Also France and the UK who in 1938 rejected a Soviet proposal to create an anti-Hitler coalition, and instead pressured Czechoslovakia to surrender their fortified lands to Germany. Then in August of 1939 (weeks before Germany invaded Poland) Stalin invited an Anglo-French delegation to visit Moscow in order to work out an alliance to prevent further German expansion, only for the talks to collapse when only low-level officials were sent by the UK and France (officials who didn't even have authorization to make an agreement) and Anglo-French obstinance made it apparent that neither power was taking the conference seriously.
While aspects of the Molotov Ribbentrop Pact where very regrettable in hindsight (especially the Soviet delivery of raw resources, even after Germany ceased to hold up their end of the bargain) would it really have been better if Germany had been allowed to seize all of Poland and the Baltics? If Operation Barbarossa had started hundreds of kms closer to Moscow? If the Nazi administrations in Eastern Poland, Lativa, and Estonia had been established two years earlier?
would it really have been better if Germany had been allowed to seize all of Poland and the Baltics? If Operation Barbarossa had started hundreds of kms closer to Moscow? If the Nazi administrations in Eastern Poland, Lativa, and Estonia had been established two years earlier?
Fascists in the US and the UK would say, uncategorically, "Yes".
I wonder whether France and the UK would have allied with Germany if it looked like the Nazis were going to wipe Russia off the map.
In February of 1940, while after ww2 in Europe had started, Britain and France approved a plan to send 135,000 troops to Finland to fight the Soviet Union in the Winter War. They were ultimately only stopped from doing so after Norway and Sweden denied their armies transit, and Germany invaded Denmark in April.
If France and the UK were so desperate to fight the USSR that they were eager to send a substantial portion of their military strength to do so while they were at war with the Third Reich (!) you can be almost certain they would've been happy to help Hitler do so if possible.
Yeah, that's my favorite untold story, how they came just this close to declaring war on the USSR in February 1940. There would have been an expeditionary force and bombing of Soviet oilfields from French Syria. But then the Finns surrendered and we were shunted onto the timeline we're familiar with.
France and UK would have never allied with Germany. Their banks had loans all over the place and you think the Germans were going to pay them back? Heck, the US got involved in the Great War to protect its banks' investments in Entente countries.
whole problem with Molotov Ribbentrop is the Soviets did not betray it. should've stabbed hitler in the back the moment he struck the benelux
Yep, that and continuing to provide the Third Reich with the raw materials they needed, even after Germany had long since slowed down their promised shipments of machinery to the USSR to a trickle, was also a catastrophic decision in retrospect. The most convincing thesis on the mater I've read is that Stalin knew that a German invasion was inevitable, but estimated that it would only come in 1944 or 45, and as such was taken by complete surprise in 1941. Things likely would have been far better if the Soviets did strike Germany in 1940, but its worth noting that very few in the USSR felt the Red Army was anywhere near ready to fight for modern warfare at that time.
That's Suvorov's thesis: that Barbarossa worked so well because the Red Army was deployed for offense, not defense. He is reviled as a conspiracy theorist, just in case you don't know.
the conspiracy is that the Soviets were planning an offensive posture when they were not. but things would've gone better if the Soviets had attacked
although 'planning' is a bad word, like obviously they'd drawn up some provisional plans but they were not adopted
Yeah, like one of the reasons Finland fought the Winter War was because its communist movement was crushed in 1918. Finland was effectively a German puppet state until 1944.
In the intervening years any communist organizing was illegal and their leftist parties couldn't participate in elections. So the idea that 1930s Finland was simply some neutral party who just wanted respect of their borders is goofy.
There was also a far-right group attacking communists after the Civil War. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lapua_Movement
After the Mäntsälä uprising, the leadership of the Lapua movement was sentenced to light prison sentences. In April 1932, Parliament passed the Amnesty Act, under which the rank and file were not prosecuted. Charges were brought against one hundred people. In November, the Turku Court of Appeal convicted a total of 22 people of sedition and 32 of aiding and abetting it, all with relatively light prison sentences.[269][270] A sympathetic court dismissed the charges of treason and found the Lapuan leaders guilty only of aiding and abetting the sedition. Many officers involved in the rebellion were not charged at all in court. Vuorimaa and Terä received the harshest sentences, two and a half years in a disciplinary prison. Kosola and Wallenius received nine-month suspended prison sentences. The Supreme Court later extended the sentences slightly.[269]
Translated from here also :surprised-pika:
more context for the prison sentencing
fash doing a coup :so-true: "Just a poor little fucky ducky, dw about it, fam"
meanwhile communists existing: :frothingfash: "6 years for preparation of a conspiracy to commit treason"
But it was a wholesome heckin' democracy since it had bourgeois elections!
In isolation destroying Brittany is a historical good. So it would have been fair to hear out Germany at the start of the business.
:gigachad: WW2? That was nearly a hundred years ago. Ancient history like that really doesn't matter anymore. You been listening to those boomers again?
