The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact

[Eskel]

There is a lot of ex-post explaination for Stalin's actions in this thread, but don't backed up with any serious facts and documents.
For example: many of those theses are mounted up on assumption that USSR' entering the Poland was not an act of aggression (sic!), but pre-emptive creation of security zone, according to "keep Germans 1000-miles away from Moscow" policy.

I'd like that we discuss facts here, not fantasies. People, please cite some sources, e.g. orders, Stalin's speeches, notes from Politbiuro or HQ meetings, whatever that will show and prove such policy ever existed.
Moreover, Stalin in Treaty of Friendship with Germany (28th September 1939) agreed that Nazis will take bigger part of Poland (thus moving Germany-USSR border to east, closer to Moscow) in exchange for territorial gains in Pribaltica states. Ironic, isnt' it?

Maybe before we start interpretations, we should look into sources to see how Stalin himself recommended M-R pact to Politbiuro? This will clearly show his intentions.
The text of his speech is below:

Spoiler :

Stalin's speech to the Politburo on 19 August 1939, reconstructed from renderings in Novyi Mir, Moscow, and Revue de Droit International, Geneva


The question of war and peace has entered a critical phase for us. Its solution depends entirely on the position which will be taken by the Soviet Union. We are absolutely convinced that if we conclude a mutual assistance pact with France and Great Britain, Germany will back off from Poland and seek a modus vivendi with the Western Powers. War would be avoided, but further events could prove dangerous for the USSR.


On the other hand, if we accept Germany's proposal, that you know, and conclude a non-aggression pact with her, she will certainly invade Poland, and the intervention of France and England is then unavoidable. Western Europe would be subjected to serious upheavals and disorder. In this case we will have a great opportunity to stay out of the conflict, and we could plan the opportune time for us to enter the war.



The experience of the last 20 years has shown that in peacetime the Communist movement is never strong enough for the Bolshevik Party to seize power. The dictatorship of such a Party will only become possible as the result of a major war.



Our choice is clear. We must accept the German proposal and, with a refusal, politely send the Anglo-French mission home.



It is not difficult to envisage the importance which we would obtain in this way of proceeding. It is obvious, for us, that Poland will be destroyed even before England and France are able to come to her assistance. In this case Germany will cede to us a part of Poland… Our immediate advantage will be to take Poland all the way to the gates of Warsaw, as well as Ukrainian Galicia.



Germany grants us full freedom of action in the Pribaltic/three Baltic States and recognizes our claim on Bessarabia. She is prepared to acknowledge our interests in Romania Bulgaria and Hungary.

Yugoslavia remains an open question, the solution of which depends on the position taken by Italy. If Italy remains at the sides of Germany, then the latter will require that Yugoslavia be understood as her zone of influence, and it is also by Yugoslavia that she will obtain access to the Adriatic Sea. But if Italy does not go with Germany, then the latter will depend on Italy for her access to the Adriatic Sea, and in this case Yugoslavia will pass into our sphere of influence.



This in case that Germany would emerge victorious from the war. We must, however, envisage the possibilities that will result from the defeat as well as from the victory of Germany. In case of her defeat, a Sovietization of Germany will unavoidably occur and a Communist government will be created. We should not forget that a Sovietized Germany would bring about great danger, if this Sovietization is the result of German defeat in a transient war. England and France will still be strong enough to seize Berlin and to destroy a Soviet Germany. We would be unable to come effectually to her assistance/to the aid of our Bolshevik comrades in Germany.



Therefore, our goal is that Germany should carry out the war as long as possible so that England and France grow weary and become exhausted to such a degree that they are no longer in a position to put down a Sovietized Germany.



Our position is this. Maintaining neutrality and waiting for the right time, the USSR will presently assist Germany economically and supply her with raw materials and provisions. It goes without saying that our assistance should not exceed a certain limit; we must not send so much as to weaken our economy or the power of our army.



At the same time we must carry on active Communist propaganda in the Anglo-French bloc, and predominantly in France. We must expect that in that country in times of war, the Party should quit the legal means of warfare and turn underground. We know that their work will demand much money/great sacrifices, but we must agree without hesitating to these sacrifices/our French comrades will not hesitate. Their first task will be to decompose and demoralize the army and the police. If this preparatory work is fulfilled properly, the safety of Soviet Germany will be assured, and this will contribute to the Sovietization of France.



For the realization of these plans it is essential that the war continue for as long as possible, and all forces, which we have available in Western Europe and the Balkans, should be directed toward this goal.



Now let us consider the second possibility, a German victory. Some think that this would confront us with a serious danger. There is some truth in this, but it would be a mistake to regard the danger as so close at hand or as great as has been proposed.



If Germany should prove to be victorious, she will leave the war too weakened to start a war with the USSR within a decade at least. She will have to supervise the occupation of France and England and to prevent their restoration/restore herself.



In addition, a victorious Germany will have vast colonies/territories; the exploitation of those and their adaptation to German methods will also absorb Germany during several decades.



Obviously, this Germany will be too busy elsewhere to turn against us. There is one additional thing that will strengthen our safety. In a conquered France, the French Communist Party will always be very strong. A Communist revolution will unavoidably break out, and we will be able to exploit the situation and to come to the aid of France and make her our ally. In addition, all the nations that fall under the "protection" of a victorious Germany will become our allies. This presents for us a broad field of action for the initiation of world revolution.


