FACT: The Soviet Union Was an Early ALLY of Nazi Germany and One of World War II's Aggressor Nations.
The Nazis, fascist Italy, imperial Japan and the Soviet Union were the principal aggressor nations in World War II.
The Japanese kicked things off with attacks on Chinese Manchuria in 1931. By 1937, the nations were at full-scale war.
Italy invaded Ethiopia on October 3, 1935.
Then Nazi Germany, after taking over Austria and Czechoslovakia, invaded Poland on September 1, 1939.
But what is often forgotten are the then-secret provisions of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, officially the Treaty of Non-Aggression between Germany and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics but more commonly known by the names of the foreign ministers of the Soviet Union and Germany. It was signed in August 1939.
But the secret provisions were that the Soviets would invade Poland from the east after Germany invaded from the west, with Poland to be divided between Germany and the Soviet Union along the lines of the Narev, Vistula, and San rivers. The Soviets were also given a free hand to invade and annex the Baltic nations of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, which it did so in 1940. Also that year the Soviets invaded Finland after demands for territorial concessions were rejected by the Finns.
On September 17, 1939, Soviet troops invaded Poland.
Poland. September 20, 1939. An officer of the Wehrmacht, an officer of the Red Army and an interpreter on the demarcation line.
While the German occupation of Poland was barbaric, the Soviets also desired to wipe out any possibility of a resurgence of Polish nationalism. So, just as the Germans put into effect Intelligenzaktion Pommern, an operation to eradicate the Polish intelligentsia, the Sovietson a lower scale massacred over 22,000 Polish prisoners of war in the Katyn forest. About 8,000 were Polish military officers, another 6,000 police officers and the remainder various former landowners, factory owners and local officials.
Ironically, it was the Nazis that discovered the graves of the Poles and the Soviets denied responsbility until 1990. In 1992 the government of Russia finally acknowledged the secret provisions of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, even though the West had long known its provisions.
And what does Russia's Vladimir Putin say about all this?
He blames POLAND for starting World War II !!!
"(The Poles) went too far, pushing Hitler to start World War II by attacking them. Why was it Poland against whom the war started on 1 September 1939? Poland turned out to be uncompromising, and Hitler had nothing to do but start implementing his plans with Poland."
- Vladimir Putin February 2024 Interview with Tucker Carlson
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
@Bumbles Yes, a favourable reference to Stalin! Stalin who had invaded Finland, the Baltic states, Bessarabia Poland. The man who had inflicted the Holodomor on Ukraine in which millions died. I know that Hitler is now looked on as the most evil, but in 1940 and 1941 the Holocaust had not started and to favour Stalin over Hitler would seem a n odd decision. I don't want to try and rehabilitate Hitler and the Nazis, but at that point in history if you were weighing up the record of both regimes Churchill's statement does seem an exercise in naivety.
@22Michelle The reference wasn’t about a measure of evil, but who was a greater threat to Great Britain given Hitler’s expansionist designs which were being implemented. Turns out he was right as the remark was made before the invasion of France and the Battle of Britain. So, I’d say the remark was rather prophetic.
@Bumbles That's a rather generous interpretation of Churchill,'s speech. As a Victorian he would have been very aware of the threat to India, the jewel in the crown, from Russia. And Churchill was very much an Imperialist. Also the remark was made after the invasion of Russia. Prior to that the Soviet Union was Germany's biggest supplier of war materials. Churchill’s stance on Russia seems to fit in well with his political inconsistency. He started off anti-Russian until 1914, then he became pro-Russian until 1917 when he became anti-Russian until 1938 when he became pro-Russian until 1939 when he went anti-Russian until 1941 when he became pro-Russian until 1946 when he became anti-Russian until 1949 when he started working for a settlement with Russia. No fewer than six changes of stance, which collectively have been held against Churchill as displaying precisely the kind of general opportunism that his enemies accused him of, both during his lifetime and since his death.
@22Michelle Correct, he wasn’t a Communist, and recognized the threat of The Third Reich, hence the quote. FDR was the naive one, not the man who coined the expression “Iron Curtain.” Last time I checked Russia never invaded India, but Germany did attack the UK to prepare for an invasion.
And let's not forget about Fumimaro Konoe and Hideki Tojo, the successive Prime Ministers of Japan.
Far too many attrocities committed by the Japanese during World War II (going back to 1931 in China) are often overlooked because of those committed by Nazi Germany,
But the death toll in Asia may have been as high as 30 million, rivaling the numbers killed by the Nazis.
