Soviet-German trade 1939-1941

[Dimentio]

To all you who defend and uphold the actions of the Soviet government, take a look at this (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/nazsov/ns120.htm). Quite ironic that it was Soviet resources which made possible the German onslaught of the Soviet Union, at a time when the UK blockaded German ports.

[spartan]

To all you who defend and uphold the actions of the Soviet government, take a look at this (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/nazsov/ns120.htm).
This is quite shocking actually!

Thank you for bringing this to my attention Serpent.

Quite ironic that it was Soviet resources which made possible the German onslaught of the Soviet Union, at a time when the UK blockaded German ports.
And whats most nuts is that the UK is a Capitalist state, so it was against its intrests to not trade with Germany!

Seems that the self described Socialist USSR had more of a desire to trade on the Capitalist market, and with a Fascist state at that, then a Capitalist state like the UK, who actually stuck to their word in these matters (Which is a bit of a surprise for a Capitalist state).

The USSR wasnt even at war either, so the Stalin apologists cant use that excuse, whilst the UK was at war and still seemingly stuck to what it said on these matters.

I also like this bit from the article:


And People's Commissar Mikoyan had to refer numerous questions to Stalin personally, since his authority was not sufficient.

Kind of contradicts what the Stalin apologists say about his lack of authoritary and him not being a Dictator.

[Sky]

There was Soviet-German trade throughout the 1930s. Other countries had a far larger trade volume with Germany, particularly Poland; something like one-third of Poland's total trade in the 1930s was with Germany. The USSR was in no way an arsenal for Germany the way the United States was for England during 1939-41. The United States proved to be a far more significant arsenal for Japan than the USSR ever was for Germany. The United States sold a far higher volume of oil to Japan than Russia did to Germany. Soviet-German relations from 1939 until June 1941 was merely a restoration of the Rappalo (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/intdip/formulti/rapallo_001.htm) period.

Plus, there was nothing one-sided about this trade agreement. Even the document you cite contains information showing that this trade agreement was mutually beneficial.


4. The German deliveries comprise industrial products, industrial processes and installations as well as war materiel. The Soviet deliveries of the first 12 months are to be compensated by us within 15 months. The Soviet deliveries of the first 6 months of the second treaty year (13th to 18th month) are to be compensated by us within 12 months (from the 16th to the 27th month).

[Dimentio]

There was Soviet-German trade throughout the 1930s. Other countries had a far larger trade volume with Germany, particularly Poland; something like one-third of Poland's total trade in the 1930s was with Germany. The USSR was in no way an arsenal for Germany the way the United States was for England during 1939-41. The United States proved to be a far more significant arsenal for Japan than the USSR ever was for Germany. The United States sold a far higher volume of oil to Japan than Russia did to Germany. Soviet-German relations from 1939 until June 1941 was merely a restoration of the Rappalo (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/intdip/formulti/rapallo_001.htm) period.

Plus, there was nothing one-sided about this trade agreement. Even the document you cite contains information showing that this trade agreement was mutually beneficial.

That was never the case. The case was that Germany had a lack of raw materials which the USSR happily provided for. In practice, the USSR and Germany were allies during the first phase of the Second World war, with the USSR providing German aircraft with bases to strike against Poland, as well as importing goods for Germany.

And no, the treaty was not mutually beneficial. Before the USSR had received it's share, Germany violated the non-aggression pact and bulldozered the soviet border on the 22nd of june 1941.

[Wanted Man]

Countries traded? Oh noes, I'm devastated (nobody ever claimed that they didn't, so I'm not sure who is supposed to be convinced here).

During Lenin's days, the USSR traded with Italy just after Mussolini had come to power. In fact, fascist Italy was one of the few countries that even wanted to have friendly relations with the USSR at the time. I think I'll end my complete worship of Lenin and every single one of his actions now. :(

[Dimentio]

There is a moral difference between trading with a country that is at peace and one that is at war. Germany needed the Soviet resources, and Stalin provided them with that.

[spartan]

There is a moral difference between trading with a country that is at peace and one that is at war. Germany needed the Soviet resources, and Stalin provided them with that.

Exactly my thoughts as well.

If Stalin was such an anti-Fascist then why did he provide a Fascist state with the means to survive for that much longer?

Surely like any other person he would have seen the opportunity in forcing big concessions out of the Nazi leadership for any of the resources that he provided to them?

Instead Stalin just appears to have given huge amounts of aid to a country that it was friendly with and practically allied to at the start of WW2.

This is unforgivable as it gave Germany the means to survive and carry on the war.

[Wanted Man]

I wanted to edit a lot more in my post, but I logged out after a while. Here we go again:

Countries traded? Oh noes, I'm devastated (nobody ever claimed that they didn't, so I'm not sure who is supposed to be convinced here). The trade agreement with Germany was the single most important one. Attempts to make agreements with the USA met with unwillingness, even hostility. Britain and France also refused to sell machines, equipment and weaponry.

