ORIGINAL: Leandros
ORIGINAL: Chickenboy
Stalin's behind the back dealings with Hitler vis a vis the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact and its bloody literal implementation by the Soviets obviate the need for me to feel badly about how things turned out for them. To expect a harried and piecemeal offensive by Allies that you've misled, just to bail you out of an inconvenient jam that you bloody well got yourself into is without merit. Did Stalin not think that secret deal was germane to the 'alliance'? He's fortunate that the Western Allies didn't completely divorce themselves from the Soviet fate after such double-dealing.
You should take it from the start, that of Stalin/Molotov's failed attempts, before the
Ribbentrop/Molotov deal came off, to get Britain and France to join the Soviets in an alliance
to stop Hitler's future plans. The Western powers preferred Hitler. What could Stalin do?
The increased buffer zones offered in that agreement, and those achieved through the
Finnish/Soviet Winter War, probably saved Leningrad and Moscow in 1941.
Fred
warspite1
What could Stalin do? He could do what he did and look after no.1 - just as the British and French were looking after number 1. I definitely don't blame Stalin for that (I kind of admire his shrewdness) - although I have a less rosy view of Stalin's MO and I don't seek to excuse his actions given what that meant for Finns, Poles etc.
But I am not really sure where....
The increased buffer zones offered in that agreement, and those achieved through the Finnish/Soviet Winter War, probably saved Leningrad and Moscow in 1941.
...comes from though.
Sounds like something designed to justify Stalin's war of aggression on Finland (and of course the occupation of the Baltic States, Eastern Poland and Bessarabia). BUT if the Soviet Union hadn't invaded Finland, why do you think Finland is going to war with the USSR in 1941? Even after the Winter War in 1939/40 and subsequently Finland getting into bed with Germany, the Finns did not go beyond their original borders when attacking the USSR. So they certainly had no reason to actively seek Moscow's ire by declaring war on
them having not been attacked. Thus how does that make Leningrad any more likely to fall - let alone Moscow? Leningrad did not fall of course, and without the N-S pact, I think it would be even less likely - and probably not even placed under siege.
The final version of the border of the Nazi-Soviet pact also played into Germany's hands with the salient around Bialystok ripe for encirclement. Without the pact this does not now happen. Sure the Germans start further east, but enough to make a difference before Moscow? I don't think this stands up to scrutiny given how far short the Wehrmacht came up. Without the alliance, Stalin is less desperate to believe that Germany moving 3 million men east is NOT a sign of impending invasion [8|] Finally, without the pact that is a lot of resources - inc oil - that German don't get access to.
By the same token as Finland, without the NS pact and the annexation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina, why does Romania
necessarily join with Germany? Germany has to have that oil and if Romania cannot be persuaded to join the Axis then what? Does Hitler invade? The war is potentially taking a real down turn all of a sudden for Adolf without his N-S pact.
So yes, I understand why Uncle Joe entered into the pact, but No, I don't think the NS pact and all it meant can be justified by the - "the USSR would have lost otherwise" - argument.
