Did "The West" invade Russia in 1941?

[EnglishEdward]

Did "The West" invade Russia in 1941?

Yes, the West is above all a geographical concept.

And Nazi Germany and its allies were to the West of Russia and attacked the USSR including Russia in 1941.

Attempts to argue that the term West did not exist prior to WW2 are nonsense.

For example there is Rudyard Kipling's poem first published in 1889
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ballad_of_East_and_West

 

[r16]

you are permitted to use smilies , right ? Otherwise people might take you seriously ...

edit: Meant for Birdjaguar's post at the bottom of the previous page .

 

[Strong Reaction]

Answer to thread title: No. More succinctly, a Western country, Germany, invaded Russia. The West implies: North America, the whole of Europe and Oceania. To say "The West" invaded Russia is not true. To say Germany, a Western country, attacked Russia is accurate. The implication is either intentionally misleading, which is what I believe, or unintentionally misleading. Also, it would be fair to underscore that at the time Germany invaded Russia, it was also at war with most other Western countries.

 

[Ajidica]

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.

That seems very much a post-facto position. Poland was actively being courted by Germany internationally, was mobilizing its army to threaten Czechoslovakia, and was given land out of Munich. The willingness of the Polish government to take land out of Munich shows they had other concerns on their mind than being uncomfortable with permitting the transit of Soviet troops to support Czechoslovak independence. (Independence Poland was actively undermining in pursuit of its irredentist claims.)
From the Soviet point of view, France and Britain actively trying to prevent you from fulfilling your treaty obligations (to a country they also had treaty obligations with!) in favor of siding with the Nazis explains a lot of subsequent Soviet policy.

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.

That is so wrong I don't even know where to start.
The "Icebreaker Thesis" and its variations have been shown to have basically no real evidentiary support and is really only promoted these days by Nazi and Hitler apologists.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_offensive_plans_controversy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icebreaker_(Suvorov)
https://history.stackexchange.com/q...-contradicting-facts-in-suvorovs-icebreaker-b
EDIT: If it was sarcasm, that was not clear to me whatsoever, and reads very similarly to what I have seen other people say who have half-remembered outlines of the Icebreaker thesis floating in their heads and haven't reach much else on the topic.

 

[r16]

he is mimicking Russians , some 15 days after April 1st .

 

[Kyriakos]

It's not intelligent to claim that "the west" didn't exist before the end of ww2. If you read people from that time you'll easily notice that it had formed, and just was implied by the rather cruder and less polite "germanic" world. Including, obviously, anglo-saxons and french. The rest were usually just lesser people, as the phrase goes in the original german.
Now, whether this has that much to do with what is currently going on regarding double standards and sanctions for Russia while words (at worst) for US and assorted entities, is another issue. Ultimately it is a prelude of a eurasian block (Russia-China-India) forming, which will simply have more people than anything else and can exist as its own sector.

It is pretty worrying that the 2 minute hate (and the weekly and monthly festival versions) also are a reality already. It won't lead to good. Personally I think we are moving towards ww3 with great speed.

 

[Birdjaguar]

EDIT: If it was sarcasm, that was not clear to me whatsoever, and reads very similarly to what I have seen other people say who have half-remembered outlines of the Icebreaker thesis floating in their heads and haven't reach much else on the topic.

More of a parody perhaps.

 

[amadeus]

No, because as has been pointed out that the West in the context we are using it now in international relations did not exist at the time.

The term became meaningful in this context when there was a united Euro-American alliance and the end of colonialism after WWII.

 

[Kyriakos]

No, because as has been pointed out that the West in the context we are using it now in international relations did not exist at the time.

The term became meaningful in this context when there was a united Euro-American alliance and the end of colonialism after WWII.

Ever heard of "white man's burden"? Guess which white man it was about.

 

[Gorbles]

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

Do you think it would helpful if people suddenly and permanently started referring to everything east of Poland, excepting I guess Australia, as "the East"? Do you think that would be a useful label that would definitely help people understand the topic at hand?

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.

The assertion was that "the West" didn't attack the USSR ("Russia", I guess) first. You then say it's ridiculous because Nazi Germany invaded the USSR two years later.

Do you understand the difference between "invaded first" and "invaded later"? I'd imagine you do, which begs the question of this entire tedious exercise

 

[Grendeldef]

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.

