Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)
Was Stalin's Alliance with Hitler a 'Good Idea? |
Post Reply 
|
Page <1234> |
| Author |
 Share Topic Printable Version Google Delicious Digg StumbleUpon Windows Live Yahoo Bookmarks reddit Facebook MySpace Newsvine Furl Topic Search  Topic Options
|
||
Richard XIII 
Colonel 
Joined: 06-Jun-2005 Location: Romania Online Status: Offline Posts: 651 |
 Quote Reply
 Topic: Was Stalin's Alliance with Hitler a 'Good Idea?Posted: 04-Jul-2008 at 20:37 |
||
|
Thanks.
|
|||
|
"I want to know God's thoughts...
...the rest are details." Albert Einstein |
|||
 |
|||
|
deadkenny
General 
Joined: 21-Aug-2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 994 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 04-Jul-2008 at 20:46 |
||
I'm not 'making up' history at all. I have clearly demonstrated why the use of the term 'alliance' is entirely appropriate. Germany's 'other' allies, Italy and Japan, were justifiably shocked by Hitler's sudden 'alliance' with what had been the main 'enemy' previously. The government in Japan fell as a result of the Nazi-Soviet alliance. The new government sought German assistance in helping to negotiate a 'non-aggression' pact with the Soviets (that one was strictly defensive, agreeing not to attack one another with no provision for further cooperation). The Italians refused to enter the war on Germany's side. So actually, at that point in time, the Soviet Union was Germany's only 'active' ally, as the Soviets 'mopped up' eastern Poland and saved the Germans the effort, allowing them to shift forces west a bit earlier. Of course the Soviets were also supplying critical war materials to Germany, while the Red Army occupied the Baltic States and attacked Finland (of course Germany declined to assist Finland in any way, as per their alliance with the SU). Edited by deadkenny - 04-Jul-2008 at 20:46 |
|||
|
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tyranos
Shogun 
Joined: 01-Oct-2007 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 246 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 04-Jul-2008 at 20:57 |
||
|
It was a good idea, as Stalin wanted imperial gains and I think greatly admired Hitler. The Soviets and Nazi Pact was superficial though as both sides were really planning an attack against eachother eventually-- although theres evidence that Stalin didnt want believe Hitler would betray him and he saw their allience as lasting for whatever reasons. Hitler was advised that Germany wouldn't be ready until around 1944-45 for an invasion of the Soviet Union.
|
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Sarmat
Caliph 
Joined: 31-May-2007 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 3113 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 04-Jul-2008 at 23:03 |
||
Complete nonsense. Here is the text of the true "Alliance" pact:
The Tripartite Pact between Japan, Germany, and Italy, 1940
The Governments of Japan, Germany, and Italy consider it the prerequisite of a lasting peace that every nation in the world shall receive the space to which it is entitled. They have, therefore, decided to stand by and cooperate with one another in their efforts in the regions of Europe and Greater East Asia respectively. In doing this it is their prime purpose to establish and maintain a new order of things, calculated to promote the mutual prosperity and welfare of the peoples concerned. It is, furthermore, the desire of the three Governments to extend cooperation to nations in other spheres of the world that are inclined to direct their efforts along lines similar to their own for the purpose of realizing their ultimate object, world peace. Accordingly, the Governments of Japan, Germany and Italy have agreed as follows:..... Text of Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, nothing even close to the cooperation with one anohter in their efforts in the regions of Europe and Greater East Asia respectively.
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. Any body clearly can see that Tribartite pact is a real alliance and German-Soviet pact is just an agreement to prevent the aggression and facilitate "friendly" dispute resolution between the two parties. |
|||
|
Σαυρομάτης
|
|||
|
|||
|
deadkenny
General
Joined: 21-Aug-2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 994 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 04-Jul-2008 at 23:35 |
||
OMG. Are you serious? At least Bankotsu had the 'academic integrity' to post the Secret Protocols, not just the 'public' portion. Of course Stalin and Hitler didn't want to publically 'admit' that they were dividing up eastern Europe between themselves. However, that is just exactly what they did. Now I suppose you're going to argue that the Soviet Union didn't really 'invade' Poland on Sept. 17, 1939. They just 'moved in to protect the Ukrainian and Belorussian populations in the wake of the collapse of the Polish state', just exactly as the Soviet propaganda of the time claimed? This claim on your part is really embarassing for you.
|
|||
|
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana
|
|||
|
|||
|
deadkenny
General
Joined: 21-Aug-2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 994 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 04-Jul-2008 at 23:42 |
||
|
Here is the entire agreement, as posted by Bankotsu. I disagree with his conclusions (and he with mine) but at least I must credit him with having the 'intregrity' to post the entire text, and not excluding the Secret Protocols which were in fact the reason d'etre for the agreement in the first place.
|
|||
|
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana
|
|||
|
|||
|
Sarmat
Caliph
Joined: 31-May-2007 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 3113 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 04-Jul-2008 at 23:46 |
||
|
False.
