivance was known. A GALLUP POLL(84%) IN '39 expressed the Britons wish for A TRIPLE ALLIANCE for peace in Europe. In 20/30's disarmament was key,we had no taste for war. Chamberlain and "holy fox" Halifax were especially cunning in hiding imperial interests, from Britons. Collusion not appeasement makes better sense now. Hitler was a chronic gambler, he did not need allies he just needed for their to be NO alliance. Stalin warned but Chamberlain took no heed. We had the means to prosecute war, in alliance with France. Chamberlain(Monsieur J'aime BERLIN !) was kicked out and Churchill prevailed, with Halifax threatened with the tower if he did not curb his defeatism. Soldiers returning from Dunkirk were clear it was a Phony war and had tales to tell of 5th columnists in France and Belgium.

[Zealot]

Fine. Then show me where this massive army was. You tell me how many divisions that Britain could fielded in Europe in 1939. I don't want ad hominems, I don't want some fact remembered History Channel sketch and I don't want references to the size of the Empire or the startling fact that the BoB was an aerial battle. What I want are actual figures - it terms of number of divisions, guns, planes, etc available for war with Germany - supporting your ridiculous assertion that Britain had no need to prepare for war

This should be easy enough for you

(Here's somewhere that you might want to start: when the British command did this same exercise in 1938 to predict how many divisions they could send to France in the case of war over Czechoslovakia their answer was '2')

Actual figure? Next thing you'll want to know the specs of cheese slices given to soldiers. I live in a commonwealth nation and suffice it to say, if Britain decided to start a war tomorrow on a whim we would have no choice but to be dragged into it, just like we're always dragged into America's wars. So don't make it sound like as if poor old Britain had no one to help her in the case of war. 2 divisions? Really? Then what was the point of making promises to all these nations about protecting their independence? Maybe, just maybe, it was all rhetoric and they didn't want to be involved at all because they couldn't understand the immense threat. Churchill was certainly of the opinion that they could have fared well in war which is why he was a firm opponent of the Munich Agreement and the rest of their daft appeasement policies.


Before Churchill's arrival in power the UK had been at war with Germany for over eight months. In this time thousands of British service personnel had already lost their lives as the country feverishly sought to fully mobilise

Eight months of almost nothing, that's what the Norway debate was over and why Chamberlain resigned! There's a reason why it was called a "Phoney war" or "Sitzkrieg" as Tir pointed out.


You are presenting some Churchill hagiography in which the whole country sat around twiddling their thumbs while the Great Man prepared his return. By 1940 only the most diehard appeasers were ready to sue for peace; certainly they did not reflect the mood of the country or even the political establishment. So no, you can't just airbrush months of war out of the picture in an attempt to project pre-Munich policy forward to 1940

Except I'm not doing that, you seem to think that it's an issue of me claiming the British government was either for or against war entry when in fact it was a build up. Chamberlain done his best to give Concessions to Nazis until he was under pressure and for most of that build up they supported appeasement, even when Churchill was in power there were people still arguing for "peace" and appeasement.

What's interesting is that Churchill supported the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact whilst condemning the policies of his own government.


Based on what? What are you basing this assertion on?

The Nazis employed approx 60 divisions during the invasion of Poland in Sept 1939. Two years later they would fail to conquer Russia with appox 190 divisions; an increase of over 200%. Even this is skewed in that in our scenario it would be necessary to maintain the border with France. It also hides the qualitative leap that the Wehrmacht made between the proving of Blitzkrieg tactics in France and their employment in Barbarossa

In contrast the Red Army of 1939 was still a massive force of approx 110 divisions and a commanding advantage in terms of guns, tanks and planes. This would increase over the next two years but not at the same rate of German mobilisation. In 1939 - assuming no major strategic bouts of idiocy by Stalin - there is simply no way that the Wehrmacht could invade, conquer and occupy all of European Russia. The demands of occupation alone would have been massively draining and sapped Nazi strength for the battle against France

I mean, you accuse me above of 'sounding like Hitler' yet the only possible way in which your scenario (one year conquest) is feasible is if we use the flawed Nazi assumption that lay behind Barbarossa: the Soviets would collapse within six weeks and only mopping up operations would remain. That was stupid in 1941 and would have been stupid in 1939 too

How does any of that relate to what you're quoting on rearmament?

And yes, I agree that Soviet proposals on collective security should have been acted on. That doesn't change the fact that the NAP was a critical enabler in facilitating Hitler's conquests. I've explained this and I've provided an alternative to allying with fascists. I'm not going to do it again

I'm glad you weren't leader of the Soviet Union because your plan of "doing nothing" would have spelt a decisive Axis victory and the end of civilization. Keeping in mind that the west may possibly have supported Hitler if he had have invaded in 1939 to crush Communism and the Revolution, like they tried to do during the civil war, and the fact that Japanese would have colluded with them if they hadn't had their asses whooped in 39, your well thought out plan above means nothing.

[Zealot]

Tell me, how did you get that from my post? What filter in your head constructed this argument out of nothing?

In the first place, I am not "letting the UK off the hook". The hook for what?

"In August 1939 it was apparent that Germany and the Allies were on a course for war. The latter were preparing for a long war (hence the sacrificial role for Poland) but were confident enough of winning."

[ComradeOm]

Actual figure? Next thing you'll want to know the specs of cheese slices given to soldiersYes, because asking for the number of divisions available to the UK in 1939 is exactly the same as asking for nutritional details. No difference whatsoever there

But then you simply don't know, do you? You assert that Britain had no need to prepare for war because the Empire was so large yet you are unable to quantify that. In short, you're talking nonsense without any the support of any evidence

So if you won't provide figures then I will. In May 1940, ie after almost a year of mobilisation and 'preparation', Britain was able to contribute no more than 10 active divisions to the defence of France. For comparison, France committed 117 while Germany attacked with 135. Belgium, you might be interested to note, fielded 22. Unless you can prove otherwise we are now going to assume that the British Army was significantly weaker than the Continental powers. If you can't disprove this then drop the point


Then what was the point of making promises to all these nations about protecting their independence? Maybe, just maybe, it was all rhetoric and they didn't want to be involved at all because they couldn't understand the immense threatOf course... Britain provided a military guarantee to Poland that dragged her into a war because she "didn't want to be involved". I'll let you reflect on that for a moment

The Allied expectation, once it was accepted that appeasement had failed, was that in a long war the German economy could not compete with the larger Anglo-French effort. Poland's role in this was to buy time during the initial mobilisation period, when the Allied defences were at their weakest, by pulling the German army east. As a plan it's quite logical, if callous, and it was only really undone by the immense strategic blunder that saw France defeated. Nobody except Hitler had seriously expected France to fall in a matter of weeks. Even in the German High Command the expectation was that 1941 would be spent fighting a repeat of WWI in northern France

You'll also note that that 'two divisions' conclusion was one of the primary reasons why Britain did not go to war in 1938: she did not feel strong enough


Except I'm not doing that, you seem to think that it's an issue of me claiming the British government was either for or against war entry when in fact it was a build up. Chamberlain done his best to give Concessions to Nazis until he was under pressure and for most of that build up they supported appeasement, even when Churchill was in power there were people still arguing for "peace" and appeasement.You have explicitly stated, and gone on to argue at length, that a) Britain had no need to prepare for war due to the Empire and b) that as late as May 1940 the British government did seriously consider Nazi Germany to be a threat


Keeping in mind that the west may possibly have supported Hitler if he had have invaded in 1939 to crush Communism and the Revolution, like they tried to do during the civil war, and the fact that Japanese would have colluded with them if they hadn't had their asses whooped in 39, your well thought out plan above means nothing.No they wouldn't have, not in August 1939 when they were preparing to go to war with Germany. Hitler was going to invade Poland on 1 Sept 1939 and Britain and France faced a choice of either backing down (which they didn't do) or war. 'Let's all get together and invade Russia' was not on the agenda. Anyone who believes this is simply delusional and/or paranoid

As for the Japanese, they did get their "asses whooped", as you put it. Khalkhin Gol was taking place at the same time that Stalin was signing Europe over to the Nazis. Regardless of events further west, the Soviets would have won the border conflict with ease


I'm glad you weren't leader of the Soviet Union because your plan of "doing nothing" would have spelt a decisive Axis victory and the end of civilizationI want to put this in context. The historical Soviet plan led to the near complete destruction of the pre-war Red Army, the loss of over three million soldiers and countless guns/tanks/planes and ended with the Nazis at the gates to Moscow. Yet you hold this up as a success and write off alternatives as worse?

[Invader Zim]

Better question is do you support the 1934 Polish non-aggression pact with Germany?

Only if you choose to ignore the events which occured between 1934 and 1939 which, evidently, you do.


The USSR had wanted to stop the Czech annexation, but Poland was too busy currying favor with the Nazis. They could have been stopped right then and there.

Yes, I'm saying it's YOUR fault.

Seriously? You don't blame, say the USSR, Britain, France, the USA, all major powers militarily and/or economically, but you do blame Poland because it made a treaty long before the threat posed by Nazi Germany had even been concieved?

The Polish non-aggression pact with Germany was in January 1934, when Germany was a defeated power with no major armed forces to speak of, and the reason it was signed was because as of that point Germany had yet to recognise Poland as a state which was resulting in economically damaging customs war. The pact was an act of political normalisation, and of course the Poland you suggest was currying favour with the Nazis, later into the 1930s, was well ahead of the curve in noting exactly what the Nazi regime would become and invested significant efforts in penetrating the counter-intelligence initiatives employed by Germany.

And are you seriously suggesting that Poland, in 1938, could have prevented the most powerful single military power in Europe (with, of course, the exception of the USSR who most certainly could have prevented it) from the annexation of Czechoslovakia?

[Tavarisch_Mike]

Too make a poll on this event goe's against the real nature of the subject history, and shows that you don't understand that this can't be objective, it's much more complex. You can't just says it's either good or bad it was just two nations who acted in the context of the circumstances.

To make it simpel; The western allies wanted didn't like the SU, they wanted to destroy it without getting their'e own hands dirty. All of a sudden this Adolf guy shows up and effectively crushes the communist movement and the unions, and very openly he say's he will go to war against the SU.

So now forget about the treaty of versailles, let the man re-build the german army, let him take Austria and Czechoslovakia (kind of strange that its not as common to menthion that the western allies actually Sold out thoos countries), let him expande, give him what he needs and so on.

The SU know's it's a target, they know why the west is letting all this happen. War is comming so know they need to act and try to win time. So they try to get buffer zone's by invading the Balts and Finland (not so good idea) and to move the mining and heavy industry, in the western part of the union, to the east of the mineral rich Ural-mountains which is going to be quite of a task.

With all this it's not to hard to see why the acted like they did. The third reich also needed more time, so that the two enemies basicly said: "Ok nobody strikes the other one until we both are prepared and agree to start this settlement"
which someone later didn't follow :rolleyes:
The MR-pact was just a necessary evil. Neither good or bad, it just happend.

[Invader Zim]

The SU know's it's a target, they know why the west is letting all this happen.

Except, of course, Britain and France went to War with Germany where as the USSR didn't. So that doesn't really hold water, does it?

[Tavarisch_Mike]

Except, of course, Britain and France went to War with Germany where as the USSR didn't. So that doesn't really hold water, does it?


I thought it was obvious, but later on the western allies saw that Hitler got out of theire grip and wanted to take a much higher position then what they thougt, so now they had to make a turn and go against him, meanwhile the SU continued theire preparing for what's comming.

[Invader Zim]

I thought it was obvious, but later on the western allies saw that Hitler got out of theire grip and wanted to take a much higher position then what they thougt, so now they had to make a turn and go against him, meanwhile the SU continued theire preparing for what's comming.

You suggested that the Western powers wanted to push Nazi Germany East into a position that it posed a major threat to the USSR, and that the two would destroy each other, to the benefit of the Western powers. By that logic, the Western Powers would hardly have actively tried to prevent Germany from invading Poland by offering ultimatums and they certainly wouldn't have acted on that ultimatum.

And where is the evidence to to support your assertion? I've been studying the Second World War for years, and ever come across evidence to support your assertion. Where are the cabinet minutes in which show that the British and French governments held this policy, and then bizarrely decided to oppose the policy just as it was coming to fruition?

Sorry, but that conspiricy theory is nonsense.

[S.Artesian]

^This. I am growing rather tired of people jumping on every thread created by tir just to troll and flame while ironically accusing him of the same. Get the fuck over yourselves if you can't even respond to his threads without having your head completely up your ass then find something else to do it isn't remotely contructive or helpful and is in fact becoming quite irritating.


Either he's the dumbest fuck ever, or he's trolling. Obviously the latter, because as the discussions go on, he expresses his opinions and the sources for his opinions.

Troll, hustler, baiter and switcher, whatever you want to call, it's all the same-- feigning "objectivity" to camouflage an ideology.

[A Marxist Historian]

I know the basics (more or less) of history,but i'm always interested in what others think.

Yes,so it would have been better to leave millions of Poles,Belorussians,Ukrainians and Jews to suffer under the Nazi boot?
Also what Iron Felix wrote in nonsense,but he's somehow got banned now...

Could you elaborate a bit more?

Without the Stalin-Hitler pact, it would have been far more difficult for Hitler to invade Poland. The pact *facilitated* the murder of millions by Hitler, it did not oppose it.

And, it also was disastrous for the Soviet Union, setting up Operation Barbarossa, which nearly finished the Russian Revolution off altogether.

Stalin sent the Red Army into a trap. The thoroughly built up defensive positions on the Polish border were abandoned. And, as has been pointed out, part of the deal was the USSR supplying the Nazis with oil, promptly turned into gasoline for the panzers and the stukas.

Even Stalin himself realized this was a disaster, and, according to a number of accounts, offered his resignation to the Politburo after Hitler invaded. Unfortunately it was rejected, as Molotov and Kaganovich et.al. simply couldn't imagine life without The Boss.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

You sound like Hitler who would have believed everything you wrote up there. Unfortunately for him he was completely wrong, the Battle of Britain was fought and won completely by air superiority, like I've said above. Lack of British manpower? Excuse me, but their empire was and still is relatively big and they were prepared to fight for "Queen and Country".



That's not true at all, before Churchill they had made concession after concession to Germany and Hitler had extended his hand to sign a peace treaty. In fact, he had hoped to use the plans for an invasion of Britain as some sort of bluff to make them sign a peace deal. The Foreign Secretary and the British public were ready to do this but Churchill was more far-seeing than most of the government at the time which is why Chamberlain was made to resign. This became especially true after the invasion of France, there was no question that Germany would invade, when Churchill stated in his "finest hour" speech of June 1940 that "I expect that the Battle of Britain is about to begin".




You've completely missed the point, go back and read the whole thread because we've already answered this.



Yes they very well could have if not for the extra time afforded by the pact



You still just don't get it do you? If the west had followed the Soviet Union's initial line of sanctions early on there would have been no need of a pact and no need for Britain to be so worried in the first place! As far as I can see, if anyone is to be blamed, you can blame the west because their anti-communist rhetoric paid it's price at the cost of some 60million lives in WWII. Problem?

Of course you can blame "the west." "The west" is the capitalist class enemy.

The USSR was a workers state, led by leaders who claimed to be communists.

Your bottom line argument is that Stalin acted no worse than Churchill, maybe even better. That's not a defense of Stalin, that's an accusation against Stalin.

-M.H.-

[Die Neue Zeit]

Even Stalin himself realized this was a disaster, and, according to a number of accounts, offered his resignation to the Politburo after Hitler invaded. Unfortunately it was rejected, as Molotov and Kaganovich et.al. simply couldn't imagine life without The Boss.

-M.H.-

^^^ Tory historian Montefiore wrote an alt-history take on Molotov taking power around the time of Stalin's proposed resignation. :)

[A Marxist Historian]

Only if you choose to ignore the events which occured between 1934 and 1939 which, evidently, you do.



Seriously? You don't blame, say the USSR, Britain, France, the USA, all major powers militarily and/or economically, but you do blame Poland because it made a treaty long before the threat posed by Nazi Germany had even been concieved?

The Polish non-aggression pact with Germany was in January 1934, when Germany was a defeated power with no major armed forces to speak of, and the reason it was signed was because as of that point Germany had yet to recognise Poland as a state which was resulting in economically damaging war. The pact was an act of political normalisation, and of course the Poland you suggest was currying favour with the Nazis, later into the 1930s, was well ahead of the curve in noting exactly what the Nazi regime would become and invested significant efforts in penetrating the counter-intelligence initiatives employed by Germany.

And are you seriously suggesting that Poland, in 1938, could have prevented the most powerful single military power in Europe (with, of course, the exception of the USSR who most certainly could have prevented it) from the annexation of Czechoslovakia?

All the capitalists were the ones to blame for WWII, whether in Germany, England, France or Poland. Poland's particular share of the blame, less than that of Hitler or Churchill of course but nonetheless real, was brilliantly explained by A.J.P. Taylor in "Origins of World War II' many years ago.

Polish policy was irresponsible. Allying with the Nazis made sense, in an ugly way. Allying with the Soviet Union, definitely an option open to the Poles, would have made much better sense. Neither was adopted, making the crushing of Poland inevitable.

And Poland's seizure in alliance with Hitler of territory from Czechoslovakia in 1938 was Hitler style mini-imperialism.

The Soviet Union, a workers state, should be held to a higher standard than any capitalist power. But the fact is that it was exactly the Hitler-Stalin pact that was the trigger for WWII and Hitler's Blitzkrieg conquest of Europe. Without that, things would have gone far worse for him, and far better for the human race.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

Oh, one more thing...


Only if you choose to ignore the events which occured between 1934 and 1939 which, evidently, you do.

...
And are you seriously suggesting that Poland, in 1938, could have prevented the most powerful single military power in Europe (with, of course, the exception of the USSR who most certainly could have prevented it) from the annexation of Czechoslovakia?

Poland didn't want to prevent it, it wanted to annex a piece of Czechoslovakia itself, side by side with Hitler.

And no, the USSR was in no position by itself to prevent the annexation of Czechoslovakia. In fact, and this is the element of reality behind the bizarre and criminal idea of the Hitler-Stalin pact, in 1938 the USSR made it repeatedly clear that it was ready, eager and willing to come militarily to the aid of the Czechs vs. the USSR. The single biggest *military* problem with that was that Poland, at that point a German ally, was in the way, and declaring war on Poland was a definite non-starter.

And of course that the Czechs themselves, whose army by the way was at that point almost as big as the German and equally well equipped, decided to surrender, because the French, the British and for that matter the Americans were all telling them to surrender, and Benes didn't care for the idea of going to war with Germany with the USSR as his sole ally, being that he, as a capitalist politician, ultimately had more in common with Hitler than any Soviet leader.

So yes, all the capitalist powers have the central blame for WWII, including Poland and for that matter Czechoslovakia.

