Did "The West" invade Russia in 1941?

[Akka]

You are the one who chimed in the conversation claiming that my statement is inaccurate though. And now want me to provide definition and search for common ground, without even explaining what you meant. I supposed that you disagree that Germany was part of the West.

"the West" didn't exist back then, as it's a concept which appeared after Russia subjugated half of Europe on the Eastern part. First point.
Second point, Germany was actually NOT considered part of "Western Europe". It was considered Central Europe, hence why WW1 saw the sides being called "Central Empires", because Germany and Austria-Hungary were... well, you can figure the rest.
Third, you're just, as usual, playing dumb to score points, because you perfectly know both points above. Anything to defend Russia even in the most idiotic details.

 

[red_elk]

Strange.
I live in a Western nation and I have no recollection of Denmark attacking the USSR and taking part in murdering 27 Million people in WW2, as you insinuate.

Do I really have to explain that by "West attacked Russia" I didn't mean all Western countries together?

 

[Gedemon]

You are the one who chimed in the conversation claiming that my statement is inaccurate though. And now want me to provide definition which you will may be accept, without even explaining what you meant. I supposed that you disagree that Germany was part of the West.

even then, if that's your definition of the "west", then you attacked the "west" (Poland) before the west attacked you. but the whole conversation is a complete non sense anyway.

next you're going to speak of Napoleon I suppose.

 

[red_elk]

For those who comment my posts without reading the thread first.
Again.
Original claim was that Russia attacked the Western country during WW2 (Finland), while the West never attacked Russia first.
Which I asserted as ridiculous, because USSR was attacked by Germany less than two years later.
Somehow for a lot of people the idea that Hitler's Germany was part of the West seems wrong, while Finland being part of the West at the same time, is self-evident.

 

[Remorseless1]

In fairness, if Britain hadn't been fighting Germany at the time, whether they would have sent aid to the Soviet Union -or indeed have supported the Nazis wiping out the Bolshevik menace - is an open question. One of the big topics discussed between Stalin, Churchill, and Roosevelt was Stalin wanting assurances that Britain and America would shoulder a respectable part of the manpower cost and weren't 'fighting Germany to the last Russian'.

In fairness, the Soviets never sent as much as a single rifle round to the UK between Sept. 3, 1939, and June 22, 1941. And many British sailors lost their lives on the Murmask run bringing supplies to the SU.

Also, didn't Russia sign a Non-Aggression pact with Nazis???

 

[red_elk]

then you attacked the "west" (Poland) before the west attacked you.

You mean, German attack in 1941 was retaliation after Soviet invasion of Poland?

 

[Sarin]

You mean, German attack in 1941 was retaliation after Soviet invasion of Poland?

You're still not getting the fact that the "west" as political concept emerged only after WWII.

 

[red_elk]

You're still not getting the fact that the "west" as political concept emerged only after WWII.

You are still not getting the fact that I was replying to a person who talked about the West in context of WW2 Finland.

 

[Sarin]

You are still not getting the fact that I was replying to a person who talked about the West in context of WW2 Finland.

In context of WW2, anything that you might call "the West" was US, Britain and France. Nothing else.

 

[Gedemon]

You mean, German attack in 1941 was retaliation after Soviet invasion of Poland?

I mean, if German is "west" in your twisted logic, then Poland is too, and you attacked the "west" first in WWII, not the other way around.

 

[Akka]

You're still not getting the fact that the "west" as political concept emerged only after WWII.

Don't confuse "not getting" and "weaseling out".

 

[red_elk]

I mean, if German is "west" in your twisted logic, then Poland is too, and you attacked the "west" first in WWII, not the other way around.

WW2 Germany is as much "West" as WW2 Finland was.
You don't understand what "the Western country never attacked Russia first" means? "Attacked first" means started invasion or launched aggressive war against.
The fact that USSR invaded Poland doesn't cancel the fact that USSR was invaded by Germany two years later.
Seems like my posts are being deliberately misinterpreted.

 

[Ajidica]

In fairness, the Soviets never sent as much as a single rifle round to the UK between Sept. 3, 1939, and June 22, 1941. And many British sailors lost their lives on the Murmask run bringing supplies to the SU.

Also, didn't Russia sign a Non-Aggression pact with Nazis???