Comrades, I have presented my considerations to you. I repeat that it is in the interest of the USSR, the workers' homeland that a war breaks out between the Reich and the capitalist Anglo-French bloc. It is essential for us/Everything should be done so that it drags out as long as possible with the goal of weakening both sides. For this reason, it is imperative that we agree to conclude the pact proposed by Germany, and then work in such a way that this war, once it is declared, will be prolonged maximally. We must strengthen our economic/propaganda work in the belligerent countries, in order to be prepared when the war ends.

More facts, Ribbentrop-Molotov pact text:

Spoiler :

Text of the Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact

The Government of the German Reich and The Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics desirous of strengthening the cause of peace between Germany and the U.S.S.R., and proceeding from the fundamental provisions of the Neutrality Agreement concluded in April, 1926 between Germany and the U.S.S.R., have reached the following Agreement:

Article I. Both High Contracting Parties obligate themselves to desist from any act of violence, any aggressive action, and any attack on each other, either individually or jointly with other Powers.

Article II. Should one of the High Contracting Parties become the object of belligerent action by a third Power, the other High Contracting Party shall in no manner lend its support to this third Power.

Article III. The Governments of the two High Contracting Parties shall in the future maintain continual contact with one another for the purpose of consultation in order to exchange information on problems affecting their common interests.

Article IV. Should disputes or conflicts arise between the High Contracting Parties shall participate in any grouping of Powers whatsoever that is directly or indirectly aimed at the other party.

Article V. Should disputes or conflicts arise between the High Contracting Parties over problems of one kind or another, both parties shall settle these disputes or conflicts exclusively through friendly exchange of opinion or, if necessary, through the establishment of arbitration commissions.

Article VI. The present Treaty is concluded for a period of ten years, with the proviso that, in so far as one of the High Contracting Parties does not advance it one year prior to the expiration of this period, the validity of this Treaty shall automatically be extended for another five years.

Article VII. The present treaty shall be ratified within the shortest possible time. The ratifications shall be exchanged in Berlin. The Agreement shall enter into force as soon as it is signed.

[The section below was not published at the time the above was announced.]

Secret Additional Protocol.

Article I. In the event of a territorial and political rearrangement in the areas belonging to the Baltic States (Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania), the northern boundary of Lithuania shall represent the boundary of the spheres of influence of Germany and U.S.S.R. In this connection the interest of Lithuania in the Vilna area is recognized by each party.

Article II. In the event of a territorial and political rearrangement of the areas belonging to the Polish state, the spheres of influence of Germany and the U.S.S.R. shall be bounded approximately by the line of the rivers Narev, Vistula and San.

The question of whether the interests of both parties make desirable the maintenance of an independent Polish States and how such a state should be bounded can only be definitely determined in the course of further political developments.

In any event both Governments will resolve this question by means of a friendly agreement.

Article III. With regard to Southeastern Europe attention is called by the Soviet side to its interest in Bessarabia. The German side declares its complete political disinteredness in these areas.

Article IV. This protocol shall be treated by both parties as strictly secret.

Moscow, August 23, 1939.

For the Government of the German Reich v. Ribbentrop

Plenipotentiary of the Government of the U.S.S.R. V. Molotov

Order of attack on Poland:

Spoiler :

Secret
Order no.005 of the Military Council of the Belorussian Front
to the Troops on the Goals of Red Army's Entry into Western Belorussia
16 September 1939, Smolensk


Comrad Red Army Soldiers, Commanders, and Political Workers!
The Polish landowners and capitalists have enslaved the working people of Western Belorussia and Western Ukraine.
Through the use of White terror, field courts-martial, and punitive expeditions, they are suppressing the revolutionary movement, imposing national oppression and exploitation, and sowing ruin and devastation.
The Great Socialist Revolution gave Polish people the right to secede. Polish landowners and capitalists, having crushed the revolutionary movement of workers and peasants, seized Western Belorussia and Western Ukraine, deprived these peoples of their Soviet homeland, and shackled them in chains of bondage and oppression.

The rulers of the lords' Poland have now thrown our Belorussian and Ukrainian brothers into the meat grinder of second imperialist war.
National oppression and the enslavement of laborers led Poland to military defeat.

The oppressed peoples of Poland are facing the threat of total ruin and extermination by their enemies.
In Western Ukraine and Belorussia a revolutionary movement is spreading. Demonstrations and uprisings by the Belorussian and Ukrainian peasantry in Poland have begun. The working class and peasnatry of Poland are uniting their forces in order to wring the necks of their bloody oppressors.

Comrade fighters, commanders, and political workers of the Belorussian Front, our revolutionary duty and obligation is to render immediate assistance and support to our brother Belorussians and Ukrainians in order to rescue them from the threat of ruin and massacre by their enemies.

In fulfilling this historic task, we have no intention of violating the non-aggression pact between the USSR and Germany. We cannot allow the enemies of the Belorussian and Ukrainian peoples to harness them to a new yoke of exploitation and ruin, or to subject them to massacre and mockery.

We come not as conquerors but as liberators of our brother Belorussians and Ukrainians and the workers of Poland.
1. Order:
1. Units of Belorussian Front shall act decisively to aid the workers of Western Belorussia nad Western Ukraine, moving all along the front in a decisive offensive.
2. In a lightning, crushing blow, rout the lordly-boutgeois Polish troops and liberate the workers, peasants and laborers of Western Belorussia.

Under the slogans "For our happy Soviet homeland" and "For our great Stalin", let us fulfill our military oath and our duty to our homeland.
The orders shall be read out loudly in all companies, batteries, squadrons, escadrilles, and garrisons, starting at 1600 hours, 16 September 1939.

