OT: WW2 Documentary

[Footslogger]

Is This Documentary Accurate?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tj7FEW8E184

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: Footslogger

Is This Documentary Accurate?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tj7FEW8E184

RT = "Russia Today"

Enough said...


Leo "Apollo11"

[Buckrock]

It is correct about the British and French having contingency plans in regard to attacking/disrupting the Soviet oil industry in the Caucasus. The rest of the documentary though appears to be just a spin job on the geopolitics of the time.

[Maallon]

As always with Russian media some of it is true, some of it isn't and a lot of it is just out of proportion.
First and foremost, everything that was said in the video is already known since many years, so it's not really news.
Maybe they just found new documents about it, but claiming this as big news would also be fairly typical for Russian media.

To put it shortly with some examples.
What is true:
They Allies did plan to bomb the USSR oil fields before the invasion of France. Animosity between the western Allies and the USSR were high, which is kind of understandable because the USSR helped to invade their ally Poland. Also the USSR provided Germany with a lot of resources, including vital oil.
That the USSR suggested a anti Hitler pact is also true, but again, animosity and distrust was just too high for that to actually happen during that time.
What is not true:
Even though where were probably some people in Poland who welcomed a soviet occupation the vast majority of polish people under soviet occupation suffered a lot. Stalin suffered a very humiliating defeat during the Soviet-Polish war against Poland and was out for revenge. Given the cruelty he was willing to commit against his own people, polish people certainly didn't fare any better.
What is just out of proportion:
Nearly everything but to make a concrete example: While Finland did loose more territory during the Soviet-Finish war then at first demanded from them, the main reason why they didn't accept it was that the USSR "coincidentally" demanded all border territories that were heavily fortified or posed natural obstacles. So the Finnish fear was that after they would concede those territories they would have no means to effectively defend themselves against a soviet invasion and the soviets could just make even more demands that could eventually lead to the occupation of Finland as a whole.

It is all tailored to make an appeal to be a neutral opinion but in the end everything is very pro-Russian. I would generally not give too much credit to news channels that are funded by the Russian government. Also the whole documentary is just far too short and all over the place to give any meaningful information.

[BBfanboy]

Recent commentary by former diplomats is that Russia is trying to re-write the history information available in their country to stoke nationalism and support their claims to more territory. Rewriting history to leave out the failures is typical in autocratic regimes.

China just celebrated 100 years since their Communist Party was founded; in their celebrations I did not hear any reports of the event addressing the Party's many failures. Denying reality always sets up the believers for pain further down the road when reality bites undeniably.

[RangerJoe]

1984 by George Orwell .. .

[Macclan5]

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

Rewriting history to leave out the failures is typical in autocratic regimes.

An excellent observation.

There is no single nation without blemishes from specific instances in World War 2.

Those Nations that have been open and honest to critical self examination in both the number and scope of such incidents are those that can reasonably claim 'the higher moral ground'.

[Moltrey]

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

Recent commentary by former diplomats is that Russia is trying to re-write the history information available in their country to stoke nationalism and support their claims to more territory. Rewriting history to leave out the failures is typical in autocratic regimes.

China just celebrated 100 years since their Communist Party was founded; in their celebrations I did not hear any reports of the event addressing the Party's many failures. Denying reality always sets up the believers for pain further down the road when reality bites undeniably.

"When the truth offends, we lie and lie until we can no longer remember it's even there, but it is still there. Every lie we tell incurs a debt to the truth. Sooner or later that debt is paid." - Valery Legasov Chernobyl

Ah yes, the banality of evil. Some refer to the "Eichmann Effect". Or as Tom Shippey pointed out: "In the end you have the major atrocities of the 20th century being carried out by bureaucrats."

You can understand why some people believe we are cultivating our own end of human existence. It is way scarier than any horror movie.

[Footslogger]

ORIGINAL: Maallon

As always with Russian media some of it is true, some of it isn't and a lot of it is just out of proportion.
First and foremost, everything that was said in the video is already known since many years, so it's not really news.
Maybe they just found new documents about it, but claiming this as big news would also be fairly typical for Russian media.

