Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    23 Aug '11 13:52
    Yes, another anniversary...

    Today is the 72nd anniversary of the signing of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact that all but ensured that WWII would start. Without a guarantee that the Soviets would stay out of it, Hitler would have been less likely to move on Poland and risk opening up an immediate major 2 front war.

    Now, we all know that Stalin was in it for Stalin and the USSR and not for the greater good, so a question about whether the pact was "perfidious" or back stabbing to the west is silly. The British botched their chance to strike a deal with the Soviets with silly foot dragging and so can hardly have been morally outraged when Hitler struck the deal with Stalin.

    The question I have is: Was it, in the end, a good deal for Stalin himself? Without the deal, maybe Hitler never marches on Poland and maybe there's no war at all. Certainly, that would have been the optimal result. On the other hand, by striking the deal, the German-Soviet border moved 200 KM farther from Moscow than if Germany had swallowed the whole Poland. Maybe if that happens, the march of Bock and Guderian and Army Group Center in 1941 swallows Moscow before the first snowflake falls on the Smolesk road.

    What say you?
  2. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    23 Aug '11 20:16 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by sh76
    Yes, another anniversary...

    Today is the 72nd anniversary of the signing of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact that all but ensured that WWII would start. Without a guarantee that the Soviets would stay out of it, Hitler would have been less likely to move on Poland and risk opening up an immediate major 2 front war.

    Now, we all know that Stalin was in it for St n 1941 swallows Moscow before the first snowflake falls on the Smolesk road.

    What say you?
    Good deal.

    There is no possibility that the lack of a German-Soviet agreement would have forestalled the attack on Poland; it was already set for September 1 and 1.5 million German troops were in offensive positions poised to strike on August 23. Stalin would have been left with the unplatable choice of seeing German troops advance to the borders of the USSR or of committing to war when it was highly probable the West would sit in their fortifications (and Poland refused to even commit to allowing Soviet forces to enter Polish territory to fight a German invasion!).

    Not only would the Germans have gained hundreds of kilometers in the Center (assuming no German-Soviet war) but they would have been on the border of Lithuania as well. They may very well have been able to forestell annexation of at least that Baltic state (and perhaps Estonia and Latvia as well) thus preventing the Russians from having set defenses in those areas. The march in the North would have been even faster (and it was pretty fast anyway) thus unhinging the whole Soviet line.

    Stalin did what he had to do. He deserves a kudo.
  3. Subscriber Sleepyguy
    Reepy Rastardly Guy
    23 Aug '11 20:28
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Good deal.

    There is no possibility that the lack of a German-Soviet agreement would have forestalled the attack on Poland; it was already set for September 1 and 1.5 million German troops were in offensive positions poised to strike on August 23. Stalin would have been left with the unplatable choice of seeing German troops advance to the ...[text shortened]... nhinging the whole Soviet line.

    Stalin did what he had to do. He deserves a kudo.
    Yay Stalin!
  4. Standard member Soothfast
    0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,
    24 Aug '11 19:27
    Originally posted by Sleepyguy
    Yay Stalin!
    Stalin, Stalin, he's our man,
    If he can't do it, Hitler can.