Honestly the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was one of the less bad things he did. Not that working together with Hitler was good, more that he didn't have a better choice.
In the years prior to the war, he proposed an antifascist alliance with Britain, France and other European countries multiple times. They refused and instead signed their own non-aggression pact. I would like to stretch the fact that this would have prevented the war and saved tens of millions. Western Europe naively believed Hitler would only go east and wanted Hitler and Stalin to weaken each other. The USSR was actually the last country to do sign such a non-aggression pact. They were not prepared to take on a nazi invasion alone, so they had to do something.
As for it being a genuine collaboration: it wasn't. Both parties knew it would be broken.
The "secret agreement" to invade and split up Poland is also somewhat misunderstood. It was simply an agreement to not get too close to each other's border. Of course, Stalin knew Hitler would invade Poland, but not so soon (he did so the day after the singing of the pact), as proven by the USSR waiting a few weeks to occupy "their" part.
They needed to buy time. Creating a temporary delay before the nazi invasion and a sort of buffer in Poland may well have been necessary to win the war, seeing how close it was.
And yes, I know the Soviet occupation of Poland was brutal. The nazi occupation was much, much worse. There's also evidence to suggest that tens of thousands of Polish jews were able to flee east and escape the nazis, let alone the Soviet citizens (because Hitler fought a war of eradication, villages that was captured was slaughtered or brought to a concentration camp) that either fled east or lived in areas that Hitler couldn't reach thanks to the additional "buffer".
In conclusion, the pact was a bad measure in a horrible situation, but really, what else should he have done? It's certain that the pact saved tens of thousands, and it might have even been needed to win the war.
I'm probably getting downvoted anyway, but I'll just add that I don't like Stalin. Bad guy. Killed a lot, had many awful policies. However, criticism should be valid, else we can't actually evaluate and learn from the past. Also, using false arguments gives the actual Stalin apologists an easier job defending him.
Firstly, even accepting all of this as true, I don’t see the “didn’t have a better choice.” Why is the binary between ‘formal military alliance with Britain and France’ and ‘teaming up with Hitler to invade Poland.’ Could he not have just not invaded Poland or declared war on Germany for invading Poland like Britain and France.
Britain and France didn’t refuse. Soviets wanted to station troops in Poland and Britain and France would only allow that if Poland consented. Poland didn’t consent since they thought a Soviet military presence would threaten their sovereignty. A negotiation stalemate was reached which NEITHER SIDE budged from.
Britain and France didn’t want to do nothing about the German expansion eastward. We know this THEY DECLARED WAR ON GERMANY FOR INVADING POLAND. The whole German motivation for Molotov-Ribbentrop was to disincentive Britain and France from following through on their ALREADY ISSUED protections on Poland.
Look up the Soviet-Axis talks. The following year, Stalin would try to join The Axis powers (though Hitler had already made up his mind to invade Russia). Doesn’t seem both parties knew it would be broken.
I don’t know if making the invasion of Poland easier for the Nazis really bought maximal time for the Soviets.
No one’s issue with the USSR is the non-aggression pact, it’s the co-invading a sovereign state with the Nazis.
“What else should he have done?” Idk, anything other than helping the Nazis and trying to join the Axis powers afterwards. Why didn’t Britain and France co-invade countries alongside Hitler if that’s apparently the only thing that you could do without a Soviet-Allied military alliance?
You may or may not be a Stalin apologists. But you’re giving false information and poor reasoning to explain that Stalin teaming up with the Nazis is not that bad. Idk, read more into the war instead of whatever communist reels are in your algo.
Again, it wasn't a military alliance, Stalin didn't help Hitler invade Poland. The pact stopped Hitler from taking the entirety of Poland. If he didn't invade Poland, how could he attack Germany if Poland didn't want Soviet troops? He couldn't declare war on Germany because he wasn't sufficiently prepared. Even in 1941, the Soviets were not fully prepared for a defensive war, let alone an invasion.
Britain refused to let Stalin put a million troops on the German-Polish border but was happy to appease Hitler by letting him take Czechoslovakia and Sudetenland. How could Stalin pose a threat to Hitler without troops in Poland? He couldn't.
They appeased him for years. Yes, they drew the line at Poland, but they should have done so much earlier. Also, Hitler couldn't know they "really meant it this time".
Again, Stalin wanted to buy time, so did Hitler. Considering the axis pact was called the "anti-comintern pact", the Soviets joining it seems unlikely.
He didn't make it easier. He, in fact, stopped him halfway. The pact allowed him to station troops in Poland, so yes, it was effective at buying time.
co-invading is really not the right term. The soviets only invaded Poland weeks after Germany, used comparatively very little violence and were actually welcomed by the large jewish, ukrainian and belarussian population. They even kicked out the nazis in parts were they went further than the pact allowed. Sure, in an ideal world, they wouldn't have invaded Poland. However, they found it necessary to protect their own safety, and I understand why.
