ORIGINAL: mind_messing
ORIGINAL: warspite1
I don't blame the UK and France for what happened leading up to war (they were democratic nations acting for the right reasons in what was an impossible situation) but I think it unfair to blame Stalin for doing what was best for his country given that the Western Allies had made clear they were not taking the Soviet Union seriously.
Britain and France do need to take some blame for the M-L Pact, in so much as they created the circumstances where the pact was possible. Both the UK and France were hardly eager for an alliance with the Soviets; even when Stalin wanted an alliance with the French to attempt to stifle German ambitions, the French weren't exactly enthusiastic. The British government was even worse: the distrust of the Soviets precluded any serious arrangement with the Soviets until it was too late. The British government would rather have appeased Hitler than entered a defensive agreement with the Soviets - the big ideological enemy at the time.
Under the circumstances, where one European power is re-arming and the other two major European powers are not eager for coming to an arrangement with you and instead favoring appeasement, the M-L Pact was a deft bit of Soviet diplomacy.
warspite1
Steady on old boy - I thought there was a danger we would be in agreement for a moment there M_M [:)]
M_M wrote: the M-L Pact was a deft bit of Soviet diplomacy
W1 had previously written: The Nazi-Soviet pact….. was… a marriage of convenience. The terms….were helpful to both. Stalin… you have to see it from his point of view. I think it unfair to blame Stalin for doing what was best for his country.
So there is clearly no disagreement there. As I said, it helped that Stalin, being a pathological twat, was able to make a deal that worked for both – while the French and British were on a hiding to nothing and could really offer nothing to Stalin that would work. But that said, he got the deal done.
M-M wrote: The British government would rather have appeased Hitler than entered a defensive agreement with the Soviets.
W1 had previously written: Stalin…. best for his country given that the Western Allies had made clear they were not taking the Soviet Union seriously.
Of course the Western Allies would rather have entered into a deal with Hitler. Remember – and this is absolutely key – no one, not the Germans themselves (including senior politicians) not the British/French and not Mussolini understood what Hitler was about. They thought he was like any other politician and could be negotiated with. Far better to deal with Hitler and get a lasting peace than do a deal with Stalin but leave Hitler, brooding in the corner waiting to pounce. You have to take hindsight out of this M_M.
M_M wrote: Britain and France do need to take some blame for the M-L Pact, in so much as they created the circumstances where the pact was possible.
This is where we find ourselves in completely opposite camps once more [;)]: Sorry two issues with this. 1. Apologies I should have made myself clearer – I meant to refer to poor Chamberlain and Daladier – two statesmen who were not responsible for the Treaty – but, through an accident of birth, forced to play with an impossible hand against a man we now know was simply not interested in negotiating. But even if we look at it from a country/blame perspective, sorry but Versailles must= World War II is just too simplistic a notion and again uses too much hindsight. It is not difficult to imagine a German politician – one that could be sensibly negotiated with (even a Hitler lite if you will) – renouncing Versailles and getting Germany what she wanted but with peace maintained. All you need is for the leader that took over Germany NOT to be Adolf Hitler, and not to have Lebensraum as his religion.
