Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Was Giving Eastern Europe to the Soviets Necessary

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
Don Quixote View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar

Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 29-Dec-2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4734
  Quote Don Quixote Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Was Giving Eastern Europe to the Soviets Necessary
    Posted: 02-Jun-2014 at 00:55
There wasn't a formal treaty of alliance between the other Allies and the USSR. They acted as allies only because all of they were dragged in the war by the fact of being attacked by Germany or Japan. However, there was no obligation stating that USSR are entitled to spoils after the war.

So, was it necessary to give Eastern Europe to USSR and if so, why?
My personal opinion is "no". USSR made a deal with Germany to split Poland between them, which, for one, should have been enough to show what political ideas USSR stood for. Giving eastern Europe to URRS gave URRS card blanch to think she can go on spreading communism all around the world, to whoever wants it or not; hence the Cold War, that lasted 40 years and cost the US 2 major wars, one of which lost. What it cost the people of those eastern European countries is a gruesome list to make.

Who profited from that decision? Only URRS and the Asian communist regimes.

Edited by Don Quixote - 02-Jun-2014 at 00:57
Back to Top
Mountain Man View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 16-Aug-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 873
  Quote Mountain Man Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Jun-2014 at 11:56
Eastern Europe was not given to the Soviets - they conquered it by force following Stalin's plan to set up buffer states against what he saw as Western incursion into Soviet affairs, and his own massive paranoia.

As you may recall from reading your history, both MacArthur and Patton tried to get Truman to go to war with the Soviet Union because they knew it would come to that sooner or later, but Truman felt that continuing the war was not politically viable.  Americans were tired of WWII and unwilling to support a continuation.

Had Truman been willing to turn the atomic bomb against the Soviets, however, history might have worked out much better for the Eastern European nations.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Back to Top
Don Quixote View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar

Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 29-Dec-2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4734
  Quote Don Quixote Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Jun-2014 at 00:43
Actually, I read that that Patton's call to go for Moscow was a myth.
The Soviets didn't conquer Eastern Europe, they were pushing the Germans back. That they allowed themselves to considered it conquered happened only because they were allowed to. At Yalta, July 1945, under Roosevelt, Churchil and Roosevelt agreed to cede Poland to USSR, therefore sanctioning the grab of the whole Eastern Europe. This was before Truman.

Not only Eastern Europe, Asia would be better off, because then the Korean and Vietnam wars may have not happened, and the whole Cold war to start with. USSR developed a sense of mission and its own unbeatability because of being allowed to take Eastern Europe. This what kids in the whole Eastern block learned in school, large and wide - that the mission of the USSR and the rest of the block was to spread communism everywhere, and the proof of it was that it had worked once, in Yalta. The western countries were potrayed as week and rotting and cowering before the might of the USSR; and of course that USSR won the WWII all by themselves.

Back to Top
Sarmata View Drop Down
Consul
Consul

suspended

Joined: 09-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 314
  Quote Sarmata Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Sep-2014 at 00:36
Chruchill, Roosevelt had agreed to give Poland to Stalin as early as 1943. Was it necessary? at the time they pretty much did anything to keep Stalin happy. Maybe they could have argued a bit more sternly for Poland but what were their bargaining chips? The AK-goverment was based in London, after the uprising their presence was quite insignificant after the appearance of the Soviet backed AL. Maybe if they started a huge front against Germany in pommerania rather than Normandy things may have been different. but Im not sure how realistic that would be. Their priorities were Western Europe first.
Back to Top
Centrix Vigilis View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar

Joined: 18-Aug-2006
Location: The Llano
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7392
  Quote Centrix Vigilis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Sep-2014 at 04:20
Yalta, communist insurgents and sympathizers within the later occupied countries; and force of Soviet arms led to the conquest (pushing back and or destroying the combat abilities of German forces remains synonymous with the same) and occupation of eastern Europa.

by may 45 it was a done deal.

brutal repression maintained it till 89.
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

S. T. Friedman


Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it's probably true'

Back to Top
nickherc View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 07-Nov-2014
Location: Slovenia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 26
  Quote nickherc Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Nov-2014 at 15:43
Stalin, contrary to Hitler, wasn't completly beyond reason. If Allies would threathen him with atom bombs and war, maybe he could be persuaded, but I doubt it, he had got cards in his hand after 1943. If war happened, I believe Allies would won, simply because of the a-bomb. Or would they?
Back to Top
Mountain Man View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 16-Aug-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 873
  Quote Mountain Man Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Nov-2014 at 16:16
Originally posted by Don Quixote

There wasn't a formal treaty of alliance between the other Allies and the USSR. They acted as allies only because all of they were dragged in the war by the fact of being attacked by Germany or Japan. However, there was no obligation stating that USSR are entitled to spoils after the war.

So, was it necessary to give Eastern Europe to USSR and if so, why?
My personal opinion is "no". USSR made a deal with Germany to split Poland between them, which, for one, should have been enough to show what political ideas USSR stood for. Giving eastern Europe to URRS gave URRS card blanch to think she can go on spreading communism all around the world, to whoever wants it or not; hence the Cold War, that lasted 40 years and cost the US 2 major wars, one of which lost. What it cost the people of those eastern European countries is a gruesome list to make.

Who profited from that decision? Only URRS and the Asian communist regimes.


No, but Roosevelt was to tired and too ill to stand up to Stalin, who had already conquered and occupied Eastern Europe anyway.  Thew prevalent attitude was that a prolonged war continued against the Soviets would not be palatable to the American public, which led to the dismissal of MacArthur and put Patton out of favor for the last time - both of them believing correctly that Russia was our next enemy and that we should have defeated them while we could.

Stalin was far smarter than either Churchill or Roosevelt - he got everything he wanted out of WWII and left the Allies to pay for the ruin and the restoration.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Back to Top
Mountain Man View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 16-Aug-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 873
  Quote Mountain Man Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Nov-2014 at 16:18
Originally posted by nickherc

Stalin, contrary to Hitler, wasn't completly beyond reason. If Allies would threathen him with atom bombs and war, maybe he could be persuaded, but I doubt it, he had got cards in his hand after 1943. If war happened, I believe Allies would won, simply because of the a-bomb. Or would they?


Probably, because the huge formations favored by the Soviet Armies were powerless against nuclear weapons, and we were the only nation with super-long range, high altitude heavy bombers capable of delivering such weapons.

From a national point of view, the destruction of Moscow by a single nuke would have put paid to the Soviet Union.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Back to Top
nickherc View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 07-Nov-2014
Location: Slovenia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 26
  Quote nickherc Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Dec-2014 at 04:12
I know Churchill was all for the plan, but America wasn't really up to it. It would sure make things "interesting". Did America had the capability to construct bombs at such rate, it would hurt the Soviet Union?
If the war happened, it wouldn't be over night, so I doubt it that Stalin would sit in Moscow, just waiting. Moscow would have gone, but Soviet leadership would remain. Plus Soviet military was beat up and tired in 1945, but at the same time it was in its peak, experienced soldiers and officers, tons of equipment, half of Europe already in the bag... the push to Atlantic wouldn't be that hard...
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.063 seconds.