To put it shortly with some examples.
What is true:
They Allies did plan to bomb the USSR oil fields before the invasion of France. Animosity between the western Allies and the USSR were high, which is kind of understandable because the USSR helped to invade their ally Poland. Also the USSR provided Germany with a lot of resources, including vital oil.
That the USSR suggested a anti Hitler pact is also true, but again, animosity and distrust was just too high for that to actually happen during that time.
What is not true:
Even though where were probably some people in Poland who welcomed a soviet occupation the vast majority of polish people under soviet occupation suffered a lot. Stalin suffered a very humiliating defeat during the Soviet-Polish war against Poland and was out for revenge. Given the cruelty he was willing to commit against his own people, polish people certainly didn't fare any better.
What is just out of proportion:
Nearly everything but to make a concrete example: While Finland did loose more territory during the Soviet-Finish war then at first demanded from them, the main reason why they didn't accept it was that the USSR "coincidentally" demanded all border territories that were heavily fortified or posed natural obstacles. So the Finnish fear was that after they would concede those territories they would have no means to effectively defend themselves against a soviet invasion and the soviets could just make even more demands that could eventually lead to the occupation of Finland as a whole.

It is all tailored to make an appeal to be a neutral opinion but in the end everything is very pro-Russian. I would generally not give too much credit to news channels that are funded by the Russian government. Also the whole documentary is just far too short and all over the place to give any meaningful information.

That's what I thought. However, is it true that France and Britain were going to war with the USSR and if the phony war had not be declared, I wonder how things would have turned out?

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Footslogger

However, is it true that France and Britain were going to war with the USSR and if the phony war had not be declared, I wonder how things would have turned out?

warspite1

No, there was never any real prospect of France and Britain going to war with the USSR.

Having declared war for the right reasons, sadly the actions of the French and British in 1939-40 were a lesson in muddle, confusion, inaction and indecisiveness. I am sure there are plenty more words that can be ascribed too.

We know what happened and so the Allied plan to wait until 1941 to launch offensive action against Germany, while the French and British built up their forces, is seen as wrong. However there was no reason to believe the Germans could achieve what they ultimately did and, with their superior purchasing power compared to Germany, the Allied plan was maybe not that off the wall. It was felt Germany's military lead would gradually be eroded over time and there was the hope that Hitler would be overthrown before a shooting war on the Western Front came about.

So while this 'Phoney War' came about (the German plans to attack in the west in the autumn of 1939/early 1940 never took off for a couple of reasons - another amazing piece of Hitler luck in the early war) what was to be done? After the horrors of the First World War, the French were desperate to have the fighting take place anywhere but on French soil. The British and French were also happy to undertake limited operations, but wanted the other to be in charge in case it all went wrong.....

The French plan to bomb the Caucasus (I've always read it was a spiffing wheeze dreamed up by Gamelin) was only ever really a contingency - at least for the British - and I don't think it ever remotely had any chance of being acted upon. The Allies realised they had bitten off quite a bit with Germany, without bringing the USSR in against them too.

But a shooting war with the Soviet Union was perhaps more likely had the Anglo-French expedition to Finland have taken off. However, this too was never really going to happen. The French wanted it to happen (the lack of action to support the Finns cost Deladier his job) but there was the thorny issue of how to get there (and how to actually man the project.....). Proving that off the wall nonsense was not just the preserve of the French, the British dreamed up the 'plan' of landing in Norway with an expeditionary force that would move overland to Finland, stopping off via the Swedish iron ore mines (which would just happen to stop German supply of iron ore from this source - well that's a nice coincidence!).... There was only one problem with this 'plan' - it was all total cobblers. How the Norwegians - let alone the Swedes - would react was not really considered over and above the idea that they would be delighted at help being provided to their fellow Scandinavians. After garrisoning the Swedish ore mines, what size force would actually make it to Finland was probably no more than a platoon of reservists and a Dachshund named Colin. This whole tragic-comedy episode could have its own thread.

So no, it was never really likely that the Allies would seek to go to war with the USSR in 1939/40.

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Footslogger

However, is it true that France and Britain were going to war with the USSR and if the phony war had not be declared, I wonder how things would have turned out?

warspite1

No, there was never any real prospect of France and Britain going to war with the USSR.

Having declared war for the right reasons, sadly the actions of the French and British in 1939-40 were a lesson in muddle, confusion, inaction and indecisiveness. I am sure there are plenty more words that can be ascribed too.

