Molotov-Ribbentrop pact - Stalin's greatest crime

[Unicorn]

The usual excuse for Stalin's deal with Hitler is that the USSR had to "buy time" because it was not ready for a war with Germany in 1939.

This is nonsense. If Stalin had guaranteed Poland's independence it is likely that Hitler would not even have started WWII. If Hitler did so Germany would have quickly collapsed. Red Army was more powerful than Wehrmacht even 1-vs-1 in 1939. Germany would have no chance of hell fighting a two-front war against Poland, USSR, France and Britain.

And why did the Soviets need to start Winter War and invade Finland? Stalin stated that the Finnish border was too close to Leningrad and imperialist powers could seriously threaten the USSR attacking from Finnish territory. But which imperialist powers exactly? No major powers had a land border with the USSR before M-R pact which made the USSR safe from invasion unless some imperialist power managed to invade or ally with Poland. The M-R pact gave Germany a land border with the Soviet Union it needed to invade the Soviet Union.

Stalinists claim that the M-R pact delayed the German invasion to the Soviet Union. The fact is that the pact actually enabled and caused it.

[Intelligitimate]

More counterfactual bullshit that doesn't even make sense. Both the Polish and Finnish governments were extremely right-wing, Finland even fought with the Nazis. The territories acted as a buffer zone which the Nazi onslaught had to go through first, which is the only reason why they didn't make further than they did.

And yes, it most certainly did temporarily avert war with the Nazis, giving the USSR valuable time to shift its economy toward war. The Western imperialists were busy trying to make a pact with Hitler just so they get them in a war with the USSR. Stalin just beat them to the punch. It was their own fault for absolutely refusing to go along with the previous Soviet policy of Collective Security.

[Wanted Man]

This is nonsense. If Stalin had guaranteed Poland's independence it is likely that Hitler would not even have started WWII. If Hitler did so Germany would have quickly collapsed. Red Army was more powerful than Wehrmacht even 1-vs-1 in 1939.
Utter crap. I can't take anybody who believes this seriously. Your 'what if' scenario has different circumstances for both the Soviets and the Germans, but it also assumes that the western front would still go on as usual, as if the different 'what if' turn of events would not have affected that. Who says France and Britain would have fought? Like they did when Poland got invaded, no doubt. The Saar offensive must have devastated the Germans in your view of history! :lol:

Speaking of a two-front war, at that time, Zhukov was still in Mongolia, wrapping up the border war with Japan that the high school textbooks never talk about. When his forces made it to Moscow in 1941, that was the first serious setback for the Germans (besides Barbarossa itself, which failed in its objectives). Who says that things would have gone the same way in Asia? That's why 'what if' scenarios are not very useful. They rely on so many factors, and you can downplay or inflate their importance to make your political point.

Anyway, it's quite simple: there had been negotiations between the USSR and the west, the west and Germany, and the USSR and Germany. The USSR knew that a war with the Nazis would occur at some point, and pushed for a treaty with the west, that included a guarantee to actually fight Germany once the shit hit the fan (as opposed to a 'Saar offensive', a possibility that had already occured to the USSR).

That didn't happen, so the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact did. It's that simple. With the designated 'spheres of influence', the USSR got the chance to create the 'defensive buffer'. The Winter War exposed some great weaknesses (without that, how would Barbarossa have gone..?), after which 'regime change' went a lot better in the Baltics. By the end of 1940, things already weren't going smooth with Germany, which deployed troops to Finland and the authoritarian states in Eastern Europe. The rest, as they say, is history.

[Awful Reality]

I don't think it matters- the pact never led to much.

The Soviet Union ultimately played a minuscule role in the invasion of Poland, etc. before it was invaded.

By the way, it should also be noted that what enabled Nazi Germany to invade the USSR was the Winter War, which heavily crippled the Soviet Army.

[Wanted Man]

By the way, it should also be noted that what enabled Nazi Germany to invade the USSR was the Winter War, which heavily crippled the Soviet Army.
I doubt that. Of course, the USSR suffered heavy losses there. But otherwise, Germany would probably still manage to deploy troops to Finland, so there would still be Soviet divisions defending the Finnish border instead of the border with Germany. And the Moscow Peace Treaty still gave important Finnish territories to the USSR.

[Luís Henrique]

Not the murder of Trotsky, or the judicial murder of Bukharin? Not the purge in the Army? Not the successive purges in the party? Not the ill-thought collectivisation and the untimely revocation of NEP? Not the forceful transfers of whole populations? Not the loosened discipline of the German troops occupying Germany? Not the betrayal of the Chinese revolution? Not the double game in Spain? Not the "social-fascist" bullshit leading to Hitler's rise to power? Not the halt in the march to Warsaw?

In my reckoning, it was Stalin's 548th greatest crime.


The usual excuse for Stalin's deal with Hitler is that the USSR had to "buy time" because it was not ready for a war with Germany in 1939.

Seems a reasonable excuse. The Red Army's top had been cut out during the purge in June 1937. 90% of the generals were purged, most of them executed - partially, at least, on a provocation by Heydrich. The Army certainly needed to be rebuilt. The Soviets were engaging in an important project - the T34 tank, which would prove to be a decisive weapon against Nazi Germany - but in 1939 its massive production had not yet started. In fact, in 1941, when war effectively broke, only a few units were fielded against the Wehrmacht; it was only in December, in Moscow's outskirts, that a considerable force of T34s showed up, and beat the shit out of German Panzers.


This is nonsense. If Stalin had guaranteed Poland's independence it is likely that Hitler would not even have started WWII.

Maybe. It was Stalin's strategy, though, to engage France and Britain against Germany; when the British and the French gave Hitler Czechoslovakia without a fight, the logical conclusion was that the Soviet Union would be left with the brunt of the task of defending Poland against Germany, while England and France would engage in a communiqué "war" at most (and, in fact, this was what they did once Poland was invaded).

Plus, the Polish government stubbornly refused Soviet offers of help (perhaps with some reason; they feared being reduced to a Soviet protectorate).


If Hitler did so Germany would have quickly collapsed. Red Army was more powerful than Wehrmacht even 1-vs-1 in 1939. Germany would have no chance of hell fighting a two-front war against Poland, USSR, France and Britain.

The Red Army was no match to the Wehrmacht in 1939. And the two-front war would have depended on the whims of France (whose élite was already adhering to the slogan "plutôt Hitler que le Front Populaire") and Britain (in which Churchill hadn't yet replaced Neville "the peace for our time" Chamberlain).


And why did the Soviets need to start Winter War and invade Finland?

To put some more hinterland behind Leningrad. But the Winter War is a separate crime from the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.


Stalinists claim that the M-R pact delayed the German invasion to the Soviet Union. The fact is that the pact actually enabled and caused it.

