kayuucee@uunet.UU.NET (Kenneth W. Crist Jr.) (09/26/89)
From: cvl!cvl!kayuucee@uunet.UU.NET (Kenneth W. Crist Jr.) > >be allies now" and the like. > ^^^^^^ > Let's remember that, as allies, we were only a second choice. The Soviets > were Hitler's ally first. I'm sure that others will point this out, but here goes. The Soviets wanted an alliance with France and Great Britain. Hitler was known to be an anti-Communist. It was only after the Allies failed to make any serious offer to the Soviets, that they turned to a non-aggression pact with Germany. Stalin, I believe, wanted to use this to give the Soviet Union time to prepare itself for an expected "Western" attack. He also got part of Poland and the the Baltic States out of it. The Allies were reluctant to deal with the Soviets, whom they distrusted as Communists, so they did not try very hard for a treaty with the Soviets. Ken Crist
cperlebe@encad.Wichita.NCR.COM (Chris Perleberg) (09/28/89)
From: cperlebe@encad.Wichita.NCR.COM (Chris Perleberg) In article <27490@amdcad.AMD.COM> cvl!kayuucee@uunet.UU.NET (Kenneth W. Crist Jr.) writes: > I'm sure that others will point this out, but here goes. The Soviets >wanted an alliance with France and Great Britain. Hitler was known to be an >anti-Communist. It was only after the Allies failed to make any serious >offer to the Soviets, that they turned to a non-aggression pact with >Germany. Basically true, but at the very time Molotov was signing the non-aggression pact, a Anglo-French delegation was in Moscow trying to negotiate with Stalin (granted, the delegates were at a very low level -- somewhere above the Whitehall janitor, but not much). Stalin was playing both sides off for the best deal. >Stalin, I believe, wanted to use this to give the Soviet Union >time to prepare itself for an expected "Western" attack. We'll never really know why he did it. He was certainly unprepared for Barbarossa, and for a long time any general who suggested the possibility of a German attack was shot. >He also got part of Poland and the the Baltic States out of it. And Bessarabia and Finland as well. This is probably the best reason. Chamberlain was certainly craven in giving away Czechoslovakia, but he didn't ask for half. And I think he really believed he was achieving "peace in our time." I don't think Stalin had any such illusions. I think he was hoping to pick up the pieces after a Western European war, which he certainly knew he was making possible. At any rate, no one forced Stalin to sign. No one forced him to supply Hitler with wheat and petroleum, or to clear paths for German surface raiders to the Pacific. It is also interesting to note that the resistance movements in the West didn't really get started until after June 22 -- sad to say, some of the strongest resistance movements were Communist. Chris Perleberg cperlebe@encad.wichita.ncr.com
military@att.att.com (Bill Thacker) (10/03/89)
From: military@att.att.com (Bill Thacker) [mod.note: This topic has gone beyond any suitability in this newsgroup. I have concatenated the two latest replies into this one posting. No followups will be posted here, though I encourage people to direct followups to talk.politics.misc. - Bill ] From: amdcad!phypawl@joey.cs.buffalo.edu (Jerzy Pawlowski) In article <27490@amdcad.AMD.COM> cvl!cvl!kayuucee@uunet.UU.NET (Kenneth W. Crist Jr.) writes: > I'm sure that others will point this out, but here goes. The Soviets >wanted an alliance with France and Great Britain. Hitler was known to be an >anti-Communist. It was only after the Allies failed to make any serious >offer to the Soviets, that they turned to a non-aggression pact with >Germany. Stalin, I believe, wanted to use this to give the Soviet Union >time to prepare itself for an expected "Western" attack. He also got part >of Poland and the the Baltic States out of it. The Allies were reluctant >to deal with the Soviets, whom they distrusted as Communists, so they did >not try very hard for a treaty with the Soviets. > > Ken Crist Yours is the standard Stalinist version of history. The USSR wanted to enter alliances as long as they expanded Soviet influence. For example the Soviets offered assistance to Poland in exchange for Red Army camps in Poland. This would have made Poland a hostage or satellite. The Soviets offered everybody expansionist deals. Only Hitler could have accepted them. Even Pravda admits that Stalin commited a major blunder by not foreseeing Hitlers attack. By removing Poland and Lithuania Stalin exposed the USSR to Nazi aggression. The claims that this was farsighted strategy is baloney, which has been discredited even in the USSR. Jerzy 'Let's do some real physics, not metaphysics!' Jerzy Pawlowski SUNY-Buffalo Physics VAX: V132NREA@UBVMS.BITNET 325 Fronczak Hall UNIX: phypawl@cs.buffalo.EDU Amherst, NY 14260 From: gazit%seer.usc.edu@usc.edu (Salit) Organization: The Piranha Club In article <27531@amdcad.AMD.COM> cperlebe@encad.Wichita.NCR.COM (Chris Perleberg) writes: @He also got part of Poland and the the Baltic States out of it. >And Bessarabia and Finland as well. >This is probably the best reason. Chamberlain was certainly craven >in giving away Czechoslovakia, but he didn't ask for half. And I think >he really believed he was achieving "peace in our time." I don't think >Stalin had any such illusions. I think he was hoping to pick up the >pieces after a Western European war, which he certainly knew he was >making possible. I agree with the above analysis. The point I want to make is that Stalin wanted the Baltic states, part of Finland, part of Rumania etc. He tried to reach an agreement with the Western powers so that they would help him in case of German attack. He suggested them, in return, help in case Germany would attack them and/or Poland. He wanted an agreement *fast*. Chamberlain, who had been so fast in giving Czechoslovakia to Hitler, did not want to give the Baltic states to Stalin, but he wanted his help. His solution was to run the negotiations as slow as possible. He thought the negotiations with the USSR would be enough to block Hitler. I agree that Stalin was a liar, killer, etc. The question that I want to raise is: "Was not it better to give Stalin what he wanted in East Europe in order to block Hitler?" Please remember that USSR && UK together could cut Germany from its sources of raw materials. Russian attack on the Rumanian oil fields && British naval blockade could cut Germany from *all* its oil supply. >Chris Perleberg Hillel gazit@cs.duke.edu "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent" -- Salvor Hardin
de@cs.rochester.edu (Dave Esan) (10/27/89)
From: moscom!de@cs.rochester.edu (Dave Esan) In article <27531@amdcad.AMD.COM> cperlebe@encad.Wichita.NCR.COM (Chris Perleberg) writes: > >In article <27490@amdcad.AMD.COM> cvl!kayuucee@uunet.UU.NET (Kenneth W. Crist Jr.) writes: >>Stalin, I believe, wanted to use this to give the Soviet Union >>time to prepare itself for an expected "Western" attack. > >We'll never really know why he did it. He was certainly unprepared for >Barbarossa, and for a long time any general who suggested the possibility >of a German attack was shot. Actually, you may have touched on the reason. The Great Purges of the mid-thirties, decimated the army officer corps. I have seen statistics that 90% of all officers from the rank of colonel and up were shot. 60% of the remaining officers were shot. (I suppose I could dig out the actual numbers if needed, but I am sure these are close). All this two or three years before the start of the war. What was Stalin to do, fight Hitler? With what? Even with reconstruction of the army in the two years between Poland and the German invasion of the USSR, the army never came back to strength. Part of the cause of the early German successes againt the Red Army was due to lack of an officer corps. Stalin did what any Russian leader has done through history. He compromised to save his state. He knew deep down that Mother Russia would prevail this trial as well. -- ____________________________________________________________ --> David Esan rochester!moscom!de