Troop Commander of the Belorussian Front
Army Commander 2nd Rank Kovalev

Members of the Military Council of the Belorussian Front:
Corps Commissar Susaikov
Divisional Commissar Smokachev
Divisional Commissar Gusev
Ponomarenko

Soviet Government Note to the Polish Government:

Spoiler :

Soviet Government Note Handed to the Polish Ambassador in the USSR, Waclaw Grzybowski
17 September 1939, Moscow

Mr. Ambassador!
The Polish-German War has revealed the internal bankruptcy of the Polish state. In ten days of hostilities, Poland has lost all its industrial regions and cultural centers. Warsaw no longer exists as the capital of Poland. The Polish government has collapsed and shows no signs of life. This means that the Polish state and its government have, in fact, ceased to exist. Therefore, the agreements concluded between the USSR and Poland have ceased to operate.
Left to its own devices and bereft of leadership, Poland has become a fertile field for all kinds of accidents and surprises, which could pose a threat to the USSR.
Therefore, the Soviet government, which has been neutral until now, can no longer maintain a neutral attitude toward these facts.
Nor can the Soviet government remain indifferent to the fact that its kindred Ukrainian and Belorussian peoples, living on Polish territory, are abandoned to their fate and left unprotected.
In view of this state of affairs, the Soviet government has directed the High Command of the Red Army to order troops to cross the frontier and to take under their protection the lives and property of the population of the Western Ukraine and Western Belorussia.
At the same time, the Soviet government intends to take all measures to liberate the Polish people from disastrous war into which they have been dragged bu their unwise leaders and give them the opportunity to live a peaceful life.
Please accept, Mr. Ambassador, assurances of my sincere respect.

Peoples Commissar for Foreign Affairs of the USSR
V.Molotov

Please take into consideration, that Soviet attack was planned at 6th September first, that Polish government hasnt ceased to exist, that Vistula river was planned defensive position, that Polish still hoped for French offensive that was planned on 18th September, that Polish forces managed to counter-attack in the battle of Bzura, and Warsaw repelled German attacks until 27th September...

 

[red_elk]

For example: many of those theses are mounted up on assumption that USSR' entering the Poland was not an act of aggression (sic!), but pre-emptive creation of security zone, according to "keep Germans 1000-miles away from Moscow" policy.

If you mean one of my statements, which one is based on assumption that Soviet invasion of Poland was not an act of aggression? Quote please.

 

[Eskel]

My assumption is based not only on which words you have used (intervention, reincorporation, even liberation), but also which you hadnt' used...Agression, attack or invasion being most obviously not present.
More details below.

Spoiler :

Red Elk - normal text
Mine - italics

It started with quoting Churchill's:
The point is that he understood the reason for USSR to intervene in Poland - to restrict German occupation zone, to reincorporate Western Ukraine and Belorussia back to the USSR.
"Necessary for the safety of Russia against the Nazi menace".
...
However, it seemed later you sympathize with this statement and tried to back it up with arguments:
Doesn't matter - these territories were not Polish, they were Ukrainian and Belorussian parts of former Russian Empire.
...
One might claim that Poland also ceased to exist in 2 weeks after German attack in 1939. - It is astonishing, how you recalled original arguments Soviet diplomacy used against Poland
...
I said "to reincorporate Western Ukraine and Belorussia back to the USSR". The word "USSR" makes you restless? Replace it with "Soviet state", "Russia" or whatever you want.
...
But if Alaska was forcefully taken from Russia and recaptured back 19 years later, I would call it reincorporation (or liberation, depending on details). No matter on what name Russian state will have - Russian Empire, Soviet Union or Elven Kingdom.
...
Any noticeable action of Allies, or even imitation of such action would prevent Stalin from intervention in Poland.
...
Stalin would intervene only after collapse of Polish organized resistance, and escape of Polish government. - And it is not truth, as SU troops entered Poland on 17th Sept, while Mościcki resigned on 29th, handling power to Raczyński
...
I said, Allies could easily prevent Soviet intervention - but where I said that USSR will occupy Polish territory in that case? - It is quite obvious that USSR wouldnt occupy Polish territories if Allies prevented Soviet intervention, isnt it? We should also clear if terms"Polish territories" and "occupy" has the same meaning for us.
...
Poland didn't want any kind of support from USSR and refused all such offers. And USSR let them fight until organized resistance collapsed and government escaped to London. After Polish army ceased to exist, it wasn't matter much, with whom they were "more inclined" to cooperate. - And it is not truth also, as shown above
...
I'm not proposing anything about status quo - I'm calling capturing back territories which recently were part of country, reincorporation.
...
In brief, my basic points are:
1. The pact, except its obvious intention of expanding sphere of influence and gaining territories for the USSR, had also significant value for defence of the country against supposed German attack, by redirecting German aggression, buying time for prepare and holding German forces further away from vital centers of the Soviet union (Moscow, Leningrad, Kavkaz), in order not to allow enemy to reach them quickly in first assault of the Blitzkrieg.

The only argument against this statement, given here, was that Germans quickly overran the buffer zone. Which obviously doesn't disprove anything - without buffer zone, initial German assault would most likely reach Moscow. The first few weeks, after which Germans advanced for a few hundred kilometers, were enough to complete mobilization. Poland and France did not have this time.
...
The Soviet plan was to keep enemy in ~1000 km from Moscow, making many Soviet industrial centers unreachable from air attacks and quick land invasion, before war begins. - Plan that is not mentioned in known documents
...
In brief, you claim that Stalin's intentions were purely destructive - to start war in Europe and to expand Soviet borders. But in addition to that, refuse to see any evidences of Stalin's attempts to avoid German aggression in 1939, by signing this pact, when USSR was not prepared for war. - I cannot see such attempts either, having read Stalins speech to Politburo, where he made quite clear that he knew for sure what steps should be taken to avoid war

Except this buffer zone, defensive value of which is quite obvious for me but being stubbornly refused by (only) a few people here, it was intention to redirect German aggression against USSR and buy time for preparation (number of Red army divisions increased by 40% for the period 1939-1941).

