Soviet-German relations

Nuka-sama

See ya! It has been a fun decade!
Joined
Jan 27, 2006
Messages
9,461
Hey, I'm writing a paper on the history of Soviet-German relations from 1919-1941 and what was the key moment(s) it changed. The essay has to be under 750 words and if you think I missed something, something sounds odd, or something is just plain wrong, please point it out to me. Currently at 743 words.

Thanks! :)

----------------------------------

Of the nations that had escaped World War One intact, Germany and the Soviet Union were without a doubt, the biggest losers of the war. Germany was forced to pay massive reparations, to demilitarize their army, and give up large amounts of territory while transitioning from an autocratic to a democratic government, one that was incredibly unpopular for the signing of the unpopular Treaty of Versailles. The Soviet Union had suffered more casualties than any other nation, was forced to watch multiple former Imperial territory gain independence, fought a civil war, and was suffering international isolation due to their radical ideology in the form of Communism. German-Soviet relations went through three distinct phases; first, a period of cooperation forced by the diplomatic isolation of the powers, then a cooling with the rise of Fascism in Germany, and finally on the eve of World War II, a de facto alliance would be established that would later be broken with the invasion of the Soviet Union by Germany.

With the demilitarization of Germany, the most powerful force in Europe was the Army of the French Republic, along with her ally, Poland. Though the Soviet Union had hoped for a revolution in Germany, the war against Poland, a traditional German enemy, led the Soviet Union to seek an agreement with Germany, in the forms of the Treaty of Rapallo and the Treaty of Berlin. These treaties benefited both of these states enormously through the mutual cooperation between the two. Germany was limited in arms production and of training men to become soldiers and pilots. The Soviets offered Germany the ability to train men and manufacture weapons deep within the Soviet Union, away from the prying eyes of the League of Nations. In return, the Soviets would benefit from increased trade with Germany, as well as technological, industrial, and military doctrine aid, all of which the Soviets were lagging behind. Though trade was not at the level of before World War One, it was increasing steadily, and the two powers saw one another as their only potential ally in a sea of hostile powers.

Eventually, Weimar Germany and the Soviet Union broke their diplomatic isolation, and both began signing treaties with other Western Powers, including Germany joining the League of Nations, reducing the dependence on one another. However, the relationship may have stayed amiable were it not for Adolf Hitler seizing power in Germany in 1934, which signaled a major shift in relations from cooperation to near hostility. Hitler seizing power was no doubt the major turning point in German-Soviet relations. Although the German-Soviet relationship seemed to have a potentially solid foundation, Hitler’s ideology made Communism his dreaded enemy. Hitler’s disregarding of the Treaty of Versailles led Germany to become less dependent on the Soviet Union, and was able to once again build their war machine in Germany itself. Germany’s decreased dependence on Soviet trade and Hitler’s ideological views led him to not only try to continue the détente began by the Weimar republic with the Western Powers, but also to seek alliances with Italy and Japan in the form of the Anti-Comintern pact, an alliance created to stem Soviet power. The new antagonism was highlighted further when Germany supported the Nationalists against the Soviet-backed Republicans in the Spanish Civil War.

Until it became clear that the Western democracies would go to war with Germany over Poland, Hitler was hesitant to create closer political ties with the Soviet Union. After Hitler annexed Czechoslovakia and the United Kingdom guaranteed Polish independence, Hitler, facing a potential wartime blockade and a desperate need for supplies was forced to make a deal with the Soviets. In the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, Germany and the Soviet Union agreed to an economic agreement to give Germany war supplies, the Soviet Union technology, and a political agreement for the division of Eastern Europe into German and Soviet spheres, securing Germany while it would fight the Western democracies, and the Soviet Union while going through the purge of the Soviet nation.

German-Soviet relations were doomed by Hitler’s erraticism and his focus to destroy Communism and by extension, the Soviet Union. Though he could work with the Soviet Union on a temporary basis, as shown by the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, Hitler always was determined to destroy the Soviet Union. When Hitler had defeated France and forced Britain into a stalemate, he was free to focus on the Soviet Union, setting the stage for the battle between fascism and communism.
 
Just highlighting the parts that need correction comment.
Germany was forced to pay massive reparations,
Recent historiography has moved away from the idea that the reperations were "massive"
to demilitarize their army,
Requires rephrasing. You can't demilitarize an army :p
while transitioning from an autocratic to a democratic government,
Germany certainly didn't have it's form of government force on it, and the Pre-war government was not appreciably more autocratic then the Weimar Government.
then a cooling with the rise of Fascism in Germany
Replace Fascism with National Socialism. You don't want to wander into that debate.