I always admit Soviet agression against Poland, Baltic, States and Romania. Secret protocols however meant just recogntion of "mutual interests in case of certain territorial rearrangements" but it's not equal "to stand by and cooperate with one another in their efforts in the regions of Europe and Greater East Asia respectively. In doing this it is their prime purpose to establish and maintain a new order of things..."
Everybody knows that Stalin and Hitler hated each other more than any one else, no need to make best friends out of them.
|
|||
|
Σαυρομάτης
|
|||
|
|||
|
Sarmat
Caliph
Joined: 31-May-2007 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 3113 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 04-Jul-2008 at 23:49 |
||
My point was not to post entire agreements but to post just the preambles which expressed the real attitude of the parties to each other. If you are so concerned about the integrity also post the entire Axis agreement as well...
|
|||
|
Σαυρομάτης
|
|||
|
|||
|
deadkenny
General
Joined: 21-Aug-2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 994 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 05-Jul-2008 at 01:05 |
||
Why should I post the entire Axis agreement? I do not deny that Germany and Italy were 'allies'. You are the one that is trying to claim that the Nazi-Soviet 'Pact' did not constitute an 'alliance'. The preambles to the Pact were for 'public consumption' (i.e. propaganda), and were couched in the same terminology that Hitler used regularly before attacking his victims. If you want to believe Nazi propaganda, then Germany never attacked another country unprovoked. The Czech state 'disintegrated' after the separation of Slovakia, and the Germans moved into Moravia and Bohemia to 'restore order'. Poland attacked Germany first, and Germany simply moved to defend itself and to protect the horrifically abused German minority in Poland. Similarly the Soviet Union didn't 'attack' Poland on Sept. 17, 1939. They simply moved in to 'restore order' and protect the Ukrainian and Belorussian peoples (sound familiar?). The Baltic States 'requested' the presence of the Red Army to 'protect' them and later requested incorporation into the Soviet Union. It is incomprehensible to me that you actually believe any of this Nazi / Soviet propaganda, but apparently you have swallowed it hook line and sinker if you actually believe what you've posted here.
|
|||
|
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bankotsu
Colonel
Joined: 27-Feb-2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 511 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 05-Jul-2008 at 06:19 |
||
|
I think it is ludicrous to say German-Soviet non aggression pact is alliance.
It is a treaty aimed at mutual understanding of German-Soviet interests. Secret protocols was to divide up the spheres of influence in eastern europe. Nothing strange there. Britain was trying to do the exact same thing with Germany in June-August 1939. German-Soviet pact did not state that they would cooperate with each other in the event that the other party is attacked. How on earth is that an alliance pact? So please do not distort and falsify history. Edited by Bankotsu - 05-Jul-2008 at 06:23 |
|||
|
|||
|
deadkenny
General
Joined: 21-Aug-2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 994 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 05-Jul-2008 at 07:47 |
||
Since you apparently missed it the first time I posted it, I repeat here a working definition of the word 'alliance'.
The Soviet Union attacked Poland while Poland was still fighting Germany. The 'agreement' between the 'two parties' (Nazi's and Soviets) advanced their common goal - to destroy Poland and divide up the territory between themselves. It was most certainly an 'alliance'. Trying to deny the validity of the use of the term, or throwing generalized accusations of 'falsifying history' is meaningless. Are there any specific facts that you want to try to deny here? Or are you arguing purely semantics?
Do you have any facts to back up your claim that Britain was trying to do 'exactly the same thing' with Germany? Which small country was Britain planning on attacking while that small country was fighting Germany? Which small countries in Europe did Britain want to attack and occupy, in whole or in part? Edited by deadkenny - 05-Jul-2008 at 07:50 |
|||
|
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana
|
|||
|
|||
|
Sarmat
Caliph
Joined: 31-May-2007 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 3113 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 05-Jul-2008 at 09:19 |
||
|
So the alliance ended after the occupation of Poland? What other common goals there were?
And does it really make much difference if Britain was allowing Germany to occupy another small country while keeping its hands clean? What a hypocratical approach...