But that's what capitalism does, it leads to war, that's why we have to overthrow it. Doesn't get Stalin off the hook in any way, quite the contrary.

-M.H.-

[Zealot]

Yes, because asking for the number of divisions available to the UK in 1939 is exactly the same as asking for nutritional details. No difference whatsoever there

But then you simply don't know, do you? You assert that Britain had no need to prepare for war because the Empire was so large yet you are unable to quantify that. In short, you're talking nonsense without any the support of any evidence

The evidence is that, when war broke out, the whole empire was CALLED UPON TO DEFEND IT. I'm not saying they didn't need to prepare but that they would have fared well in battle and the only reason they didn't want to enter the conflict is because they had hoped the Soviet Union would be destroyed.


So if you won't provide figures then I will. In May 1940, ie after almost a year of mobilisation and 'preparation', Britain was able to contribute no more than 10 active divisions to the defence of France. For comparison, France committed 117 while Germany attacked with 135. Belgium, you might be interested to note, fielded 22. Unless you can prove otherwise we are now going to assume that the British Army was significantly weaker than the Continental powers. If you can't disprove this then drop the point

Are you seriously trying to tell me that the Battle of Britain, which started less than a month after the Battle of France, was won with a severely deficient military? Lol get real. The whole reason that the Battle of Britain was fought in the air is because Hitler feared making a land invasion.



Of course... Britain provided a military guarantee to Poland that dragged her into a war because she "didn't want to be involved". I'll let you reflect on that for a moment

And I'll let you reflect on it too. Seriously, what was the point of making promises if they only had "2 divisions"? Not only is that completely stupid and make them look like liars, but it gave Hitler the impression that he could march the Nazis all around the world without opposition and he was largely right.

The real reason, as I have said so many times, is they hoped to get away scot-free and build their crumbling influence they were losing to the United States. Rhetoric to make themselves look good. I'm surprised you of all people deny this, imperialism only goes where its interests are or where its interests are threatened. And Chamberlain certainly did not see interests threatened apart from a few suspicions leading to rearmament, which was over by 1939, and some lame ass attempts in Poland etc.


You'll also note that that 'two divisions' conclusion was one of the primary reasons why Britain did not go to war in 1938: she did not feel strong enough

Again with your 2 division stories. The empire at any time could have mustered together a huge force through conscription, which they eventually did, and launched an allied invasion supporting the Czechs, which the Soviet Union were prepared to do. In fact, Churchill claimed in 1938 that France had military superiority over Germany but by 1939 they didn't.


You have explicitly stated, and gone on to argue at length, that a) Britain had no need to prepare for war due to the Empire and b) that as late as May 1940 the British government did seriously consider Nazi Germany to be a threat

No I have not and yes by 1940 they considered Germany a threat.


No they wouldn't have, not in August 1939 when they were preparing to go to war with Germany. Hitler was going to invade Poland on 1 Sept 1939 and Britain and France faced a choice of either backing down (which they didn't do) or war.

They essentially did back down, just like they did with Czechoslovakia. It's not like this is a big secret.


'Let's all get together and invade Russia' was not on the agenda. Anyone who believes this is simply delusional and/or paranoid

Is it really so hard to believe that could have happened? Are you forgetting that they done this very thing during the civil war or are you trying in a desperate attempt to ignore that this could have happened?


As for the Japanese, they did get their "asses whooped", as you put it. Khalkhin Gol was taking place at the same time that Stalin was signing Europe over to the Nazis. Regardless of events further west, the Soviets would have won the border conflict with ease

I want to put this in context. The historical Soviet plan led to the near complete destruction of the pre-war Red Army, the loss of over three million soldiers and countless guns/tanks/planes and ended with the Nazis at the gates to Moscow. Yet you hold this up as a success and write off alternatives as worse?

More of a rant really.

It's amusing how you claim the purge made the Red Army essentially useless while at the same time saying it was more than ready to fight Hitler.:laugh:

[khad]

And are you seriously suggesting that Poland, in 1938, could have prevented the most powerful single military power in Europe (with, of course, the exception of the USSR who most certainly could have prevented it) from the annexation of Czechoslovakia?
Yes, absolutely yes. Denial of Soviet military assistance to Czechoslovakia because they wanted a slice of that country from their German friends--they dug their own grave.

[Zealot]

Of course you can blame "the west." "The west" is the capitalist class enemy.

Yup, read the whole thread you might learn something.


The USSR was a workers state, led by leaders who claimed to be communists.

Yup.


Your bottom line argument is that Stalin acted no worse than Churchill, maybe even better. That's not a defense of Stalin, that's an accusation against Stalin.

-M.H.-

Oh really? Not.

I'm not even sure where you pulled that shit from.

[Invader Zim]

Yes, absolutely yes. Denial of Soviet military assistance to Czechoslovakia because they wanted a slice of that country from their German friends--they dug their own grave.


Ok, please explain precisely how the Jan. 1934 pact not being signed would have prevented the Nazi policy of clandestine rearmament (and later overt), the remilitarisation of the Rhineland, the annexing of Austria, the annexing of the Sudetenland, the occupation of the rest of Czechoslovakia and the invasion of Poland? Are you seriopusly suggesting that Poland had the economic or military potential to bully Nazi Germany into a change of policy while the USSR, UK and France did not?




I'm not even sure where you pulled that shit from.

The impression given by reading your posts. I took the same from them as AMH. Perhaps the problem here isn't with AMH's ability to comprehend your posts but problems with your position or the way you articulate it?

That said, unlike AMH, I would argue that Stalin acted far worse than Chamberlain (not Churchill, who was a political irrelevence at the time).

[Invader Zim]

Oh, one more thing...



Poland didn't want to prevent it, it wanted to annex a piece of Czechoslovakia itself, side by side with Hitler.

And no, the USSR was in no position by itself to prevent the annexation of Czechoslovakia. In fact, and this is the element of reality behind the bizarre and criminal idea of the Hitler-Stalin pact, in 1938 the USSR made it repeatedly clear that it was ready, eager and willing to come militarily to the aid of the Czechs vs. the USSR. The single biggest *military* problem with that was that Poland, at that point a German ally, was in the way, and declaring war on Poland was a definite non-starter.

And of course that the Czechs themselves, whose army by the way was at that point almost as big as the German and equally well equipped, decided to surrender, because the French, the British and for that matter the Americans were all telling them to surrender, and Benes didn't care for the idea of going to war with Germany with the USSR as his sole ally, being that he, as a capitalist politician, ultimately had more in common with Hitler than any Soviet leader.

So yes, all the capitalist powers have the central blame for WWII, including Poland and for that matter Czechoslovakia.

But that's what capitalism does, it leads to war, that's why we have to overthrow it. Doesn't get Stalin off the hook in any way, quite the contrary.

-M.H.-

You are wrong in suggesting that Poland did not want to prevent the German march eastward and towards war with the USSR. While they may have been happy to take a slice of Czechoslovakia if it were up for grabs, one only has to look at a map to see why they were bitterly opposed to Lebenstraum and the potential for a war between the USSR and Nazi Germany. Such a war was dependent in Poland not existing anymore.

[Zealot]

The impression given by reading your posts. I took the same from them as AMH. Perhaps the problem here isn't with AMH's ability to comprehend your posts but problems with your position or the way you articulate it?

That said, unlike AMH, I would argue that Stalin acted far worse than Chamberlain (not Churchill, who was a political irrelevence at the time).

Maybe it was the way I articulated it but he did say Churchill. I think I've already described the difference. Chamberlain took a policy of appeasement not because he had to but because he was hoping there would be a war that they didn't have to enter. Whereas Stalin was forced into his position by the west who didn't want anything to do with his plans of collective security and sanctions.

[Rooster]

Are you seriously trying to tell me that the Battle of Britain, which started less than a month after the Battle of France, was won with a severely deficient military? Lol get real. The whole reason that the Battle of Britain was fought in the air is because Hitler feared making a land invasion.

Wut? You do know that the German army would have had to cross water, right? And that the British had a rather large naval force, yeah? And had things like radar? If the UK had had enough troops at the beginning of the war then why didn't they land or send more then instead of waiting for a massive landing with the Americans with air superiority? Also, the BoB was won with less serviceable aircraft compared to the Germans. That's kinda why it's famous. A quick wiki search reveals:

1,963 serviceable aircraft on the side of the Allies.
2,550 serviceable aircraft on the side of the Germans.

Lots of Britain's enemies had considered invading the British isles and the ones that tried were driven off by Britain's superiority at sea, not because there was a large army stationed there.

[Искра]

I saw the name of this threat and my first tought was tir1944.

Why should I care or support about some pact between capitalist countries? It's like asking do you support Tuđman-Milošević pact about division of Bosnia. Only difference is that Molotov had red star badge.

[Pretty Flaco]

Why should I care or support about some pact between capitalist countries? It's like asking do you support Tuđman-Milošević pact about division of Bosnia. Only difference is that Molotov had red star badge.

I agree, but that doesn't mean that there isn't historical significance to it. Also, I think dividing historical events into camps of "good" or "bad" is ridiculous. Geo-politically, the M-R pact was "good" for the national interests of the soviet union and germany, but "bad" for those of poland.

[Zealot]

Wut? You do know that the German army would have had to cross water, right? And that the British had a rather large naval force, yeah? And had things like radar? If the UK had had enough troops at the beginning of the war then why didn't they land or send more then instead of waiting for a massive landing with the Americans with air superiority? Also, the BoB was won with less serviceable aircraft compared to the Germans. That's kinda why it's famous. A quick wiki search reveals:

1,963 serviceable aircraft on the side of the Allies.
2,550 serviceable aircraft on the side of the Germans.

Lots of Britain's enemies had considered invading the British isles and the ones that tried were driven off by Britain's superiority at sea, not because there was a large army stationed there.

And you kinda answered why they won the battle

"...the British had a rather large naval force, yeah? And had things like radar?"

But it's irrelevant and you just prove my point. Churchill certainly felt they stood a good chance in the case of a land invasion:

"You ask, what is our policy? I will say: It is to wage war, by sea, land, and air, with all our might and with all the strength that God can give us"

"We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and if, which I do not for a moment believe, this island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the new world, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old."

The idea that Britain could only raise 2 divisions, even though the British army alone was almost 1.5 million strong at the end of 1939, is simply stupid. They could have, and which they did do, was recruit or conscript the whole empire for the war effort.

It's getting redundant repeating myself here.

[Jose Gracchus]

Bad. Stalin's strategic foresight was not just poor, but dead-wrong. The breathing room afforded by the Molotov-von-Ribbentropp Pact was vital to the German war effort in the West, especially the Battle of France. Not only that, but massive trade agreements meant the Nazi war machine was well-stocked thanks to trains of goods from the USSR. Why, the Wehrmacht made sure to let the last Soviet trains through before launching Barbarossa. Stalin was an incompetent who should have been thrown out on his ass in any functioning polity.

[Искра]

I agree, but that doesn't mean that there isn't historical significance to it. Also, I think dividing historical events into camps of "good" or "bad" is ridiculous. Geo-politically, the M-R pact was "good" for the national interests of the soviet union and germany, but "bad" for those of poland.
I didn't say that there is no historical significance. There's also hisstorical significance in holocaust, Gengis Khan or Napaleon.

[Invader Zim]

Maybe it was the way I articulated it but he did say Churchill. I think I've already described the difference. Chamberlain took a policy of appeasement not because he had to but because he was hoping there would be a war that they didn't have to enter. Whereas Stalin was forced into his position by the west who didn't want anything to do with his plans of collective security and sanctions.

And on your comments on Chamberlain you would be wrong. There is no evidence, none, that Chamberlain was attempting to start a war between the USSR and Germany, a point compounded by the fact that his actual policy of declaring war when he did, over the invasion of Poland and offering Poland guarantees, flies directly in the face of a policy attempting to generate war between Germany and the USSR.

No, the reason for the appeasement policy was simple: the British and French had no faith in the ability of the USSR to wage war or even be trusted (and given that Stalin decapitated the Red Army in 1937, who can blame them) and believed that an offensive war against Germany would be too costly even if they were to win, which the chiefs of staff reported was very unlikely. So they used the time to re-arm during the late 1930s to catch up with the material remarmament advantage held by Germany, while building up a defensive line which they hoped would lead war into a battle of economic attritition which they were likely to win.

It had nothing to do with forcing a conflict between the USSR and Germany, which as I stated earlier, is a policy entirely in conflict with what actually happened: Britain declared war on Germany the first time the latter occupied a state bordering the USSR.

[Rooster]

And you kinda answered why they won the battle

They won because the Germans could not invade because the British had a large naval fleet and advanced technology and not because they had a large army.


But it's irrelevant and you just prove my point. Churchill certainly felt they stood a good chance in the case of a land invasion:

Your point was that the British didn't need to rearm because they already had a large army.


The idea that Britain could only raise 2 divisions, even though the British army alone was almost 1.5 million strong at the end of 1939, is simply stupid.

ComradeOm said that they could only prepare 2 divisions for a certain area at a certain time. What is your source for 1.5 million, where were the located and what were they made up of?


They could have, and which they did do, was recruit or conscript the whole empire for the war effort.

When did they do it?


It's getting redundant repeating myself here.

You're the one that's getting redundant.

[Invader Zim]

And you kinda answered why they won the battle

"...the British had a rather large naval force, yeah? And had things like radar?"

But it's irrelevant and you just prove my point. Churchill certainly felt they stood a good chance in the case of a land invasion:

"You ask, what is our policy? I will say: It is to wage war, by sea, land, and air, with all our might and with all the strength that God can give us"

"We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and if, which I do not for a moment believe, this island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the new world, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old."

The idea that Britain could only raise 2 divisions, even though the British army alone was almost 1.5 million strong at the end of 1939, is simply stupid. They could have, and which they did do, was recruit or conscript the whole empire for the war effort.

It's getting redundant repeating myself here.

What an ignorant post.

Firstly, British naval power had nothing to do with the reason the British won the Battle of Britain. That was won for three reasons:

1. The British had an advantage in radar allowing them to know where German attacks would be coming and in so doing maximise the RAFs limited potential.

2. The British were reading Luftwaffe enciphered traffic, see point 1.

3. The decision of the Nazi high-command to switch targets from the RAF stations in the Downs to bombing cities, which allowed the RAF vital breathing space.

The navy had nothing to do with that.



Churchill certainly felt they stood a good chance in the case of a land invasion:

"You ask, what is our policy? I will say: It is to wage war, by sea, land, and air, with all our might and with all the strength that God can give us"The propaganda and rhetoric of politicans and the hard material realities of a situation are not necessarily harmonious. The fact is that the bulk of the British Army had been roundly thrashed during the Battle of France, and unlike France, Britain lacked the defensive infastructure to seriously oppose an invasion of Britain. The one major advantage Britain had was supremacy of the sea. Unfortunately that was easily countered by gaining control of the skies. Which is precisely why Operation Sea Lion required that the Luftwaffe defeat the RAF, the fact that they failed placed invasion out of the question.

And the reason the Luftwaffe failed was because the people running Nazi Germany did not understand basic military strategy and had begun ignoring those who did. It was not because the British had a material economic advantage, on the contrary they were out numbered but they were able to maximise the potential of what they had while the Germans squandered their own advantage.



The idea that Britain could only raise 2 divisions, even though the British army alone was almost 1.5 million strong at the end of 1939, is simply stupid.

The British Army did not reach that strength until 1940, at which point it was soundly thrashed.

[Zealot]

And on your comments on Chamberlain you would be wrong. There is no evidence, none, that Chamberlain was attempting to start a war between the USSR and Germany, a point compounded by the fact that his actual policy of declaring war when he did, over the invasion of Poland and offering Poland guarantees, flies directly in the face of a policy attempting to generate war between Germany and the USSR.

No, the reason for the appeasement policy was simple: the British and French had no faith in the ability of the USSR to wage war or even be trusted (and given that Stalin decapitated the Red Army in 1937, who can blame them) and believed that an offensive war against Germany would be too costly even if they were to win, which the chiefs of staff reported was very unlikely. So they used the time to re-arm during the late 1930s to catch up with the material remarmament advantage held by Germany, while building up a defensive line which they hoped would lead war into a battle of economic attritition which they were likely to win.

It had nothing to do with forcing a conflict between the USSR and Germany, which as I stated earlier, is a policy entirely in conflict with what actually happened: Britain declared war on Germany the first time the latter occupied a state bordering the USSR.

They declared war and done next to nothing until they themselves were invaded. I'm not alone in suggesting that Britain wanted the USSR and Germany to go to war, Harold Ickes, US Secretary of the Interior, also stated as much at the time.


They won because the Germans could not invade because the British had a large naval fleet and advanced technology and not because they had a large army.

At no point did I suggest that. Go read again.


Your point was that the British didn't need to rearm because they already had a large army.

See above. I said that they could muster a large force at any time, it's almost the whole point of having an empire....durr.


ComradeOm said that they could only prepare 2 divisions for a certain area at a certain time. What is your source for 1.5 million, where were the located and what were they made up of?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ww2peopleswar/timeline/factfiles/nonflash/a1138664.shtml?sectionId=1&articleId=1138664


When did they do it?

See above. Conscription was enforced on the rest of the empire more or less around the same time.


You're the one that's getting redundant.

It's really not that hard to understand, an empire, the biggest of its day, had the capability of raising a large army. So I may be getting redundant but that's what it takes when people like you just want to parrot on BS about poor old Britain having next to no army.

[Zealot]

What an ignorant post.

Firstly, British naval power had nothing to do with the reason the British won the Battle of Britain. That was won for three reasons:

1. The British had an advantage in radar allowing them to know where German attacks would be coming and in so doing maximise the RAFs limited potential.

2. The British were reading Luftwaffe enciphered traffic, see point 1.

3. The decision of the Nazi high-command to switch targets from the RAF stations in the Downs to bombing cities, which allowed the RAF vital breathing space.

The navy had nothing to do with that.

I agree. You should probably start reading the thread and learn something instead of attacking so hastily. Take it up with the person I was responding to.


The propaganda and rhetoric of politicans and the hard material realities of a situation are not necessarily harmonious. The fact is that the bulk of the British Army had been roundly thrashed during the Battle of France, and unlike France, Britain lacked the defensive infastructure to seriously oppose an invasion of Britain. The one major advantage Britain had was supremacy of the sea. Unfortunately that was easily countered by gaining control of the skies. Which is precisely why Operation Sea Lion required that the Luftwaffe defeat the RAF, the fact that they failed placed invasion out of the question.

And the reason the Luftwaffe failed was because the people running Nazi Germany did not understand basic military strategy and had begun ignoring those who did. It was not because the British had a material economic advantage, on the contrary they were out numbered but they were able to maximise the potential of what they had while the Germans squandered their own advantage.

Cool.


The British Army did not reach that strength until 1940, at which point it was soundly thrashed.

As already pointed out, they didn't commit much to France since they would rather prepare for a defence of England.