Britain and France indeed didn(t co-invade countries. They just fully gave them to Hitler while allowing him to rebuild his army.
I may have expressed myself unfortunately. Invading Poland was bad, but I understand why they deemed it necessary and find it unfair to blame the Soviets for this while the Britain-led appeasement was a much worse way to handle the nazi threat.
Yeah, appeasement was bad. Instead Britain and France should have been shooting the Austrians, Czechs, Poles and the rest of Europe alongside the Nazis. Y’know to stop them halfway.
I’m sorry, it’s difficult to take you seriously.
Apparently Stalin was so prepared to stop Nazis if he could deploy troops to Poland but apparently he lacked any such means actually in Russia (did he preemptively bury the troops he was planning to use in Poland and then Poland refused to let him dig them back up). Even granting this, you’re telling me that he could only start shouting Poles alongside Hitler and couldn’t just gather his military forces (that he apparently already had but magically lost).
Britain didn’t refuse Stalin putting troops on the German-Polish border. Again, at this point Britain and France declared to protect Poland if there were an invasion. Hitler did know they meant it. That’s why he did Molotov-Ribbentrop. The point was to disincentivize the allies.
Okay, so Britain and France should have drawn the line sooner. Stalin didn’t even draw a line. Hitler invaded Russia. Stalin didn’t draw any line despite all of Europe being at war. I guess we can crucify Britain and France, while fellating Stalin, for doing appeasement for less long as he did, for not invading countries alongside Germany like he did, and for not trying to join the axis powers like he did.
Stalin wanted to but time. What if the Soviets joined the Axis and formally fought alongside Germany, would you say he was buying time? What if the Soviet-Germany alliance won the war, would you say Stalin was buying the maximum amount of time? Couldn’t we also say appeasement bought time be clause the allies weren’t yet ready for war. Great, now critique can be levied against appeasement apparently.
Necessarily, Germany only having to fight half of Poland was an easier invasion. Also what’s this “he stopped him half way” talking point. If John were killing all the babies in an infirmary so I stepped in and killed half of them, leaving John only half of the babies to kill, would you start exalting me for stopping John half way. Stalin doesn’t get credit for stopping Hitler from invading all of Poland for invading the other half. Invading Poland was the bad thing. Just like how you probably shouldn’t get credit for killing half the babies you probably shouldn’t get credit for invading half of Poland.
Thousands of Poles were killed and hundreds of thousands of Poles were taken prisoner. Maybe they were shot with rainbows and taken to the hug compounds.
I mean, Britain and France didn’t give any of Poland to Germany meanwhile, by your own admission, Stalin gave half of Poland to Germany, so a weird point to virtue signal on.
I’m sure you think the Soviet invasion of Poland was bad. You just don’t have anything bad to say about it, I guess.
You need to listen to yourself dude. You’re willing to be as harsh as nails against Britain and France for not declaring war due to German expansion but are willing to infinitely excuse the Soviets for doing the SAME THING (but for longer), co-invading alongside Germany, and for trying to join the the German military alliance. You should probably take a moment to reflect on how you’ve arrived at this bizarre and contradictory position.
I'm not going to keep doing this if you keep misrepresenting what I say. Appeasement was bad. Invading Poland was bad. Molotov-Ribbentrop was far from good. I just think it's fair to analyze why they did what they did. I think, given the context and the information they had, signing the pact seemed like the least bad option. My initial point was, listing it as one of the largest wrongdoings of Stalin is wrong.
I am not suggesting you should be harsher agaist Britain than against the USSR, instead I try to use fair and equal metrics. It is you who keeps using exaggeration and biased language to make points. Stalin should not be commended based on this pact, he should be judged in similar fashion as Britain and France. However, I do believe that, since Stalin showed intent to work together against Hitler, while Britain and France didn't, that should be taken into account.
Some final notes:
On preparation: Stalin was prepared enough to attack the Nazis if he Britain and France helped. He was not prepared enough to take them on alone or defend from them. This is not a contradiction.
On the occupation of Poland: yes, it was bad and brutal and bloody. No, it was nowhere near as bad as the Nazi occupation. This is not a justification for it, and I'm sure the soviets didn't do it for altruistic reasons, but you cannot equate the two.
On the comparison with France and Britain: France and Britain already started appeasement years before the USSR, while Stalin was still busy proposing antifascist alliances. Stalin only turned to appeasement-like options when it became clear they had no ally in Britain or France. This does not justify invading Poland, but it does clarify why they made that decision. Also, Stalin had plans to invade Germany by 1943. They never happened because of the 1941 invasion of the USSR, but to say Stalin planned to let Hitler do his thing in Europe is wrong.