That's much debatable. It is more probable that, in fact, it delayed the invasion. It is also possible that, in driving Hitler's push towards the West, it provoked the end of Chamberlain's career, and engaged Britain decisively in the war. However, it is also evident that it did not delay the invasion for time enough. The Red Army was caught by surprise; the rearming was not complete; and it was necessary to conceive and execute in a haste a whole plan to transfer Soviet industry to the East.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Speaking of a two-front war, at that time, Zhukov was still in Mongolia, wrapping up the border war with Japan that the high school textbooks never talk about.

Yes, there was also the Japanese factor. In this, the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact played a positive role, for it undermined the trust between Tokyo and Berlin; the Japanese were not heard about the maneuver and decided they could not trust Hitler on the Soviet issue. Having had a very hard time against the Red Army in 1939, they decided to make a separate treaty with Moscow, and focus on what seemed an easier prey - the beheaded French and Dutch colonies in the Pacific, as well as the weakened British colonies. That eventually made their conflict with the US unavoidable, and nailed the Axis' coffin.

Luís Henrique

[RNK]

A) The Winter War did not cripple the Red Army. What it did was spread the idea within the German generalship that the Red Army was a completely incapable and defunct army that could easily be defeated in battle, and this was one of the main factors in the decision to invade the USSR.

B) Depending on how you look at it, the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was a necessary step for the Soviet Union. Many anti-communists see the pact as an instance of Nazi-Communist partnership -- in reality, Stalin wanted a buffer zone between him and Hitler, both of whom were sworn enemies, both personally and ideologically. A side-note of the Pact was that Hitler demanded that Stalin send him all of the ethnic German populations of the baltic states and eastern Poland, which Stalin was all to happy to comply with given that Hitler had just annexed Austria and Czechoslovakia and invaded Poland to 'secure' ethnic Germans.

C) There's a small amount of evidence that the Red Army was in the process of mobilizing for an attack into Poland and Germany, though evidence for this is somewhat scare and inconsistent.

D) The Red Army could not have taken the Wehrmacht on 1-on-1; in 1941 Germany invaded the USSR with over 4,000,000 troops and heavily outnumbered the Soviets. It wasn't until two years or so later after the Soviet Union mobilized tens of millions and began mass producing weapons in the far east that they were able to turn the tide.

E) We can criticize Stalin for the Pact all we want, but you've got to ask yourself; would YOU have wanted Hitler's tanks right on your border?

[Luís Henrique]

On the other hand, the pact did demoralise the communist parties abroad. But this was the continuation of a pattern: the politics of the movement were dictated by the SU needs as a great power, not by the needs of the class struggle against capital and the bourgeoisie.

Luís Henrique

[spartan]

E) We can criticize Stalin for the Pact all we want, but you've got to ask yourself; would YOU have wanted Hitler's tanks right on your border?

There may not have been tanks on his border had he not signed the pact and moved west with his army whilst Hitler moved east.

The pact didnt create a "buffer zone" for the USSR and Nazi Germany, all it did was eliminate all neutral countries in between themselves which ironically meant that German tanks would be on the newly drawn up border of the USSR after all.

What was left of the Polish army after Germany's Blitzkrieg onslaught was going to retreat into the east of the country to regroup and be better able to face Hitler's troops (Who were fast running out of ammunition and fuel).

The only problem was that the USSR had already invaded eastern Poland and the well equipped and relatively modern (For the period) Polish army was stuck inbetween two armies and with nowhere to go they were forced to surrender.

[Invader Zim]

The question of exactly why Stalin 'got into bed' with Hitler, is one which historians have debated at lengthand no doubt will do for many many years to come. However opinion is the West, i think is rather well portrayed by one of David Low's cartoons. David Low was a famous New Zealand born British cartoonist, who made some of the most iconic cartoons satirising the Molotov-Rippentrop pact: -

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/RUSbarbara.jpg

[BobKKKindle$]

A far greater crime was Stalin's complicity in Hitler's rise to power - if he had not allowed this to occur, the issue of the M-R pact would be historically redundant. I'd like to reproduce a post I've made previously:

Hitler was only able to come to power because Stalin adopted an ultra-left position by labeling the SPD "social-fascists" - this prevented the KPD (which was the main revolutionary party in Germany and a member of Comintern, and thus subject to the control of the Soviet government) from forming a united front to defeat fascism, which was a more serious threat than the reformist ideas of the SPD. This would have meant joint campaigning and a united defence of workers' meetings and activists. A united front would not mean, however, its different components giving up the right to put forward an alternative analysis and programme. A united front would also have enabled KPD militants to win members of the SPD over to a more radical position by challenging their ideas and showing that, to attain a real improvement in the position of the working class, it is necessary to change the way society is organized, instead of just using reforms within the framework of the existing system.

Instead of adopting this policy, the KPD considered the SPD as the main enemy, or at least an enemy equivalent to the Nazis, such that when, in mid-1931, the Nazis invoked a referendum on whether the SPD-led regional government in Prussia should be replaced, the KPD promoted a vote in favour, even though they knew that this would allow the Nazi party to attain control of the region.

I have never heard a decent defense for this absurd policy - nor Stalin's inconsistency, as, on other occasions, he forced communist parties to enter into alliances which were hostile to the working class. These two policies - of complete isolation - and of blatant opportunism - are two extreme poles, and are both inferior to the United Front.

Putting that aside, however, the M-R pact was still without justification. If Stalin had rejected the alliance, Hitler would not have chosen to start the war, because he was aware that Germany would be unable to fight a war on two fronts. However, in the interests of objectivity, Stalin had earlier tried to create a defensive alliance with the western democracies, which they had rejected.

[Wanted Man]

Bobkindles: your last paragraph on the M-R Pact has already been refuted thoroughly in this very thread. The discussion on Hitler's rise to power is interesting, though. If you want to talk about the 'need' to ally with the people who voted the nazis into power, the killers of Liebknecht and Luxemburg, etc., it would be good to have a new thread.


There may not have been tanks on his border had he not signed the pact and moved west with his army whilst Hitler moved east.

The pact didnt create a "buffer zone" for the USSR and Nazi Germany, all it did was eliminate all neutral countries in between themselves which ironically meant that German tanks would be on the newly drawn up border of the USSR after all.

What was left of the Polish army after Germany's Blitzkrieg onslaught was going to retreat into the east of the country to regroup and be better able to face Hitler's troops (Who were fast running out of ammunition and fuel).

The only problem was that the USSR had already invaded eastern Poland and the well equipped and relatively modern (For the period) Polish army was stuck inbetween two armies and with nowhere to go they were forced to surrender.
The Polish army would have never been able to 'hold back' Germany, whether in 1939 or 1941 or any other time. We're talking about the Wehrmacht here. You say that Germany employed a "blitzkrieg onslaught" against Poland. This is a kind of urban legend, a popular myth (again, mostly from simplified textbooks). Germany's strategy against Poland was still pretty conventional. A truly good example of Blitzkrieg followed a half year later.