[Invader Zim]

They declared war and done next to nothing until they themselves were invaded.

Other, of course, than fight in Scandinavia and France, upto the tune of 1.5 million troops.


I'm not alone in suggesting that Britain wanted the USSR and Germany to go to war

So? They like you are in a tiny minority of conspiracy who don't know their basic facts and apparently can't tell where Poland is on a map. And what does Harold Ickes have to do with anything, beyond being a fucking bell end? Was he a member of the British cabinet? No. Was he appraised of the thinking behind their policy? No. Does his suggestion in his 'Secret Diary' contradict the known facts and the information within the archives? Yes.


As already pointed out, they didn't commit much to France since they would rather prepare for a defence of England.

Which just isn't true. Maybe, instead of telling other members to read the rest of the thread you should try reading some history books or even just looking at a map of Europe in 1939.

[S.Artesian]

Yes, absolutely yes. Denial of Soviet military assistance to Czechoslovakia because they wanted a slice of that country from their German friends--they dug their own grave.


Hanging out with Cockshott lately, Khad? Because that sounds like a riff on his argument that the Germans, the German people got what they deserved for starting WW2-- that the Germans as a people bear responsibility for the war.

So tell who dug their own graves? The workers in Poland? The poor in Poland? The poor Jews in Poland? The communists in Poland? Who dug their own grave?

The bourgeoisie and their government in Poland? Yeah and so what? They dug everybody else's grave, that's the point, and they did so because they are bourgeoisie. Now is that supposed to amount to a defense, justification, rationalization of the NAP? If it does then it's a pretty poor one or all three.

As for Soviet military aid to Czechoslovakia, the problem wasn't only Poland's capitalist government, but that of France, upon whose initial actions the Soviet military support was conditioned. When France asked how the USSR actually intended to militarily support Cz. in the event of a conflict, Litvinov, the Soviet Commissar for Foreign Affairs replied that the Soviet Union thought France should obtain permission for movement of its troops through Poland, as France and Poland were allies. Talk about stupid arguments and stupid expectations.

Bonnet, the French Foreign Minister, reportedly just sighed and terminated the conversation.

As for Exoprism's argument..

Here's what he's arguing:

1. The NAP was Stalin's attempt to buy time.

2. The British [and the French I would imagine] weren't trying to buy time to prepare for war, but rather were simply stalling, hoping that Hitler would decide to invade Russia first.

3. Minor problem with that argument is that the route into Russia necessarily meant going through Poland, and that's where Britain and France drew a line.

4. As for Britain not needing time to mobilize because it had a "whole empire"-- that's just a stupid argument: a) the "empire" was an economic drain on Britain as a country; of benefit to some members of the bourgeoisie, but hardly to the economic well being of capital accumulation as a whole b) whether or not an empire existed, it had to be mobilized-- organized, for war. Takes time c) more than time, it takes an economy able to produce, industrially and agriculturally for wartime-- the "empire" was basically inadequate to that task, so inadequate in fact that what did Britain do? What did Britain have to do? Essentially sell off parts of its empire to the US in exchange for logistical support. Ever hear of Lend-Lease? You think the US did that for free?

5. As for the NAP buying time for the USSR-- that's another stupid argument. The USSR bought time all right but for Germany. It sold time to Germany. And that time was paid for by the deaths of millions in Poland, the Ukraine, Belorussia, Russia.

6. Anyway, kudos to troll1944 for starting another thread designed to obscure rather than clarify. This guy(?) deserves an Oscar for "best performance by a troll in a leading role."

[Zealot]

Other, of course, than fight in Scandinavia and France, upto the tune of 1.5 million troops.

I was referring to Poland and by the time France was attacked it was well established they would come for Britain.


So? They like you are in a tiny minority of conspiracy who don't know their basic facts and apparently can't tell where Poland is on a map. And what does Harold Ickes have to do with anything, beyond being a fucking bell end? Was he a member of the British cabinet? No. Was he appraised of the thinking behind their policy? No. Does his suggestion in his 'Secret Diary' contradict the known facts and the information within the archives? Yes.

You mean to tell me that the nation who failed to "strangle the revolution in its infancy" didn't want the Soviet Union destroyed? I mean shit, at what point during their existence didn't they want it destroyed?


Which just isn't true. Maybe, instead of telling other members to read the rest of the thread you should try reading some history books or even just looking at a map of Europe in 1939.

Your buddy up there was the one to point out that Britain committed no more than 10 divisions to the defence of France, unless you're referring to D-day in which case you're way off topic.

And yes you should read the thread because you've already shown that you haven't when you went on a tirade against me when I was quoting another user in the thread.

[Zealot]

3. Minor problem with that argument is that the route into Russia necessarily meant going through Poland, and that's where Britain and France drew a line.

A line which wasn't defended. Cool argument bro.


4. As for Britain not needing time to mobilize because it had a "whole empire"-- that's just a stupid argument: a) the "empire" was an economic drain on Britain as a country; of benefit to some members of the bourgeoisie, but hardly to the economic well being of capital accumulation as a whole b) whether or not an empire existed, it had to be mobilized-- organized, for war. Takes time c) more than time, it takes an economy able to produce, industrially and agriculturally for wartime-- the "empire" was basically inadequate to that task, so inadequate in fact that what did Britain do? What did Britain have to do? Essentially sell off parts of its empire to the US in exchange for logistical support. Ever hear of Lend-Lease? You think the US did that for free?

Pathetic. ComradeOm was up there claiming Britain had a superior economy and now you come on saying the empire was an economic drain. As for not needing time, I never said that. People need to get this through their head.


5. As for the NAP buying time for the USSR-- that's another stupid argument. The USSR bought time all right but for Germany. It sold time to Germany. And that time was paid for by the deaths of millions in Poland, the Ukraine, Belorussia, Russia.

It did buy time, around 2 years of it. Sold time to Germany? Oh and whose fault was that? The capitalists who refused to work with the Soviet Union.

[S.Artesian]

A line which wasn't defended. Cool argument bro.
uhh..........yeah it was, to the extent that Britain and France declared war 2 days after the invasion of Poland.


Pathetic. ComradeOm was up there claiming Britain had a superior economy and now you come on saying the empire was an economic drain. As for not needing time, I never said that. People need to get this through their head.
1)That's because the British economy's strength was not in its empire, in its colonies.... unless of course you want to consider Australia and Canada "as colonies," rather than fully developed partners. And uhh...Australia was a bit removed from continental Europe EDIT: And I don't think ComradeOm himself was advocating the position about relative economic strength, but pointing out what the British government thought based on an assessment of the combined economic power of Britian and France to support war production, something blown to hell with the collapse of France in 6 weeks.

2) Here's what you said:
Lack of British manpower? Excuse me, but their empire was and still is relatively big and they were prepared to fight for "Queen and Country".When challenged to provide some documentation of this relatively big military manpower, you provided nothing. You dissembled about slices of cheese.



It did buy time, around 2 years of it. Sold time to Germany? Oh and whose fault was that? The capitalists who refused to work with the Soviet Union.Whose fault? The clique of anti-revolutionists who agreed to it, that's who, that would be the officials in charge of the Soviet government, and those leading lights of the so-called Communist Party.

Blaming the capitalists is like blaming the liberal bourgeoisie in popular front coalitions for not being socialists. The problem is with those who claim they are socialists engaging in a popular front with the bourgeoisie in the first place

How many more stupid arguments do you intend to roll out here? Wait, let me guess, "as many as it takes..........." They'll just keep on comin' like clowns piling out of a Volkswagen at your little circus.

[Commissar Rykov]

uhh..........yeah it was, to the extent that Britain and France declared war 2 days after the invasion of Poland.
Declared war and did absolutely nothing at all. There was a reason it was jokingly referred to the Sitzkrieg. God the historical knowledge here is utter shit I now know why I avoid this section.

[S.Artesian]

Declared war and did absolutely nothing at all. There was a reason it was jokingly referred to the Sitzkrieg. God the historical knowledge here is utter shit I now know why I avoid this section.


Right did absolutely nothing... except mobilize. That's the whole point. Yeah the historical knowledge sure is shit, but the shit's coming from a different direction-- the one that says the NAP was "good strategy" and it was all the bourgeoisie's fault for being.........bourgeois.

The issue is NOT did Britain and France hesitate, stall, dissemble, drag their feet, appease, sacrifice other countries hoping to avoid war and/or to actually benefit from the close connections their industries had with German industries. Of course those governments did....they are bourgeois governments aren't they? The French entered the Saarland against weak defenses, penetrated 8 km, stopped, then withdrew. News flash. Nobody thinks the Brits and the French bourgeoisie were heroes or anything but what we know them to be.

The issue is was the NAP a good tactic feeding into a good strategy. The answer is clearly no. First and foremost, we might want to take into account the impact such an agreement and subsequent "division" of Poland with Germany would have on the world working class. Now I know such a thing had always been subordinate to the USSR's "needs" but that subordination is exactly what led to this mess to begin with. So what would you call the impact of the NAP on the world working class? On French workers? Polish workers? British workers? US workers? Russian workers?

Secondly, we might want to consider how ill-prepared the USSR was for the actual invasion by Germany. So if the tactic was to fit into a strategy of preparation, amassing and positioning strength to blunt the German assault and then roll it back....uh, well, the verdict of history is pretty clear-- a complete and utter failure, one that lead to massive destruction.

[Commissar Rykov]

Right did absolutely nothing... except mobilize. That's the whole point. Yeah the historical knowledge sure is shit, but the shit's coming from a different direction-- the one that says the NAP was "good strategy" and it was all the bourgeoisie's fault for being.........bourgeois.
Except I haven't said any of that way to create a strawman genius. You knocked it down so very, very well. They weren't mobilizing shit they just sat behind the Maginot Line and sipped tea while complaining about the weather. The French High Command never thought much would come of the conflict and thus never took any serious precautions except reinforcing the Maginot Line. I would suggest reading Karl-Heinz Frieser's The Blitzkrieg Legend: The 1940 Campaign in the West and spend less time acting like a fool.

I mean if you really believe the French were seriously mobilizing can you explain to me why French High Command was caught entirely flatfooted by the invasion? Why they issued orders to the Maginot Line to hold position and constantly stated that until the encircling German units cut their field phone lines. Maybe you can explain why the French Air Force didn't launch one sortie during the invasion? Obviously they were so mobilized for combat they didn't even fight for the most part except for French Units caught within the sweep.

[S.Artesian]

Except I haven't said any of that way to create a strawman genius. You knocked it down so very, very well. They weren't mobilizing shit they just sat behind the Maginot Line and sipped tea while complaining about the weather. The French High Command never thought much would come of the conflict and thus never took any serious precautions except reinforcing the Maginot Line. I would suggest reading Karl-Heinz Frieser's The Blitzkrieg Legend: The 1940 Campaign in the West and spend less time acting like a fool.


You haven't said any of what. Your first sentence is basically unintelligible.

What are you trying to claim? The war on land was a phoney war for those 8 months? Yeah, it was. It wasn't a phoney war at sea.

But did the bourgeoisie equivocate, screw the pooch etc? Sure they did.

The "original" claim you will recall was that Britain and France appeased Germany in the hope that Hitler would attack Russia. I don't doubt that many members of the British and French ruling classes hoped for exactly that.

Stupidity isn't exactly in short supply, especially when British and French industrialists had such tight connections with the German cartels.

But that wasn't what the British government of Chamberlain was angling for. Nor that of the French. The French couldn't act unilaterally against Germany; they couldn't act without the agreement of the British, and the British thought a) that Germany had legitimate grievances and b)accommodating those grievances would avoid the necessity of engaging in another land war in Europe.

[Commissar Rykov]

You haven't said any of what. Your first sentence is basically unintelligible.

What are you trying to claim? The war on land was a phoney war for those 8 months? Yeah, it was. It wasn't a phoney war at sea.

But did the bourgeoisie equivocate, screw the pooch etc? Sure they did.

The "original" claim you will recall was that Britain and France appeased Germany in the hope that Hitler would attack Russia. I don't doubt that many members of the British and French ruling classes hoped for exactly that.

Stupidity isn't exactly in short supply, especially when British and French industrialists had such tight connections with the German cartels.

But that wasn't what the British government of Chamberlain was angling for. Nor that of the French. The French couldn't act unilaterally against Germany; they couldn't act without the agreement of the British, and the British thought a) that Germany had legitimate grievances and b)accommodating those grievances would avoid the necessity of engaging in another land war in Europe.
I was saying I never said anything positive about the NAP nor did I attack the Bourgeois for being Bourgeois. Why you felt you needed to include that in response to my post is beyond me.

[S.Artesian]

I was saying I never said anything positive about the NAP nor did I attack the Bourgeois for being Bourgeois. Why you felt you needed to include that in response to my post is beyond me.

Because that's the issue raised in the OP, no? Good or bad? Remember that? That's what I'm answering.

That's the issue that was raised by those declaring "good." That's what I'm responding too.

After Sept 3-- the British and French did essentially nothing after the declaration of war. What they did or didn't do for the first 6 months after the declaration isn't really the point.

So... so what? So what does your statement have to do with OP; with the assertion that Britain and France were hoping that Germany would invade Russia; with any of the issues raised in this thread?

[Jose Gracchus]

I will say, it is hilarious watching the various illiterate Stalinoids bluff their way through WW2 history armed only with the cut-out bullshit handed to them by their r-r-r-r-revolutionary 'Communist Party'.

The Nazis would have fallen on their fucking face if they had faced a two-front war in 1939 and 1940. Whose fault was it instead they were rampaging Western Europe fueled by Soviet raw materials? Barbarossa would have been untenable without the Nazi breathing room Stalin the Idiot bought for them.

[ComradeOm]

The evidence is that, when war broke out, the whole empire was CALLED UPON TO DEFEND ITThat's not evidence. It's proof that the Commonwealth nations did contribute to the war effort (which was never in doubt) but says absolutely nothing about the scale of this effort, the timeline it occurred over or how it compares relative to Britain's rivals. So to try and focus you yet again: How many divisions were the Commonwealth nations able to commit to Europe in 1939 or 1940?


I'm not saying they didn't need to prepare but that they would have fared well in battle and the only reason they didn't want to enter the conflict is because they had hoped the Soviet Union would be destroyedIn case you didn't notice, Britain did commit to battle in 1940 and were routed in the most bizarrely glorious retreat of the war


Are you seriously trying to tell me that the Battle of Britain, which started less than a month after the Battle of France, was won with a severely deficient military? Lol get real. The whole reason that the Battle of Britain was fought in the air is because Hitler feared making a land invasion.You really have no idea what you're talking about. This is secondary school history

The Battle of Britain took the form of an aerial battle because the Nazis required air superiority if they were to overcome the Royal Navy (the one branch where Britain did have a marked advantage). It was not out of German hesitation about staging a land invasion but as a prerequisite to one. There is no question that had the Nazis somehow overcome the RAF (arguable but possible) and the Royal Navy (impossible) then the Wehrmacht would have had little trouble translating its marked qualitative and qualitative advantages into a swift conquest of Britain

And yes, it is possible to win a limited air war over your own territory (even if the RAF was outnumbered) while still remaining considerably weaker overall. I know you have no time for such trifles as statistics or 'actually knowing what you're talking about' but there is absolutely no question that, in terms of numbers, in 1939 and 1940 both the RAF and the British Army were dwarfed by the size of the German, Soviet and French forces individually. Unless you can provide something to contradict this (and no THE EMPIRE does not count) let it be


And I'll let you reflect on it too. Seriously, what was the point of making promises if they only had "2 divisions"? Not only is that completely stupid and make them look like liars, but it gave Hitler the impression that he could march the Nazis all around the world without opposition and he was largely rightWell that's one reason why Britain didn't go to war in 1938, she didn't feel ready. But then no one expected Britain to raise hundreds of divisions; that was the role of France. The French, unlike the English, did maintain a large army during the interwar period and it was expected that most of the fighting in Europe would be done by Frenchmen in France


Again with your 2 division stories. The empire at any time could have mustered together a huge force through conscription, which they eventually did...Eventually as in 'five years later'. Even then the vast majority of them never saw service in Europe. At the beginning of 1945 there was a combined total of 15 British and Canadian divisions serving in Europe. To put this in perspective there were over 50 US divisions present at the same time and the Red Army was about to throw 140 divisions into the Battle of Berlin


They essentially did back down, just like they did with Czechoslovakia. It's not like this is a big secretActually it is a pretty big secret. It's news to me that in September 1939 Britain and France "backed down" and accepted German annexation of the Poland in order to avoid war. You see, as I understood it Britain and France went to war with Germany over the issue of Poland while it was the USSR that partook in the partition of the country in order of avoid war


Is it really so hard to believe that could have happened? Are you forgetting that they done this very thing during the civil war or are you trying in a desperate attempt to ignore that this could have happened?No, it really is that hard to believe that in 1940 Britain/France and Germany could have simply made up and then turned on the USSR. While a case can be made for London implicitly offering Hitler a 'free hand in the East' prior to 1939, by the summer of that year there was going to be a war between Germany and the Allies. Which is what Hitler wanted. Whatever he said about Britain, there was no question that the Nazis planned to smash France in order to recover the disputed territories and establish unquestioned military hegemony over Western Europe. Britain could be ignored in this context because, as I've said, it was not a European military power of any real note

Look at the case that you've constructed. In order to justify the NAP you've had to ignore a year of rising tensions and frantic rearmament, eight months of war, Hitler's intentions, millions of men mobilised and thousands of lives lost


It's amusing how you claim the purge made the Red Army essentially useless while at the same time saying it was more than ready to fight Hitler.:laugh:No, I haven't claimed that the Red Army was "useless", I've stated that it was fatally undermined by Stalinist policies before and during the conflict. The Red Army was not a particularly efficient war machine in 1939 (due largely to Stalin's meddling) but it was large and much more dangerous than most contemporaries gave it credit for. It would have been more than capable of defeating any weak Nazi invasion in 1939. Assuming Stalin didn't screw things up of course

[Die Neue Zeit]

The Nazis would have fallen on their fucking face if they had faced a two-front war in 1939 and 1940. Whose fault was it instead they were rampaging Western Europe fueled by Soviet raw materials?

Why can't you on the one hand and those blindly supporting the Pact on the other separate these two separate issues of non-aggression and trade?

With the Pact but without Soviet trade, I think Stalin would've gotten exactly what he wanted out of a Western European war scenario: a war of attrition (but not necessarily in the trenches) weakening all parties involved. It would be good payback for the anti-Soviet appeasement snubs, too.

That would've also gotten Stalin out of his own two-front-war corner that he was holed into by Japanese imperialism.

[Jose Gracchus]

The Japanese land army was no match for the Red Army, and Zhukov proved that in Khalkhyn Gol. The IJA knew they could not challenge Stalin in Siberia credibly.

