Putin Defends Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact

[Shibito]

https://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/...el/520513.html

http://news.yahoo.com/putin-defends-...174156837.html

https://www.google.no/search?q=putin...ntrop&start=10

I could post more links but i guess people would have enough with reading these.

What do people think of this?

[Deleted]

What do people think of this?

Zero surprise and the mandatory nodding in Putins
staged Tv-Rounds.

[Gumboy]

I mean, they were kind of forced to fight the nazi's alone if they didn't agree with them. They probably would have lost

Should we hate on america for taking so long to get involved? Or England for not instantly attacking them when they attacked poland?

[Felya]

I mean, they were kind of forced to fight the nazi's alone if they didn't agree with them. They probably would have lost

That's not true... Especially with hindsight being that Germany broke the pact...

Should we hate on america for taking so long to get involved? Or England for not instantly attacking them when they attacked poland?

Hate for doing it then or hate for thinking it was fine now that we have the power of hindsight?

[Rumred]

I mean, they were kind of forced to fight the nazi's alone if they didn't agree with them. They probably would have lost

Should we hate on America for taking so long to get involved? Or England for not instantly attacking them when they attacked poland?

Uh what? To attack the USSR they would of had to go threw Poland who's independence was guaranteed by France and the UK. The Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact gave hitler his assurance the USSR would not join in forcing him to fight a large two front war.

Had the USSR not signed the agreement Nazi Germany might not of invaded Poland as it was in no position to fight a significant two front war at that moment. The whole reason the invasion of Poland wasn't a issue is it only took a month to take it out of the war. The USSR was given a free reign by Germany to devour the Baltic states, parts of Romania,parts of Finland and eastern Poland in exchange for the agreement so it was less about Russia being afraid as being given a blank check in their eyes to do as they wish with nations conceded to their sphere of influence something Germany offered and the allies did not.

So yeah the USSR would not of fought alone if it had not signed the agreement. It did have to fight alone in any significant sense for awhile because it signed the pact. It gave Germany time to deal with its western front and then build up to invade Russia. In a world where the USSR doesn't sign the pact or even sides with the UK,France and Poland then the war is shorter and Russia loses ALOT less lives hell alot less lives on all sides are lost.

Also what are you talking about with the UK? It did go to war with Germany fairly quick after the invasion of Poland. It takes time to get troops into place and deployed more so back then. Its not like now where they can deploy troops in 24 hours. Poland fell within a month and only had one real port that was going to be very hard to get troops to anyway being in the baltic. A naval invasion of Germany was out of the question as up until later in the war Naval invasions were still unproven and the UK learned in WWI with its disaster in gallipoli. The only choice was to get troops to France. Their whole mindset was sit and grind Germany down as they did in WWI but germanys panzers would later prove the WWI mindset outdated.

As for America people DO hate on us for taking so long so yeah....at least we didn't sign a none aggression pact in exchange for being allowed to devour some of our neighbors as the price we charged.

[Felya]

Zero surprise and the mandatory nodding in Putins
staged Tv-Rounds.

Also, the revisionist history painting Stalin as misunderstood.

[Airlick]

Also what are you talking about with the UK? It did go to war with Germany fairly quick after the invasion of Poland. It takes time to get troops into place and deployed more so back then. Its not like now where they can deploy troops in 24 hours. Poland fell within a month and only had one real port that was going to be very hard to get troops to anyway being in the baltic. A naval invasion of Germany was out of the question as up until later in the war Naval invasions were still unproven and the UK learned in WWI with its disaster in gallipoli. The only choice was to get troops to France. Their whole mindset was sit and grind Germany down as they did in WWI but germanys panzers would later prove the WWI mindset outdated.

Poland wouldn't have been beaten in a month if USSR didn't invade. Half of polish troops were located in the east, and they have been ordered to not fight the Russians after 17th September. Some of them have then tried to retreat back to the polish-romanian border, which was part of the plan, some were destroyed by the Russians, and some have surrendered. That was 500k soldiers that could have been used against Germans if the USSR hadn't invaded. Poland was still capable of fighting the war for some time after 5th October (which was about the time that the last major battle was fought), but the leaders decided to surrender because the West pretty much broke the treaties. Let's just mention here that Germans alone had almost 2 millions soldiers engaged in the invasion.