As a Victorian he would have been very aware of the threat to India, the jewel in the crown, from Russia
The threat to India was from Japan, not Russia.
IN April 1942, despite the Royal Navy assembling its largest fleet at that point in the war - which included three aircraft carriers, five battleships and numerous cruisers and destroyers - it was still outnumbered by the Imperial Japanese Navy.
Admiral Chūichi Nagumo, who had led the attack on Pearl Harbor, brought the Kido Butai into the Indian Ocean on a hunt for the Royal Navy.
His fleet of four of the six aircraft carriers which had decimiated the U.S. Pacific Fleet in Decemvber 1941 quicky sunk the carrier HMS Hermes,, two heavy cruisers (HMS Dorsetshire and HMS Cornwall), several smaller naval vessels, nearly two dozen merchant ship and destroyed over fifty aircraft, which included an attack on the port of Colombo on Ceylon.
It could have been far worse, as the battleships would have been just as vulnerable at sea to airstrikes as the battleship HMS Prince of Wales and battlecruiser HMS Repulse were in December 1941.
After the loss of the Hermes and the cruisiers, Admiral James Somerville wisely chose to withdrawl his fleet to Kilindini, Kenya in East Africa, ceding control of the Indian Ocean to the Japanese.
It was only after the U.S. incredible victory at Midway in June 1942 that the tide began to turn in the Allies favor.
@beckyromero Russia had been threatening India since its own expansion into Central Asia. That's why I referenced Churchill's Victorian history which had shaped much of his Imperialist views. And my post was in reply to Bumbles mistakenly, in my view, seeing Churchill as pro Russia in 1939, 1940. Historically Japan had been an ally of the UK. However, alliances changed once WW2 started.
@Bumbles You stated that the speech by Churchill predated the invadion of France in May1940. At that point Churcill was anti Russia due to their invasion of Poland and their material support of Germany. Once Germany invaded Russia Churchill switched to being pro Russia. He again switched 1945/6 when he again saw Russia as a threat. And the phrase Iron Curtain was first used by Goebbels. Churchill would have been aware of it as by this point all Nazi communications, speeches, etc were being read by British Intelligence.
@22Michelle I think your use or the term “pro” and “anti” in the context of “Russia” and not giving Churchill credit for recognizing the threat from The Soviet Union, and attributing that concern to Goebbels, begs various questions.
@Bumbles Let's get real. By 1945 I think the idea that Goebbels was "concerned" about the Soviet Union is not surprising. He used the term in February and March 1945 as defeat became inevitable for Nazi Germany. He hoped to inspire greater resolve from Germans, and hoped other countries, including the USA and UK might change allegiance. It was never going to happen, but desperate men and desperate measures! Churchill made his Iron Curtain speech in March 1946. As for Churchill recognising the threat from Russia / Soviet Union he had flip flopped on his attitude from around 1915 when he saw Russia as an ally. After the Russian revolution he was very much anti Soviet, and he continued to switch from anti to pro to back to anti in around 1945/6.
Nb The term Iron Curtain comes from what were actually steel curtains used in German theatres as fire protection.
@22Michelle You fundamentally misunderstand the concept of an alliance of convenience. The term iron curtain for Churchill obviously is about how the post war was shaping up with Soviet dominance in Eastern and Central Europe. If you want to criticize then point out how the US was naive to think there would ever be free elections in Poland. But wasn't much choice either.
@Bumbles You're acvusing me of misunderstanding an alliance of convenience? Where are you getting that from? The alluance eith the Soviet Union was one of convenience for Hitler and Stalin. One Germany invaded the Soviet Union the convenient alliance was for the UK and the Soviet Union. The USA. whilst not yet at war started supplying war materials to the Soviets. Again, as an aside, this material was mainly supplied via Soviet ships loaded in US West coast ports. After Pearl Harbour Hitler declared war on the USA allying Germany with Japan. However, the Japanese never declared war on the Soviet Union, never tried to cut the Pacific supply line from the USA to the Soviet Union. It's debatable how the Soviet Union would have fared without the massive material assustance it received from thecUSA.
@22Michelle Your reference to pro and anti, yes, as if Churchill was an Austrian Duke in the 16th century. Churchill advocated for Allied military intervention in 1918 to "strangle the Bolshevik baby in its crib". He was not naive about Stalin, but was also a pragmatist and a patriot.
I agree with you about US assistance to the Red Army. We don’t get enough credit as the current fad about giving all credit to the Red Army for the defeat of Nazi Germany goes unanswered. German supply lines defeated Germany as much as the Red Army.