Speaking cynically, the USSR should've simply betrayed Hitler in favor of the Allies when the Germans would have been most vulnerable to a two-front war, before France was lost. But Stalin legitimately thought he could rely on Hitler to mind their little division of Eastern Europe, and wanted the spoils of the secret protocols of the NAP (including Finland, and thus the Winter War).

[Devrim]

The point is- there was barely anything really communist about Soviet Russia so i don't understand why people get so excited about it as it only ruined the good name of communism.

I think that this is a vital point. There seems to be a lot of discussion on this thread about the military situation in Europe at the time, but very little about communist politics. The crucial question of course is the nature of the USSR. If you consider the USSR to have been a capitalist state by then, which many people including anarchists, those in the Cliff tendency and left communists do, then the question is one of what was the best course of action for a capitalist state to take. Is that really the concern of communists?

Devrim

[Zealot]

uhh..........yeah it was, to the extent that Britain and France declared war 2 days after the invasion of Poland.

Doing next to nothing. Then you said they mobilized, when ComradeOm was was up there saying that as late as the Battle of France, they could only commit no more than 10 divisions.


1)That's because the British economy's strength was not in its empire, in its colonies.... unless of course you want to consider Australia and Canada "as colonies," rather than fully developed partners. And uhh...Australia was a bit removed from continental Europe EDIT: And I don't think ComradeOm himself was advocating the position about relative economic strength, but pointing out what the British government thought based on an assessment of the combined economic power of Britian and France to support war production, something blown to hell with the collapse of France in 6 weeks.

I never said their economic strength was in their empire, I said their manpower was. Nice strawman. And they still are colonies to an extent, you can find other threads discussing this where users have pointed out that Britain still has an element of control.


2) Here's what you said: When challenged to provide some documentation of this relatively big military manpower, you provided nothing. You dissembled about slices of cheese.

No, I didn't. My "documentation" was that in 1939 they were suddenly able to raise 1.5 million soliders within months and went on to become around 4 million strong.


Whose fault? The clique of anti-revolutionists who agreed to it, that's who, that would be the officials in charge of the Soviet government, and those leading lights of the so-called Communist Party.

People keep wanting to oppose this on moral grounds but they fail to look at the material conditions. ComradeOm's "alternative" was to do absolutely nothing.


Blaming the capitalists is like blaming the liberal bourgeoisie in popular front coalitions for not being socialists. The problem is with those who claim they are socialists engaging in a popular front with the bourgeoisie in the first place

Again, pathetic. We've already shown why it was the capitalists fault. Their anti-communist rhetoric prevented them from engaging in collective security and putting sanctions on Germany.


That's not evidence. It's proof that the Commonwealth nations did contribute to the war effort (which was never in doubt) but says absolutely nothing about the scale of this effort, the timeline it occurred over or how it compares relative to Britain's rivals. So to try and focus you yet again: How many divisions were the Commonwealth nations able to commit to Europe in 1939 or 1940?

I've already pointed out that they had 1.5million soldiers by the end of 1939 and that conscription was introduced to the rest of the empire around 1939-1940 with many more volunteering beforehand.


In case you didn't notice, Britain did commit to battle in 1940 and were routed in the most bizarrely glorious retreat of the war

Because they only sent 10 divisions hoping that the brunt of the war would be taken by the French, as you have already noted.


You really have no idea what you're talking about. This is secondary school history

The Battle of Britain took the form of an aerial battle because the Nazis required air superiority if they were to overcome the Royal Navy (the one branch where Britain did have a marked advantage). It was not out of German hesitation about staging a land invasion but as a prerequisite to one. There is no question that had the Nazis somehow overcome the RAF (arguable but possible) and the Royal Navy (impossible) then the Wehrmacht would have had little trouble translating its marked qualitative and qualitative advantages into a swift conquest of Britain

And yes, it is possible to win a limited air war over your own territory (even if the RAF was outnumbered) while still remaining considerably weaker overall. I know you have no time for such trifles as statistics or 'actually knowing what you're talking about' but there is absolutely no question that, in terms of numbers, in 1939 and 1940 both the RAF and the British Army were dwarfed by the size of the German, Soviet and French forces individually. Unless you can provide something to contradict this (and no THE EMPIRE does not count) let it be

The empire does count because they ended up being conscripted in 39-40, something they could have done when the Soviet Union was prepared to engage Germany. Again you make it sound as if Britain would have been alone in opposing Germany when this just is not the case.


Eventually as in 'five years later'.

Eventually, as in, 1939-1940.


Actually it is a pretty big secret. It's news to me that in September 1939 Britain and France "backed down" and accepted German annexation of the Poland in order to avoid war. You see, as I understood it Britain and France went to war with Germany over the issue of Poland while it was the USSR that partook in the partition of the country in order of avoid war

They partook because the capitalists weren't willing engage Germany in war at the time.


No, it really is that hard to believe that in 1940 Britain/France and Germany could have simply made up and then turned on the USSR. While a case can be made for London implicitly offering Hitler a 'free hand in the East' prior to 1939, by the summer of that year there was going to be a war between Germany and the Allies. Which is what Hitler wanted. Whatever he said about Britain, there was no question that the Nazis planned to smash France in order to recover the disputed territories and establish unquestioned military hegemony over Western Europe. Britain could be ignored in this context because, as I've said, it was not a European military power of any real note

Because by 1940 it was more than clear Hitler would come for Britain.


Look at the case that you've constructed. In order to justify the NAP you've had to ignore a year of rising tensions and frantic rearmament, eight months of war, Hitler's intentions, millions of men mobilised and thousands of lives lost

I haven't ignored anything and this has all been addressed, but let's see what you've ignored: years of the Soviet Union willing to battle Germany, the capitalists making appeasements, the lack of commitment on the part of the western powers and the clear clear material conditions that the Soviet Union was subjected to.


No, I haven't claimed that the Red Army was "useless", I've stated that it was fatally undermined by Stalinist policies before and during the conflict. The Red Army was not a particularly efficient war machine in 1939 (due largely to Stalin's meddling) but it was large and much more dangerous than most contemporaries gave it credit for. It would have been more than capable of defeating any weak Nazi invasion in 1939. Assuming Stalin didn't screw things up of course

You've gone on at length to rubbish the Red Army and Stalin's policies, including:

"The historical Soviet plan led to the near complete destruction of the pre-war Red Army"

While at the same time claiming they were prepared for battle in 39, saying:

"The Soviet Union in Sept 1939 possessed the largest (in terms of men, tanks, guns and planes) armed forces in the world."

Which one is it, take your pick.

[Rooster]

Why can't you put two and two together?

[Invader Zim]

Declared war and did absolutely nothing at all. There was a reason it was jokingly referred to the Sitzkrieg. God the historical knowledge here is utter shit I now know why I avoid this section.

Yes, and your contributions to it are lowering the averge knowledge base.

The is a reason why the Allies did nothing and that is that, from the British perspective, there was nothing to be done. The reality is Britain began rearmament late. They were not in a position to actually employ the BEF in any serious capacity until well into 1940. What would you have them do? Invade with an army they didn't have? The National Service (Armed Forces) Act wasn't passed until after the war began.

As for the French, as has been pointed out, their war strategy was based on the events, strategt and tactics of the First World War and existed in a trench mentality waiting for the Germans to attack them. They hoped that they would bog the Germans down into a war of attrition which they, and Britain, would win in the long run given their combined economic strength allowed them to out-produce Germany. Do you actually know anything about the Battle of France?

I suggest you look it up.


You've gone on at length to rubbish the Red Army and Stalin's policies, including:

"The historical Soviet plan led to the near complete destruction of the pre-war Red Army"

While at the same time claiming they were prepared for battle in 39, saying:

"The Soviet Union in Sept 1939 possessed the largest (in terms of men, tanks, guns and planes) armed forces in the world."

Which one is it, take your pick.

If I may, the two are not mutually exclusive. By purging the Red Army and effectively decapitating it, there is no doubt that the regime seriously contributed to the disaster that was to unfold in 1940. But the reality is the Red Army had so many troops, poorly trained, led and equipped though they were, they still inflicted a sizeable 700,000+ casualties on the Wehrmacht before the onset of the first brutal winter. That was in spite of Stalin, and not because of him.

[kashkin]

How were the territorial gains by the USSR beneficial? They weren't spreading socialism and the movement of the front lines to central Poland meant that the Red Army abandonded all their fortifications on the previous border and had to deal with anti-Russian groups in Poland and the Baltic states.

[Zealot]

Yes, and your contributions to it are lowering the averge knowledge base.

The is a reason why the Allies did nothing and that is that, from the British perspective, there was nothing to be done. The reality is Britain began rearmament late. They were not in a position to actually employ the BEF in any serious capacity until well into 1940. What would you have them do? Invade with an army they didn't have? The National Service (Armed Forces) Act wasn't passed until after the war began.

I've already pointed out that they conscripted and built a large army that by the end of 1939 it was already 1.5 million, excluding the rest of the empire. This is something they could have done earlier. It's not like they would have been all alone to face the Germans, who was alone at the time? The Soviet Union. Stalin had concluded that in the case of an inevitable invasion of Russia the allies wouldn't help, since that was the position they had basically taken the whole time. Seriously, stop sticking up for the anti-communist bourgeoisie fascist appeasers.


If I may, the two are not mutually exclusive. By purging the Red Army and effectively decapitating it, there is no doubt that the regime seriously contributed to the disaster that was to unfold in 1940. But the reality is the Red Army had so many troops, poorly trained, led and equipped though they were, they still inflicted a sizeable 700,000+ casualties on the Wehrmacht before the onset of the first brutal winter. That was in spite of Stalin, and not because of him.

The purges had essentially ended by 1939 so I don't know what you're on about. ComradeOm said that in 1939 they had a great military and this and that.

Debate over.

[Rooster]

Coincidentally, there's a documentary about the German invasion of the USSR on the BBC right now. The guy says that for hours after the attack, Stalin refused to allow his commanders to fire back, is this right? :confused: And that by noon on the first day of the attack, 1/4 of the USSR's airforce had been destroyed.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b011wh1g/World_War_Two_1941_and_the_Man_of_Steel/

[Invader Zim]

I've already pointed out that they conscripted and built a large army that by the end of 1939 it was already 1.5 million,

And you are simply mistaken. In 1939 Britain had less than 900,000 troops including its non-regular reserves. Contingents of this force were stationed around the world, from Britain herself, France and the Med among others. This was because Britain was, effectively, fighting, or at least prepairing to fight, a three front war. The most that could be spared for the BEF was just short of 400,000 men, including territorials. The size of the army ould not reach 1.5 million until well into the summer of 1940 once the impact of conscription was being felt.

And of course this actually contradicts your point. While the total Britain could muster, for all of its committments world wide (including the threat of Japan in the east and the threat of Italy in the Med and Africa), was a pittiful 1.5 million by the Battle of France including all of its reservists and territorials, ATS, etc. France had mustered 5 million. Your assertion that Britain had a massive army is just not true.


This is something they could have done earlier.

Why would they? The military threat of Nazism was not fully comprehended until around 1937, and even then there was considerable reticence to fully engage in rearmament because it was still widely believed that it wouldn't come to war and that the Nazis could be reasoned with. Yet despite this, as it happens the British re-armament effort in the two years before the outbreak of war is one of the most profound economic changes of gear witnessed in the history of the country. Arguing that they should have been able to predict the future in 1935, when they weren't really sure that there was even going to be a war in 1938, is simply laughable.


The Soviet Union. Stalin had concluded that in the case of an inevitable invasion of Russia the allies wouldn't help, since that was the position they had basically taken the whole time.

Except it was Britain and France who offered guarantees to Poland, who went to war over Poland, and Stalin who collaborated with the Nazis to carve up Poland.


Seriously, stop sticking up for the anti-communist bourgeoisie fascist appeasers.

When you stop spouting ahistoric shit I'll stop correcting you. History is the study of the material reality of the past, not constructing ideologically pleasing narratives to excuse your pro-soviet fetish. The fact is the BEF was small, the the British were woefully unprepaired, that the purge of the Red Army in no small degree created the disaster that befell the Soviet Union in 1941, that the non-aggression pact allowed Nazi imperialism to go unchecked so that the USSR could engage in a bit of imperialism of its very own.



The purges had essentially ended by 1939 so I don't know what you're on about.

What a nonsense statement. The purges may have been over, but that doesn't alter the fact that the Red Army had been decapitated. Or do you suppose that the damage inflicted would just heal over night?

And this isn't a debate because you are a perfect example of the Dunning-Kruger effect in action.

[Zealot]

Coincidentally, there's a documentary about the German invasion of the USSR on the BBC right now. The guy says that for hours after the attack, Stalin refused to allow his commanders to fire back, is this right? :confused: And that by noon on the first day of the attack, 1/4 of the USSR's airforce had been destroyed.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b011wh1g/World_War_Two_1941_and_the_Man_of_Steel/

I'm quite (un)surprised that this is still being touted about as historical since Zhukov and the logs of Stalin's schedule show a very different story.

http://www.jstor.org/pss/153001

"Further to the very interesting article by Cynthia A Roberts, 'Planning for War: the Red Army and the Catastrophe of 1941', Europe-Asia Studies, 47, 8, 1995, pp. 1293-1326, I would like to comment on her opening remark that 'the Soviet dictator went into self-imposed seclusion' (p. 1293). With all due respect, there would now appear to be a large body of evidence to show that, far from disappearing and hiding either in his private apartments in the Kremlin, or to his dacha at Kuntsevo, certainly during the first week of the Soviet-German War, Stalin would appear to have stuck to a very arduous work routine, displaying little of the panic and fear that is generally attributed to him, both by previous Western and Russian historians.

For instance, according to extracts published from his appointments diary, detailing all of Stalin's meetings held throughout the first week of the war, 22-28 June inclusive, on the very first day of the war (22 June), Stalin's official working-day began at 05.45 and ended at 16.45.(1) However, according to the most recent unedited version of Zhukov's memoirs, Stalin's working-day began even earlier than that, at 04.30, when he telephoned Stalin to break the news of the German bombardment. On the very first day of the attack, Stalin held meetings with a variety of senior Soviet government and military figures, including Molotov (People's Commissar for Foreign Affairs), Timoshenko (People's Commissar for Defence), Zhukov (Chief of Staff of the Red Army), Kuznetsov (Commander of both North Caucasus and Baltic Military Districts), and Shaposhnikov (Deputy People's Commissar for Defence). All in all, on the very first day of the attack Stalin held meetings with over 15 individual members of the Soviet government and military apparatus.

Examining his appointments diary further reveals that during the opening week of the war Stalin's officially recorded shortest working-day was 24 June, lasting a little over five hours, but this followed a working-day (23 June) that apparently fell just short of 24 hours - 22 hours and 35 minutes! Similarly, on 25/26 June Stalin is on record as having 24 hours of meetings. On both 26 and 27 June his recorded working-days ran to a little over ten hours each and, possibly as a result of this physically and mentally punishing schedule, his working-day for 28 June again lasted a little over five hours. Thus, in sum total, of 168 hours (representing the entire week 22-28 June inclusive) Stalin is officially recorded as holding meetings totalling 88 hours and 40 minutes in duration. In overall terms, according to the available historical evidence, Stalin held 158 meetings, involving 45 named senior Soviet government and military figures during this entire period."

*********************

But back on topic, interestingly, Stalin had attempted to strike up an alliance with Britain and France with a plan to commit over 300 divisions to pre-empt the Nazi invasion of Poland, less than a week before the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was signed.

http://rt.com/news/prime-time/stalins-plan-to-stop-hitler-foiled-when-british-talks-broke-down/

[Zealot]

And you are simply mistaken. In 1939 Britain had less than 900,000 troops including its non-regular reserves. Contingents of this force were stationed around the world, from Britain herself, France and the Med among others. This was because Britain was, effectively, fighting, or at least prepairing to fight, a three front war. The most that could be spared for the BEF was just short of 400,000 men, including territorials. The size of the army ould not reach 1.5 million until well into the summer of 1940 once the impact of conscription was being felt.

Not true, I've already provided a source for the figure.


And of course this actually contradicts your point. While the total Britain could muster, for all of its committments world wide (including the threat of Japan in the east and the threat of Italy in the Med and Africa), was a pittiful 1.5 million by the Battle of France including all of its reservists and territorials, ATS, etc. France had mustered 5 million. Your assertion that Britain had a massive army is just not true.

I never claimed they had a massive army but that at any time they could have and the fact that in Britain alone they raised a force totaling 1.5 million within months proves it (it eventually became about 4 million, excluding the rest of the Commonwealth). But I'm quite glad we've moved away from the 2 divisions theory.


Why would they? The military threat of Nazism was not fully comprehended until around 1937, and even then there was considerable reticence to fully engage in rearmament because it was still widely believed that it wouldn't come to war and that the Nazis could be reasoned with. Yet despite this, as it happens the British re-armament effort in the two years before the outbreak of war is one of the most profound economic changes of gear witnessed in the history of the country. Arguing that they should have been able to predict the future in 1935, when they weren't really sure that there was even going to be a war in 1938, is simply laughable.

What's laughable is the contradiction in the argument:

"The military threat of Nazism was not fully comprehended until around 1937"

vs.

"...they weren't really sure that there was even going to be a war in 1938"

You'd think the military threat of Nazism coupled with their fascist ideologies would have been a pretty big fucking clue.

As for "why would they", maybe because they made promises left right and centre and declared war in 39?


Except it was britain and France who offered guarantees to Poland, who went to war over Poland, and Stalin who collaborated with the Nazis to carve up Poland.

See my latest post, Stalin tried to prevent the invasion of Poland by pre-emptive strike but Britain and France stood idly by. Again, stop sticking up for fascist sympathizers.


What a nonsense statement. The purges may have been over, but that doesn't alter the fact that the Red Army had been decapitated. Or do you suppose that the damage inflicted would just heal over night?

And this isn't a debate because you are a perfect example of the Dunning-Kruger effect in action.

Om was the one claiming the Red Army was a well oiled machine after the purge, take it up with him.

[S.Artesian]

I've already pointed out that they conscripted and built a large army that by the end of 1939 it was already 1.5 million, excluding the rest of the empire. This is something they could have done earlier. It's not like they would have been all alone to face the Germans, who was alone at the time? The Soviet Union. Stalin had concluded that in the case of an inevitable invasion of Russia the allies wouldn't help, since that was the position they had basically taken the whole time. Seriously, stop sticking up for the anti-communist bourgeoisie fascist appeasers.

On paper. How many combat-ready, deployable divisions? In Sept 1939 that number was 9; nine divisions.




The purges had essentially ended by 1939 so I don't know what you're on about. ComradeOm said that in 1939 they had a great military and this and that.

So your point is what? The USSR did have a great military in 1939, or didn't have a great, combat-ready military in 1939? Based on the adventure in Finland, it would seem that it had an ill-trained, ill-led military.



Debate over.

What debate? You mean your inability to come up with any concrete information supporting your ignorant assertions? That wasn't a debate, that was an exposure.