UK and France weren't supposed to provide direct help for Poland in case of German attack. They were supposed to launch an immediate invasion on Germany in case it attacked. History tells us that Germans only had few inexperienced and horribly equipped divisions on the western borders, which the French and Brits could have easily rolled over if they wanted to. They were supposed to attack within 2 weeks. They haven't attacked in over a month. They declared war on Germany, but didn't take any real action.

[Independent voter]

So the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact was an agreement to divide up Poland between Germany and the Soviets?

[Sunseeker]

So what? Russia did what was in its best interests at the time. Why are people even bringing this up? It was the USSR 1939, the world was a different place and Stain's been dead for over half a century. Move along people.

[Nygma7]

So the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact was an agreement to divide up Poland between Germany and the Soviets?

Publicly, it was a non-aggression pact between Russia and Germany. Fairly understandable. Where it gets sinister is that there was a secret protocol whereby Germany and Russia divvied up eastern Europe between them into spheres of influence. Within a couple weeks of Germany's invading Poland, Russia invaded the eastern half and gobbled it up before moving on to the Baltics, part of Romania, and declaring war on Finland. Due to Finnish resistance they were forced to settle for "just" 10% of Finnish territory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov...ibbentrop_Pact

So what? Russia did what was in its best interests at the time. Why are people even bringing this up? It was the USSR 1939, the world was a different place and Stain's been dead for over half a century. Move along people.

They're bringing it up because it's relevant to the current situation in Ukraine and Europe's long-term peace. There was one aggressor that never (to my knowledge) apologized for nor repented their actions in WW2. Russia connived with Germany to gobble up territory then was shocked to find out there was no honor between thieves.

People fuss about the least thing with Japan or Germany today and lecture them about facing up to history. I agree, at some point you need to move on. But while the Axis powers have rejected war as a means of dealing with their neighbors, Russia has not. While Russia's leaders apparently see no issue with invading their neighbors because they're "in Russia's sphere of influence", Europe is going to have an unstable periphery.

A concern about ethnic Ukrainians and Belarusians had been proffered as the reason for the Soviet invasion of Poland, rather than Soviet expansionism.

Hmmm. A "concern" about ethnic relations as an excuse for invasion, occupation, and annexation. Gosh, sounds like ancient history.

[Shalcker]

Poland wouldn't have been beaten in a month if USSR didn't invade.

Poland would not have been beaten in a month if it wouldn't be full of opportunistic imperialist wanna-bees.
If Poles would agree to provide Soviet troops right to passage Hitler would be stopped at Czechoslovakia; instead Poles joined Hitler in dismembering it.
If Poles would agree to security pact they would had Soviet troops at exactly same positions they were after Hitler invasion - but on Polish side, with Poles having more leverage.

UK and France weren't supposed to provide direct help for Poland in case of German attack. They were supposed to launch an immediate invasion on Germany in case it attacked. History tells us that Germans only had few inexperienced and horribly equipped divisions on the western borders, which the French and Brits could have easily rolled over if they wanted to. They were supposed to attack within 2 weeks. They haven't attacked in over a month. They declared war on Germany, but didn't take any real action.

Which is exactly why Soviet Union had to do what they had done - they waited same two weeks and seen no action. Once they seen no action from West they had to try to use situation while they still could.

"Secret protocols" are fabrication.

[Nygma7]

Poland would not have been beaten in a month if it wouldn't be full of opportunistic imperialist wanna-bees.
If Poles would agree to provide Soviet troops right to passage Hitler would be stopped at Czechoslovakia; instead Poles joined Hitler in dismembering it.
If Poles would agree to security pact they would had Soviet troops at exactly same positions they were after Hitler invasion - but on Polish side, with Poles having more leverage.

Which is exactly why Soviet Union had to do what they had done - they waited same two weeks and seen no action. Once they seen no action from West they had to try to use situation while they still could.

"Secret protocols" are fabrication.