This is the last post I will make, so as to not derail the thread, but from the perspective of the Soviet Union, France and Britain sold out to the Nazis at Munich. Czechoslovakia had a defensive agreement with both France and the Soviet Union; the agreements were intended to prevent war in central Europe by being a) defensive in nature, and b) ensuring overwhelming military force would be sent against Germany.
During the Munich talks, Stalin had announced his willingness to defend Czechoslovakia from Germany, even if France wouldn't, provided his decision got Franco-British blessing and the French used their influence to persuade Poland to permit transit of Soviet forces into Czechoslovakia. Poland at this time was in the on phase of its on-again/off-again relation with Nazi Germany, and was even mobilizing forces to grab territory from Czechoslovakia. With Nazi Germany actively courting Poland by offering it land from Czechoslovakia that Poland believed it had claim to, Poland was not going to permit Soviet troops transit to defend Czechoslovakia. I believe (though I can't remember the source) that Britain and France were particularly afraid of increased Soviet influence in Europe if they allowed the Soviet Union to defend Czechoslovakia.
When Czechoslovakia was partitioned, from the Soviet point of view it was hard to escape the viewpoint that treaties with France and Britain were worthless, and that France/Britain preferred to sell out their allies to Nazis than let the Soviet Union into the 'European Club'. In that context, the Soviet policy toward Europe in the next few years makes a lot more sense. The Soviet Union made a big diplomatic effort to normalize relations with France and Britain and be accepted as part of the European Club, only to be kicked out so France could ignore its treaty obligations to the Czechs and Nazi appeasement.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Agreement
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-Soviet_Treaty_of_Mutual_Assistance
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czech_Republic–Russia_relations#Background

 

[r16]

just one sentence on the web , supposedly with a video to watch , maybe open to misinterpretation but Zelensky says he will stop talking peace if Mariupol falls . Or maybe Azov gets shot . Or anything . High confidence of victory ond guesses , even if Zelensky also has a need to give a number for killed soldiers .

the post above ? The Poles thought they would get Ukraine during the German destruction of the Bolsheviks .

 

[Sarin]

WW2 Germany is as much "West" as WW2 Finland was.

As in, they were not "West".

 

[Gedemon]

Seems like my posts are being deliberately misinterpreted.

No, it's just that we don't use the same logic.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

That fear of west invading Russia sounds as false and dishonest as everything coming of Russia these days. First why would the west invade Russia? Second, if the west went nuts and invaded having Finland, Belorussia or Ukraine in the middle wouldn't stop it. In fact nothing would stop it except Russia nuclear weapons, which make any invasion of Russia a suicide, which renders the whole stupidity of the west invading Russia stupid.

 

[REDY]

This is the last post I will make, so as to not derail the thread, but from the perspective of the Soviet Union, France and Britain sold out to the Nazis at Munich. Czechoslovakia had a defensive agreement with both France and the Soviet Union; the agreements were intended to prevent war in central Europe by being a) defensive in nature, and b) ensuring overwhelming military force would be sent against Germany.
During the Munich talks, Stalin had announced his willingness to defend Czechoslovakia from Germany, even if France wouldn't, provided his decision got Franco-British blessing and the French used their influence to persuade Poland to permit transit of Soviet forces into Czechoslovakia. Poland at this time was in the on phase of its on-again/off-again relation with Nazi Germany, and was even mobilizing forces to grab territory from Czechoslovakia. With Nazi Germany actively courting Poland by offering it land from Czechoslovakia that Poland believed it had claim to, Poland was not going to permit Soviet troops transit to defend Czechoslovakia. I believe (though I can't remember the source) that Britain and France were particularly afraid of increased Soviet influence in Europe if they allowed the Soviet Union to defend Czechoslovakia.
When Czechoslovakia was partitioned, from the Soviet point of view it was hard to escape the viewpoint that treaties with France and Britain were worthless, and that France/Britain preferred to sell out their allies to Nazis than let the Soviet Union into the 'European Club'. In that context, the Soviet policy toward Europe in the next few years makes a lot more sense. The Soviet Union made a big diplomatic effort to normalize relations with France and Britain and be accepted as part of the European Club, only to be kicked out so France could ignore its treaty obligations to the Czechs and Nazi appeasement.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Agreement
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-Soviet_Treaty_of_Mutual_Assistance
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czech_Republic–Russia_relations#Background

Poles would never allow entry of Soviet armies not because they were courted by Germany or because diplomacy of UK/France/CS, but because they believed that they will be occupied by USSR in the process. There would be possible a land bridge through Romania, but again, USSR had claims on Bessarabia. Stalin didnt like withdrawing its armies and influence. The idea that it was different before Munich betrayal is IMHO wishful thinking.

 

[r16]

the idea was Nazis would fall , a civilized Germany would return , Stalin would leave with "Mission Accomplished" and the Weimar era collaboration would go on , being immensely profitable for Russia . Still advancing Russian plans for military build up , for a showdown with the West , maybe by 1950 .

 

[Birdjaguar]

I'm pretty sure that Stalin provoked the 1941 German invasion with his expansionist lust for the Baltic States and Finland. Hitler felt threatened so he planned Operation Barbarossa (note, not an actual invasion or war) solely for security reasons. Russian expansionism threatened the very heart of the Reich with hordes of Communists who had even infiltrated the government. Hitler had no choice.