[Geiseric]

That bit about stalin's working hours is really, really cultish. And Expropism, you're contradicting yourself saying that the allies should have been ready for fascist military aggression since long before the war, but you seem to exclude Stalin from the group of anti-hitler people.

[Commissar Rykov]

Yes, and your contributions to it are lowering the averge knowledge base.

The is a reason why the Allies did nothing and that is that, from the British perspective, there was nothing to be done. The reality is Britain began rearmament late. They were not in a position to actually employ the BEF in any serious capacity until well into 1940. What would you have them do? Invade with an army they didn't have? The National Service (Armed Forces) Act wasn't passed until after the war began.

As for the French, as has been pointed out, their war strategy was based on the events, strategt and tactics of the First World War and existed in a trench mentality waiting for the Germans to attack them. They hoped that they would bog the Germans down into a war of attrition which they, and Britain, would win in the long run given their combined economic strength allowed them to out-produce Germany. Do you actually know anything about the Battle of France?

I suggest you look it up.
Way to look like an idiot yet again you people make a strawman and smash it down while declaring victory. Nowhere did I ever say the BEF was a significant force nor did it the British show much intention of mobilizing forces to defend France since the declaration of war lets please remember that it was several months from the actual declaration of war and the initiation of the Lowlands Invasion something you should remember while making excuse for Bourgeoisie Policies.

The French Army was technically one of the best armed and better equipped land armies in Europe yet it was destroyed by paper-thin armored tanks and WWI Veterans called back to service as well as reservists. All the while French High Command did not give any real orders to stop the attack and told the divisions at the Maginot Line to hold until they were cut off. All during this not one French Air Force sortie was initiated. For the constant claims that the Allies were doing any sort of serious preparing it flies in the face of reality. I would suggest Karl-Heinz Frieser's The Blitzkrieg Legend: The 1940 Campaign in the West as well as a spell check in your atrocious post.

[Zealot]

That bit about stalin's working hours is really, really cultish.

That's your problem, it's not my fault if historical evidence sounds "cultish" to you.


And Expropism, you're contradicting yourself saying that the allies should have been ready for fascist military aggression since long before the war, but you seem to exclude Stalin from the group of anti-hitler people.

Nice strawman. You just wrapped up a 6 page thread of intricate argumentation in a couple of lines, let's all hear it for Syd! You've totally pwned me -not-

[S.Artesian]

Way to look like an idiot yet again you people make a strawman and smash it down while declaring victory. Nowhere did I ever say the BEF was a significant force nor did it the British show much intention of mobilizing forces to defend France since the declaration of war lets please remember that it was several months from the actual declaration of war and the initiation of the Lowlands Invasion something you should remember while making excuse for Bourgeoisie Policies.

The French Army was technically one of the best armed and better equipped land armies in Europe yet it was destroyed by paper-thin armored tanks and WWI Veterans called back to service as well as reservists. All the while French High Command did not give any real orders to stop the attack and told the divisions at the Maginot Line to hold until they were cut off. All during this not one French Air Force sortie was initiated. For the constant claims that the Allies were doing any sort of serious preparing it flies in the face of reality. I would suggest Karl-Heinz Frieser's The Blitzkrieg Legend: The 1940 Campaign in the West as well as a spell check in your atrocious post.


So what is your point? You never get around to answering that question. Is your point that Britain and France did appease Hitler hoping he would invade the USSR?

Is your point that the NAP was "good"? What is your point. Zim isn't looking like an idiot here, you are because you simply aren't engaging with the central issue of the OP and previous posts.

You're the one raising the strawman-- "making excuses for bourgeois policies." Nobody here is doing that, although the very same clique that created the NAP spent year after year doing exactly that, making excuses for bourgeois policies and supporting bourgeois policies.

So what "excuses" are being made? That Britain wanted to avoid the conflict on the continent? That the French bourgeoisie equivocated and collapsed and even welcomed Hitler? "Better Hitler than Blum" was very popular among the French capitalists.

No excuses are being made. The argument with which you need to engage is: Did the British and French appease in order to encourage Hitler to attack the USSR? Was the NAP a tactically and strategically effective response to the possibility of that attack?

If you don't want to answer those issues, then why are you intervening in this thread?

[Invader Zim]

Not true, I've already provided a source for the figure.

On the contrary, your source, a BBC webpage, asserted that the army was 1.1 million in size, and that the RN and RAF took the other 400,000. It does not differenciate between troops and those in the reserves. So actually, the British Army of 1939 contained only around 900,000 troops, including reserves to contribute to the British presense in France, which would grow to 1.5 million by the Battle of France.

So not only were you wrng in suggesting that Britain had an army of 1.5 million in 1939 (which did not expand to that degree until well into 1940), but you were also wrong in suggesting that Britain withheld the bulk of its forces at home.


I never claimed they had a massive army

"Lack of British manpower? Excuse me, but their empire was and still is relatively big and they were prepared to fight for "Queen and Country"."

Yet as shown, the British couldn't muster a sizeable army at all when considered relative to France, Germany and the USSR, especially when we consider how spread thin it was precisely because of its empire.

So I repeat, at the end of 1939 Britain did not have an army of 1.5 million men. However, by the Battle of France, it had grown that large.


But I'm quite glad we've moved away from the 2 divisions theory.

I never posited that theory. I stated, accuratly that the British Army didn't number anything like 1.5 million in 1939, and that it wouldn't reach that size until the summer of 1940.


What's laughable is the contradiction in the argument:

"The military threat of Nazism was not fully comprehended until around 1937"

vs.

"...they weren't really sure that there was even going to be a war in 1938"

Obviously you are confused because there is no contradiction there. It is possible to judge the potential military threat posed by a state without believing that the situation will actually degenerate to a state of war. The primary emphasis of the rearmament policy, which rapidly expanded from 1937, was not because the government believed war was imminent in 1937 but because it was a possibility - you hope for the best but prepair for the worst. Secondly, rearmament was a key tactic within the policy of collective security and appeasement. They did not really believe, until well down the line, that the Nazis really wanted another great war, and by uping the stakes and matching (or at least beginning the process) German rearmament and addressing German grievances they believed they could defuse the situation without going to war. But you cannot put forth the threat of consequences without the muscle to back up that threat.

So recognising a the threat and actually beliving that a war was coming, in 1937, are not at all contradictory.




You'd think the military threat of Nazism coupled with their fascist ideologies would have been a pretty big fucking clue.

Well not really. The popular belief among the British cabinet was that the Nazis had genuine grievences that should be addressed. They were acutely aware of Britain's role in the creation of those grievences. They did not want another Great War, and they didn't believe that Hitler wanted one either, regardless of his rhetoric. They assumed he was a rational statesman and was open to reason, or at least needed to be treated as such. After all, what was the alternative? Another 'Great War' against Germany, and by that point a Germany far, far more militarily powerful than Britain.

Of course this leads us to the charge that Chamberlain should have allied with the USSR earlier, as early as 1937. But this leads us back to the issue that it was believed that Germany had just grievences to be addressed. It also probably have upped the stakes even further and potentially caused a war. And there was no way that Britain or France were going to take the threat of the Red Army seriously. To quote AJP Taylor, "Russia was in the midst of Stalin's great purge, and it was difficult to take her seriously as a military power when all her principal military leaders had just been shot."

AJP Taylor, English History 1914-1945 (London, 1965), p. 510.

And:

"Stalin's purge of the Red Army in June 1937 left many British experts convinced that Soviet offensive military capability had been crippled."

Doerr, ''Frigid but Unprovocative': British Policy towards the USSR from the Nazi-Soviet Pact to the Winter War', Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 36, No. 3 (Jul., 2001), p. 423.

Like the Nazis were to do, they seriously under-estimated the Red Army.

The British also didn't have any faith in the ability of the French to launch an offensive war, and as it happens they were probably right. They also had to contend with the growing threats posed by both Japan and Italy to other British interests. So in 1937/38 British military leaders were fervent in their advice not to begin a war with Germany, because they believed that that consequences, even if they were to win (which was considered doubtful), would be catastrophic.



As for "why would they", maybe because they made promises left right and centre and declared war in 39?

Sure they did, but nobody, and certainly not the Nazis, took those remotely seriously because everybody knew that Britain was incapable of keeping them. The promise to Poland wasn't based on the assurance that Britain would be able to do anything about it in the short term, but that it would embroil Germany in another Great War. And the difference between 1937, and even 1938, with September 1939, was the fruition of the British rearmament program. In those few years Britain effectively built an military aviation industry largely from scratch. It began the process of building the most formidable military intelligence service the world has even seen, built the first RADAR netword, rebuilt the BEF, introduced the preliminary legislation and training programmes that allowed them to mass-recruit (prior to the introduction of full-blown conscription in 1939), and placed British industry on a war-footing. Here is a little graph I produced while discussing this topic previously with Comrade Om, showing the escalation in British defence spending:

http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/2852/defencespendingzo9.jpg

So there is your reason why Britain did not feel itself capable of seriously threatening Germany before 1939, and that was because as far as it was concered it would be a bluff. Indeed, on the subject of the Munich agreement Chamberlain was to look back in late December 1939, and write to his sister Hilda saying that Hitler had “missed the bus in Sept 1938. He could have dealt France and ourselves a terrible, perhaps a mortal, blow then. The opportunity will not recur.”

Chamberlain, ‘Neville Chamberlain to Hilda Chamberlain, 30 Dec 1939’, in Robert Self (ed.), The Neville Chamberlain Diary Letters: Volume 4: The Downing Street Years, 1934-1940 (Aldershot, 2005), p. 483.

He also further emphasised the impotence of the British armed forces, as late as 1940:


“The most common cry […] Why can’t we have some plan which would take him by surprise?
The answer to these questions is simple enough, […] It is Because [sic] we are not yet strong enough. […] We have plenty of manpower but it is neither trained nor equipped. We are short of many weapons of offence and defence. Above all we are short of airpower.”

Chamberlain, ‘Neville Chamberlain to Hilda Chamberlain, 4 May 1940’ in Self, p. 526.

And of course this was exactly what he chiefs of staff had been telling him since he became Prime Minister: from 1937,

“we cannot foresee the time when our defence forces will be strong enough to safeguard our trade, territory and vital interests against Germany, Italy and Japan at the same time … We cannot exaggerate the importance from the point of view of Imperial Defence of any political or international action which could be taken to reduce the number of our potential enemies and to gain the support of potential allies.”

Paul Kennedy, Rise and Fall of British Naval Mastery (London, 1976) p. 290.

We also have to consider that even though Britain was rearming at a massive rate, a lot of that rearmament had to be re-done from next to scratch. taylor makes the point that, when it came to aircraft construction Britain had to basically build the industry from scratch. Taylor, pp. 503-507.

While the same was not quite true of the shipyards, but they had stagnated over the course of the depression.

“A third fact in restricting the navy’s expansion was more alarming still: when the Royal Navy began its plans for new ships which the war clouds looming on the horizon dictated and which even the Treasury found it impossible to resist fully, it was discovered that Britain no longer possessed the productive strength to satisfy these urgent orders. The long lean years of virtually no construction, the lack of incentive for technological innovation, the unwillingness to invest capital in what had been regarded as unprofitable fields and, above all, that steady cancerous decay of the country’s sinews, were now showing their fruit.”

Paul Kennedy, The Rise and Fall of British Naval Mastery (London, 1976), pp. 286-287.

So this idea that Britain was in a position to actually do something about Nazi Germany earlier than it did, and even then it may well have been considered hasty, doesn't really take into account the material reality in which Britain found herself during the late 1930s.


See my latest post, Stalin tried to prevent the invasion of Poland by pre-emptive strike but Britain and France stood idly by.

See above.


Again, stop sticking up for fascist sympathizers.

But they really weren't. Unlike the USSR, they actually took their nations to war with the Axis of fascist powers and didn't collaborate with them to carve up another state. So really, the charge is totally fucking moronic.


Om was the one claiming the Red Army was a well oiled machine after the purge, take it up with him.

No, he didn't. He argued the precise opposite. He and I have been debating this issue, in greater depth than you are capable of, for years. So please, don't try to misrepresent his position, it does it a total disservice.

[A Marxist Historian]

[QUOTE=Sputnik_1;2299666]The point is- there was barely anything really communist about Soviet Russia...[QUOTE]

I think that this is a vital point. There seems to be a lot of discussion on this thread about the military situation in Europe at the time, but very little about communist politics. The crucial question of course is the nature of the USSR. If you consider the USSR to have been a capitalist state by then, which many people including anarchists, those in the Cliff tendency and left communists do, then the question is one of what was the best course of action for a capitalist state to take. Is that really the concern of communists?

Devrim

Indeed. The very assumption of this thread is that the Soviet Union was a non-capitalist state. Otherwise the OP makes no sense. Those who think that it is are indeed in a rather odd position commenting, and perhaps might best spend their mental energies elsewhere.

-M.H.-

[ComradeOm]

Coincidentally, there's a documentary about the German invasion of the USSR on the BBC right now. The guy says that for hours after the attack, Stalin refused to allow his commanders to fire back, is this right? :confused: And that by noon on the first day of the attack, 1/4 of the USSR's airforce had been destroyed.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b011wh1g/World_War_Two_1941_and_the_Man_of_Steel/Pretty much. Exoprism has, as usual, gone off on a tangent and tried to muddy the waters; this is not a question about any supposed breakdown that Stalin had after/during the invasion. It is about the Red Army's state of readiness and the degree to which standing orders from Moscow prevented an appropriate response

The explicit orders of the Soviet high command (read: Stalin) prior to the invasion were that no Soviet solider, airman or sailor was to take any action in response to German 'provocations'. They were not to respond to Luftwaffe planes flying overhead (openly photographing Soviet positions), border incidents, saboteurs, ,they were not to fire into German territory under any circumstances etc, etc. Such orders carried particular weight in that they came from the NKVD (such as NKVD Directive 102). Desperate requests for more flexible orders from frontline commanders were refused by Moscow right up until the attack itself. As late as 16 June the Soviet leadership was rebuking officers who dared to put their men on combat readiness and occupy fortified positions. In his order of the night of 21 June, in which the possibility of an attack was at least accepted, Stalin still insisted that soldiers not respond to any "provocations". Thus when the Germans attacked the Red Army was not only out of position but completely unprepared for the coming assault

(One of the few Soviet commanders to disobey these restrictive measures was Tributs, head of the Black Sea Fleet. He discretely brought his command up to operational readiness in the days before the attack and consequently it fared much better than many other formations, which were caught entirely by surprise

Similarly, Kirponos in the Ukraine had been making limited and covert preparations for war. It's no surprise that his front performed much better than the others in the border battles)

The organisational chaos continued after the invasion. It wasn't until some hours later that Stalin and the Politburo actually put together a coherent response that explicitly called for the destruction of the invaders (even this was contradictory, avoiding talk of war and calling on commanders not to carry the fight across the border). Of course by this time the entire front was in turmoil and orders now had trouble getting through...

Which does bring us on to the question of the state of the Red Army. In a nutshell, to clear up any confusion caused by Exoprism, the Soviet armies were large and well armed. By early 1939 (that is, half a year before the war began) the Red Army could call upon approx 120 divisions plus numerous armour brigades. The Soviet Union had a marked advantage over everyone else in terms of tanks, guns and planes; many of which were also of decent quality. It was, on paper at least, a very impressive force

Unfortunately the Red Army had been crippled by the Purges in that this both removed the most experienced officers (their replacements were still green in 1941) and the subsequent reorganisations and doctrinal retreats. Equipment shortages and training were an issue but would become more pronounced in the rapid expansion post-1939. It's worth noting that all these issues would remain unresolved by 1941

Nonetheless, this was not a weak force. It was one of the largest armies in the world and far more capable than the disasters of 1941 would suggest. The latter were products of leadership and strategy; in addition to the above restrictive orders, the Soviet formations were arranged far too close to the border in a roughly linear defence. The German armour cut through these like paper and then encircled them at will. Red Army commanders then compounded the mistake by attacking in isolation rather than retreating to consolidate. The Red Army colossus was cut up and swallowed piecemeal. This was however primarily bad Soviet strategy and German success (or Soviet failure) in achieving near-complete tactical surprise

Neither these factors would presumably feature in a scenario in which Nazi Germany goes to war with the Soviet Union in 1939. Hitler was unable to conquer Russia despite annihilating the Red Army in the opening weeks of the war (plus the economic base of all Europe, support of fascist allies and time to modernise); it's impossible to see him succeeding, never mind in a year, without these advantages


But I'm quite glad we've moved away from the 2 divisions theoryThere is no such thing as a "2 divisions theory". In 1938 at the time of the Munich crisis (perhaps Austria, can't recall) the British Cabinet asked the military to prepare an assessment into how many divisions could be sent to France, as part of a BEF, if war were to break out tomorrow, ie mid-1938. The answer was two. This was no doubt a factor in the political decision to continue with the policy of appeasement (which does not mean that I agree with this conclusion). This was, to repeat, in 1938: one year before the outbreak of war and two years before the Battle of France actually saw a ten divisions sent to France

My mistake was clearly in assuming that you were capable of filling in the temporal gap there. If it's still not clear: between 1938 and 1940 the British army began mobilising

[A Marxist Historian]

You are wrong in suggesting that Poland did not want to prevent the German march eastward and towards war with the USSR. While they may have been happy to take a slice of Czechoslovakia if it were up for grabs, one only has to look at a map to see why they were bitterly opposed to Lebenstraum and the potential for a war between the USSR and Nazi Germany. Such a war was dependent in Poland not existing anymore.

That in fact is not the case, you should read A.J.P. Taylor's classic account.

In 1938, the Nazis and the Polish colonels were allies and boon companions, and there were plenty of discussions between them about a joint Polish-German assault on the USSR. This broke down over Danzig and certain majority-German-inhabited slices of Poland. The Nazis wanted, in return for assistance to Poland in regaining the territory Pilsudski seized from Soviet Russia but had been unable to keep, to get ceded to them areas of Poland where the majority of the population was German and wanted to be part of Nazi Germany. Or at least let them have Danzig, which was an independent city state the majority of whose population wanted to rejoin the Reich.

Formally and abstractly speaking, a reasonable request. The Polish colonels wouldn't go for it. Intelligently on their parts, as when the feces hits the fan in wartime, issues of democracy and self-determination are irrelevant anyway. Once Poland gave an inch to the Nazis, sooner or later Poland would become just another Nazi colony-satellite like Hungary or Romania, to be subjugated at leisure.

But instead of going for the only possible alternative, an alliance with the USSR, which Stalin most certainly would have gone for, they destroyed their own country by opposing both sides. Quite unnecessary from a Polish nationalist standpoint, as the USSR, unlike Germany, had no need to conquer foreign territories--though Stalin was delighted to unite Ukraine and Belorussia when given the opportunity.