|
|||
|
Σαυρομάτης
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bankotsu
Colonel
Joined: 27-Feb-2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 511 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 05-Jul-2008 at 09:42 |
||
That is not alliance. That is dividing sphere of influence. You confused the two issues. Below is alliance: ARTICLE I. The Contracting Parties will remain in permanent contact with each other, in order to come to an understanding of all common interests or the European situation as a whole. ARTICLE II. In the event that the common interests of the Contracting Parties be jeopardized through international happenings of any kind, they will immediately enter into consultation regarding the necessary measures to preserve these interests. Should the security or other vital interests of one of the Contracting Parties be threatened from outside, the other Contracting Party will afford the threatened Party its full political and diplomatic support in order to remove this threat. ARTICLE III. If it should happen, against the wishes and hopes of the Contracting Parties, that one of them becomes involved in military complications with another tower or other Powers, the other Contracting Party will immediately step to its side as an ally and will support it with all its military might on land, at sea, and in the air. ARTICLE IV. In order to ensure, in any given case, the rapid implementation of the alliance obligations of Article III, the Governments of the two Contracting Parties will further intensify their cooperation in the military sphere and the sphere of war economy. Similarly the two Governments will keep each other regularly informed of other measures necessary for the practical implementation of this pact. The two Governments will create standing commissions, under the direction of the Foreign Ministers, for the purposes indicated in paragraphs 1 and 2. ARTICLE V. The Contracting Parties already at this point bind themselves, in the event of a jointly waged war, to conclude any armistice or peace only in full agreement with each other. ARTICLE VI. The two Contracting Parties are aware of the importance of their joint relations to the Powers which are friendly to them. They are determined to maintain these relations in future and to promote the adequate development of the common interests which bind them to these Powers. ARTICLE VII. This pact comes into force immediately upon its signing. The two Contracting
Parties are agreed upon fixing the first period of its validity at ten years. In
good time before the elapse of this period they will come to an agreement
regarding the extension of the validity of the pact. http://astro.temple.edu/~rimmerma/Italo_German_alliance_1939.htm Soviet-German nonaggression pact did not include cooperation articles in event of war. So, from this point of view, it is not an alliance. Dividing up spheres of influence does not equate to an "alliance". A distinction must be made there. |
|||
|
|||
|
deadkenny
General
Joined: 21-Aug-2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 994 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 05-Jul-2008 at 13:25 |
||
Ahhhhhhhhh, so finally you admit the truth - an alliance existed between the Soviet Union and Germany for, at a minimum, the destruction and occupation of Poland. So, do tell, what EXACTLY could Britain have done that they did not that would have 'saved' Poland with Germany invading from the west and the Soviet Union invading from the east? Please keep in mind that Britain's small army was not on the continent at the time.
|
|||
|
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana
|
|||
|
|||
|
deadkenny
General
Joined: 21-Aug-2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 994 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 05-Jul-2008 at 13:44 |
||
I've made clear what 'point of view' I am considering this from. The pact clearly consisted of an agreement between two parties which involved the furtherance of their mutual goals / objectives (e.g. the destruction and division of Poland). Even your most ardent supporter, Sarmat has now accepted the truth. The use of the term 'alliance' is appropriate and entirely consistent with common usage. Edited by deadkenny - 05-Jul-2008 at 13:45 |
|||
|
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana
|
|||
|
|||
|
Sarmat
Caliph
Joined: 31-May-2007 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 3113 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 05-Jul-2008 at 19:02 |
||
Perhaps, one indeed could say that Stalin and Hitler agreed on helping each other to finish the Polish state as it was at that time. But then, all the "common goals" ended. That "common goal" was accomplished in less than a month.
But about the Britain I already said many times that it 1) could bomb Germany and 2) it could press French to attack immediately. But it did nothing. Edited by Sarmat12 - 05-Jul-2008 at 22:24 |
|||
|
Σαυρομάτης
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bankotsu
Colonel
Joined: 27-Feb-2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 511 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 06-Jul-2008 at 05:36 |
||
I disagree. What took place was division of sphere of influence as laid out in protocols: 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. They already agreed on spheres of influence regarding Poland in event of war. War came, both Germany and Soviet occupied their respective areas in the spheres of influence. Germany invaded Poland on 1 September 1939. Soviet invaded on 17 September 1939, when it was clear that Poland had been defeated. Soviet did not invade Poland to "cooperate" with Germany to defeat Poland. Soviet invaded to occupy their sphere of influence, otherwise Germany would had occupied them. I do not see how this is an alliance. deadkenny, you avoided my question of lack of cooperation articles in event of war. The German-Italian pact had military cooperation articles. That can be regarded as alliance. If German-Soviet non aggression pact is alliance, why no cooperation articles? Edited by Bankotsu - 06-Jul-2008 at 05:52 |
|||
|
|||
|
JanusRook
Sultan 
Ad Maiorem Dei Gloriam Joined: 03-Aug-2004 Online Status: Offline Posts: 2419 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 06-Jul-2008 at 10:48 |
||
|
You guys I'm fine with all of you discussing the definition of "alliance" as far as international laws and treaties go, but could we please not hijack this thread. If you feel the need to go in depth start a new topic, this one is to discuss the merits and possible alternative outcomes of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, at least that was what I was led to believe.
|
|||
|
Economic Communist, Political Progressive, Social Conservative.
Unless otherwise noted source is wiki. |
|||
|
|||
|
deadkenny
General
Joined: 21-Aug-2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 994 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 06-Jul-2008 at 13:57 |
||
|
Thank you JanusRook. Yes, that was exactly my intention originally, to discuss the merits of / costs and benefits of and possible alternatives (inferior / superior?) to the Nazi-Soviet Pact. I have clearly stated my justification for the use of the term 'alliance'. Those who have objections have stated their case. Hopefully we can move on.
|
|||
|
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bankotsu
Colonel
Joined: 27-Feb-2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 511 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 06-Jul-2008 at 14:08 |
||
|
So deadkenny, your definition of "alliance" is that once there is division of spheres of influence between two states, there is an "alliance" between them?
|
|||
|
|||
|
Post Reply
|
Page <1234> |
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz
This page was generated in 0.094 seconds.