Anyway, even if that was possible, how eager do you think the Polish military government would have been to act as a 'shield' for the hated Russians? Why would Germany even want to invade them, when they could use them for the war against bolshevism? If they fought for the USSR, they only stood to lose the parts of Belarus and Ukraine that they took in 1920. In the years before WWII, Poland happily played the part of the vulture, taking a small slice of Czechoslovakia. Hardly a reliable 'neutral' buffer state.

[Luís Henrique]

the well equipped and relatively modern (For the period) Polish army

That's embarrassing. From where did you take this strange idea that the Polish army could be able to face the Wehrmacht?

Smigly-Ridz made a very conscious choice to put all of his hopes in stopping the Germans at the border. Once his initial lines were broken, it was over; there was no in-depth defence.

The Polish air-force was destroyed on the floor within the first 24 hours of struggle. The Poles had practically no tanks, those that they had were obsolete compared to the Germans', and they did not know how to use them effectively. Stukas raided the Polish lines at will. The Panzer divisions broke the Polish lines in three days; by the seventh day they were reaching Warsaw. The best units of the Polish army were its cavalry; it could do nothing against advancing tanks.

The Poles fought with extraordinary valour and selflessness, but with absolutely no chance of victory, and under very incompetent commanders.

Luís Henrique

[Invader Zim]

Perhaps Spartan means the Czech army, which was relatively well equipped, trained and entrenched. Obviously the loss of the Sudetenland put paid to that.

[spartan]

That's embarrassing. From where did you take this strange idea that the Polish army could be able to face the Wehrmacht?

It was from a book that i read (Cant remember what it was called) and it was examining the equipment, organization and uniforms of all the major combatant nations at the start of the second world war.

It basically said that whilst Poland's army wasnt as well equipped as Germanys, it was still a well equipped force for the period (Albeit with outdated aircraft and tanks) which under good command (And with a good defensive strategy) could have put up a far better resistance to Germany (Not that their defence wasnt courageous) for much longer than it originally did.

If that would have been the case then Britain and France would have had the opportunity to have done much more than their half hearted attempt at an offensive with their Saar offensive in 1939.


Perhaps Spartan means the Czech army, which was relatively well equipped, trained and entrenched. Obviously the loss of the Sudetenland put paid to that.

No i was talking about the Polish army though i do agree that the Czech army was a well equipped force and probably better than Poland's army.

If the Czech's had decided to defend the mountainous Sudetenland, with its chain of defensive military fortifications, then they probably would have easily halted any German offensives against them whilst Poland (If Czechoslovakia and Poland allied together) could attack Germany from the north whilst the Czech's counter attacked from sudetenland in the south leading to a military defeat for Nazi Germany in early 1939.

Of course this is all with hindsight so...

[Invader Zim]

No i was talking about the Polish army

In that case you are simply wrong. There are famous stories of the Polish army attacking the German tanks with cavalry. Obviously that is largely Nazi propaganda, but within that lurks a seed of truth.

[Wanted Man]

(If Czechoslovakia and Poland allied together)
Why the heck would they do that? Poland was more like Hungary: a vulture profiting from Germany's exploits.

Anyway, the Czechs obviously posed a formidable challenge, but it shows great ignorance to say that they would have 'easily' (if at all) halted the Wehrmacht. Even then, what kind of attacking capability would they have had to 'counter attack' and cause Germany a 'military defeat'?

As exciting as the idea seems (I've put it into practice in Hearts of Iron countlessly), it's just crazy-talk, it could never have been done.

[Luís Henrique]

Nevermind.

Luís Henrique

[Die Neue Zeit]

On the other hand, the pact did demoralise the communist parties abroad. But this was the continuation of a pattern: the politics of the movement were dictated by the SU needs as a great power, not by the needs of the class struggle against capital and the bourgeoisie.

Luís Henrique

Touche!


Hitler would not have chosen to start the war, because he was aware that Germany would be unable to fight a war on two fronts.

bobkindles, even in terms of realpolitik, Stalin should NOT have adopted the "ultra-left" position of having the KPD cooperating with the bloody f****** Nazis, no matter how already bloodstained the SPD's collective hands were (Luxemburg).

In any event, Stalin was the first to try to contain Hitler (after his own "ultra-left" blunder), but the West wanted to cozy up to the SOB. There's a cartoon where Stalin enters a room with Hitler and the Western leaders sitting down:

What? No chair for me?

Hitler (meanwhile), as much as he hated the Soviets, saw through the double-scheming games of the Western powers, who wanted to use Germany as a buffer. For this reason, and for the apparent reason that he thought Stalin to be a not-so-crafty double-schemer (both parties knew that war would break out between the two eventually), decided to temporarily set his anti-Soviet plans aside and sent Ribbentrop.


Having had a very hard time against the Red Army in 1939, they decided to make a separate treaty with Moscow, and focus on what seemed an easier prey - the beheaded French and Dutch colonies in the Pacific, as well as the weakened British colonies. That eventually made their conflict with the US unavoidable, and nailed the Axis' coffin.

That's old news. ;) However:


In this, the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact played a positive role, for it undermined the trust between Tokyo and Berlin; the Japanese were not heard about the maneuver and decided they could not trust Hitler on the Soviet issue.

I didn't know about this tidbit one bit! :scared:

I thought the Japanese imperialists didn't want to invade in 1941 because of the defeats suffered at the hands of the Soviets, not because of this diplomatic maneuver. :confused:

[Invader Zim]

What? No chair for me?

It is another of Low's cartoons: -

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/RUSnazipact.jpg

[Wanted Man]

I think most people will have seen these cartoons. It's not as if they aren't in every single textbook, Wikipedia page and WWII website already. They're nice, but they really don't add much to this thread.

[Invader Zim]

I think most people will have seen these cartoons. It's not as if they aren't in every single textbook, Wikipedia page and WWII website already. They're nice, but they really don't add much to this thread.

They represent opinion of the period, and they also explain why people still to this day, including the thread starter, have pre-conceptions of this topic.

[Unicorn]

Utter crap. I can't take anybody who believes this seriously. Your 'what if' scenario has different circumstances for both the Soviets and the Germans, but it also assumes that the western front would still go on as usual, as if the different 'what if' turn of events would not have affected that. Who says France and Britain would have fought? Like they did when Poland got invaded, no doubt. The Saar offensive must have devastated the Germans in your view of history! :lol:
Germany attacked Poland with 56 divisions and many of them were insufficiently trained and equipped. The Red Army was the most powerful military force in the world and could have easily mobilized 150 divisions against the Germans. The Soviets and Poles would have 4:1 superiority in tanks and men.

It is true that France would not "actually fight" against Germans in 1939 and Soviets would suffer the majority of casualties. However, the casualties would still be a tiny fraction of those suffered in the Great Patriotic War. There is no way the Germans would ever make it to Soviet territory.