Something which, by the way, the local population was initially in favor of, as the areas assigned to the USSR in the Hitler-Stalin pact were basically Polish colonies suffering nasty colonial oppression and exploitation. The Belarusians, Ukrainians and especially of course the Jews welcomed the Soviet troops as liberators at first. Naturally, Stalin managed to dissipate this initial popular support with extreme rapidity with his brutality, with the western Ukrainians even often preferring German rule, seen as better than that by Soviet Russia or Poland. Though not the Belarusians. So to this day, western Ukraine unlike eastern is a reactionary stomping ground with Nazis on the loose, whereas attitudes in Belarus are pretty left wing.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

What an ignorant post.

Firstly, British naval power had nothing to do with the reason the British won the Battle of Britain. That was won for three reasons:

1. The British had an advantage in radar allowing them to know where German attacks would be coming and in so doing maximise the RAFs limited potential.

2. The British were reading Luftwaffe enciphered traffic, see point 1.

3. The decision of the Nazi high-command to switch targets from the RAF stations in the Downs to bombing cities, which allowed the RAF vital breathing space.

The navy had nothing to do with that.


The propaganda and rhetoric of politicans and the hard material realities of a situation are not necessarily harmonious. The fact is that the bulk of the British Army had been roundly thrashed during the Battle of France, and unlike France, Britain lacked the defensive infastructure to seriously oppose an invasion of Britain. The one major advantage Britain had was supremacy of the sea. Unfortunately that was easily countered by gaining control of the skies. Which is precisely why Operation Sea Lion required that the Luftwaffe defeat the RAF, the fact that they failed placed invasion out of the question.

And the reason the Luftwaffe failed was because the people running Nazi Germany did not understand basic military strategy and had begun ignoring those who did. It was not because the British had a material economic advantage, on the contrary they were out numbered but they were able to maximise the potential of what they had while the Germans squandered their own advantage.



The British Army did not reach that strength until 1940, at which point it was soundly thrashed.

This is all quite accurate. What is left out is *why* the Nazis didn't take the Battle of Britain seriously and make an all out effort to win. At the critical moment switching to uselessly murdering civilians in the futile hope of intimidating the British people. If they had made a serious commitment and put anything near the effort into the Battle of Britain that they put into Operation Barbarossa, they'd have won, and the British Navy would not have been able to prevent a land invasion, which would have overwhelmed the battered British army easily.

Why? Because in the last analysis, Hitler didn't want to conquer England, he wanted the English as friends and allies, as he explained quite clearly in Mein Kampf. His top aide Hess even flew to England to try to work out a deal and was interned.

Destroying "Judeo-Bolshevism," the Jewish Communist menace, was the dominating passion of his life. It's not accidental that the Holocaust began on the day German troops invaded the USSR. Even Lebensraum was secondary to that, which is why Hitler, unlike his generals, wanted to make a deal with Poland, the traditional German national target-enemy.

-M.H.-

[ComradeOm]

But instead of going for the only possible alternative, an alliance with the USSR, which Stalin most certainly would have gone for, they destroyed their own country by opposing both sides. Quite unnecessary from a Polish nationalist standpoint, as the USSR, unlike Germany, had no need to conquer foreign territories--though Stalin was delighted to unite Ukraine and Belorussia when given the opportunityYes, because what could go wrong with providing the Red Army with bases and free movement through your country? Why Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania had no trouble when they did later... actually, never mind

No one here is going to express admiration for that particular Polish dictatorship and nor should they. It is however no difficult to understand the tightrope that they were walking with regards foreign policy. Poland was constantly trying to balance both Germany and the USSR, knowing that both were eager to expand at her expense. The blame should lie with the aggressor nations - and Stalin subsequently did everything he could to prove Polish fears to be true - and not the victim

[A Marxist Historian]

Yes, because what could go wrong with providing the Red Army with bases and free movement through your country? Why Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania had no trouble when they did later... actually, never mind

No one here is going to express admiration for that particular Polish dictatorship and nor should they. It is however no difficult to understand the tightrope that they were walking with regards foreign policy. Poland was constantly trying to balance both Germany and the USSR, knowing that both were eager to expand at her expense. The blame should lie with the aggressor nations - and Stalin subsequently did everything he could to prove Polish fears to be true - and not the victim

This was simply following the logic of the pact. Once Stalin signs a pact with Hitler, he has to get himself some protection, and military bases and later annexation of Hitler's loyal allies, the Baltic republics and Finland, are the obvious move. Didn't work too good in Finland...

Poland was the original aggressor nation, invading the Soviet republic in 1920 for purposes of conquest, and subjugating the local population to its rule. And the Baltic republics were basically created by the German occupying army in 1919, as the local population were enthusiastic participants in the Russian Revolution in 1917. Especially the Latvians, the Lettish Riflemen being the best fighters the Bolsheviks had during the Civil War. But Stalin's murders during the Great Terror of 1937-1938 of tens of thousands of Baltic working people in the USSR, and especially the communists among them, for no reason other than that their ancestors and relatives lived in countries allied with Hitler, turned the people of the Baltic countries off communism in a deeply lasting way.

But the USSR had no *need* to expand its borders, except purely for purposes of military defense. Had the Poles chosen an alliance with the USSR, that would have been a far better protection than Soviet military bases. Stalin was a tyrant and a murderer, but not an imperialist, as the Soviet economic system, unlike the capitalist economic system, was not driven by the imperatives of economic expansion and exploitation Lenin explained in his book on the subject.

The Poles did not take that option because, quite simply, they hated the USSR more than they hated Nazi Germany, being fellow capitalists, fellow Jew-haters and fellow dictators.

-M.H.-

[Invader Zim]

Way to look like an idiot yet again you people make a strawman and smash it down while declaring victory. Nowhere did I ever say the BEF was a significant force nor did it the British show much intention of mobilizing forces to defend France since the declaration of war lets please remember that it was several months from the actual declaration of war and the initiation of the Lowlands Invasion something you should remember while making excuse for Bourgeoisie Policies.

The French Army was technically one of the best armed and better equipped land armies in Europe yet it was destroyed by paper-thin armored tanks and WWI Veterans called back to service as well as reservists. All the while French High Command did not give any real orders to stop the attack and told the divisions at the Maginot Line to hold until they were cut off. All during this not one French Air Force sortie was initiated. For the constant claims that the Allies were doing any sort of serious preparing it flies in the face of reality. I would suggest Karl-Heinz Frieser's The Blitzkrieg Legend: The 1940 Campaign in the West as well as a spell check in your atrocious post.


You stated, and I quote:

"[Britain and France] Declared war and did absolutely nothing at all."

A criticsm which implicity suggests that there was something else they could have done. So I didn't create a strawman.


nor did it the British show much intention of mobilizing forces to defend France since the declaration of war lets please remember that it was several months from the actual declaration of war and the initiation of the Lowlands Invasion something you should remember while making excuse for Bourgeoisie Policies.

Sorry, but you are going to have to re-write because that is largely unintelligable. But, from what I think you've said, you are contending that the British didn't contribute anything to the Battle of France. And that is simply not true. As for making excuses for Chamberlain, unlike you I actually know what I'm talking about. Something in the region of 400,000 British troops participated in the Battle of France, about 1/3 of Britain's entire army.

[Jose Gracchus]

There was no plausible capacity for the Luftwaffe to achieve air superiority over southern Britain against the RAF in 1940, and the Wehrmacht would never have been able to mount an amphibious invasion in the face of the Royal Navy. The invasion force was to be transported by re-purposed flat-bottomed Rhine river barges, that a RN destroyer could capsize with only their wake (that's right, the RN could've sunk a German invasion force just by sailing in front of their transports).

I don't know what you're talking about.

I also do love the pathological need to fit square pegs to circle holes...why Stalin behaves like a vulgar pre-1914 imperialist when it comes to land-grab opportunities. Well, it doesn't fit Lenin's ideal type so it does not count. What kind of reasoning is this? What reason is there to accept Lenin's stupid pamphlet as the definitive transhistorical word on any and all imperialist activities for all of history? Besides, Lenin was wrong. The primary dynamic among the imperial center and exploited periphery in the 20th c. was the marginalization of the developing world, not centrally one of 'capital export' and 'superprofits' to fatten a 'labor aristocracy' (a contrived claim from the outset to be sure; this does not explain European socialist reformism at all). Why most U.S. capital after World War II found itself rebuilding Europe; I do not think France was being 'exploited' for U.S. 'labor aristocrats' 'superprofits'.

[Invader Zim]

There was no plausible capacity for the Luftwaffe to achieve air superiority over southern Britain against the RAF in 1940,

Except, of course, it probably would have done had the decision to target British civillian settlements, as opposed to airfields, not been taken.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The Japanese land army was no match for the Red Army, and Zhukov proved that in Khalkhyn Gol. The IJA knew they could not challenge Stalin in Siberia credibly.

What about Mongolia, then? The Soviets were also in a position to help the Guomindang or at least that other military strongman of theirs (I keep forgetting his name) liberate Manchuria, so that would have been a two-front war.


Speaking cynically, the USSR should've simply betrayed Hitler in favor of the Allies when the Germans would have been most vulnerable to a two-front war, before France was lost.

That's a tad bit earlier than my Viktor Suvorov conspiracy scenario. Why not attack the moment Hitler signed the French surrender, since the French were the most anti-Soviet of the pre-WWII Western Allies? Anyway, that is a good alternate timing.


But Stalin legitimately thought he could rely on Hitler to mind their little division of Eastern Europe, and wanted the spoils of the secret protocols of the NAP (including Finland, and thus the Winter War).

The spoils of Poland were fine and dandy from the viewpoint of defensive space.

Yeah, the bigger spoils, as he'd find out later, were to be found in those territories to be garrisoned by the Southern Group of Forces, the Central Group of Forces, the Northern Group of Forces, and the Group of Soviet Forces in Germany itself.

[cherokeetears]

Yes, it wasn't a treaty, it said that the USSR and Germany wouldn't attack one another. I think a war between the USSR and Germany at that time would have been ridiculous.

[Zealot]

On the contrary, your source, a BBC webpage, asserted that the army was 1.1 million in size, and that the RN and RAF took the other 400,000. It does not differenciate between troops and those in the reserves. So actually, the British Army of 1939 contained only around 900,000 troops, including reserves to contribute to the British presense in France, which would grow to 1.5 million by the Battle of France.

It doesn't differenciate between reserves and troops so the logical conclusion is to lump them together?...right.

The French army only had 900,000 active soldiers before the Nazis invaded, so what's your point.


So not only were you wrng in suggesting that Britain had an army of 1.5 million in 1939 (which did not expand to that degree until well into 1940), but you were also wrong in suggesting that Britain withheld the bulk of its forces at home.

No, I'm not. ComradeOm pointed out, and has stressed, that Britain sent a very small number of troops to France.


Obviously you are confused because there is no contradiction there. It is possible to judge the potential military threat posed by a state without believing that the situation will actually degenerate to a state of war. The primary emphasis of the rearmament policy, which rapidly expanded from 1937, was not because the government believed war was imminent in 1937 but because it was a possibility - you hope for the best but prepair for the worst. Secondly, rearmament was a key tactic within the policy of collective security and appeasement. They did not really believe, until well down the line, that the Nazis really wanted another great war, and by uping the stakes and matching (or at least beginning the process) German rearmament and addressing German grievances they believed they could defuse the situation without going to war. But you cannot put forth the threat of consequences without the muscle to back up that threat.

Which is basically what I've said.


The British also didn't have any faith in the ability of the French to launch an offensive war, and as it happens they were probably right. They also had to contend with the growing threats posed by both Japan and Italy to other British interests. So in 1937/38 British military leaders were fervent in their advice not to begin a war with Germany, because they believed that that consequences, even if they were to win (which was considered doubtful), would be catastrophic.

As I already noted, Churchill made a claim in 1938 that the French were militarily superior to Germany, which was the general view at the time.




He also further emphasised the impotence of the British armed forces, as late as 1940:


“The most common cry […] Why can’t we have some plan which would take him by surprise?
The answer to these questions is simple enough, […] It is Because [sic] we are not yet strong enough. […] We have plenty of manpower but it is neither trained nor equipped. We are short of many weapons of offence and defence. Above all we are short of airpower.”

Lovely quote friend.


So this idea that Britain was in a position to actually do something about Nazi Germany earlier than it did, and even then it may well have been considered hasty, doesn't really take into account the material reality in which Britain found herself during the late 1930s.

The material reality was that Britain was pursuing active policies of fascist sympathizing.


But they really weren't. Unlike the USSR, they actually took their nations to war with the Axis of fascist powers and didn't collaborate with them to carve up another state. So really, the charge is totally fucking moronic.

Stalin was hoping for an alliance with the west for a pre-emptive strike on the Nazis less than a week before the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. So no, he wasn't carving up another state, he was preparing to face the Nazis alone and you have admitted that Britain was still hoping to avoid war in 39.


No, he didn't. He argued the precise opposite. He and I have been debating this issue, in greater depth than you are capable of, for years. So please, don't try to misrepresent his position, it does it a total disservice.

"As it is of course, the USSR was indeed far better prepared for war in 1939 because she had been actively rearming, on a scale far exceeding every nation save Germany, for most of the previous decade. The Soviet Union in Sept 1939 possessed the largest (in terms of men, tanks, guns and planes) armed forces in the world. Britain, crippled by appeasement policies, was at least two years away from full mobilisation" - ComradeOm

[Jose Gracchus]

Except, of course, it probably would have done had the decision to target British civillian settlements, as opposed to airfields, not been taken.

Except the British could always move RAF bases and support further and further to the edge of Luftwaffe operational range while the Luftwaffe has to fight over enemy territory, and the RAF is flying right over home. I have never seen a serious military historian who believes the Battle of Britain could credibly have been won by Germany, much less that it would have successfully led to Seelowe.

[Zealot]

I want to put this into perspective for everyone, because it's gone so far off topic:

1. Stalin had time and again tried to warn, and actively suggested sanctions and collective security, against Germany.

2. He was willing to support Czechoslovakia at which their president refused because the western powers were yet again sympathizing with fascists.

3. Less than a week before the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was signed he had suggested a pre-emptive strike on Nazi Germany to prevent an invasion of Poland.

4. He was under the assumption, and rightly so, that the Soviet Union would have to face Germany alone.

Does any of this sound like a Nazi collaboration scheme? I don't think so. He done what anyone would have done given the material conditions. You'll notice that the only ones willing to deny this are the bourgeoisie apologists who have this moral idealist fantasy of an alternative, non-existent, plan of what could have happened.

To repeat what my signature says:

"I know that after my death a pile of rubbish will be heaped on my grave, but the wind of History will sooner or later sweep it away without mercy." - J Stalin

[Jose Gracchus]

So why didn't he fight Hitler when he was most likely to win, and why did he take his blood money to sell him shit while he was ravaging those allies he needed so bad in Western Europe?

Jesus, I hope Stalinism is listed in the next official edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.

[thesadmafioso]

I want to put this into perspective for everyone, because it's gone so far off topic:

1. Stalin had time and again tried to warn, and actively suggested sanctions and collective security, against Germany.

2. He was willing to support Czechoslovakia at which their president refused because the western powers were yet again sympathizing with fascists.

3. Less than a week before the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was signed he had suggested a pre-emptive strike on Nazi Germany to prevent an invasion of Poland.

4. He was under the assumption, and rightly so, that the Soviet Union would have to face Germany alone.

Does any of this sound like a Nazi collaboration scheme? I don't think so. He done what anyone would have done given the material conditions. You'll notice that the only ones willing to deny this are the bourgeoisie apologists who have this moral idealist fantasy of an alternative, non-existent, plan of what could have happened.

To repeat what my signature says:

"I know that after my death a pile of rubbish will be heaped on my grave, but the wind of History will sooner or later sweep it away without mercy." - J Stalin

You are aware that it literally took Stalin a period of days for him to actually regain any political composure after the invasion began, right? He refused to even issued a unified order of retreat in the earliest days of the war, causing massive contingencies of the Red Army to be lost in the most critical opening phases of the invasion.

I would hardly consider that to be a stance of preparedness towards the Nazi threat, especially when taken into the context of his then recent purges of the most capable elements of the leadership of the Red Army such as Tukhachevsky and other experienced veterans of the civil war. This is all before we venture into his disastrous war effort against Finland in the years leading up to the Nazi invasion or his horribly flawed "third period" conception of foreign policy which essentially paved the way for the rise of fascism in Germany, all which show an ideological agenda marred by a clear willingness to cooperate with fascism and one blemished with the intent to undermine the interests of the Russian workers state on the scale of international politics.

[A Marxist Historian]

There was no plausible capacity for the Luftwaffe to achieve air superiority over southern Britain against the RAF in 1940, and the Wehrmacht would never have been able to mount an amphibious invasion in the face of the Royal Navy. The invasion force was to be transported by re-purposed flat-bottomed Rhine river barges, that a RN destroyer could capsize with only their wake (that's right, the RN could've sunk a German invasion force just by sailing in front of their transports).

I don't know what you're talking about.

I also do love the pathological need to fit square pegs to circle holes...why Stalin behaves like a vulgar pre-1914 imperialist when it comes to land-grab opportunities. Well, it doesn't fit Lenin's ideal type so it does not count. What kind of reasoning is this? What reason is there to accept Lenin's stupid pamphlet as the definitive transhistorical word on any and all imperialist activities for all of history? Besides, Lenin was wrong. The primary dynamic among the imperial center and exploited periphery in the 20th c. was the marginalization of the developing world, not centrally one of 'capital export' and 'superprofits' to fatten a 'labor aristocracy' (a contrived claim from the outset to be sure; this does not explain European socialist reformism at all). Why most U.S. capital after World War II found itself rebuilding Europe; I do not think France was being 'exploited' for U.S. 'labor aristocrats' 'superprofits'.

Imperialism, going back to the folk who invented the term, namely the Romans, has always been about economic exploitation by the imperial power of the victims. Rome did it by the simplest possible method, crushing taxes that slowly destroyed the economies of all its possessions, enabling the Caesars to pacify the Roman proletariat (another word invented by the Romans) with bread and circuses. Monopoly capitalism uses a different more modern mechanism, capital export seeking superprofit, but overall the results are pretty much the same.

Land grabbing is one thing, economic exploitation is another. I don't want to repeat our overly acerbic argument in a previous thread, we've been there and done that. I will only say that if the economic relations between the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe and Cuba, not even to mention the Third World, had developed over time into some new form of economic resource transfer to the Soviet Union, you would have a point, and we'd have to baptise some new form of imperialism, I suppose one would call it "social imperialism." But the fact is that the exact reverse happened, and the USSR ended up spending huge amounts of badly needed resources propping up Eastern Europe and Cuba, not to mention all that aid to Third World countries for which they got pretty much nothing in return whatsoever.

From the economic standpoint, and if we are Marxists, economics is the key, that's imperialism in reverse if anything.

