Greenpeace

Greenpeace Africa Greenpeace Global
Greenpeace

Nasa

Navigate To NASA LIVE Nasa's Official Website
JPL-NASA
Ribbenthrop molotov Pact Who Is Telling the truth?

20/04/2021

This is one of the most controversial moves made during the Second World War conflict (WW2). On 19 August 1939, the Soviet Union’s Joseph Stalin signed the famous Ribbentrop Molotov Pact shocking the world and sending negative signs to communist organizations globally and who struggled to explain the move.

The Ribbentrop Molotov Pact is named after the foreign ministers of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union and allowed Hitler to have a free hand for the invasion of Poland, the event of which triggered the WW2 and the miseries we all know. So is that the final analysis? Even today, the President of the Federation of Russia, Vladimir Putin, struggles to explain why the Soviet Union had been the accomplice of such a terrible crime vis a vis history.

Nowadays, you will see the story of the pact always generating a huge number of views popping up on the internet, particularly when diplomatic tensions are at their highest between the United States and Russia. In addition, there are those who want to compare the Stalinist regime with Nazism. By doing so, they simply distort history by presenting only the monolithic and accepted Western view of the conflict.

Less than one year before this event, the Western Allies had already sealed their fate by allowing Hitler to dismember the state of Czechoslovakia when they signed the Munich agreement with Nazi Germany. This set up the working basis that allowed him to start his war of conquest. Hitler was able to understand that the allies had neither the political nor the military guts to stop his ambitions.

What happened then was treason without proportion. A note was delivered to Stefan Osusky, Czechoslovakian Minister from the French Foreign Minister, Georges Bonnet. It says clearly that "France will not go to war over the Sudeten land¦ The Czechoslovak government must understand that France as well as England will not go to war. It was important above all that matters should be clear"[1]

Sputnik news in one of their articles in an attempt to counter other publications, wrote that the Czechoslovakian Government was literally coerced into submission by Britain and France.[2] Unfortunately for their detractors, they are right.

Czechoslovakia's army had a decent noticeable military strength and with the help of the allies, would have certainly been able to withstand the Nazi onslaught. People tend to forget that Molotov was the man who replaced Maxime Litvinov (who was a Jew) to please the Nazis and to make possible this unnatural counter alliance. Litvinov had been seen over a period of many years in the Western capitals of old Europe continuously influencing for a military alliance between the Western powers and the Soviet Union.[*]

In his analysis of the situation, Mark Grimsley [3] wrote in his article

it is also possible, as historian John K. Mulholland suggested, that the sequel would have been another round of opportunistic diplomacy.

The basis for an Anglo-French-Soviet alliance was, after all, tenuous. It had implications for the rest of Eastern Europe, and over time, the Nazis might have concluded agreements offsetting or nullifying the Soviet alliance with the West.

But Hitler might have invaded Poland anyway. It was well known throughout Europe that Stalin's military purges of the late 1930s had enormously damaged all sectors of the Soviet armed forces. Hitler had contempt not only for the Soviet military but also for its political leadership and, with or without a countervailing alliance, may well have pressed ahead with an attack on Poland, gambling that he could eliminate Poland before the Red Army could jump into action and intervene effectively. Some counterfactuals, once postulated, lead in obvious directions. This one does not.

An Anglo-French-Soviet alliance might have achieved the desired effect of deterring Hitler from invading Poland. But an alliance also might have merely postponed that invasion while Hitler engaged in more of the diplomatic maneuvering that had characterized his foreign policy for years. Or a Soviet alliance with the Western Allies could have had scant effect, with Germany invading Poland on 1 September 1939, as occurred historically.

But here again there is a flaw in the thinking. What was it really that Stalin proposed? What was he ready to put in the basket? Many historical sources prove that the Western Allies played delaying tactics and did not come up with any decent military propositions. In fact Stalin, who was not Russian but Georgian and despite being a total tyrant also had the cunning of a peasant, was incredulous when faced with the proposal of the Allies compared to what he was proposing.

Nick Holdsworth [4] in Moscow on 18 Oct 2008 wrote that papers which were kept secret for almost 70 years show that the Soviet Union proposed sending a powerful military force in an effort to entice Britain and France into an anti-Nazi alliance. The reader will appreciate that the Soviet offer—made by both War Minister Marshall Klementi Voroshilov and Red Army Chief of the General Staff Boris Shaposhnikov—would have put up to 120 infantry divisions (each with some 19,000 troops), 16 cavalry divisions, 5,000 heavy artillery pieces, 9,500 tanks, and up to 5,500 fighter aircraft and bombers on Germany's borders in the event of war in the West, as shown by declassified minutes of the meeting.

This same article by Holdsworth says that Poland, who like an avid hyena devoured her share of Czechoslovakia, refused categorically (with some reason one may admit) that in case of alert in the West, a powerful Soviet force would be allowed to cross their borders to meet head on the Nazi barbarian hordes. Pseudo historians can argue at length about the capabilities of the Soviet Army but in view of the reaction by Churchill on the Soviet Union’s entry into the war and his prayers for the Russians when the Nazi's were at the doors of Moscow, Stalingrad, and even Leningrad, did he not say something like: "if Moscow falls, that was the end of it"? (Not textually said like that but the unique English bulldog said something very similar). No one would think to charge Winston of procommunist affinities. So have we finally found those who were really responsible?

Is it Poland who by her ultimate stubborn stupidity bears the guilt alone? Some would like to make you believe that too. Again you have to have a clear picture of the tumultuous relations between Poland and the successive Russian Government's whether they were the Tsarists or the Communists or the Government of President Vladimir Putin. For you to surmise who the main pyromaniac is in that affair, you will have to know that the roots of the Second World War are deeply intermingled with the roots of the First World War.

Additionally, in order to understand the First World War, you have to understand the Napoleonic Wars, and the Russian doll effect, this fractal mathematical but natural imitation is a viable representation of the communality between universal systems. Ultimately, if our archives and computing power prove up to scratch, we could prove how all started one day

Putting responsibilities on each other diverts us from the true work that has to be done in this key period for humanity. In a sense, all of us are here because Hans bonked the wife of Michel. Our world of today has been shaped by conflict and the world which would have resulted if it had not taken place could have been very different, maybe worse, maybe better. The last conclusion is that by doing so, we are insulting the millions of Russian’s who lost their lives and those among the Western Allies who together paid the bloodiest tribute of all time.

[*]In his authoritative and acclaimed Rise and Fall of The third Reich William L Shirer speaks extensively about the diplomatic drama preceding the hostilities.

Last Updated