 

[red_elk]

My assumption is based not only on which words you have used (intervention, reincorporation, even liberation), but also which you hadnt' used...Agression, attack or invasion being most obviously not present.

If you want to know my position, why not to ask? It's much more simple than making assumptions, reading whole thread and finally coming to wrong result.

Especially if you are going to slightly twist some of my words to better fit your assumptions, like you did here:

Stalin would intervene only after collapse of Polish organized resistance, and escape of Polish government. - And it is not truth, as SU troops entered Poland on 17th Sept, while Mościcki resigned on 29th, handling power to Raczyński

Read it again, you don't see anything wrong in your interpretation of my words?

About your assumptions, let's put it this way:
Soviet intervention to Poland in September 1939 was an act of aggression which lead to reincorporation (or annexation if you like this word more) of Western Ukrainian and Belorussian territories. The territories which were in similar way annexed by Poland in 1920. Using word liberation is not correct in both cases, because such territories were disputed after collapse of Russian Empire.

 

[innonimatu]

Just to inform you I have now officially requested this thread to be closed. I warned you before about continually turning the discussion to irrelevant and off-topic details. You appear to be quite unwilling to try and understand views that do not confirm to your own, while similarly expecting others to confirm to yours. That can never result in any fruitful discussion - no matter the subject. If you feel it is that important to expound your own personal views, you are full well entitled to start your own thread in order to do so. However, it is not the purpose of a thread dedicated to the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.

So basically you're not happy that the interpretation of the pact which you personally support hasn't been paid too much attention. I do notice, looking at your original post, that you basically copied some other guy's opinion.

Every actor of those fateful 1930s admitted that the future of Europe was at stake, and they didn't knew what was going to happen, beyond the likelihood of another general war. It is not, to me, at all surprising that people here are discussing those events leading up to the pact, and that people now do not have the same views - as the people who drove those events also didn't. History is the reconstruction of how the people of a certain time thought, not just a partial narration of how they acted. Different people thought differently, and there cannot be any single "true narrative".

I don't know enough to add anything to this discussion, but I've found it discussion interesting and therefore I publicly ask here that the thread be maintained open.
There is no single, simple interpretation of the pact. If you're so happy with Orlando Figes' opinions that you won't hear anything else, don't post on a public internet forum, where people are expected to give feedback. Threatening to "leave and take the ball home" whenever you're crossed really isn't very nice...

 

[Agent327]

Putin condemns Nazi-Soviet pact

The pact led to the carving-up of Poland and eastern Europe

Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has condemned the Nazi-Soviet pact signed a week before Germany's 1939 invasion of Poland as "immoral".

In a piece for the Polish paper Gazeta Wyborcza, he also expressed sorrow for a Soviet massacre of Poles in 1940.
His words were an attempt to ease bilateral tensions over World War II.
Mr Putin is among several statesmen attending a service in the Polish port city of Gdansk on Tuesday to mark the 70th anniversary of Poland's invasion.
"Our duty is to remove the burden of distrust and prejudice left from the past in Polish-Russian relations," said Mr Putin in the article, which was also published on the Russian government website.
"Our duty... is to turn the page and start to write a new one."
But he added that the Soviet Union had felt obliged to sign the non-aggression treaty due to the failure of Western European powers to present a united front against Nazi Germany.

Katyn regret

Memories of the 1939 pact - in which the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany essentially agreed to carve up Poland and the Baltic States between them - have long soured relations between Warsaw and Moscow.



Pact that set the scene for war
Viewpoint: The Nazi-Soviet Pact
Media build up to World War II

Within a month of the pact being signed, Soviet troops had invaded and occupied parts of eastern Poland.
"It is possible to condemn - and with good reason - the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact concluded in August 1939," wrote Mr Putin, referring to the two foreign ministers who signed the pact at the Kremlin.
"Today we understand that any form of agreement with the Nazi regime was unacceptable from the moral point of view and had no chance of being realised."
He added that Russian people "understand all too well the acute emotions of Poles in connection with Katyn".
In 1940 Soviet secret police massacred more than 21,000 army officers and intellectuals on Stalin's direct orders in the Katyn forest near the city of Smolensk.
Moscow only took responsibility for the killings in 1990, having previously blamed the massacre on the Nazis.

(Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8230387.stm)

 

[Harvin87]

I'm missing something really important I think... If Britain and France had military obligations with Poland.. why they didnt declare war inmediatly to russia after their invasion of Poland? ... can someone quote where the answer to this is ... or explain to me ... thanks

 

[Agent327]

I think it's primarily a matter of chronology.

1 September: Hitler invades Poland
2 September: UK and France issue a joint ultimatum, Hitler ignores it
3 September: UK and France declare war.
16 September: the German army encircles Warsaw.
17 September: USSR invades Poland (in accordance with the unpublished secret protocol).