We know what happened and so the Allied plan to wait until 1941 to launch offensive action against Germany, while the French and British built up their forces, is seen as wrong. However there was no reason to believe the Germans could achieve what they ultimately did and, with their superior purchasing power compared to Germany, the Allied plan was maybe not that off the wall. It was felt Germany's military lead would gradually be eroded over time and there was the hope that Hitler would be overthrown before a shooting war on the Western Front came about.

So while this 'Phoney War' came about (the German plans to attack in the west in the autumn of 1939/early 1940 never took off for a couple of reasons - another amazing piece of Hitler luck in the early war) what was to be done? After the horrors of the First World War, the French were desperate to have the fighting take place anywhere but on French soil. The British and French were also happy to undertake limited operations, but wanted the other to be in charge in case it all went wrong.....

The French plan to bomb the Caucasus (I've always read it was a spiffing wheeze dreamed up by Gamelin) was only ever really a contingency - at least for the British - and I don't think it ever remotely had any chance of being acted upon. The Allies realised they had bitten off quite a bit with Germany, without bringing the USSR in against them too.

But a shooting war with the Soviet Union was perhaps more likely had the Anglo-French expedition to Finland have taken off. However, this too was never really going to happen. The French wanted it to happen (the lack of action to support the Finns cost Deladier his job) but there was the thorny issue of how to get there (and how to actually man the project.....). Proving that off the wall nonsense was not just the preserve of the French, the British dreamed up the 'plan' of landing in Norway with an expeditionary force that would move overland to Finland, stopping off via the Swedish iron ore mines (which would just happen to stop German supply of iron ore from this source - well that's a nice coincidence!).... There was only one problem with this 'plan' - it was all total cobblers. How the Norwegians - let alone the Swedes - would react was not really considered over and above the idea that they would be delighted at help being provided to their fellow Scandinavians. After garrisoning the Swedish ore mines, what size force would actually make it to Finland was probably no more than a platoon of reservists and a Dachshund named Colin. This whole tragic-comedy episode could have its own thread.

So no, it was never really likely that the Allies would seek to go to war with the USSR in 1939/40.

You have it wrong. It would not be a Dachshund named Colin since that is a German breed. It would have been a Collie named Lassie.[;)]

[rustysi]

That the USSR suggested a anti Hitler pact is also true, but again, animosity and distrust was just too high for that to actually happen during that time.

Yeah, that really oversimplifies things.

One of the biggest hurdles here was that for any pact to be signed, Stalin wanted the right to have Soviet troops to pass through Poland, and that just wasn't going to happen.

[rustysi]

So no, it was never really likely that the Allies would seek to go to war with the USSR in 1939/40.

I can get on board with most of what you have said, as for this....

I think the reality is that France and Britain knew they couldn't, no matter what fanciful plans they may have made.

[rustysi]

Is This Documentary Accurate?

All propaganda benefits from some truth, and this does as well. As has been said its not like all of this was unknown, and TBH most of it stems from the Nazi/Soviet Pact.

In short Stalin couldn't get what he wanted from the Allies, so he hitch his wagon to the Nazis.

[Maallon]

ORIGINAL: rustysi

That the USSR suggested a anti Hitler pact is also true, but again, animosity and distrust was just too high for that to actually happen during that time.

Yeah, that really oversimplifies things.

One of the biggest hurdles here was that for any pact to be signed, Stalin wanted the right to have Soviet troops to pass through Poland, and that just wasn't going to happen.

You are correct, I just made some quick examples from stuff that was thrown out in the video.
And to be fair, your point ultimately boils down to distrust.[:)]
edit: justified distrust of course

[Maallon]

That's what I thought. However, is it true that France and Britain were going to war with the USSR and if the phony war had not be declared, I wonder how things would have turned out?

I would also agree with what warspite1 wrote.
The whole thing was just a product of the phoney war.
Also allied intelligence was wrong about the whole premise as the majority of German oil didn't actually come from the USSR but from Romania.
And given the overall low effectiveness of strategic bombing during the time, the whole operation probably wouldn't have been very effective anyway.