Yet another example of why it's important to acknowledge what went on back then. There are a lot of Putinbots out there denying history and excusing current Russian aggression. The Soviets denied the existence of the protocols for years, despite the fact that one party was defeated and documentation fell into Allied hands at the end of WW2. In 1989, they finally admitted their existence, while denying they in any way should be grounds for liberation of the Baltics which were still part of the USSR at the time.

Soviets Confirm Nazi Pacts Dividing Europe - From NYT, Aug. 19, 1989.

After decades of denial, the Kremlin conceded for the first time today that ''without a doubt'' the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany secretly and illegally divided Eastern Europe into spheres of influence before the start of World War II.

But Aleksandr N. Yakovlev, a member of the Communist Party Politburo and confidant of President Mikhail S. Gorbachev, insisted that the secret pact had no bearing on the present boundaries of the Soviet Union.

Also:

The official Soviet position is that the three areas became Soviet republics of their own free will, after their newly elected parliaments voted in July 1940 to request membership in the Soviet Union.

The elections, conducted after the Soviet Army invaded the three republics, are considered by many Western countries, including the United States, to be invalid as they were staged under military pressure and were weighted in favor of the Communists.

Sound familiar?

[Hyve]

It was the best course of action for Russia at the time. If they didn't, they would've been dragged into a War they didn't want or need. I'm not condoning what they did, but I see no reason to pretend that it's the most horrific thing to have come out of Russia in recent years.

Besides, one man's opinion on the matter means nothing really. Even if he is the President of Russia, so what? He isn't exactly traveling back in time to strengthen the bond of Nazi Germany & Russia.

[Sunseeker]

They're bringing it up because it's relevant to the current situation in Ukraine and Europe's long-term peace. There was one aggressor that never (to my knowledge) apologized for nor repented their actions in WW2. Russia connived with Germany to gobble up territory then was shocked to find out there was no honor between thieves.

Because Russia switched sides when it was a better deal and the Allies were MORE than happy to let a country they didn't like who had an army they did like throw themselves at Germany. There was never going to be an apology after the Allies accepted Russia switching sides. Expecting one now is frankly a waste of time.

But while the Axis powers have rejected war as a means of dealing with their neighbors, Russia has not. While Russia's leaders apparently see no issue with invading their neighbors because they're "in Russia's sphere of influence", Europe is going to have an unstable periphery.

The thing that amazes me is that Russia has been this way for well over 500 years. You'd think Europe would have figured this out by now but apparently they just keep thinking "oh Russia will change, I'm sure of it!"

[Nygma7]

There was never going to be an apology after the Allies accepted Russia switching sides. Expecting one now is frankly a waste of time.

Oh, I totally agree. This whole business of demanding apologies is absurd anyway. If an apology is given just because it's demanded or expected, it's not really an apology, is it?

A freely offered apology by Russia's leadership would presumably signify regret over what happened back then and determination not to do business like that in the future. Given instead that we have lamentations over the "greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century" and bitching about NATO offering to protect the Baltics from an attack from [ADVERSARY UNSPECIFIED] as happened in 1940, an apology is presumably the furthest thing from Putin's mind.

[Deleted]

The thing that amazes me is that Russia has been this way for well over 500 years. You'd think Europe would have figured this out by now but apparently they just keep thinking "oh Russia will change, I'm sure of it!"

Do you remember Prussia? Change is possible but painfull.

They were as "patriotic" as the US would like to be.

[Sunseeker]

Do you remember Prussia? Change is possible but painfull.

I don't think it changed quite the way you're suggesting.

And I don't think we can apply that model to Russia either.

[Deleted]

You know that Prussia is half Poland and the other half is now eastern Germany?
But yeah we cant apply that model but none the less change can happen and it can come fast

Prussia was hypernationalistic, hypermilitaristic and now you have modern germany there.

[Sunseeker]

You know that Prussia is half Poland and the other half is now eastern Germany?
But yeah we cant apply that model but none the less change can happen and it can come fast

Prussia was hypernationalistic, hypermilitaristic and now you have modern germany there.

Sure, it only took about a dozen continental wars and 2 world wars, and getting defeated in the latter of those things twice.

[Deleted]

Seems easy enough :P