Indeed I said your statement was inaccurate but to give further explanation I need to know what you mean by 'the West' and when do you think WW2 took place.
At this point I think 'the West' in the turn of 40s is meaningless concept but I'm interested in hearing your definition.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Yes, the West is above all a geographical concept.

And Nazi Germany and its allies were to the West of Russia and attacked the USSR including Russia in 1941.

Attempts to argue that the term West did not exist prior to WW2 are nonsense.

For example there is Rudyard Kipling's poem first published in 1889
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ballad_of_East_and_West

Please read your link. The poem is far more complex than you imagine it to be and even includes these lines:

Oh, East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet,
Till Earth and Sky stand presently at God's great Judgment Seat;
But there is neither East nor West, Border, nor Breed, nor Birth,
When two strong men stand face to face, though they come from the ends of the earth![2]

In addition, at that time the West was Europe (or maybe just Britain) and the East was India.

 

[amadeus]

Ever heard of "white man's burden"? Guess which white man it was about.

It was about the British white man; Britain gave an ultimatum to Portugal to pull out of what is now Zambia and Zimbabwe, and the British raced the French to Fashoda in Sudan a few years later.

There was no geopolitical West at this time, just a series of competing European colonial powers at an often uneasy peace.

 

[red_elk]

Since the discussion has turned into a strawman fest, I'll stop trying to explain my position and see if anyone will be able to understand it and address what I actually meant

To be fair, there is my fault too, I should have described my point maximally clearly, without expecting good faith effort to understand it from majority of people here - at least in current circumstances.

 

[Strong Reaction]

It is pretty worrying that the 2 minute hate (and the weekly and monthly festival versions) also are a reality already. It won't lead to good. Personally I think we are moving towards ww3 with great speed.

I mean to be honest wouldn't the planet be better off with humans, full speed ahead I say.

 

[Kyriakos]

It was about the British white man; Britain gave an ultimatum to Portugal to pull out of what is now Zambia and Zimbabwe, and the British raced the French to Fashoda in Sudan a few years later.

There was no geopolitical West at this time, just a series of competing European colonial powers at an often uneasy peace.

It was the same "white man's burden" in the german colonies in Africa - which ultimately got dealt with german genocide of the locals, as you do
Another good example would be Congo, if you need a hand.

I mean to be honest wouldn't the planet be better off with humans, full speed ahead I say.

Maybe, but I think humans could actually produce a good civilization - it's just that currently this is only a dream. Even so, peace is needed for any culture.

 

[Birdjaguar]

This we know:
In 1812 Napoleon/France invaded Russia because Russia was undermining his "Continental System" to blockade Britain. Russia won the campaign and then later with allies won the war.
In 1914 Russia invade Germany as soon as the war started. When they were beaten at Tannenberg, Germany then invade Russia. Germany "won" as Russia collapsed.
In 1941 Germany, with its allies, invaded Russia. Russia won with aid from the US and Britain, et al.

 

[amadeus]

It was the same "white man's burden" in the german colonies in Africa - which ultimately got dealt with german genocide of the locals, as you do
Another good example would be Congo, if you need a hand.

What’s your point and how does it relate to the West being a geopolitical concept that became meaningful only after WWII?

Throwing in the Congo makes even less sense to me because it’s just another point in my favor—the territory was given to Leopold to prevent the three major colonial powers, Britain, France, and Germany, from some conflict as they all certainly wanted the land for themselves.

 

[Kyriakos]

In 1914 Russia invade Germany as soon as the war started. When they were beaten at Tannenberg, Germany then invade Russia. Germany "won" as Russia collapsed.

Germany declared war on Russia, not the other way around, in ww1. Much the same as ww2 Germany declared war on the US and not the other way around.

What’s your point and how does it relate to the West being a geopolitical concept that became meaningful only after WWII?

Throwing in the Congo makes even less sense to me because it’s just another point in my favor—the territory was given to Leopold to prevent the three major colonial powers, Britain, France, and Germany, from some conflict as they all certainly wanted the land for themselves.

My point is that, if you read people of that era (build-up to ww2, before ww2) you will easily pick up that a synonymic notion of "the west" very clearly existed. Including (up to) open racism against slavs and other non-west europeans (let alone any non-europeans).

 

[EnglishEdward]

The fact is that the USSR was invaded by Nazi Germany from the West in 1941.

And the denial of that invasion from the West looks very much like Nazi apologism.

This of course helps Vladimir Putin in his exaggerated claims of Nazism in Ukraine
in so much as western supporters of Ukraine can be construed as Nazi apologists.