Does all the imperialist superprofits drained out of the Third World for centuries by European imperialism have something to do with Social Democratic reformism in Europe? Of course it does, do you seriously want to deny that?

Do you think it's some sort of accident that the support of imperialism and colonialism by the British Labour Party and the French Socialist Party and for that matter quite often the *French Communist Party* in the late '40s and '60s (interrupted at the height of the Cold War) had nothing to do with imperial superprofits indirectly funding welfare reforms at home?

Was the US exploiting France and Germany and Italy under the Marshall Plan, extracting surplus value from grossly underpaid French and German workers at all those Ford and GM plants in Western Europe cranking out autos back then? Of course it was, ask any Gaullist. The great popularity of the French and Italian CP's with the working class was not exactly accidental. Didn't happen in Germany, as the country had been divided according to class lines, with folk who liked Hitler in West Germany and anti-fascists heading off, at first at least, to what Bertolt Brecht called "the better Germany."

Almost all the Marshall Plan aid was loan money, and it all got paid back. And in return, US capitalists got to make a whole lot of money investing in Europe at a time when West European workers were getting paid a whole lot less than American.

After 1968, West European workers' wages shot up because of the mass rebellions. So US investment shifted to the Third World.

The primary dynamic of imperialism being "marginalization" sounds pretty strange. Africa and Asia and Latin America if anything were much more integrated into the world economy by imperialism than they were before the imperialist invasions and conquest. Now, they play much more central roles in the world economy than they used to. Especially right now, where the recent universal uniform economic decline in the imperial centers has even led to temporary economic booms in the Third World, in Asia, Latin America and even in Africa, since stuff has to be produced somewhere.

Perhaps you want to clarify that.

-M.H.-

[Jose Gracchus]

If 'imperialism' has to be specially claded and kept a tidy, nice, safe-for-sects-and-academics term, such that we have to come up with 'land grab' and 'brutality' as euphemistic ad hoc hypothesis to plug the holes where Lenin and the real world depart, then concern about imperialism loses all practical meaning. As the old man said, we are not here to explain the world, but to change it. Your word-games to me is just evasion.

As for 'marginalization' - Lenin argued that 'monopoly capitalism' necessarily had to export capital, because of a dirth of investment opportunities in the imperialist states domestically. Yet the fact is capital preferred in the post-war boom to invest in the imperialist states over the Third World.

[ComradeOm]

I want to put this into perspective for everyone, because it's gone so far off topic:

1. Stalin had time and again tried to warn, and actively suggested sanctions and collective security, against Germany.

2. He was willing to support Czechoslovakia at which their president refused because the western powers were yet again sympathizing with fascists.

3. Less than a week before the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was signed he had suggested a pre-emptive strike on Nazi Germany to prevent an invasion of Poland.

4. He was under the assumption, and rightly so, that the Soviet Union would have to face Germany alone.

Does any of this sound like a Nazi collaboration scheme? I don't think so. He done what anyone would have done given the material conditions. You'll notice that the only ones willing to deny this are the bourgeoisie apologists who have this moral idealist fantasy of an alternative, non-existent, plan of what could have happenedYou forgot a few points:

5) The Soviet Union signs the Non-Aggression Pact with Nazi Germany. This gives Hitler the space and time to conquer much of Europe

6) The pact with Nazi Germany allows for the Soviet Union to invade, occupy and annex lands in Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Romania

7) The Soviet Union supplies Nazi Germany with the food and raw materials needed to sustain her ailing economy through the first months of the war, ie until the conquest of France and domination of central Europe provides alternate sources of materials

This is you at your dishonest worst. Obviously if you stop the clock at the week before the NAP was signed then Stalin appears an anti-fascist 'hero'. Nobody is complaining about 'collective security' or efforts to build a broad anti-Nazi alliance. Fast forward a week however and you find a Stalin who has just facilitated the fascist conquest of Europe. The topic of this thread is the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, not 'pre-war Soviet manoeuvres in the League of Nations'

[Yazman]

Flame Bait

This is spam. Don't do it again, or you'll be infracted.


In b4 STALLLLLLIIINNNNN RULLLLZzzzz

But not in b4 a warning! Do it again and you're infracted!


Shut up.
Are you on crack or something?
Where did i ever post anything even remotely pro-fascist?
Get a hold of yourself and stop trolling,for fucks sake.

Don't tell other users to shut up, and don't accuse them of being trolls. No more mini-modding. If I see you, or ANY other user making accusations that somebody else is a troll, telling them to shut up, or any other sort of insulting posting, I'm going to start issuing infractions.

This serves as an individual warning to tir1944, and a blanket warning to anybody else. No more bad posts please.

[RexCactus]

Ethically, it was responsible, as outright invasion of Der Grossdeutschesreich at the time would have compromised Marxist anti-Imperialism, at least within the eyes of Russian intellectuals. Practically, it was wise, as the USSR was not prepared to fight the ultra-industrial war machine of Germany, especially not after the botched collectivisation of agriculture coupled with famine. It must have been very trying for Stalin and the Politburo, though, pledging not to unilaterally harm a Fascist State. Additionally, they would have had to watch the fall of Europe, while keeping keenly in mind that Hitler planned to seize the Sovyet Union for his own(as mentioned at length in Mein Kampf).

[Zealot]

Jesus, I hope Stalinism is listed in the next official edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.

I'm pretty sure that's an infractable offense, good luck.


So why didn't he fight Hitler when he was most likely to win, and why did he take his blood money to sell him shit while he was ravaging those allies he needed so bad in Western Europe?

Jesus, I hope Stalinism is listed in the next official edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.


You are aware that it literally took Stalin a period of days for him to actually regain any political composure after the invasion began, right? He refused to even issued a unified order of retreat in the earliest days of the war, causing massive contingencies of the Red Army to be lost in the most critical opening phases of the invasion.

I would hardly consider that to be a stance of preparedness towards the Nazi threat, especially when taken into the context of his then recent purges of the most capable elements of the leadership of the Red Army such as Tukhachevsky and other experienced veterans of the civil war. This is all before we venture into his disastrous war effort against Finland in the years leading up to the Nazi invasion or his horribly flawed "third period" conception of foreign policy which essentially paved the way for the rise of fascism in Germany, all which show an ideological agenda marred by a clear willingness to cooperate with fascism and one blemished with the intent to undermine the interests of the Russian workers state on the scale of international politics.


You forgot a few points:

5) The Soviet Union signs the Non-Aggression Pact with Nazi Germany. This gives Hitler the space and time to conquer much of Europe

6) The pact with Nazi Germany allows for the Soviet Union to invade, occupy and annex lands in Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Romania

7) The Soviet Union supplies Nazi Germany with the food and raw materials needed to sustain her ailing economy through the first months of the war, ie until the conquest of France and domination of central Europe provides alternate sources of materials

This is you at your dishonest worst. Obviously if you stop the clock at the week before the NAP was signed then Stalin appears an anti-fascist 'hero'. Nobody is complaining about 'collective security' or efforts to build a broad anti-Nazi alliance. Fast forward a week however and you find a Stalin who has just facilitated the fascist conquest of Europe. The topic of this thread is the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, not 'pre-war Soviet manoeuvres in the League of Nations'

What about this, what about that, why why why! Nice idealism guys.

Reverting back to the same old arguments to prove Stalin was a fascist? The evidence is so clear. Yes we fast-forward a week and find that the allies bullied the SU into position of having to defend the world against Nazi fascists, alone.

[A Marxist Historian]

If 'imperialism' has to be specially claded and kept a tidy, nice, safe-for-sects-and-academics term, such that we have to come up with 'land grab' and 'brutality' as euphemistic ad hoc hypothesis to plug the holes where Lenin and the real world depart, then concern about imperialism loses all practical meaning. As the old man said, we are not here to explain the world, but to change it. Your word-games to me is just evasion.

As for 'marginalization' - Lenin argued that 'monopoly capitalism' necessarily had to export capital, because of a dirth of investment opportunities in the imperialist states domestically. Yet the fact is capital preferred in the post-war boom to invest in the imperialist states over the Third World.

Yes it did!

Why? Because under the Marshall Plan, Western Europe for a couple decades was effectively an American colony in economic terms. And the colonial world was going through revolution, the imperialists were being kicked out everywhere, and a whole lot of the new independent Third World regimes were nationalizing foreign investors and allying with the Soviet Union. And/or going to the 1955 Bandung Conference, where the term "Third World" was invented, with Maoist China playing a big role.

So you had superexploitation by the Lenin model all right, but in purely economic terms that was something US investors by and large were doing to European workers, not to the Third World, except for Latin America of course. And even there, you get Castro, nationalizing all US investments just 90 miles from Miami, and Castroite guerilla movements popping up. The Third World really only became a totally safe place for US investment when the Soviet Union collapsed, thereby giving rise to the '90s misnomer of "globalization."

And that's why continental Europe had a lengthy postwar boom, while the US economy stagnated under Eisenhower as capital was exported to Europe in large quantities. The partial economic unification of Europe, first under the Nazis and then maintained by the new American rulers, gave a partial solution to the central contradiction of European capitalism, namely Balkanization, making this boom possible. Now of course that is breaking down, as the solution was partial and temporary, and Europe is in for a world of economic hurt.

Your de facto definition of imperialism as "land grab" and "brutality" is idealism not Marxism. Marxism is materialist. You are (rightfully) annoyed at Soviet foreign policy, and therefore want to label it "imperialist," which scientifically it simply was not.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

Ethically, it was responsible, as outright invasion of Der Grossdeutschesreich at the time would have compromised Marxist anti-Imperialism, at least within the eyes of Russian intellectuals. Practically, it was wise, as the USSR was not prepared to fight the ultra-industrial war machine of Germany, especially not after the botched collectivisation of agriculture coupled with famine. It must have been very trying for Stalin and the Politburo, though, pledging not to unilaterally harm a Fascist State. Additionally, they would have had to watch the fall of Europe, while keeping keenly in mind that Hitler planned to seize the Sovyet Union for his own(as mentioned at length in Mein Kampf).

Uh? An invasion of Germany would have compomised Marxist ideals? That is utter nonsense. In fact, under Lenin, when Pilsudski invaded the Soviet Union, the Soviet plan was to conquer Poland and then come to the aid of the workers in Germany, then in an almost civil war state. No secret was made of this, least of all by Lenin. *Very* unfortunately this failed.

And in 1923, when it looked like a German communist revolution was about to break out, Trotsky had Tukhachevsky ready the cavalry at the Polish border.

And in the 1930, Tukhachevsky wrote up a number of plans for a Soviet invasion of Germany. I think he even published them in Soviet military journals. One reason Stalin had to get rid of him, Tukha might have staged a military revolt against the Stalin-Hitler pact if he and half the general staff had not been purged.

-M.H.-

[ComradeOm]

Reverting back to the same old arguments to prove Stalin was a fascist? The evidence is so clear. Yes we fast-forward a week and find that the allies bullied the SU into position of having to defend the world against Nazi fascists, alone.You see, this passage just doesn't make any sense. Let's look at the problems with it:

1) At no point did I suggest that "Stalin was a fascist". In fact I'd quite strongly disagree with such an assertion

2) The Allies "bullied" the Soviet Union? Really? That low level military delegation actually "bullied" the Soviet Union? Did they propose sanctions or threaten war if the Soviets refused to enter into an alliance with them?

3) But wait! The Allies weren't bullying the USSR into war with Germany, they were bullying it into agreeing a NAP that would allow the Soviets to annex European countries in exchange for aiding Hitler's programme of conquest. While they were about to go war with Germany. How strange

4) At no point in the entire war was the USSR fighting alone. Britain could plausibly make this claim for the period 1940-41 but not the Soviets. In case you missed it, the Soviet Union arrived to the war late. Why? Because they'd signed the NAP with Hitler

But really Exoprism, this is typical of the same incoherent garbage that you continually regurgitate. Nothing in your above post addresses any of the points raised and you are simply shouting past the issues here. You are either incapable or unwilling to engage is a proper debate or conversation. I'd hate to see you at the breakfast table: "'Can you pass the milk please?' 'STALIN ALONE LED THE MIGHTY USSR TO VICTORY AGAINST THE NAZIS AND THEIR BRITISH ALLIES.'" To be honest, I've better things to do than to play foil to your stupidity and I suggest that everybody else similarly ignore your ramblings

[Zealot]

You see, this passage just doesn't make any sense. Let's look at the problems with it:

1) At no point did I suggest that "Stalin was a fascist". In fact I'd quite strongly disagree with such an assertion

If you hadn't noticed, I was responding to no more than 3 people in that post, and also pointing that out to the people who have been trying to claim this ever since.


2) The Allies "bullied" the Soviet Union? Really? That low level military delegation actually "bullied" the Soviet Union? Did they propose sanctions or threaten war if the Soviets refused to enter into an alliance with them?

Ever heard of a metaphor? And whether or not you like it, Britain and France were the superpowers of the time, getting their support was needed. Czechoslovakia recognized this when they rejected Soviet support because the western powers weren't backing them.


3) But wait! The Allies weren't bullying the USSR into war with Germany, they were bullying it into agreeing a NAP that would allow the Soviets to annex European countries in exchange for aiding Hitler's programme of conquest. While they were about to go war with Germany. How strange

Terrible material analysis.


4) At no point in the entire war was the USSR fighting alone. Britain could plausibly make this claim for the period 1940-41 but not the Soviets. In case you missed it, the Soviet Union arrived to the war late. Why? Because they'd signed the NAP with Hitler

I hope your not implying that Stalin was expecting them to not invade the USSR.


But really Exoprism, this is typical of the same incoherent garbage that you continually regurgitate. Nothing in your above post addresses any of the points raised and you are simply shouting past the issues here. You are either incapable or unwilling to engage is a proper debate or conversation. I'd hate to see you at the breakfast table: "'Can you pass the milk please?' 'STALIN ALONE LED THE MIGHTY USSR TO VICTORY AGAINST THE NAZIS AND THEIR BRITISH ALLIES.'" To be honest, I've better things to do than to play foil to your stupidity and I suggest that everybody else similarly ignore your ramblings

That was fucking hilarious.

[Invader Zim]

It doesn't differenciate between reserves and troops so the logical conclusion is to lump them together?...right.

It said the armed forces, the armed forces includes the reserves. You were wrong, just admit it and move on.



The French army only had 900,000 active soldiers before the Nazis invaded, so what's your point.

At what point before? 1937? The French Order of Battle included 109 divisions (including those in the Alps). Between them the rest of the Allies provided only 40 divisions. The total allied strength at the start of the battle was 3,000,000 men, 2,700 tanks, and 2,000 aircraft. The fact is the French order of battle included some 2,000,000+ troops. So I don't know where you got this idea of 900,000 from. Presumably the same palce you got the idea that in 1939 Britain had an Army of 1.5 million: your ass.


No, I'm not

Except you are wrong. As shown, you misread the BBC page you pulled the figure from; failed to take into account irregulars; did not comprehend that nearly a third of that figure included the other armed forces; and fail to realise that the British required a presense around the world to head off other fascist threats to the empire. Unlike as you suggest, these forces were, for the most part, not camped back in Britain.


Which is basically what I've said.

You haven't said anything like that. You stated the exact opposite, that it is a contradiction to be able to recognise a threat and begin to seriously re-arm while at the same time believe that war was unlikely until the situation becomes clear later. You said that was a "laughable contradiction".


As I already noted, Churchill made a claim in 1938 that the French were militarily superior to Germany, which was the general view at the time.

Who cares what Churchill thought? Churchill was not in government. He was not receiving the advice from Britain's military leaders that Chamberlain was and nor did he have access to the findings of the British intelligence services. Both of which discounted the ability of the French to wage a major offensive war and both of which over-estimated the extent of German strength. Chamberlain was not going to start a war he was adviced Britain would, without serious sustained rearmament, lose.


Lovely quote friend.

Indeed it is, it illutrates the misleading nature of looking at conscription figures. Just because you can conscript men does not mean you automatically have a large combat ready fighting force. And remember this is a quote from Chamberlain in 1940, as I told you, Britain expanded the size of the army by nearly 600,000 between the winter of 1939 and the outbreak of the Battle of France. But that doesn't equate that these troops were combat ready or equipped.

Logic isn't your strong point is it?


The material reality was that Britain was pursuing active policies of fascist sympathizing.

But again, it was Britain who went to war with the fascists, and the USSR who collaborated in imperialistic land grabbing with the fascists.

You're a broken record.


Stalin was hoping for an alliance with the west for a pre-emptive strike on the Nazis less than a week before the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.

So? Britain and France went to war with Germany in a matter of days. So while Britain and France were willing to draw a line in the sand the Soviets were allowing the Nazis to march across Europe and start the bloodiest war in the history of Europe which nearly destroyed the Soviet Union. The fact is that, as Om has stated, it was the pact which handed the Nazis a free hand.

And how do you suppose the West could have engaged in a pre-emprive strike? As pointed out, France was in position to do anything of the sort against a re-armed Germany, and Britain certainly wasn't.


So no, he wasn't carving up another state,

You're right: several other states.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4c/Ribbentrop-Molotov.svg/750px-Ribbentrop-Molotov.svg.png


he was preparing to face the Nazis alone

What absolute bullshit. The Soviets knew full well that the French and British would, this time, go to war over Poland. And they orchestrated it so that the Nazis would be under no threat of fighting a two front war when they did, all so the the Soviet Union could annex a load of land.


and you have admitted that Britain was still hoping to avoid war in 39.

No, what I said was, "they weren't really sure that there was even going to be a war in 1938".

By the time the Nazis were gearing up to invade Poland, after they had already broken the Munich agreement, and Britain and Poland had signed the Anglo-Polish Military Alliance, that there would be a war.


"As it is of course, the USSR was indeed far better prepared for war in 1939 because she had been actively rearming, on a scale far exceeding every nation save Germany, for most of the previous decade. The Soviet Union in Sept 1939 possessed the largest (in terms of men, tanks, guns and planes) armed forces in the world. Britain, crippled by appeasement policies, was at least two years away from full mobilisation" - ComradeOm

Which does not say that the Red Army was a well oiled machine. Following the purges, in which the vast majority of experienced officers had been shot it plainly wasn't. Have you ever even heard of the winter war? Om said that the Red Army was well ahead of the curve in terms of recruitment and general rearmament, he also said:

"Unfortunately the Red Army had been crippled by the Purges in that this both removed the most experienced officers (their replacements were still green in 1941) and the subsequent reorganisations and doctrinal retreats. Equipment shortages and training were an issue but would become more pronounced in the rapid expansion post-1939. It's worth noting that all these issues would remain unresolved by 1941".


Why are you incapable of grasping the idea that just because you have a large, and theoretically powerful conscript army, that it cannot be serously weakened by ubiquitous poor and inexperienced leadership, an inept supply system, poor training and dismally foolish intervention from Moscow?

Like I said, look up the Winter War.