Because the Royal Navy was embargoing Germany the Nazis were also dependent of Soviet raw materials.
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/nazsov/ns120.htm



Speaking of a two-front war, at that time, Zhukov was still in Mongolia, wrapping up the border war with Japan that the high school textbooks never talk about.

When his forces made it to Moscow in 1941, that was the first serious setback for the Germans (besides Barbarossa itself, which failed in its objectives). Who says that things would have gone the same way in Asia? That's why 'what if' scenarios are not very useful. They rely on so many factors, and you can downplay or inflate their importance to make your political point.
You are confused. The Soviets had around 60 000 men in the Battle of Khalkhin Gol. That is an insignificantly small part of the Red Army. In the Battle of Moscow Zhukov commanded the Central Front, over a million men and thousands of tanks.



That didn't happen, so the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact did. It's that simple. With the designated 'spheres of influence', the USSR got the chance to create the 'defensive buffer'. The Winter War exposed some great weaknesses (without that, how would Barbarossa have gone..?), after which 'regime change' went a lot better in the Baltics. By the end of 1940, things already weren't going smooth with Germany, which deployed troops to Finland and the authoritarian states in Eastern Europe. The rest, as they say, is history.
The Winter War was fought in a very different climate and terrain than a possible campaign in Poland. The Soviets would have easily beat the Nazis in Poland with existing doctrines and forces.

[Unicorn]

Seems a reasonable excuse. The Red Army's top had been cut out during the purge in June 1937. 90% of the generals were purged, most of them executed - partially, at least, on a provocation by Heydrich. The Army certainly needed to be rebuilt. The Soviets were engaging in an important project - the T34 tank, which would prove to be a decisive weapon against Nazi Germany - but in 1939 its massive production had not yet started. In fact, in 1941, when war effectively broke, only a few units were fielded against the Wehrmacht; it was only in December, in Moscow's outskirts, that a considerable force of T34s showed up, and beat the shit out of German Panzers.
In 1939 the Soviets had the KV heavy tank which was superior to anything the Germans had. The Soviets also had tanks and motorized divisions in far greater numbers. The Soviet tanks were technically roughly equal to the tanks the Germans had then (mainly Pzkpfw Is and Pzkpfw IIs).

The Germans actually gained strength between 1939 and 1941 more than the Soviets and gained new allies. Finland and Romania would be neutral in 1939.

Also, because Versailles treaty had forbidden conscription in Germany the Wehrmacht reserves were largely untrained. The Germans would have only roughly 60 divisions against 200+ Soviet and Polish divisions.



Maybe. It was Stalin's strategy, though, to engage France and Britain against Germany; when the British and the French gave Hitler Czechoslovakia without a fight, the logical conclusion was that the Soviet Union would be left with the brunt of the task of defending Poland against Germany, while England and France would engage in a communiqué "war" at most (and, in fact, this was what they did once Poland was invaded).
True but this task would be far less bloody than the Great Patriotic War. (Military casualties only 5-10% of the historical figure and no civilian casualties)

[quote]
Plus, the Polish government stubbornly refused Soviet offers of help (perhaps with some reason; they feared being reduced to a Soviet protectorate).
Yes but wouldn't really prevent the Soviets from crossing the lightly guarded border. They historically did so with bad intentions causing the collapse of the Polish defence.



The Red Army was no match to the Wehrmacht in 1939. And the two-front war would have depended on the whims of France (whose élite was already adhering to the slogan "plutôt Hitler que le Front Populaire") and Britain (in which Churchill hadn't yet replaced Neville "the peace for our time" Chamberlain).
That is untrue. See this table of the strength of the Red Army in January 1939:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_barbarossa#Soviet_preparations

The Soviets would have 3:1 advantage in men and 5:1 advantage in tanks. In 1941, the situation was much worse for the Soviets.



To put some more hinterland behind Leningrad. But the Winter War is a separate crime from the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.

That's much debatable. It is more probable that, in fact, it delayed the invasion. It is also possible that, in driving Hitler's push towards the West, it provoked the end of Chamberlain's career, and engaged Britain decisively in the war. However, it is also evident that it did not delay the invasion for time enough. The Red Army was caught by surprise; the rearming was not complete; and it was necessary to conceive and execute in a haste a whole plan to transfer Soviet industry to the East.
Even if the Soviets did nothing but declare war against Germany and let Poland fall Operation Barbarossa would never happen and the Germans wouldn't conquer France. German troops would be barely sufficient to guard the French and Soviet borders. An attack through Belgium and Netherlands would be out of the question.

Wehrmacht was greatly strenghtened by Soviet raw material deliveries and captured French industry, weapons and equipment in 1940. Germany eliminated the 6-million strong French army in the Battle of France.

I don't see how Germany could ever attack the Soviet Union without the Molotov-Ribbentropp pact.

[Unicorn]

bump

The Stalinists haven't answered to my points.

[Red October]

The Red Army could not beat the Wehrmacht in 1941, and they certainly couldn't have done it in 1939, that's just fairy tale thinking. At that point the USSR's economy was not done mobilizing for war, while the Germans had been ready for war for quite a while. It wasn't until the USSR was able to call up millions of soldiers and put their eastern war production into overdrive that they were able to push the Germans back. The Red Army also had to adopt new, better tactics instead of the outdated strategies they were using at the beginning of the war. When they put the huge bulk of Soviet industry to the war and modernized the Red Army into an effective, mechanized army, then they could take on the Germans. But none of those things happened in 1939.

[Die Neue Zeit]

[/I]It is another of Low's cartoons: -

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/RUSnazipact.jpg

Yeah. I liked that cute cartoon. :cool: :D

[Unicorn]

The Red Army could not beat the Wehrmacht in 1941, and they certainly couldn't have done it in 1939, that's just fairy tale thinking.
In 1941 the Red Army faced alone nearly the full might of the Wehrmacht + Hungarians, Romanians, Bulgarians and Finns.

In September 1939 Italy, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria and Finland would be neutral.

The armies of Poland, Britain and France would tie a large part of German forces.

Winning would be a cakewalk and the Wehrmacht would never conquer an inch of Soviet soil. Despite the inferiority of Soviet doctrines winning battles with 5:1 numeric superiority is easy. War production would be much larger because factories won't be destroyed or evacuated.

[Holden Caulfield]

the USSR was secretly helping to train German soldiers even before Hitler came to power so if they didnt do this maybe the German army could have been even shitter but then again it was part of a trade deal so probably so would the Russian army and economy,

also if the Russians had been fighting before the Capitalist nations would they have joined in or sat back and let these two 'enemies' destroy each other?

[Unicorn]

also if the Russians had been fighting before the Capitalist nations would they have joined in or sat back and let these two 'enemies' destroy each other?
No, if there is already a war between the capitalist powers. The US and Britain did provide Lend-Lease to the Soviet Union.