@Bumbles Churchill's views were very much rooted in his Victorian upbringing. He was an Imperialist and his goal in WW2 was to preserve the British Empire. Roosevelt conversely was interested in ending the British Empire, again an alliance of convenience.
@22Michelle One of his goals was to preserve the Empire which he realized was not going to be possible. He understood leadership of the liberal democracies would shift to the US. He also knew the US was generally anti-imperialist.
If he was only an imperialist, as you claim, he would have sided with Halifax and tried to cut a deal with Hitler in 1940 when the BEF was close to being wiped out in France. Hitler didn’t see Britain as a natural enemy.
His first duty was to protect Great Britain, and being the brilliant pragmatist he was, Churchill was willing to give up the empire to achieve it, even eventually voting in the House of Commons for Indian independence.
Russia had been threatening India since its own expansion into Central Asia. That's why I referenced Churchill's Victorian history which had shaped much of his Imperialist views. And my post was in reply to Bumbles mistakenly, in my view, seeing Churchill as pro Russia in 1939, 1940. Historically Japan had been an ally of the UK. However, alliances changed once WW2 started.
Of course Russia had been a threat to much of Asia during its period of expansion, including India. They and the British were rivals for spheres of influence in Afghanistan, Persia and other parts of Central Asia.
But by the first decade of the 20th century, Russia was no longer seen as a threat to India. Russia had its own internal problems, then came the First World War, the October Revolution in 1917, civil war and then World War II.
You mentioned, "Japan had been an ally of the UK."
Japan was in fact an ally in World War I. And, ironically, designs of some of the IJN warships were of British design, such as the Kongo-class battlecrusiers.
But that relationship and that to the United States soon quickly changed due to internal Japanese politics and due to their invasion of China.
@beckyromero Once the Soviet Union had established itself it's Russian policy of expansion restarted. Churchill saw Russia / the Soviet Union as a threat to the British Empire, which is not to say he was right. Since the 1920's the Soviets, and now Russia under Putin are trying to regain their Empire which is more about moving west. Churchill feared Germany moving east becayse hexthought it a greater threat to British interests in Asia. It's difficult to realise that in the 1920's and 1930's the Soviet Union was seen as a ramshackle Empire. When Barbarossa was launched most "experts" in the UK and USA thought it would succeed, and it wouldn't take too long. WW2 transformed the Soviet Union into a great power, and changed Churchill's view of it as a threat. We look back and can usually see the reality of situations, the threats of war, real and perceived. However, at the time how different countries perceived things was often very different. Why did WW1 start? Why didn't the UK and France stop Hitler when he remilitarised Germany, when he threatened Czechoslovakia? Reality is they saw things differently, and they got it wrong. They stumbled into WW1, they thought they could appease Hitler and prevent war, they got it wrong. And the USA and UK didn’t realise how powerful the Soviet Union was bevoming until they realised they had to give eastern Europe to Stalin or be prepared to go to war against him. Was that the right decision? Would Stalin have been preoared to risk war against a nuclear armed USA? Abswer is we'll never know.
Once the Soviet Union had established itself it's Russian policy of expansion restarted.
Yes, but it was with regards to first lands that had been conquered or absored one time or anyother (in some cases, more than once) into the Russian Empire: the Baltic nations, Ukraine, Finland, for example.
The young communist state wasn't in any position to threaten India.
What Churchill saw as a threat was mostly communism itself, spread by the Sovets.
now Russia under Putin are trying to regain their Empire which is more about moving west.
Yes. Indeed one only has to look at Putin's own words:
"The collapse of the Soviet Union was a major geopolitical disaster of the century." - Vladimir Putin Annual Address to the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation April 25, 2005 https://web.archive.org/web/20240908005052/http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/transcripts/22931
Olga Timofeyeva: "Which event in the Russian history would you like to undo?" Vladimir Putin: "The collapse of the Soviet Union." Truth and Justice forum of regional and local media March 2, 2018 https://web.archive.org/web/20240908005705/http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/56969
Why didn't the UK and France stop Hitler when he remilitarised Germany, when he threatened Czechoslovakia?
Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain miscalculated, thinking time was on Britain's side to re-arm. But the opposite was true. German re-armament was growing at a faster pace than the western Allies, France believing the Maginot Line would protect most of the front with an alliance with Belgium (and presumably a British force, as would indeed be sent) the rest of it to the Channel.