Will do more later. Sleep now.
 
Until it became clear that the Western democracies would go to war with Germany over Poland, Hitler was hesitant to create closer political ties with the Soviet Union. After Hitler annexed Czechoslovakia and the United Kingdom guaranteed Polish independence, Hitler, facing a potential wartime blockade and a desperate need for supplies was forced to make a deal with the Soviets. In the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, Germany and the Soviet Union agreed to an economic agreement to give Germany war supplies, the Soviet Union technology, and a political agreement for the division of Eastern Europe into German and Soviet spheres, securing Germany while it would fight the Western democracies, and the Soviet Union while going through the purge of the Soviet nation.

Hitler didn't expect to fight Britain and France over the Danzig corridor, only Poland. He believed the British war guarantee to Poland was a bluf, and wouldn't mean anything were Germany to actually go to war against Poland.
 
Of the nations that had escaped World War One intact, Germany and the Soviet Union were without a doubt, the biggest losers of the war.
The Soviet Union didn't exist at the time of WW1, it was created in 1922. And Russian Empire, which participated in WW1, didn't escape it intact.

German-Soviet relations went through three distinct phases; first, a period of cooperation forced by the diplomatic isolation of the powers, then a cooling with the rise of Fascism in Germany, and finally on the eve of World War II, a de facto alliance would be established that would later be broken with the invasion of the Soviet Union by Germany.
There was no alliance between Germany and USSR. Though there were some diplomatic talks about possible joining of the USSR to the Axis, Hitler's attitude towards communists made alliance impossible. After September 1939, both sides started active preparation to war against each other, USSR started huge military buildup and Germany was developing plan "Barbarossa" since mid-1940.

Until it became clear that the Western democracies would go to war with Germany over Poland, Hitler was hesitant to create closer political ties with the Soviet Union.
It did not become clear even after they formally declared war in early September 1939. See "Phoney War"
 
Recent historiography has moved away from the idea that the reperations were "massive"

Do you have a link for a discussion of this? I'm always curious to see re-eveluations of history.

The Soviet Union didn't exist at the time of WW1, it was created in 1922. And Russian Empire, which participated in WW1, didn't escape it intact.

It was intact compared to the Austro-Hungarian Empire and Ottoman Empire.
 
There was no alliance between Germany and USSR. Though there were some diplomatic talks about possible joining of the USSR to the Axis, Hitler's attitude towards communists made alliance impossible. After September 1939, both sides started active preparation to war against each other, USSR started huge military buildup and Germany was developing plan "Barbarossa" since mid-1940.
I'd say that there was a period of geopolitical cooperation. However, the leaders of both countries saw it as temporary.
 
It was intact compared to the Austro-Hungarian Empire and Ottoman Empire.
I think the sentence needs rephrasing. You can't say "Soviet Union escaped World War One intact", because it did not exist in 1918. And Russian Empire completely collapsed and desintegrated too, the difference from A-H and Ottoman Empire is that united Russian state was recreated a few years later.
 