Now, at this point the Allies could indeed have declared war on the USSR (following an unheeded ultimatum to withdraw from Poland). But would it have made any difference to the fate of Poland? Also, political considerations must have come into play; notwithstanding the Nazi-Soviet pact, Stalin calculated that war with Germany would be unavoidable (though not prior to 1942) and Hitler never relinquished the idea of war with the USSR. The pact was very well calculated: Stalin gained Eastern European territories, while Hitler ensured there would not be a two-front-war.

 

[Agent327]

WWII ceremonies begin in Poland

The dawn ceremony began a day of remembrance in Gdansk

A day of commemorations has begun in Poland to mark the 70th anniversary of the outbreak of World War II.

The first ceremony took place at dawn on Westerplatte peninsula near Gdansk, where a German battleship fired the first shots on a Polish fort in 1939.
Poland's president and prime minister led a sombre ceremony at the fort.
Foreign leaders from 20 countries including Germany and Russia are expected in Gdansk later in the day as ceremonies continue.
At 0445 (0245 GMT) Polish President Lech Kaczynski and Prime Minister Donald Tusk joined war veterans beside a monument to the heroes of Westerplatte.
The ceremony marked the exact time on 1 September 1939 when the German battleship Schleswig-Holstein opened fire at point-blank range on the fort.
At the same time, the German Wehrmacht invaded Poland over three frontiers. The attacks triggered Britain and France's declaration of war against Germany two days later.
In an address, Mr Tusk said the lessons of history should not be forgotten.
"We remember because we know well that he who forgets, or he who falsifies history, and has power or will assume power will bring unhappiness again like 70 years ago," he said.



Important symbol

At the time of the attack by the Schleswig-Holstein - which was moored in the Polish harbour on a friendship visit - Gdansk was known as the free city of Danzig.



Watching the start of World War II
Pact that set the scene for war
UK service to mark evacuations

The 182 Polish troops defending the Polish fort were expected to resist for about 12 hours. Despite coming under fire from the air, sea and land, they held out against a force of more than 3,000 Germans for seven days.
According to a survey published on Monday, Westerplatte is the most important symbol of Polish resistance in the whole of the war.
A wreath-laying ceremony will take place later in the day and, of the speeches expected throughout the ceremonies, it is Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin's which is the most keenly anticipated in Poland, reports the BBC's Adam Easton, in Gdansk.
According to the historian Professor Pawel Machcewicz, the Poles are expecting some sort of gesture from Mr Putin.



Thorny relations

Poland's relations with Russia are currently thornier than those with Germany, partly because of differing historical interpretations of events at the start of the war.
Two weeks after the German invasion, the Red Army invaded and annexed eastern Poland under terms agreed in the secret protocol of a Nazi-Soviet pact.
Mr Putin may make a gesture to ease the tensions over Katyn

In early 1940, the Soviet secret services murdered more than 20,000 Polish officers in the forests around Katyn. For 50 years Moscow blamed the Nazis and only admitted responsibility for the crime in 1990.
Russian courts have ruled that Katyn cannot be considered a war crime and Moscow is still refusing to declassify documents about the massacre.
The temperature was raised further this week with accusations broadcast on Russian state TV which implied the USSR was justified in its invasion of Poland because Warsaw had been conspiring with Hitler against Moscow.
Mr Putin is unlikely to defend this viewpoint, but nor is he likely to offer an apology for the Soviet invasion, although he may make a gesture to ease the tensions over Katyn, our correspondent says.
In an article published in the Polish daily Gazeta Wyborcza on Monday, Mr Putin wrote: "The Russian nation, whose fate was distorted by the totalitarian regime, well understands Poles' feelings about Katyn, where thousands of Polish soldiers are buried.
"We should remember the victims of this crime."

(Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8230678.stm)

 

[Agent327]

The 1939 Nazi-Soviet Pact is controversial even today, with historians divided over its importance. In the first of a series of articles marking the outbreak of World War II 70 years ago, the BBC Russian Service's Artyom Krechetnikov and Steven Eke analyse the significance of a treaty that helped set the scene for war.


The pact led to the carving-up of parts of eastern Europe

Signed on 23 August 1939, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was accompanied by a secret protocol that detailed the reshaping of Europe's map.
Substantive talks on forming a political alliance between Nazi Germany and the USSR had begun that month.
They built on earlier discussions aimed at boosting economic co-operation, and were accompanied by military and even cultural co-operation in the form of exchanges of high-profile delegations.
The pact was signed by German Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop and his Russian counterpart, Vyacheslav Molotov, in Moscow.
It led to the carving-up of Poland between Nazi Germany and the USSR, as well as the annexation by the USSR of eastern Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and northern Romania.
The western parts of Ukraine and Belarus, formerly Polish territory, were also incorporated into the Soviet Union.
At that point, believe some historians, a war in Europe became unavoidable.



Why Russia signed the pact

Soviet historical approaches currently in favour with Russia's modern-day leadership suggest the treaty:

• Allowed the USSR to delay the onset of war with Nazi Germany
• Allowed the Soviet border to be moved 200km or more to the west, greatly boosting the subsequent defence efforts against Nazi aggression
• Allowed Russia to take under its defence the "blood-brother peoples" - the Ukrainians and Belarussians
• Prevented an "anti-Soviet alliance" between the West and Nazi Germany

The records of the politburo meeting held on 19 August 1939 show that Stalin believed that war with Germany could be avoided, should the USSR form an anti-Nazi alliance with Britain and France.
But, he warned, "the subsequent development of events after that would be unfavourable to the Soviet Union".
He told his colleagues that Germany was prepared to offer the USSR "complete freedom of action in the three Baltic countries", and hinted that Romania, Bulgaria and Hungary would be ceded to the USSR as a "zone of influence".
At the same time, talks between the USSR, Britain and France over a co-ordinated response in the event of an attack by Nazi Germany, floundered.
Britain and France would not acquiesce to a key Soviet demand, namely that Soviet troops be allowed free passage across Poland.