[Red October]

In 1941 the Red Army faced alone nearly the full might of the Wehrmacht + Hungarians, Romanians, Bulgarians and Finns.

In September 1939 Italy, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria and Finland would be neutral.

The armies of Poland, Britain and France would tie a large part of German forces.

Winning would be a cakewalk and the Wehrmacht would never conquer an inch of Soviet soil. Despite the inferiority of Soviet doctrines winning battles with 5:1 numeric superiority is easy. War production would be much larger because factories won't be destroyed or evacuated.

In 1941 Russia faced the Wehrmacht and got their asses handed to them, because it simply was not prepared for the war yet. Even with two other fronts (Western and Italian, not to mention Africa), the Red Army had a very difficult time pushing the Germans back. They also had a hell of a lot of help with supplies from the Western powers. There is no way the Red Army of 1939 could have faced Germany and it's allies and won.

[Unicorn]

In 1941 Russia faced the Wehrmacht and got their asses handed to them, because it simply was not prepared for the war yet. Even with two other fronts (Western and Italian, not to mention Africa), the Red Army had a very difficult time pushing the Germans back. They also had a hell of a lot of help with supplies from the Western powers. There is no way the Red Army of 1939 could have faced Germany and it's allies and won.
In 1939 the Wehrmacht was still weak. It could use ~50 divisions in the Polish front in September 1939. The Soviet Union had 180 divisions and four times more tanks of equivalent or better quality.

When the Wehrmacht attacked in 1941 it had numerical superiority in the summer battles and that is why it was able to advance. Nazi Germany strenghtened relatively far more than the Soviet Union between 1939-1941.

[Unicorn]

http://s3.tinypic.com/24yqyxk.jpg

The argument that Molotov-Ribbentrop pact improved the security of the Soviet Union is simply ridiculous because it eliminated the buffer states between Nazi Germany and the USSR. It was a necessary precondition for the German surprise attack against the Soviet Union.

[Comrade Rage]

You have to realize the context of the situation. The nonaggression pact did not occur in a vacuum-Comrade Stalin couldn't get any diplomatic traction between him and France and Britain. He had to do the next best thing: a deal with the 'devil'.

The pact did succeed in it's goal of temporarily forestalling war with the 3rd Reich. If the Nazis had attacked in 1939 or 1940 instead of 1941, the USSR would have faced certain defeat.

[Unicorn]

You have to realize the context of the situation. The nonaggression pact did not occur in a vacuum-Comrade Stalin couldn't get any diplomatic traction between him and France and Britain. He had to do the next best thing: a deal with the 'devil'.

The pact did succeed in it's goal of temporarily forestalling war with the 3rd Reich. If the Nazis had attacked in 1939 or 1940 instead of 1941, the USSR would have faced certain defeat.
I have numerous times asked the Stalin apologists here how it could be militarily possible that Germany could defeat the Soviet Union if the Soviets declared war against the Nazis in 1939. Can you coherently explain how that cpuld happen?

In the previous posts I have explained that a defeat would be militarily impossible because the Red Army was roughly three times numerically more powerful than the Wehrmacht in 1939 and it would have the French, British and Polish armies as allies. The Nazis would not even reach the Soviet border.

[3A CCCP]

The only problem was that the USSR had already invaded eastern Poland and the well equipped and relatively modern (For the period) Polish army was stuck inbetween two armies and with nowhere to go they were forced to surrender.

Comrade:

Just for the record, the Red Army did NOT invade Poland. It reclaimed western Byelorussia which was carved out of the RSFSR and given to Poland.

The Byelorussian people living in Grodno, Brest, and other areas of Polish occupied Byelorussia came out en masse and cheered when the Red Army rolled in and drove out the hated Poles.

Byelorussians lived for 19 years under Polish occupation and the 10% of the population that was Polish totally oppressed the ethnic Byelorussian population.

By the way, the Jews in liberated Byelorussia totally lucked out. If the Red Army didn't move in to reclaim Soviet territory they would have been incarcerated in concentration camps and none of them would have survived the war. As it was, many Jews were relocated to the east and were saved.

3A CCCP!
Mikhail

[Unicorn]

By the way, the Jews in liberated Byelorussia totally lucked out. If the Red Army didn't move in to reclaim Soviet territory they would have been incarcerated in concentration camps and none of them would have survived the war. As it was, many Jews were relocated to the east and were saved.
Yes, because Stalin was prejudiced against Jews and deported ethnic Jews to Siberia this incidentally saved those Jews from the Holocaust. But this is a poor excuse for Stalin's actions.

[The Author]

I have numerous times asked the Stalin apologists here how it could be militarily possible that Germany could defeat the Soviet Union if the Soviets declared war against the Nazis in 1939. Can you coherently explain how that cpuld happen?


The nonaggression pact did not occur in a vacuum-Comrade Stalin couldn't get any diplomatic traction between him and France and Britain. He had to do the next best thing: a deal with the 'devil'.

What CRUM didn't mention was that the USSR was also fighting a war with Japan since 1938. In fact, while the Pact was being signed, Zhukov was in the midst of combat with Japanese troops in Khalkhin Gol. I would like to see a detailed explanation from you and other advocates of "saying no to the Pact" in how you would fight a two-front war with two different countries at the same time.

Also,


it would have the French, British and Polish armies as allies.That's not correct. It was the French and British governments which promoted the policy of "appeasement" to the Germans to turn them east against Bolshevist Russia. Even the official Soviet record into the 1980s concerning this matter regarded the French and British as "ignoring the principles of peaceful co-existence and allowing for the rise of fascism." Even the majority of political leaders in the United States held this sentiment: better fascism than communism. As Harry Truman said, "If we see that Germany is winning we ought to help Russia and if Russia is winning we ought to help Germany, and that way let them kill as many as possible, although I don't want to see Hitler victorious under any circumstances. Neither of them thinks anything of their pledged word."
The same governments were also responsible for doing nothing for the Spanish Republic and essentially let the fascists win. Even during the war itself, the US and UK never opened up a second front until they saw that the Soviets were pushing west at a rapid pace and had they not pushed for serious combat, all of Europe would have been under the red banner by the war's end.

As for Poland, the quasi-fascist republic was a buffer-state for the French and British governments against the spread of communism from the East. That, coupled with nationalist hatred against the Russian government and past history, would have demonstrated that Poland would never lift a finger to help the U.S.S.R.

Regarding the Pact being the greatest crime of the Soviet Union, well, as Lenin said,


We were compelled to sign a "Tilsit" peace. We need no self-deception. We must courageously look the bitter, unadorned truth straight in the face. We must measure fully, to the very bottom, that abyss of defeat, dismemberment, enslavement, and humiliation into which we have now been pushed. The more clearly we understand this, the firmer, the more steeled and tempered will be our will to liberation, our aspiration to rise again from enslavement to independence, and our unbending determination to ensure that at any price Russia ceases to be wretched and impotent and becomes mighty and abundant in the full meaning of these words.