It's still ignorant to speak of an "alliance". Molotov clearly instructed his London ambassador Maiski not to think of this, because entering an alliance with a nation of war is unpredictable and dangerous. Molotov also said that talk of an alliance was done by German elements, seeking to intimidate Britain and France, and some British and French elements.

During Lenin's days, the USSR traded with Italy just after Mussolini had come to power. In fact, fascist Italy was one of the few countries that even wanted to have friendly relations with the USSR at the time. I think I'll end my complete worship of Lenin and every single one of his actions now.

Anyway, in late 1940, relations between the USSR and Germany began to sour. Molotov visited Berlin on 12 November to share his grievances about the German troops and arms deliveries to Finland, the German "military mission" in Romania, Germany's increasing pressure on Bulgaria, the German failure to deliver according to the trade agreement, and the Tripartite Pact with Italy and Japan, which was definitely a threat.

Von Ribbentrop proposed a quadripartite German-USSR-Italian-Japanese axis in late November. The USSR would only sign in exchange for a retreat of German troops from Finland, a Soviet military presence in Bulgaria, recognition of USSR interests in Persian oil fields and Japan relinquishing its claim on north Sakhalin. Not very realistic demands. If anything, Stalin's demands increased over time, leading Hitler to call him "a cold-blooded extortionist".

After all this, preparation for war began on both sides. The Germans laid down plan Barbarossa on 18 December 1940, while the USSR prepared the plan of evacuating the industries to the east.

As we have seen above, there was no alliance. Plans to make an alliance were snubbed. Relations broke down over several issues. Preparation began. So here we see the refutation of three myths: that there was an alliance, that the USSR believed relations with Germany were good, and that they did not prepare for war because of that.

Source: "Het Pact", Lieven Soete. You can see his sources in the footnotes: http://www.katardat.org/4pact/pact12.html#Voetnoten

[Dimentio]

Do you deny the Soviet Union gave resources to Germany?

[Sky]

Again, some context is necessary. The Soviet Union had traded with Germany throughout the 1930s during and after the Nazi coup. Plus, Russian foreign trade in 1939-40 was a mere fraction of previous years. The 1913 level of Russia's foreign trade was about 15 times higher than the figures for 1939-40.

Soviet imports from Germany as total percent for each year:
1932: 46%
1933: 42%
1934: 12%
1935: 9%
1936: 23%
1937: 15%
1938: 5%
1939: 6%
1940: 29%

Russian exports (millions of gold rubles)
1913: 1506
1930: 1036
1937: 376
1938: 293
1939: 133
1940: 306

Source: Davies, Wheatcroft, Harrison, "Economic Transformation of the Soviet Union, 1913-45"

[Dimentio]

Note the 1939-1940 rise in foreign trade with Germany.

It is not surprising that trade decreased during the USSR, but that was not the point. The point was that the Soviet Union provided an imperialist and fascist beast with the resources it needed to wage war.

[Wanted Man]

Do you deny the Soviet Union gave resources to Germany?
What, is this a trial? If so, you can stick it up your bug-eyed internet warrior arse, and go back to talking about arguments on technocracy sites. Either we're going to talk straight about this subject by getting our facts right, or it's totally pointless.

[spartan]

The whole point is that Soviet trade with Germany increased big time at the outbreak of WW2.

Germany needed the resources, that the USSR happily provided to them, as they would have been severley hampered in their war effort without them.

So if Stalin was such an anti-Fascist, why didnt he force concessions out of the Germans as a price for gaining these much needed and desired Soviets resources?

Hell why did Stalin even allow this increased trade with Germany to happen in the first place, as he surely knew that not giving Germany the much needed resources would hamper German attempts at expansionism in Europe, and thus weaken Germany, both economically and socially, and the Nazis hold on power?

He also cant use the excuse of German aggression, if he didnt give them the resources, as he didnt have to worry about any German threat to the USSR in 1939 as Germany simply didnt have the resources for war on a huge scale then (That is why the Germans put their faith in the Blitzkrieg tactics to quickly suppress a superior foe and lead to a quick end to a campaign/war).

The Germans eventually got the resources, which enabled them to carry on the war and eventually invade the USSR, from the USSR themselves and all with Stalins apparent blessing!

What the hell does that tell you about the USSR and Stalin?

[Dimentio]

What, is this a trial? If so, you can stick it up your bug-eyed internet warrior arse, and go back to talking about arguments on technocracy sites. Either we're going to talk straight about this subject by getting our facts right, or it's totally pointless.

I am getting straight on this, mostly because of the unwarranted defense another stalinist took for the Soviet invasion of Finland in 1917, which pissed of one of my comrades.

My own opinion of the USSR, is that it turned out into a despotic bureaucratic lumbering monster with a bad breath. But that is the subject of another thread.

[Vahanian]

id like to say that the soviet traded with grmany because of the 1939 pact and because the soviet need time to put there army back in order. if you dint notic this in the histroy books look now. stalin got his ass kicked by the fiins with an army 1/10 the size of the red army. also the purges of the 30's