Falsified history?

One of the most enduringly controversial aspects of the pact was the Soviet policy to deny the existence of the secret protocol.
The secret protocol was signed by von Ribbentrop and Molotov

The policy built on Stalin's written rejection of claims relating to Soviet-Nazi co-operation, published in 1948 and known as The Falsifiers of History.
It was only in the late 1980s, the era of Mikhail Gorbachev's perestroika reforms, that the Soviet government admitted the truth.
The West never accepted - and viewed as illegal - the incorporation of the Baltic states into the Soviet Union.
Certainly, many people from the Baltic states made their own feelings clear when, on 23 August 1989, more than two million of them linked hands along the entire length of their countries' eastern borders to mark the 50th anniversary of the signing of the pact.
The leading British historian, Orlando Figes, described the pact as "a constant thorn in Russia's relations with neighbouring European states".

The pact is the most cynical operation of the World War II


Leopold Unger
Polish-Belgian author



Viewpoint: The Nazi-Soviet Pact

He suggested it continued to underpin the perspective in those states of post-war Soviet oppression.
The respected Polish-Belgian author Leopold Unger referred to the pact as the "most cynical operation of the World War II, and the founding document of the post-war Soviet empire in Europe".
Russian state archives do not allow historians unfettered access to the documents detailing Nazi-Soviet co-operation.
In early August, Russia's normally secretive SVR (foreign intelligence service) issued a rare statement asserting that the USSR had "had no other option than to sign" the pact.
The ultimate blame, it claimed, lay with Britain and France, for scuppering the tripartite negotiations in the summer of 1939.
This statement came just weeks after the Russian defence ministry published an essay by a high-ranking official, in which it was suggested that Poland was ultimately responsible for World War II, by refusing to acquiesce to "legitimate" Nazi territorial demands.



Revisionist analysis?

Does the appearance of such views suggest that a revisionist analysis of the pact is becoming widespread in the Russian establishment?
Russia now says Stalin had "no option" but to sign the pact

And is this linked to current, apparently official, efforts to rehabilitate Stalin as a "great statesman" - even if his victims are also recognised?
Alexander Dyukov, a young Russian historian who claims Soviet repression has been systematically exaggerated, wrote: "Attempts to compare or equate Hitler's regime with the USSR destroy the single historical focal point - our victory in the war - that holds together our society."
Mark Solonin, a liberal historian, takes a very different view.
"In one short act, Stalin threw Europe into mayhem, and abandoned the Franco-British bloc, whose leaders had already promised Poland security guarantees, to the maniac in Berlin," he wrote.
"After the signing of the pact, he fell into a state that can only be described as foolhardy bravery.
"A European war became unavoidable. It began precisely one week after the signing of the pact."
Russia increasingly maintains that the pact was a strategic document, driven primarily by considerations of self-defence.
It strongly rejects the idea that Soviet collusion with the Third Reich was a factor in the destruction of Europe that soon ensued.

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8212451.stm)

Notes on the reasons given for the pact:

• Allowed the USSR to delay the onset of war with Nazi Germany

This is highly dubious; following public statements made by Stalin, war wasn't expected prior to 1942 - while in fact it erupted on June 22, 1941. See also next note.

• Allowed the Soviet border to be moved 200km or more to the west, greatly boosting the subsequent defence efforts against Nazi aggression

By annexing the border territories Nazi Germany effectively gained the element of surprise for Operation Barbarossa, as it no longer needed to violate neutral countries' borders in order to invade the USSR - whereas the subsequent forward defense strategy was proved utterly flawd during the 1941 campaign, leading to huge Soviet losses in men, material and territory. In addition, the annexations of previously neutral and independent nations' territories caused antagonism - and can be seen as an important factor in Finland's joining of the attack on the USSR in 1941. See also next note.

• Allowed Russia to take under its defence the "blood-brother peoples" - the Ukrainians and Belarussians

See previous note. Also note the following: In 1933 millions of Ukrainians starved to death in an infamous famine, the Holodomor [3] and in 1937 several thousand intelligentsia were exiled, sentenced to Gulag labor camps or executed. The negative impact of Soviet policies helped garner support for the German cause, and in some regions, parts of the nationalist minority initially viewed the Germans as allies in the struggle to free Ukraine from Stalinist oppression and achieve independence. (Needless to say that both 'blood-brother peoples' have preferred independence from Russia since.)

• Prevented an "anti-Soviet alliance" between the West and Nazi Germany

Plans for such an alliance never existed; not too mention that the signing of the pact cut short ongoing negotiations between the USSR and the UK and France about setting up an anti-Nazi alliance. (As mentioned earlier, Stalin only agreed to this when he had run out of options as his former ally had de facto annulled the Nazi-Soviet pact.)

 

[red_elk]

Allowed the USSR to delay the onset of war with Nazi Germany

This is highly dubious; following public statements made by Stalin, war wasn't expected prior to 1942 - while in fact it erupted on June 22, 1941.

Following public statement, made by Stalin after the pact was signed.

Allowed the Soviet border to be moved 200km or more to the west, greatly boosting the subsequent defence efforts against Nazi aggression

By annexing the border territories Nazi Germany effectively gained the element of surprise for Operation Barbarossa

Annexing, which they were going to do regardless of M-R pact.

 

[Agent327]

Following public statement, made by Stalin after the pact was signed.