And mighty and abundant she can become, for, after all, we still have sufficient territory and natural wealth left to us to supply each and all, if not with abundant, at least with adequate means, of life. Our natural wealth, our manpower and the splendid impetus which the great revolution has given to the creative powers of the people are ample material to build a truly mighty and abundant Russia.

Russia will become mighty and abundant if she abandons all dejection and all phrase-making, if, with clenched teeth, she musters all her forces and strains every nerve and muscle, if she realises that salvation lies only along that road of world socialist revolution upon which we have set out. March forward along that road, undismayed by defeats, lay the firm foundation of socialist society stone by stone, work with might and main to establish discipline and self-discipline, consolidate everywhere organisation, order, efficiency, and the harmonious co-operation of all the forces of the people, introduce comprehensive accounting of and control over production and distribution -- such is the way to build up military might and socialist might.

It would be unworthy of a genuine socialist who has suffered grave defeat either to bluster or to give way to despair. It is not true that our position is hopeless and that all that remains for us is to choose between an "inglorious" death (inglorious from the point of view of the szlaczcic ), such as this harsh peace represents, and a "gallant" death in a hopeless fight. It is not true that by signing a "Tilsit" peace we have betrayed our ideals or our friends. We have betrayed nothing and nobody, we have not sanctified or covered up any lie, we have not refused to help a single friend or comrade in misfortune in every way we could and with everything at our disposal. A general who withdraws the remnants of his army into the heart of the country when it has been beaten or is in panic-stricken flight, or who, in extremity, shields this retreat by a harsh and humiliating peace, is not guilty of treachery towards that part of his army which he is powerless to help and which has been cut off by the enemy. Such a general performs his duty by choosing the only way of saving what can still be saved, by refusing to gamble recklessly, by not embellishing the bitter truth for the people, by "surrendering space in order to gain time", by taking advantage of any and every respite, even the briefest, in which to muster his forces and to allow his army to rest or recover, if it is affected by disintegration and demoralisation.

Food for thought for those who denounce this Pact as "treason."

[The Author]

Yes, because Stalin was prejudiced against Jews and deported ethnic Jews to Siberia this incidentally saved those Jews from the Holocaust. But this is a poor excuse for Stalin's actions.The Jewish Autonomous Oblast, with Birobidzhan for its capital, though located all the way in Siberia, was at least a territory unoccupied and virgin land that could be settled and developed by Jewish people without causing serious national strife.

Unlike Palestine, where Zionists forced Palestinians off their lands so that Israel could act as a stepping stone into the Mideast. Or the Fugu Plan, where the Japanese wanted to use Jews to settle in their Asian colonies. Or the Madagascar Plan from the Germans to settle Jews in Madagascar since it's a strategic point in shipping routes before the Germans settled on the Final Solution and created the Holocaust.

Oh, and by the way:


National and racial chauvinism is a vestige of the misanthropic customs characteristic of the period of cannibalism. Anti-semitism, as an extreme form of racial chauvinism, is the most dangerous vestige of cannibalism.
Anti-semitism is of advantage to the exploiters as a lightning conductor that deflects the blows aimed by the working people at capitalism. Anti-semitism is dangerous for the working people as being a false path that
leads them off the right road and lands them in the jungle. Hence Communists, as consistent internationalists, cannot but be irreconcilable, sworn enemies of anti-semitism.

In the U.S.S.R. anti-semitism is punishable with the utmost severity of the law as a phenomenon deeply hostile to the Soviet system. Under U.S.S.R. law active anti-semites are liable to the death penalty.

[Unicorn]

What CRUM didn't mention was that the USSR was also fighting a war with Japan since 1938. In fact, while the Pact was being signed, Zhukov was in the midst of combat with Japanese troops in Khalkhin Gol. I would like to see a detailed explanation from you and other advocates of "saying no to the Pact" in how you would fight a two-front war with two different countries at the same time.
The Soviet Union won the battle of Khalkhin Ghol easily and a small number of troops were fighting there. (~60 000 men) During the whole Great Patriotic War there were hundreds of thousands of men in the Soviet Far East. The Japanese army was very weak as it did not have modern tanks.

In my previous posts I have explained the Red Army was in 1939 roughly three times more powerful than the very unprepared Wehrmacht. In 1941, the situation was much worse.



That's not correct. It was the French and British governments which promoted the policy of "appeasement" to the Germans to turn them east against Bolshevist Russia. Even the official Soviet record into the 1980s concerning this matter regarded the French and British as "ignoring the principles of peaceful co-existence and allowing for the rise of fascism." Even the majority of political leaders in the United States held this sentiment: better fascism than communism.
Appeasement ended when the Nazis invaded Poland. Great Britain and France declared war against Nazi Germany. After that these countries would be de facto allies as Nazi Germany would be at war against them.



As Harry Truman said, "If we see that Germany is winning we ought to help Russia and if Russia is winning we ought to help Germany, and that way let them kill as many as possible, although I don't want to see Hitler victorious under any circumstances. Neither of them thinks anything of their pledged word."
Truman said so in June 1941 as a Senator. FDR had a different attitude.



The same governments were also responsible for doing nothing for the Spanish Republic and essentially let the fascists win. Even during the war itself, the US and UK never opened up a second front until they saw that the Soviets were pushing west at a rapid pace and had they not pushed for serious combat, all of Europe would have been under the red banner by the war's end.

As for Poland, the quasi-fascist republic was a buffer-state for the French and British governments against the spread of communism from the East. That, coupled with nationalist hatred against the Russian government and past history, would have demonstrated that Poland would never a finger to help the U.S.S.R.
True but how is that relevant? The point is that Stalin screwed up and compromised the security of the USSR. Poland was also a buffer state protecting the Soviet Union from a Nazi surprise attack which happened in 1941. The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact enabled Barbarossa and caused the deaths of over 20 million Soviet citizens.



Regarding the Pact being the greatest crime of the Soviet Union, well, as Lenin said,
The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk is in no way comparable to the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Perhaps Stalin should have signed... only to turn on Hitler anytime between the Allied declaration of war and Hitler's campaign in Western Europe (instead of rolling the dice on YOUR country). I know this is Suvorov conspiracy crap, but...

[RNK]

Without the pact, the Soviet Union would most likely have lost the war; for all intents and purposes, that little parcel of land only a few hundred kilometers across is probably the only thing that saved Moscow from encirclement and annihilation.

[3A CCCP]

Yes, because Stalin was prejudiced against Jews and deported ethnic Jews to Siberia this incidentally saved those Jews from the Holocaust. But this is a poor excuse for Stalin's actions.