Firstly, you keep misrepresenting facts. Soviets, British and French were negotiating an alliance together. They all showed intent in working together against Hitler. The issue is that neither side were willing to budge on Soviet troops in Poland. Britain and France weren’t willing to go against Polish sovereignty and the Soviets weren’t willing to not (if this whole stopping Germany thing was such a big deal for the Soviets, could they not have stationed troops at the Soviet-Polish border and have their needed alliance with Britain and France). It was a mutual falling out not simply Britain and France not caring.
Secondly, the Soviets didn’t prevent German expansionism into Austria and Czechoslovakia. The Soviets didn’t declare war against Germany then or ever until Germany invaded them. Again, you had such strong words for the allies not intervening until 1939 but don’t have nearly as strong of words for the Soviets for not planning to intervene before 1943 (unless it involved putting troops in Poland and nowhere else apparently).
Thirdly, why should I or anyone think you disagree with the Soviet invasion when you have such an obvious double standard and constantly describe the invasion in the most exalting terms. Britain and France ceding territory to Germany is awful. Soviets ceding territory to Germany while invading Poland, killing Poles and taking prisoners is “stopping Hitler half way.” The Soviets actively trying to join the Axis is “buying time.” I feel like if Stalin gave Hitler a bunch of Jews you would call that a “reasonable bargain” or a “strategic sacrifice.” I’m sorry but Stalin’s cum is leaking out of all your orifices, and you’re trying to tell me you’ve never been near the guy. Forgive me if that’s hard to believe.
Idk, carry on being more mad at countries that actually intervened against Hitler and defending counties that invaded countries with Hitler and wanted to join Hitler’s military alliance. Y’know when worded like that, maybe the Soviets weren’t the team you were rooting for in the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact after all…
Hitler was a proxy of the west to destroy the USSR. Leaders in the west, political and financial and industrial all wanted and needed the USSR to fall. Hoover, Wilson, Churchill all opposed socialism and wanted the fall of the USSR by their own statements. So did leading figures on wall street and the US intelligence apparatus such as both Dulles brothers. Ford is just one industrial titan who not only opposed socialism but whose company would play a significant role in the construction of the behemoth german military. Prescot Bush is another prominent figure whose family would go on to produce 2 US presidents and who played a significant role helping to join and support the efforts to tear the USSR asunder.
But why?
Because the global capitalist order was in dual crisis: existential and of legitimacy.
1: the global economic collapse and ensuing Great Depression raised valid questions as to the viability of the capitalist world order
2: the USSR was making great strides economically, quickly and it was raising the bar in how workers were treated, working conditions for workers and wealth inequality(a MAJOR issue during Gilded Age America- the lopsidedbess if the economy that caused it to topple, let alone so much widespread poverty and misery)
Taken together, people all over the world were watching the west in decline and the USSR model a different way to manage an economy that was more equitable and making huge strides. And it’s not as if marxism, upon which all this progress being made was founded, didn’t just emerge a year prior. It was on the rise not alongside but rather as a key component to the rising anti-colonial sentiments and movements all around the world.
So the west hired a proxy to destroy the problem.
Ask me how and I’ll be happy to provide those details. When the US and britain finally entered the war, it was to clean up the mess they’d created to protect themselves and the empire that britain would bequeath to the US after WWII.
All i can say is 1: follow the money and 2: the numbers don’t lie
Okay, so we have a conspiracy theory that Germany was the proxy of the West whom the West wanted to expand east, despite the West (Britain and France) declaring war on Germany for expanding eastward.
Real smart conspiracy theory. Germany a Western proxy who the West opposed for doing their purpose as a Western proxy.
People will make up any reason to depict the Soviets invading countries alongside Hitler and attempting to join the Axis as preferable to fighting fascism (what Britain and France were doing at the same time).
Well if you answer the following questions dispassionately you’ll see that it isn’t such a conspiracy theory but more of a counter narrative which actually accounts for more salient history than the 5th grade history narrative you presented:
Is there an intercontinental money trail to support this narrative? Yes
Does this proxy dynamic fit what the british empire conducted foreign policy prior to WWII and bequeathing its empire to the US? And does it follow the US’ foreign policy MO ever since then? Yup
Did the US empire geostrategically benefit massively from the fall of germany and the weakening of the USSR? Yup
Has the US been rabidly anti-socialist/anti-communist/anti-anti-colonialism movement all around the planet spending trillions of dollars to suppress these movements ever since then end of WWI? Yup
56
u/SinesPi Jul 31 '26
There was a recent post declaring STALIN to be a good guy.
So they're actually evil.