So? You're not arguing against any factor contributing to either WW II in general or Operation Barbarossa in particular. (The latter was, in fact, delayed by the need to bring Yugoslavia - and Greece - under Axis control following a succesful British-supported coup in the former and the fierce Greek resistance against the Italian invasion in the latter. You also seem to have missed that the pact was a necessary factor in making the invasion of Poland possible in the first place, thereby contributing to the outbreak of WW II. Even Russian PM Putin has come to accept that "any form of agreement with the Nazi regime was unacceptable from the moral point of view and had no chance of being realised.") But your misplaced sarcasm on the day that these tragic events are commemorated is duly noted.

Annexing, which they were going to do regardless of M-R pact.

Again, highly dubious - and, I might add, impossible to prove.

 

[red_elk]

So? You're not arguing against any factor contributing to either WW II in general or Operation Barbarossa in particular. (The latter was, in fact, delayed by the need to bring Yugoslavia - and Greece - under Axis control following a succesful British-supported coup in the former and the fierce Greek resistance against the Italian invasion in the latter.

Pact was signed in 1939. Barbarossa was launched in 1941. Compare strength of Red Army in 1939 with its strength in 1941.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barbarossa#Soviet_preparations

You also seem to have missed that the pact was a necessary factor in making the invasion of Poland possible in the first place, thereby contributing to the outbreak of WW II.

For Hitler it was desirable, but not necessary. Germany planned attack on Poland since spring 1939, without trying to agree with USSR until late August.

Even Russian PM Putin has come to accept that "any form of agreement with the Nazi regime was unacceptable from the moral point of view and had no chance of being realised.") But your misplaced sarcasm on the day that these tragic events are commemorated is duly noted.

Yes. If you read original of his article, you should know that he especially condemned Munich and Versailles agreements. And your denial of other European powers' responsibility for WW2, except German and Soviet, is especially misplaced today, on the anniversary of these tragic events.

 

[Eskel]

Well, are there any other aspects of M-R pact to mention?
Little summary of my own:
1) Stalin was paranoid, in some eyes "evil" but still brilliant dictator, who in one move (M-R) smashed all other European powers (Germany, UK, France), ensuring USSR become world's superpower to late 80-ties. Contemporary Russia till benefits from his plan, outclassing rest of Europe by few marks of measure
2) M-R was reasonable (for USSR) though immoral - Stalin had opportunity to prevent war and save many millions of lives, but preferred a way of power. In that terms, he cleared the way for Holocaust. But advantages for USSR are obvious - even at cost Russia had to pay, the other lost more.
3) Talking about reasons of WW II, I surprisingly support Russia's POV. Of course, main reason was anti-Versailles stance and interests of Germany, secondary weight reasons were Soviets' communists interests of global revolution, but third - inactivity, opportunism and conformism of the rest of Europe (UK, France and Poland playing particular role in Munich, 1938).

We should also remember that economical depression and injustice of contemporary social model paved the way for totalitarisms.
We should think of this, while governments another time will save skins of financial sharks at a cost of common people, who just pay taxes. Taxes, which strips people of plans, hopes and freedom, thus causing frustration, anger and hatred - or at least indifference toward others.

 

[Yeekim]

Pact was signed in 1939. Barbarossa was launched in 1941. Compare strength of Red Army in 1939 with its strength in 1941.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barbarossa#Soviet_preparations

For the sake of providing some benchmark data, here be strength of German Army in September 1939.

Divisions: 102
Personnel: Could not find accurate data, probably around 1,5 million.
Guns and mortars: Could not find accurate data, 5805 field guns were deployed for attack against Poland.
Tanks: 3466
Aircraft: 3368

 

[Yeekim]

Of course, main reason was anti-Versailles stance and interests of Germany, secondary weight reasons were Soviets' communists interests of global revolution, but third - inactivity, opportunism and conformism of the rest of Europe (UK, France and Poland playing particular role in Munich, 1938).

This, pretty much.

However, let us keep in mind that:
Germany needed war to expand.
USSR needed war between Western power to weaken them and to create "revolutionary situation".
France and Britain simply needed to hold on to their victory in WW1 and preserve the status quo.

 

[red_elk]

For the sake of providing some benchmark data, here be strength of German Army in September 1939.

Divisions: 102
Personnel: Could not find accurate data, probably around 1,5 million.
Guns and mortars: Could not find accurate data, 5805 field guns were deployed for attack against Poland.
Tanks: 3466
Aircraft: 3368

This is strength of German forces deployed against Poland - ~55% of total German army.
Total strength of armies in 1939:
Germany ~200 divisions
USSR ~130 divisions

In 1941, deployed on Eastern front:
Germany 166 divisions
USSR 190 divisions (of total 316.5)

Number of Soviet divisions increased by 140% (almost 2.5 times) between I.1939-VI.1941.

 

[Yeekim]

This is strength of German forces deployed against Poland - ~55% of total German army.
Total strength of armies in 1939:
Germany ~200 divisions
USSR ~130 divisions

In 1941, deployed on Eastern front:
Germany 166 divisions
USSR 190 divisions (of total 316.5)

Number of Soviet divisions increased by 140% (almost 2.5 times) between I.1939-VI.1941.

Umm, no. This is the total strength, unless otherwise mentioned (as with artillery).

 

[red_elk]

Umm, no. This is the total strength, unless otherwise mentioned (as with artillery).