Spoiler :
Other essay I wrote

With the rise of extremism throughout the world, the Atlantic democracies found themselves increasingly isolated. Communism and right wing regimes in the form of fascism and Nazism had taken hold in various nations and though they were pitted against the traditional values of the Atlantic democracies, the extremists were outright hostile towards one another. The Anti-Comintern Pact formed between Germany, Italy, and Japan, who were fundamentally opposed to communism and the Soviet Union. These two camps came to a head in Spain, where a civil war between the elected Popular Front government and the anti-communist National Front emerged in 1936. The Atlantic democracies were faced with a choice between the Anti-Comintern Pact and a broad Popular Front for whom to support in the coming global conflict, each having a very tempting reason to support them.
The Anti-Comintern Pact made a very compelling case on paper, and were it not for potential political fallout at home, the Atlantic democracies may very well have aligned themselves with the Anti-Comintern Pact. Though they represented a revising of the Post Versailles world, they did not intend to overthrow it. Though an ardent dream of the most radical thinkers of the regime would imagine the world dominated by Germany, Italy or Japan, many thought that the Anti-Comintern would leap at the chance to share the dominion of the world with the democracies, provided there were a few alterations. A German sphere in Central and Eastern Europe, an Italian sphere in the Balkans, and a Japanese sphere in Northern and Central China were all within reason, and there was very little possibility the United Kingdom could hold each of these places in check long term. If there was to be a war, there could be much to lose; all of China and East Asia could potentially be lost with a major military defeat, and even if there were to be a victory, it would no doubt have been hard won, ensuring that there would be little strength to prevent a colonial, or worse a popular, uprising. The other issue came from economics. Though each of these regimes did have realignment in industry and industrial policy, none had outright discarded capitalism, instead preferring a “third way”. This was not a serious block on the capitalists from the Atlantic democracies, and could lead to very profitable trade still, such as the case between Nazi Germany and the numerous projects American capitalists invested in. If an agreement could be reached, a potential global alliance of Right-Wing states could be formed, and the Soviet Union would be crushed, killing Communism once and for all.
In contrast to the Anti-Comintern bloc, the Popular Front was a conglomerate of nations, tied only by their mutual interest of not wishing to see aggressive expansion by the Anti-Comintern bloc. The Popular Fronts were a far more varied collection of governments, primarily focused on the communist dictatorship of the Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia, Poland, and at times it could be said the French Republic was a member of the Front. Not an alliance tied together by treaty, at its core the Popular Front was dedicated to containing the aggressive Anti-Comintern bloc, appealing to the Atlantic democracies’ desire for a lack of aggressive expansion by powers . By 1939, Ethiopia had fallen to Italy, Japan was in the midst of invading China, while Austria and Czechoslovakia had fallen to Nazi Germany, despite Hitler guaranteeing he had no further territory ambitions on the latter, forcing France to realize that there was no way for Germany to be contained through peaceful means.
There are multiple reasons that the Atlantic Democracies chose to align themselves with the Popular Front against the Anti-Comintern pact. Despite the economic and ideological disputes against the Soviet Union, since the abandonment of the doctrine of global revolution the Soviets had done little in the ways of expansion, while the Anti Comintern Pact had destroyed multiple nations . The alliance with the Anti-Comintern bloc would surely lead to German hegemony over Russia, a hegemony that neither Britain nor the United States could challenge, leading to even further German dominance. Perhaps the dominating fear for Britain was if they were such a threat to the British during the First World War, what would Germany be like with the resources and territory of Russia under her control? Germany had spoken of desiring all of Central Europe, and who would stop them from going even further? Thhough it seemed like a deal with the devil, the British Empire, and by extension, the United States was forced to back the Popular Front against Germany with the increase of German aggression and their dangerous extremism that had the potential to run rampant if victorious.


 
My criticisms were already made in #nes last night. :p
 
You might check "Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin" by Timothy Snyder.

Dachs said:
Replace Fascism with National Socialism.

Or with Nazism - if you want just one word instead of two.

=================================

Red Elk:

Red Elk said:
There was no alliance between Germany and USSR. Though there were some diplomatic talks about possible joining of the USSR to the Axis, Hitler's attitude towards communists made alliance impossible. After September 1939, both sides started active preparation to war against each other, USSR started huge military buildup and Germany was developing plan "Barbarossa" since mid-1940.

USSR started huge military buildup already in 1931, not in 1939. And I'm sure we have already discussed this:

Year (1 January) - number of tanks + number of armored cars in Soviet armored units:

1928 - 92 + 7
......
......
......
1932 - 1401 + 213
1933 - 4906 + 244
1934 - 7574 + 326
1935 - 10180 + 464
1936 - 13339 + 1033
1937 - 17280 + 1428
1938 - 18834 + 1801
1939 - 21100 + 2594
1940 - 23364 + 4034

Regarding the German-Soviet alliance - at that time it was pretty obvious for everyone, for media of other countries.

Check for example "World War II in Cartoons" by Mark Bryant (a collection of wartime caricatures).

Lone Wolf said:
I'd say that there was a period of geopolitical cooperation. However, the leaders of both countries saw it as temporary.

This statement reflects the reality much better than claims of Red Elk that there was no cooperation.
 
Here they write about plan of military buildup (implemented since 1931 as I wrote above) of RKKA:

http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armia_Czerwona#Armia_Czerwona_w_latach_trzydziestych_XX_w

Under point 3) Armia Czerwona w latach trzydziestych XX w. Armia Czerwona = RKKA = Red Army.

And already in 1929 they started to rapidly expand their war industry.

Red Elk said:
It did not become clear even after they formally declared war in early September 1939. See "Phoney War"

Term "Phoney War" should be used regarding the period mid-October / November 1939 to April 1940.

Before that (September - mid-October 1939) there were German-French combats in the Saarland as well as aerial skirmishes.