This is nonsense. What evidence do you have that comrade Stalin was an anti-semite?

Comrade Stalin created the first modern Jewish state of Birobidzhan in the early 1930s in temperate southern Siberia. By the way, not only did Soviet Jews migrate to Birobidzhan, but Jews from countries all over the world, including the U.S., emigrated to their new homeland.

Hitler's "Plan Barbarossa "called for the complete extermination of the Jews and two thirds of the Eastern Slavs (Russians, Ukrainians, and Byelorussians). The last third of Eastern Slavs were to be used as slave labor for the Reich. The Slavs and Jews had a common enemy. Nonsense about comrade Stalin being an anti-semite and similar anti-Soviet propaganda is just that - nonsense.

3A CCCP!
Mikhail

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ RNK, who said that "Comrade" Stalin had no third option besides not signing and honouring the pact? I outlined my Suvorov proposal above. That would've given the Soviets the parcel of "Polish" land, while still leaving them with the ability to backstab Hitler.

[Unicorn]

This is nonsense. What evidence do you have that comrade Stalin was an anti-semite?
Stalin was not an anti-Semite but he was paranoid about Zionists and treated Jewish people unfairly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Anti-Fascist_Committee

[Unicorn]

Without the pact, the Soviet Union would most likely have lost the war; for all intents and purposes, that little parcel of land only a few hundred kilometers across is probably the only thing that saved Moscow from encirclement and annihilation.
Well, without the pact Germany couldn't win the Battle of France. The pact allowed Germany to transfer almost all of their forces to fight in France and it did not need to guard the Soviet-German border. If Hitler had to fear a Soviet invasion then he would have to keep strong forces in Poland which would mean that Hitler couldn't conquer France. If Hitler does not win the Battle of France he can't invade the Soviet Union.

In September 1939 Germany had sufficient raw materials to fight the war only 9-12 months. The British fleet blockaded Germany. Unfortunately, Stalin delivered oil and strategic raw materials to Germany ensuring that Germany's needs were satisfied.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ You didn't answer my alternate-history proposal:

1) Sign the pact.
2) Wait for Hitler to turn to France instead of fighting Finland.
3) When Hitler attacks France, ATTACK.

[Unicorn]

^^^ You didn't answer my alternate-history proposal:

1) Sign the pact.
2) Wait for Hitler to turn to France instead of fighting Finland.
3) When Hitler attacks France, ATTACK.
Then the Red Army rolls over Poland and Germany collapses in six months. No Soviet civilian casualties and military casualties < 500 000.

Since the US is not at war and has no A-bomb it would also be possible to conquer France which had a weak army.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Precisely. :)

The problem with the dichotomy above is that, had Stalin said "no," Poland would still have said "no." Being in cahoots with Hitler only in regards to Poland would've ensured the least Polish resistance.

I'm not sure Stalin wanted to go as far as France (logistically speaking, this was not possible). With a Red Army fresh from absorbing Poland, I'm sure he would then roll the dice on YOUR country with more competent soldiers and officers.

[Unicorn]

^^^ Precisely. :)

The problem with the dichotomy above is that, had Stalin said "no," Poland would still have said "no." Being in cahoots with Hitler only in regards to Poland would've ensured the least Polish resistance.
Probably in this situation the Polish army would disintegrate and the bourgeois would form anti-Communist/anti-German guerrilla units. The working class would continue fighting and Polish units would be integrated to the Red Army.



I'm not sure Stalin wanted to go as far as France (logistically speaking, this was not possible).
I think the Red Army had the logistical capacity. It had over 8000 tanks and was well motorized already in 1939 unlike the Wehrmacht. The army advanced long distances during Uranus and Bagration in very bad logistical conditions.

The Red Army would have to time the invasion correctly though, preferably after Dunkirk. When the BEF is gone and many French divisions destroyed the French army wouldn't be a big challenge.



With a Red Army fresh from absorbing Poland, I'm sure he would then roll the dice on YOUR country with more competent soldiers and officers.
I am not sure of that because the geopolitical situation would be different. If Nazi Germany is gone invading Finland would probably provoke France, Britain, Italy and even the US to declare war. When that is the situation it is better to just invade France if expansion is still desired. It is also possible that when the Soviet Union is grabbing most of Germany Britain and France would panic and declare war against the USSR .

[3A CCCP]

[quote=Unicorn;1129384]Stalin was not an anti-Semite but he was paranoid about Zionists and treated Jewish people unfairly.


Wikipedia is not my first choice for unbiased information. If you need particular historic dates it's a fast place to look them up. Information on Wikipedia has the usual bourgeois historical omissions, half-truths, and out right lies. It is an anti-Communist, anti-Soviet internet encyclopedia.

3A CCCP!
Mikhail

[3A CCCP]

Then the Red Army rolls over Poland and Germany collapses in six months. No Soviet civilian casualties and military casualties < 500 000. Since the US is not at war and has no A-bomb it would also be possible to conquer France which had a weak army.

Comrades:

The speculation on this thread based on hindsite of 68 years is ridiculous. I wonder what any one of us would have really done if they were confronted with the situation comrade Stalin had to deal with? And I mean at that time in history, not almost 70 years later!!!

3A CCCP!

Mikhail

[Unicorn]

Wikipedia is not my first choice for unbiased information. If you need particular historic dates it's a fast place to look them up. Information on Wikipedia has the usual bourgeois historical omissions, half-truths, and out right lies. It is an anti-Communist, anti-Soviet internet encyclopedia.
http://www.amazon.com/Stalins-Secret-Pogrom-Inquisition-Anti-Fascist/dp/0300084862

[Unicorn]

Comrades:

The speculation on this thread based on hindsite of 68 years is ridiculous. I wonder what any one of us would have really done if they were confronted with the situation comrade Stalin had to deal with? And I mean at that time in history, not almost 70 years later!!!
I am sure that I would not blame England for the outbreak of World War II. Stalin instructed communist parties to oppose the war against Nazi Germany.

Molotov said in Fall 1939:

"During the last few months such concepts as 'aggression' and 'aggressor' have acquired a new concrete content, have taken on another meaning...Now...it is Germany that is striving for a quick end to the war, for peace, while England and France, who only yesterday were campaigning against aggression, are for continuation of the war and against concluding a peace. Roles, as you see, change...The ideology of Hitlerism, like any other ideological system, can be accepted or rejected--that is a matter of one's political views. But everyone can see that an ideology cannot be destroyed by force...Thus it is not only senseless, it is criminal to wage such a war as a war for 'the destruction of Hitlerism,' under the false flag of a struggle for democracy."

[3A CCCP]

[quote=Unicorn;1129817]Stalins-Secret-Pogrom/quote]

Comrade:

The authors of the book you cite as evidence of comrade Stalin's antipathy to ethnic Jews are anti-Communists, anti-Soviet, and have willingly worked with the bourgeois organizations of the U.S. propaganda machine and Gorbachev's "Glasnost" propaganda mill.