Really the reason why Russia Today dug this whole thing up again is just for propaganda reasons and the Soviet Union itself certainly doesn't have a particularly white vest when it comes to attacking neutral nations. If you are interested in learning more about it, the operation was called "Operation Pike".
According to the source section in Wikipedia, the whole affair was already covered and published in the magazine "French Historical Studies" in 1973.
This shows how much this is all actually just an old shoe and not something that was declassified just recently.

[BBfanboy]

It's worth keeping in mind the big picture of what leaders in the west were thinking at the time. Remember that Britain (and maybe France too?) attacked Russia during its civil war after WWI because they were afraid of Bolshevism doctrine being spread. Red Russian forces withstood that and still defeated the White Russians, but settled down to pacify their own country and repair some of the damage it suffered from war. Food shortages followed as the Soviets took over farms and mismanaged food production. Russian leaders took food from Ukraine to feed their people, leaving Ukrainians to starve in the Holmidor.

Meanwhile, Lenin and Trotsky were assassinated and the Bolshevik party became the Communist Party. The new party specifically set out to spread Communism via the COMINTERN (Communist International) organization. It made inroads into the ranks of workers in China, Germany and especially France, stirring much unrest. During the Spanish Civil War, the COMINTERN was active in trying to set up enclaves by supporting the anti-fascist side with arms but requiring them to adopt Communist ideology and policies. They were not above assassinating anyone who offered alternative leadership. Franco's victory forced them out of Spain, but that meant more unrest in France.

So on the cusp of WWII, French leaders were anxious to get rid of Communist influence and Britain was growing increasingly alarmed at the growth of Communist thinking among its Universities - both students and professors, and rise of the Labour Party. Of course Britain and France were going to entertain any idea to hit back at Russia in hopes of starting a counter-revolution. But has been mentioned, it was not logistically possible at the time so it was not acted on.

[Buckrock]

The British War Cabinet records just prior to the end of the Phony War show that the RAF plans for bombing the oil fields were to only be considered as a possible response to any further Russian "aggression" in the Baltic or the Balkans. The War Cabinet records also noted in April '40 that Reynaud agreed the French plans were also to be conditional on Russian behaviour and hoped the known presence (to the Russians) of French bombers in Syria should act as a deterrent for such.

It's pretty clear they weren't looking for a fight with the Russians during this period.

[rustysi]

And to be fair, your point ultimately boils down to distrust.

OK, possibly to a degree, but I think it was more that Stalin wanted the BBD (Bigger Better Deal, at least in his eyes), no matter where he got it.

And in all fairness I do believe Stalin knew that a confrontation with Germany was bound to happen, sooner or later.

[Maallon]

ORIGINAL: rustysi

And to be fair, your point ultimately boils down to distrust.

OK, possibly to a degree, but I think it was more that Stalin wanted the BBD (Bigger Better Deal, at least in his eyes), no matter where he got it.

And in all fairness I do believe Stalin knew that a confrontation with Germany was bound to happen, sooner or later.

As far as I remember the deal came to a halt because Poland didn't want to allow soviet troops passage through their territory as they feared they would never leave again. Also the UK and France feared that this would ultimately lead to an Soviet hegemony in the east which they certainly didn't wanted. So it came down to it that the western Allies, especially Poland, didn't trust the USSR. Given what happened in the Baltic after the occupation of Poland, I would say that that distrust was well founded.
Only after the negotiations were suspended to an undefined time the USSR and Germany made an effort to make negotiations of their own.

What Stalin really thought about all this is hard to say, while he probably expected that a war with Germany was bound to happen, he certainly didn't expected it to happen so soon.
Stalin actually had a tendency to have deluded views on many things. He for example believed a report during the Finnish war that the Finnish people were just about to start a communist revolution and help the red army in "liberating" the country. This of course was not true and should have been hard to believe anyway because the red army currently killed the fathers and sons of these very people who were supposed to help the red army.
Not the best basis for cooperation.
So what Stalin thought at any given time can be hard to comprehend, maybe he put up this whole thing with the Allies as a farce to get a better deal out of Germany, maybe he actually would have preferred to get the deal with the Allies and Germany was his second choice. Without hard evidence, that I am not aware of exists, it is really just speculation. But it can be said for certain that the Allies didn't accept the deal with the USSR because they just simply didn't trust them enough in the end.