After the absorption of Austria into the Third Reich, it should have been clear to the western Allies that the capturing of the Škoda Works and the rest of the Czech armament industry intact, in addition to the threat was fascist Italy in the Mediterranean, that the time to confront Nazi Germany was over the demands at the Munich Conference. The time to go to war was 1938 in response to any aggression against Czechoslovakia. Not to wait after Poland would be invaded.
And the USA and UK didn’t realise how powerful the Soviet Union was bevoming until they realised they had to give eastern Europe to Stalin or be prepared to go to war against him.
Yes, until there was already the Red Army in Eastern Europe.
If you haven't seen it, you might be interested in what I wrote about Operation Market Garden. Had it suceeded. And itsd ramifications for post-war Europe.
@beckyromero The question of rearnament and the state of British, French and German forces is interesting. Britain was hobbled, not by production capacity etc, but by a self inflicted so called "10 Year Act". This was a limit on increasing expenditure on arnaments unless it was seen that war was likely within the next 10 years. And this possibility would have to be agreed by Parliament. The architect of this act was one Winston Churchill who would later blame Chamberlain for not reaming much sooner. That said, at the time of the Czech crisis the German army was in no shape to take on the British and French armies. Even in 1940 the invading German army was outnumbered by British and French forces. They had less tanks, and many French tanks were superior. The Germans had a better strategy and tactics. What would have happened if Britain and France had threatened war? Again nothing is certain, but it's likely Hitler would have backed down. Thereafter? Would Hitler have been humiliated, possibly lost power? Would Hitler have used the humiliation to increase the need for Germany to reassert itself as a great power. Would Germany been better prepared for war?
As for Market Garden succeeding. If it had would the allies have driven on, or would they have looked east at the success of Operation Bagration and allowed, as they did, the Soviets to battle on to Berlin and take the massive casualties?
All interesting and fun to discuss, but we'll never know how it would have worked out. For instance what if Hitler hadn't delayed Barbarossa to save Mussolini being humiliated in Greece? What if he hadn't declared war on the USA? But we're getting more and more into the "what if", and further away from the reality of who first used the term "Iron Curtain".
Winston Churchill who would later blame Chamberlain for not reaming much sooner.
I would lay more blame on Stanley Baldwin than on Chamberlain. Chamberlain at least started rearming Britain. Baldwin had resisted. Chamberlain's principal fault was appeasement at Munich.
at the time of the Czech crisis the German army was in no shape to take on the British and French armies. Even in 1940 the invading German army was outnumbered by British and French forces. They had less tanks, and many French tanks were superior. The Germans had a better strategy and tactics.
I agree. A good read on that scenario is:
"The War of 1938" by Williamson Murray
As for Market Garden succeeding. If it had would the allies have driven on,
Germany would have collapsed, possibly by Christmas 1944.
@beckyromero @22Michelle I don't think enough attention has been paid to the fact that the French could have stopped Hitler when Germany reoccupied the Rhineland in 1936. Hitler was rewarded for taking a huge risk.
@beckyromero Given what did happen in 1945 I don't see German army collapsing. However, had the USA and UK offered the German army some kind of "honourable" surrender the way to Berlin could have been opened. What would happen on the Eastern front is anybody's guess.
@Bumbles Indeed so. There were several opportunities to stop Hitler, but a combination of fear of starting a war, overestimation of German military power and general stasis meant things rolled on until Hitler finally pushed just too far.
Given what did happen in 1945 I don't see German army collapsing.
But that is what the German army did in 1945 - it collapsed. Their December 1944 offensive failed. The Ludendorff Bridge over the Rhine at Remagen was captured on March 7th
Had Market Garden succeeded, with a bridgehead established over the Lower Rhine in September 1944, Allied troops would have poured into the industrial heart of northern Germany, the Ruhr. Between Montgomery's offensive in the north and Gen. Patton in the south, there would have been no Battle of the Bulge as the reserves woldn't have been available; they'd have been lost trying to defeat Market Gaden. The noose would have tightened and the western Allies would have had a good chance of reaching Berlin while the Soviets were still slugging it out in eastern Poland. That, indeed, was the whole point of Market Garden: to bring a quick end to the war.
Unfortunately, as I'm sure you know, the plan while laudable had a number of fatal flaws, flaws that could have been corrected.
It's highly unlikely that the U.S. and U.K. would have changed their demand for unconditional surrender, especially considering that Germany would have been on the brink of defeat anyway.
@beckyromero I agree that the allies eould not accept anything other than unconditional surrender. However, that kept the Germans fighting on until Berlin was taken.