Below are brief biographical blurbs to give you an idea of who wrote the book you are recommending to us.

3A CCCP!
Mikhail

"Joshua Rubenstein has been professionally involved with human rights and international affairs for 30 years as an activist, scholar and journalist with particular expertise in Soviet affairs... "

"Since 1975, Mr. Rubenstein has been the Northeast Regional Director of Amnesty International USA, overseeing Amnesty's work in New England, New York and New Jersey..."

"Mr. Rubenstein has also contributed articles and reviews on Russian and international affairs to many publications including The New Republic, The Wall Street Journal, The Nation, The Columbia Journalism Review, The New York Times, and The Boston Globe."

"Vladimir P. Naumov, a professor of history, has been executive secretary of the Presidential Commission for the Rehabilitation of Repressed Persons in Moscow since its inception under former president Mikhail Gorbachev."

[Red Equation]

He does have a very good point, a large number of the people that were produced during the period from 1939 to 1941 were just all easily captured when hitler first invaded the SU, as Stalin had ordered no one to attack the Germans, so about half of them were captured, making the 2-3ish million people that were produced during the time captured to the Germans, even worse, their equipment was taken too, so the Germans had an initial advantage by gaining their arms.

However, if they didn't sign the pact, it is possible that Soviet production would have been totally geared towards war and the Soviet Union would have a better chance of reducing losses.

[Awful Reality]

Germans had an initial advantage by gaining their arms.

No, most German soldiers were equipped with MP-40 submachine guns while the CCCP still relied on phalanx formations of Bolt-Action Mosin-Nagant rifles. Only in 1942 with the PPSh-41 in production and T-34 Tanks, etc, did the Soviet Union gain a technological advantage.

For anyone to believe that the pact delayed war is ludicrous. The fact is that the USSR was unprepared for war, and Barbarossa was initially a massive German success. Only when the Red Army rallied at Stalingrad in 1942-1943 did the war turn around.

[Unicorn]

No, most German soldiers were equipped with MP-40 submachine guns while the CCCP still relied on phalanx formations of Bolt-Action Mosin-Nagant rifles. Only in 1942 with the PPSh-41 in production and T-34 Tanks, etc, did the Soviet Union gain a technological advantage.
No, most German soldiers had Kar98k rifles.

[Awful Reality]

No, most German soldiers had Kar98k rifles.

Really? I am mistaken. In any case, Blitzkrieg tactics relied on automatic weapons, tanks, airplanes, modern communications and avionics, and the USSR had none of that Until Stalingrad.

[Unicorn]

Really? I am mistaken. In any case, Blitzkrieg tactics relied on automatic weapons, tanks, airplanes, modern communications and avionics, and the USSR had none of that Until Stalingrad.
Haven't you read what I have posted? Germany was in no position to invade the USSR 1939-1940 when it was at war with Britain and France. Without the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact Germany would have no chance of even conquering France.

The USSR also had more tanks and planes than Nazi Germany in 1939.

[Awful Reality]

Haven't you read what I have posted? Germany was in no position to invade the USSR 1939-1940 when it was at war with Britain and France. Without the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact Germany would have no chance of even conquering France.

The USSR also had more tanks and planes than Nazi Germany in 1939.
Yes, I read it. I agree.
But the USSR didn't need it, as they were initially crushed by Germany in the beginning of Barbarossa.

And the Red Army was not mobilized.

[Red Equation]

No, most German soldiers were equipped with MP-40 submachine guns while the CCCP still relied on phalanx formations of Bolt-Action Mosin-Nagant rifles. Only in 1942 with the PPSh-41 in production and T-34 Tanks, etc, did the Soviet Union gain a technological advantage.

For anyone to believe that the pact delayed war is ludicrous. The fact is that the USSR was unprepared for war, and Barbarossa was initially a massive German success. Only when the Red Army rallied at Stalingrad in 1942-1943 did the war turn around.

Um, well still, a Bolt-Action Mosin-Nagant rifle is better than running up to a German and punching him to death while he shoots you to pieces with his MP-40...

[hekmatista]

Um, well still, a Bolt-Action Mosin-Nagant rifle is better than running up to a German and punching him to death while he shoots you to pieces with his MP-40...
I own two, both the 1938 and the 1944 versions and can testify that they are deadly accurate. But they are more appropriate for snipers under cover than for massed phalanxes (if such were in fact used).

[Awful Reality]

I own two, both the 1938 and the 1944 versions and can testify that they are deadly accurate. But they are more appropriate for snipers under cover than for massed phalanxes (if such were in fact used).

The mobile warfare of WWII was not suited to bolt-action weapons.

[Chapaev]

Hitler was only able to come to power because Stalin adopted an ultra-left position by labeling the SPD "social-fascists" - this prevented the KPD (which was the main revolutionary party in Germany and a member of Comintern, and thus subject to the control of the Soviet government) from forming a united front to defeat fascism, which was a more serious threat than the reformist ideas of the SPD.This myth of an ultra-leftist KPD propagated by western imperialists, bourgeois social reformists, and Trotskyists is a sheer fabrication. The fact is that the social reformist right-wing leadership of the SPD bore responsibility for having thwarted the unity of the working class.

The right-wing leadership of the SDP stubbornly rejected the proposals of the KDP to unite for the defeat of fascism. Only the KPD consistently opposed the growing threat of fascism, showing the masses that it was possible to prevent the establishment of fascism only by struggling against all varieties of reaction and tirelessly striving for the creation of a unified front of the proletariat.

The SPD leaders countered the KPD efforts to mount a united front of the working class to struggle for vital working-class interests interests and against militarism. They supported the German imperialists’ rearmament of Germany, which was most evident in the policies of the coalition government under SPD leader H. Müller (1928-30). The SPD leaders advanced the theory of the “lesser evil,” which amounted to support for the reactionary government of H. Brüning, which pandered to the Nazis.

The SPD restrained the workers from active struggle against the advancing fascist danger. Right-wing Social Democrats stopped at nothing to thwart the KPD-inspired anti-fascist campaign of the summer and fall of 1932, whose goal was to unify all toilers against fascism. After Papen’s government carried out a coup d’etat in Prussia, the KPD immediately summoned the masses to a general strike and turned to the leadership of the SPD with a proposal for joint struggle against the reaction. But the SPD leaders once again refused to cooperate with the KPD. This brought about a substantial strengthening of the position of reaction and the demoralization of a part of the proletariat. The split in the working class, caused by the opportunist policy of the rightist SPD leaders, made it all the easier for Hitler to come to power.

Certain SPD leaders tried to accommodate themselves to the fascist regime. On March 23, 1933, at the opening of the Reichstag, SPD leaders made a statement on cooperation with the Hitler regime.