So the declaration of war was not just formal as you claim.

On the other hand the war in Poland was not fought over Danzig, as Timothy Snyder also writes in the book I mentioned above.

Poland was an obstacle in advance towards Ukraine. And was also a place where German target - Jews - lived.

Red Elk said:
The Soviet Union didn't exist at the time of WW1, it was created in 1922.

Oh, you finally admitted this.

I remember you claimed something different when we talked about Soviet military operations aimed at "regaining lands stolen from Soviets".

And those lands in fact were of course never stolen from Soviets, because the Soviet Union didn't exist before 1922.

But you argued this point of view at that time. I'm glad that now you agree with it, though.
 
The 1931 and 1940 buildups were of different natures. 1931 was a preparation for some future war against some future Western power(s), the proverbial "second Foreign Intervention." It was the military expansion that justified the First Five Year Plan, so that Russian socialism could be defended against future capitalist attempts to extinguish it. While it was a massive expansion of the Soviet armed forces, it was also a general militarization of society. They started speaking of different goals, different envelopes of society, as "fronts;" people formed local civil defense corps and practiced safety drills. The 1940 buildup was the total mobilization due to the realization that this second Foreign Intervention was upon them.
 
1931 was a preparation for some future war against some future Western power(s), the proverbial "second Foreign Intervention."

The problem is that they couldn't fight against some Western power(s), as long as there was Poland between them and Western Europe.

So I guess first of all they were preparing to crush Poland - "the bastard of Versailles".

And only then to crush the rest of Europe - including some Western power(s).

=========================

By the way:

"The bastard of Versailles" is actually not a German term - this term was invented by the Soviets (or rather Bolsheviks).

The Germans used another, but also very similar, term - "the temporary state" - "Saisonstaat" in German.

This term was used already in Weimar Republic (actually after Hitler took power, relations between Germany and Poland temporarily improved - they were terrible before Hitler came to power, with Germans conducting customs war against Poland and putting a trade embargo on Polish coal).
 
USSR started huge military buildup already in 1931, not in 1939. And I'm sure we have already discussed this
What it has to do with my statement that after 1939 USSR was preparing for war with Germany, instead of making alliance with them?

Regarding the German-Soviet alliance - at that time it was pretty obvious for everyone, for media of other countries.
Obvious for media means true?

This statement reflects the reality much better than claims of Red Elk that there was no cooperation.
Please show where I said there was no cooperation.
Stop lying, you are using too much straw for your arguments.

Before that (September - mid-October 1939) there were German-French combats in the Saarland as well as aerial skirmishes.
And what's the point? There were skirmishes between Germans and their Soviet "allies" in 1939 too.

Oh, you finally admitted this.

I remember you claimed something different when we talked about Soviet military operations aimed at "regaining lands stolen from Soviets".

And those lands in fact were of course never stolen from Soviets, because the Soviet Union didn't exist before 1922.

But you argued this point of view at that time. I'm glad that now you agree with it, though.
I'm glad that you are glad. That land, if you forgot my point, was invaded by Poland in Soviet-Polish war, which was fought between Poland and Soviet Russia.
 
The problem is that they couldn't fight against some Western power(s), as long as there was Poland between them and Western Europe.

So I guess first of all they were preparing to crush Poland - "the bastard of Versailles" ("the bastard of Versailles" is actually not a German term - this term was invented by the Soviets - the Germans rather used another, but also similar, term - "the temporary state" or "Saisonstaat" in German).

And only then to crush the rest of Europe - including some Western power(s).

Agreed. And the period of cooperation mentioned earlier basically consisted of the Germans doing the Soviets' work for them (or at least "softening the ground", depending on how you look at it) in exchange for resources and the right of strategic maneuvering across the Arctic Ocean. This was all fine and dandy for Stalin, because Germany was with her back to him, engaged in a war against what he perceived as the real threat to the USSR, Britain and France. Of course later Stalin did the whole Finland thing and started pushing the boundaries of the Ribentropp-Molotov pact a bit too much by threatening Romania, to which of course Hitler responded accordingly by occupying the latter and insisting that the former retain/regain its neutrality. Hitler felt threatened, most likely because he already knew that war with the USSR was imminent. It was only a matter of wether he could strike first, and wether Germany could keep the Wehrmacht going with the strategic supplies from the Soviets cut off, relying only on Romanian oil, synthetics and captured supplies. Which they did for almost four years.
 