You are right, I was mistaken.
Total strength of armies in 1939:
Germany ~105 divisions (61 against Poland, 44 on Western front)
USSR ~130 divisions (~40 deployed on Polish front)

 

[Agent327]

Pact was signed in 1939. Barbarossa was launched in 1941. Compare strength of Red Army in 1939 with its strength in 1941.

So? The majority of that nominal increase was completely lost during the 1941 campaign. Also, you seem to forget that between September 1, 1939 and June 22, 1941 Nazi-Germany overran most of Europe. By contrast the USSR annexed some 200 km in formerly neutral border territories, antagonizing the formerly independent inhabitants of these territories, So, while the USSR should have been in a better military position in 1941, it actually was not.

For Hitler it was desirable, but not necessary. Germany planned attack on Poland since spring 1939, without trying to agree with USSR until late August.

Again: what does this prove?

Yes. If you read original of his article, you should know that he especially condemned Munich and Versailles agreements. And your denial of other European powers' responsibility for WW2, except German and Soviet, is especially misplaced today, on the anniversary of these tragic events.

Yes, I'm well aware of the propaganda value of PM Putin's statements.

Vladimir Putin stirs tensions as World War II commemorated

It was the day Vladimir Putin almost said sorry, the day Angela Merkel reminded the world that Germans had suffered too — a day of death tolls, tales of heroism and martyrdom, warnings against fascism and totalitarianism and triumphalism.
It was also a day when nuance and implication took the place of black-and-white history-telling, but the messages were just as controversial.
Throughout yesterday the Russian Prime Minister tried to show that the Kremlin was not going to bang the big drum of chauvinism — at least, not while he was in Poland. First, in an article for the Polish daily Gazeta Wyborcza, he declared: “We must learn the lessons of history if we want to have a peaceful and happy future."
Then he told Donald Tusk, the Polish Prime Minister, that “Russia has always respected the bravery and heroism of the Polish people, soldiers and officers who stood up first against Nazism in 1939.”
Then, in his speech on the Westerplatte — where a Polish fort was bombarded by a German cruiser exactly 70 years earlier — Mr Putin condemned any collaboration with the Nazis between 1934 and 1939 as “morally unacceptable and politically and practically senseless, harmful and dangerous”.
He may have convinced some of the other politicians present, but not the Poles. The praise of Polish military bravery struck a cynical note: in 1940, more than 15,000 officers and intellectuals were shot and buried in mass graves in Katyn forest by Soviet units. For decades Moscow claimed it was the work of the Germans and even now refuses to accept that it was a war crime. Joint teams of historians will now study the massacre, according to an agreement reached between the Polish and Russian prime ministers.
As for Mr Putin’s cautious admission that the 1939 pact between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany was morally unacceptable, that was somewhat diluted by his reference to 1934 — the year of Poland’s non-aggression pact with Germany. In effect, he was drawing a moral equivalence between the defensive Polish action and the landgrab of eastern Poland by Stalin five years later. And that many European countries, not just the one led by Stalin, helped Hitler on to the war path.
The Poles had hoped for candour from Russia on this day of all days; instead they got historical relativism. “Huge numbers of mistakes were made by all sides,” said Mr Putin. Was that the beginning of an apology for carving up Poland in 1939? Or just an attempt to deflect criticism from the Baltic states and the Finns who were deported to the gulag when the Red Army moved in?
For President Kaczynski of Poland the day started before dawn — the first German bombardment of the war began at 4.42am — with a few forthright words about fascism and about Russia. Stalin’s invasion of eastern Poland on September 17 1939, he said, was “a stab in the back”. As for Katyn, it had to be treated as a war crime. “Jews died because they were Jews,” he said, “Polish officers died because they were Polish officers.”
With the tension crackling Ms Merkel was barely noticed in the ceremonies, although it was regaded as a significant gesture to invite a German leader. She duly apologised: “I pay tribute to the 60 million people who lost their lives in this war unleashed by Germany. There are no words that could even remotely describe the suffering caused by this war and the Holocaust. I bow before the victims.”
The words were strikingly similar to those she used earlier in the year during a visit to Buchenwald concentration camp, but the Poles applauded the sentiment. They were less certain about her defence of Germany’s efforts to remember the plight of ethnic Germans driven out of their homes at the end of the war. She said that her country could mourn these victims "without wanting to rewrite Germany’s eternal historic responsibility" for starting the war.
It was a day for speech-making about the meaning of history and who owns it. The speeches were crisp but many leaders wanted to offer their thoughts about how the story was changing. It was a long, hot day. But the handful of Polish veterans present refused seats; they preferred to stand. That was how they had been trained.

The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact

— The Nazi Foreign Minister Ulrich Friedrich Wilhelm Joachim von Ribbentrop was eventually hanged for war crimes. Vyacheslav Molotov, the Russian Foreign Minister, gave his name to the “Molotov cocktail”
— Their pact was one of non-aggression between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, but also included a secret clause that divided up Poland and Lithuania
— Article II of the secret protocol stated that: “In the event of a territorial and political re-arrangement of the areas belonging to the Polish state, the spheres of influence of Germany and the USSR shall be bounded approximately by the line of the rivers Narew, Vistula and San”
— Russians said the agreement was propelled by the Munich Agreement of 1938, when France and Britain agreed that Germany could annex bits of Czechoslovakia
Sources: Reuters, Modern History Sourcebook, Times database

(Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/01/russia-poland-nazis-secret-documents)

You'll forgive me if I don't quote the Russian original on an English-language-only site. It's not very good manners to insult the host on a WW II commemoration day. And I'd like to see that quote where I or any source I've quoted deny "other European powers' responsibility for WW2".