[Stalinist Speaker]

For every one that voted No: you do realize that the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was the reason why the soviet union survived the blitzkrieg, if they wouldn't have gotten the pact their mayor cities would have fallen in now time, why? Minsk was right at the polish soviet border, kiev was close to the border, leningrad was very close to estonian border which could have been an spot for a german invasion if the the soviet union didn't get the territory. also from Leningrad you could easily get to Moscow. So yes the pact is what stopped Germany in WW2. think about it.

[Geiseric]

For every one that voted No: you do realize that the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was the reason why the soviet union survived the blitzkrieg, if they wouldn't have gotten the pact their mayor cities would have fallen in now time, why? Minsk was right at the polish soviet border, kiev was close to the border, leningrad was very close to estonian border which could have been an spot for a german invasion if the the soviet union didn't get the territory. also from Leningrad you could easily get to Moscow. So yes the pact is what stopped Germany in WW2. think about it.

i'm not going to argue with that, it's so incorrect. The german army was able to invade from poland while the red army wasn't even set up on the new border.

[Stalinist Speaker]

i'm not going to argue with that, it's so incorrect. The german army was able to invade from poland while the red army wasn't even set up on the new border.

yes but that would have been a great risk since they could have gotten the french and the British army invading them from the west and then they could get in the same situation as they were in WW1.

[Magic Carpets Corp.]

i'm not going to argue with that, it's so incorrect. The german army was able to invade from poland while the red army wasn't even set up on the new border.
Are you fucked in the head or something. Poland was invaded in September 1939, Barbarossa didn't begin until June 22 1941. The Soviet Union had 2 years to "set up" on the new border, and set up they did. The Soviets almost tripled their armed forces, from 1,500,000 men to 5,000,000, and recruited 18 million reservists. 190 Soviet divisions were stationed on the German-Soviet border(which is almost 3.5 million men), in addition to 11,500 tanks and 15,000 aircraft. Wasn't "set up" you say? :rolleyes:

[Per Levy]

wow necroing such an old thread, it brings back memories, tir1944 was quite a good troll to his credit. and as with any old thread, so many banned users.

[Sea]

The Molotov-Rippentrop pact was horrible. So was the treaty of Brest-Litovsk. This is undisputed.

The question is whether or not these treaties were necessary. If they were horrible and unnecessary, their signers should be condemned. If they were horrible and necessary, to condemn them would be utopian and naïve.

[Stalinist Speaker]

The Molotov-Rippentrop pact was horrible. So was the treaty of Brest-Litovsk. This is undisputed.

The question is whether or not these treaties were necessary. If they were horrible and unnecessary, their signers should be condemned. If they were horrible and necessary, to condemn them would be utopian and naïve.

well if the USSR wouldn't have gotten that territory there is no way that they would survive WW2

[reb]

I don't know why people fetish over a bourgeois state that was anti-communist signing a pact with another bourgeois state that was anti-communist.

[Sea]

well if the USSR wouldn't have gotten that territory there is no way that they would survive WW2
Exactly. The mystical mysterious wheels of history roll out some nasty shit from time to time, but it's silly to blame Stalin & Friends for the imperialist ambitions of their enemies.

[Magic Carpets Corp.]

The Molotov-Rippentrop pact was horrible. So was the treaty of Brest-Litovsk. This is undisputed.

The question is whether or not these treaties were necessary. If they were horrible and unnecessary, their signers should be condemned. If they were horrible and necessary, to condemn them would be utopian and naïve.
Why was the non-aggression pact "horrible"? How is it in any way comparable to Brest-Litovsk? Brest-Litovsk was a treaty of capitulation to imperialism. The Germany-Soviet NAP was a brilliant piece of Soviet diplomacy which put an end to Franco-British attempts to build a coalition with Hitler against the Soviet Union, it gave the Soviet Union breathing room to continue it's military preparations for war with the fascists and in the end the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact ensured a communist victory in the Second World War. What's so horrible about that?

[BOZG]

Are you fucked in the head or something.

Verbal warning: Stop flaming

[Durruti's friend]

For every one that voted No: you do realize that the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was the reason why the soviet union survived the blitzkrieg, if they wouldn't have gotten the pact their mayor cities would have fallen in now time, why? Minsk was right at the polish soviet border, kiev was close to the border, leningrad was very close to estonian border which could have been an spot for a german invasion if the the soviet union didn't get the territory. also from Leningrad you could easily get to Moscow. So yes the pact is what stopped Germany in WW2. think about it.
This is incorrect from a strictly historical view. Soviet occupied Poland was overrun by the Wehrmacht in about a week, so saying that is what allowed the SU to win the war is just lunacy.

But then again, since the USSR was already a bourgeois state up to that point in history, then it shouldn't be surprising if it made a deal with another bourgeois state, albeit with some differences in official ideology. If Poland made a pact with the Nazis, why shouldn't the SU do so too?

[Stalinist Speaker]

I don't know why people fetish over a bourgeois state that was anti-communist signing a pact with another bourgeois state that was anti-communist.

you area anti-communist, now please if you don't have anything better to say don't post anything,

[Brutus]

you area anti-communist, now please if you don't have anything better to say don't post anything,

Calling someone an anti-communist is rich coming from someone who upholds someone who killed more communists than Hitler. Yes, I've resorted to moralism- I apologise!

[Stalinist Speaker]

Calling someone an anti-communist is rich coming from someone who upholds someone who killed more communists than Hitler. Yes, I've resorted to moralism- I apologise!

Average population Live births Deaths Natural change Crude birth rate (per 1,000) Crude death rate (per 1,000) Natural change (per 1,000) Fertility rates Life Expectancy (male) Life Expectancy (female)
1927 94,596,000 4,688,000 2,705,000 1,983,000 49.6 28.6 21.0 6.729 33.7 37.9
1928 96,654,000 4,723,000 2,589,000 2,134,000 48.9 26.8 22.1 6.556 35.9 40.4
1929 98,644,000 4,633,000 2,819,000 1,814,000 47.0 28.6 18.4 6.227 33.7 38.2
1930 100,419,000 4,413,000 2,738,000 1,675,000 43.9 27.3 16.7 5.834 34.6 38.7
1931 101,948,000 4,412,000 3,090,000 1,322,000 43.3 30.3 13.0 5.626 30.7 35.5
1932 103,136,000 4,058,000 3,077,000 981,000 39.3 29.8 9.5 5.093 30.5 35.7
1933 102,706,000 3,313,000 5,239,000 -1,926,000 32.3 51.0 -18.8 4.146 15.2 19.5
1934 102,922,000 2,923,000 2,659,000 264,000 28.7 26.1 2.6 3.566 30.5 35.7
1935 102,684,000 3,577,000 2,421,000 1,156,000 34.8 23.6 11.3 4.305 33.1 38.4
1936 103,904,000 3,899,000 2,719,000 1,180,000 37.5 26.2 11.4 4.535 30.4 35.7
1937 105,358,000 4,377,000 2,760,000 1,617,000 41.5 26.2 15.3 5.079 30.5 40.0
1938 107,044,000 4,379,000 2,739,000 1,640,000 40.9 25.6 15.3 4.989 31.7 42.5
1939 108,785,000 4,329,000 2,600,000 1,729,000 39.8 23.9 15.9 4.907 34.9 42.6
1940 110,333,000 3,814,000 2,561,000 1,253,000 34.6 23.2 11.4 4.260 35.7 41.9
After WWII[43][44][45][edit]
Average population Live births Deaths Natural change Crude birth rate (per 1,000) Crude death rate (per 1,000) Natural change (per 1,000) Fertility rates Urban fertility Rural fertility Life Expectancy (male) Life Expectancy (female) Life Expectancy (total) Abortions reported
1946 98,028,000 2,546,000 1,210,000 1,336,000 26.0 12.3 13.6 2.806 46.6 55.3
1947 98,834,000 2,715,000 1,680,000 1,035,000 27.5 17.0 10.5 2.938 39.9 49.8
1948 99,706,000 2,516,000 1,310,000 1,206,000 25.2 13.1 12.1 2.604 47.0 56.0
1949 101,160,000 3,089,000 1,187,000 1,902,000 30.5 11.7 18.8 3.205 51.0 59.8
1950 102,833,000 2,859,000 1,180,000 1,679,000 27.8 11.5 16.7 2.889 52.3 61.0
1951 104,439,000 2,938,000 1,210,000 1,728,000 28.1 11.6 17.0 2.918 52.3 60.6
1952 106,164,000 2,928,000 1,138,000 1,790,000 27.6 10.7 17.0 2.871 54.6 62.9
1953 107,828,000 2,822,000 1,118,000 1,704,000 26.2 10.4 15.7 2.733 55.5 63.9



Now please tell me again that Stalin killed more than Hitler, Stop watching Bourgeoisie media!!

[Geiseric]

The Molotov-Rippentrop pact was horrible. So was the treaty of Brest-Litovsk. This is undisputed.

The question is whether or not these treaties were necessary. If they were horrible and unnecessary, their signers should be condemned. If they were horrible and necessary, to condemn them would be utopian and naïve.

The brest litovsk treaty was completely necessary. Read Lenin for once and you'll see that. The Molotov pact was very different and was unnecessary since the red army was already put together.

[Geiseric]

That already happened during the civil war. Read a book. The future NATO didn't want anything but capitalism in the fsu, which is why the US Ambassador supported Stalin.

[Art Vandelay]

Now please tell me again that Stalin killed more than Hitler, Stop watching Bourgeoisie media!!
Brutus didn't claim that Stalin killed more people then Hitler; after all he's a materialist, who I'm sure would never chalk up x# of deaths to any given individual. What he said was that Stalin (and the political state he was representative of) butchered more communists then Hitler, a comment which is entirely accurate.

[Invader Zim]

That already happened during the civil war. Read a book. The future NATO didn't want anything but capitalism in the fsu, which is why the US Ambassador supported Stalin.

I think you may have forgotten to take account of Hanlon's Razor, when it comes to Joseph Davies:

'Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.'

In fact, people should remember that more often. It may have to go in my sig line.

[reb]

This is incorrect from a strictly historical view. Soviet occupied Poland was overrun by the Wehrmacht in about a week, so saying that is what allowed the SU to win the war is just lunacy.

But then again, since the USSR was already a bourgeois state up to that point in history, then it shouldn't be surprising if it made a deal with another bourgeois state, albeit with some differences in official ideology. If Poland made a pact with the Nazis, why shouldn't the SU do so too?

Not only that, it took troops from their defended lines and stuck them into new positions in Poland, increasing the logistical difficulties and the problems of occupation.


you area anti-communist, now please if you don't have anything better to say don't post anything,

Bummer.

[Invader Zim]

For every one that voted No: you do realize that the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was the reason why the soviet union survived the blitzkrieg, if they wouldn't have gotten the pact their mayor cities would have fallen in now time, why? Minsk was right at the polish soviet border, kiev was close to the border, leningrad was very close to estonian border which could have been an spot for a german invasion if the the soviet union didn't get the territory. also from Leningrad you could easily get to Moscow. So yes the pact is what stopped Germany in WW2. think about it.

This is all wrong. Fact is, as I have already explained, there would not have been any 'Blitzkrieg', which is strategy that utilises technological advantage as a means of counterbalancing relative numerical disadvantage. However, 1940s technology utilised oil, magnesium, lumber, and various other materials that did not exist in sufficient quantities in Germany and occupied Europe to power an invasion of the Soviet Union. The Germans imported the materials utilised in invading the Soviet Union. In short, Soviet oil powered the German Panzers as they rampaged across the Soviet Union in the winter months of 1941, and the Luftwaffe aircraft circling overhead employed magnesium imported from, guess where, that's right, the Soviet Union. No Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, no resources. No resources, no invasion.

I've yet to see a Stalin Apologist get to the bottom of that particular conundrum.

[RevolucionarBG]

Every normal communist in 1939. supported this pact, because only ignorant ultra-"lefts", who would rather destroy an entire country and it's population in fight against fascism, than to use strategy, diplomacy and tactics in fighting fascism.

Every other western state, already twice refused to make a pact with USSR, so Stalin's last resort was to try to get as much time as possible, and to turn Hitler to the western europe (that same western europe refused to ally with Stalin, because they wanted badly to use their creation of nazi germany to invade Socialist USSR).

So from this above, we get a clear answer should we support it or not...

[Paul Cockshott]

The problem with questions of this sort is that

1. We have the benefit of hindsight which participants at the time did not
2. we simply do not know what the consequences of other possible decisions would have been. As soon as we assume for example that the USSR has not signed the pact, we have no real idea what would have happened instead. Given this assumption, our hindsight becomes worthless.

There are a number of concievable other alternatives...
Optimisitically, the UK and France might have concluded a treaty with the USSR instead
Alternatively Poland and Germany might have concluded a pact to divide the USSR with the neutrality of the Western Powers
Or Germany might have invaded Poland anyway with Soviet troops staying behind the 1939 Soviet Polish border.
In the later two cases German troops would have started significantly further East in a subsequent war.

But we just do not know what would have happened.

[RedMaterialist]

Chamberlain tried to make a deal with Hitler, why shouldn't Stalin? And Churchill made a deal with Stalin as did Roosevelt. It's not the first time in history that these kinds of deals have been made. Britain made deals with the southern states in the U.S. Civil War.

[Geiseric]

Chamberlain tried to make a deal with Hitler, why shouldn't Stalin? And Churchill made a deal with Stalin as did Roosevelt. It's not the first time in history that these kinds of deals have been made. Britain made deals with the southern states in the U.S. Civil War.

The Baku oil fields sold oil to Mussolini's navy on their way to Ethiopia. Stalinists in Spain also refused to recognize Morrocco's independence because of pressure from France and Britain whom also had colonies in North Africa, so the alliance between the USSR and the future NATO could be cemented. This is arguably the thing that lost the Republicans the Civil War. Stalin also dissolved comintern, which was founded by Lenin, and entered the USSR into the League of Nations before WW2.

[Gambino]

No.

It was a very bad political move and with a huge cost.
We have to admit that, in the end, the result was good, but, I believe that it was not because of the non-aggression pact.

[Sabot Cat]

If I understand my research correctly, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was terrible all around and a major factor in making World War II possible. I don't believe Nazi Germany would've invaded Poland if they didn't know what the Soviet Union would do in response, and even if they would have went through with it, it's even more unlikely that Germany would have opened up the Western Front if it was possible that the Soviet Union would seize upon the chance to embroil them in a disastrous two-front war. The lack of raw materials might have also crippled Nazi Germany's ability to effectively wage war.

Despite all of this, let's suppose that Nazi Germany invades Poland a little later anyway; that would be an ample opportunity for the Soviet Union to launch an offensive and call for France to fulfill its obligations pursuant to the Franco-Polish alliance and, after Germany declares war on the USSR, the Franco-Soviet Treaty of Mutual Assistance. France might be willing to do more than they did in real life because they have the Soviet Union on board, and the same could very well be true of the United Kingdom. The war would then be concluded quite early, and although it's not truly a victory for the revolutionary leftist cause per se, it's certainly a good thing if the Holocaust, the ruinous nature of the protracted war and the fascist expansion over Europe was averted or at least mitigated.

[Thirsty Crow]

Every normal communist in 1939. supported this pact, because only ignorant ultra-"lefts", who would rather destroy an entire country and it's population in fight against fascism, than to use strategy, diplomacy and tactics in fighting fascism.

Every other western state, already twice refused to make a pact with USSR, so Stalin's last resort was to try to get as much time as possible, and to turn Hitler to the western europe (that same western europe refused to ally with Stalin, because they wanted badly to use their creation of nazi germany to invade Socialist USSR).

So from this above, we get a clear answer should we support it or not...
Oh man oh man :lol:

Just to call out the obvious factual bullshit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-Soviet_Treaty_of_Mutual_Assistance

But yeah Cockshott is completely right. The issue in not one of imaginary support.

[Invader Zim]

2. we simply do not know what the consequences of other possible decisions would have been. As soon as we assume for example that the USSR has not signed the pact, we have no real idea what would have happened instead. Given this assumption, our hindsight becomes worthless.

Actually, I think we can make some pretty well educated guesses precisely because we have the benefit of hindsight:

1. Germany would not have invaded Poland - not with a hostile Soviet Union waiting in the wings and in fear of her own security in the face of further German eastward aggression, and with a hostile France and Britain to her west. Indeed, that is a key factor in the German decision in the first place, divide the powers so that it would not be faced with the potential for a Triple Entente as occurred in First World War.

2. Germany would have remained without adequate oil and other materels necessary for a later invasion of the Soviet Union, without, ironically, the trade agreement stemming from the Pact.

The former is qualitative issue of German fears regarding their own security should they find themselves in a two front conflict, while the latter is a quantitative material concern governing the ability to successfully prosecute a war - tanks and aircraft cannot operate without fuel.

[Paul Cockshott]

Brutus didn't claim that Stalin killed more people then Hitler; after all he's a materialist, who I'm sure would never chalk up x# of deaths to any given individual. What he said was that Stalin (and the political state he was representative of) butchered more communists then Hitler, a comment which is entirely accurate.
What do you reckon the communist casualties were during the war Populi - since recent estimates of total Soviet casualties are of the order of 35 million and since communists in the armed forces tended to be executed when captured by the Germans the numbers must have been pretty big.

[Paul Cockshott]

Actually, I think we can make some pretty well educated guesses precisely because we have the benefit of hindsight:

1. Germany would not have invaded Poland - not with a hostile Soviet Union waiting in the wings and in fear of her own security in the face of further German eastward aggression, and with a hostile France and Britain to her west. Indeed, that is a key factor in the German decision in the first place, divide the powers so that it would not be faced with the potential for a Triple Entente as occurred in First World War.


The former is qualitative issue of German fears regarding their own security should they find themselves in a two front conflict, while the latter is a quantitative material concern governing the ability to successfully prosecute a war - tanks and aircraft cannot operate without fuel.

Since we have delved into alternative history speculation I suggest you read Turtledoves 'the war that came early'. An alliance with Poland rather than an invasion of it was an option for Germany. In alliance with Poland the motivation for France and Britain to attack is low and all resources can be concentrated on the offensive to the east.

[Invader Zim]

We aren't engaged in alternative history - we are engaged in actual history, which in this instance is precisely what the Nazis did: sign the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact because they knew they needed both security and the material resources to have a serious hope of success in long term foreign policy aims.

[Paul Cockshott]

Yes we know what actually happened, but as soon as you say that a particular decision by a historical actor was a 'mistake' such a judgement is based on a hypothesis about what a counter-factual history would have been. Your hypothesis is that Germany would not have invaded Poland. But that does not exhaust the possibilities for alliances. There was the possibility of a German alliance with Poland.Remember that one factor making it impossible for the USSR to give support to the Czechs in 38 was that such support would have involved moving the red army accross Polish territory to attack Germany, something the Poles would not agree to. Indeed in 38 the Poles were de-facto in alliance with Germany already, participating in the division of Czech lands.