What it has to do with my statement that after 1939 USSR was preparing for war with Germany, instead of making alliance with them?

It was both preparing for war with Germany and making (or rather maintaining - because it was already made before) an alliance with them.

A cunning tactics!

There were skirmishes between Germans and their Soviet "allies" in 1939 too.

You call a friendly fire incident (or precisely 2-3 of them, because this is the total number) "skirmishes"? Stop kidding us please.

And what's the point?

The point is that combats in the Saarland were fought on a bit larger scale than according to myths of "Phoney War".

And both sides also suffered some casualties, with French casualties being much bigger than German:

German casualties (only Army - no Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine) in the Western Front:

killed / wounded / missing

1 September - 24 September 1939:
5. Army - 12 / 1 / 6
1. Army - 140 / 56 / 202
7. Army - 17 / 0 / 11
Total: 169 / 57 / 219

1 September - 10 October 1939:
5. Army - 39 / 9 / 50
1. Army - 197 / 105 / 488
7. Army - 32 / 0 / 13
Total: 268 / 113 / 551

1 September - 20 October 1939: Total: 356 / 128 / 836

1 September - 20 November 1939: Total: 490 / 162 / 1201

1 September - 30 November 1939: Total: 520 / 165 / 1231

1 September - 31 December 1939: Total: 585 / 173 / 1347

And regarding French casualties:

1) Until 31 December 1939 Germans captured 695 French POWs, including 28 officers.

Apart from this, French Army (without Air Force & Navy) lost 98 officers & 1750 NCOs and men killed or wounded until 21.09.1939.

Add to this 150 non-combat losses (mainly sick and accidents) already in this period (1 - 21 September 1939).

Here they say about ca. 2000 dead, wounded, missing or sick until 4 (or 16 ?) October 1939:

http://www.cheminsdememoire.gouv.fr/page/affichepage.php?idLang=&idPage=87

In November Daladier said that casualties (dead only) suffered so far amounted to 1100 dead in Army and 100 dead in Air Force.

Losses of French Air Force just in period 09.09.1939 - 13.09.1939 were 50 killed or missing and 30 wounded.

===============================================

Compare these casualties above to ca. 20 men wounded or killed as the result of Soviet-German friendly fire incidents from 1939.

That land, if you forgot my point, was invaded by Poland in Soviet-Polish war, which was fought between Poland and Soviet Russia.

We also already discussed this:

1) Soviet forces attacked first - and they did it near Vilna (which is in Lithuania - I wonder what were Soviets doing there).

2) When Polish forces marched East to take control of land, they encountered no Soviet resistance initially. Soviets were far away in the East.

3) The same works the other way - when Soviets marched West to spread Revolution, initially they met no Polish forces. Poles were still far away.

4) Only later, at some point in time and in space, both forces encountered each other - somewhere in the middle of "no-man's land".

Please show where I said there was no cooperation.

Ok, you said that there was no alliance. You didn't explicitly mention the word "cooperation".

But what exactly is military and economic cooperation? For example the North Atlantic Treaty? Or the Warsaw Pact?

Well - it is simply some form of alliance. Just like the Ribbentrop-Molotov (Hitler-Stalin) Treaty and previous agreements.

Remember that the USSR also cooperated with Germany on the field of developing military technology & tactics.

Not only on the field of using this technology & tactics to invade and destroy other countries.
 
It was both preparing for war with Germany and making (or rather maintaining - because it was already made before) an alliance with them.
Was there an alliance agreement?

You call a friendly fire incident (or precisely 2-3 of them, because this is the total number) "skirmishes"? Stop kidding us please.
No, I call skirmishes skirmishes. Both sides fought for several hours and knew who they were shooting at. Their "allies".

The point is that combats in the Saarland were fought on a bit larger scale than according to myths of "Phoney War".
And how is that relevant to anything what I said here or was asked in OP?
Why do you make so many absolutely random and irrelevant arguments?

We also already discussed this:
Yes, we already discussed this - the Soviets attacked the Polish forces which were for some reason outside of Polish territory. What Poles were doing near Wilno and in Belorussia in the first place?
 
Ok, you said that there was no alliance.

But what exactly is military and economic alliance. For example the North Atlantic Treaty? Or the Warsaw Pact?

Well - it is simply some form of alliance. Just like the Ribbentrop-Molotov (Hitler-Stalin) Treaty and previous agreements.

Or like German-Polish non-aggression agreement of 1934?
Do you understand the difference between non-aggression pact and military alliance?
 
Top Bottom