Figure 1.--. |
|
A Russian reader has provided his assessment of the NAZI-Soviet Non-Agression Pact. He discusses many of the same issues that we present here. It is interesting to view a Russian view of the Pact. Our reader makes many valid points, although we take issue with some of his assessment.
Однако делегации Франции и Англии не имели
достаточных полномочий для заключения договоров и всячески затягивали
переговоры, ссылаясь на различные причины. Главы государств Франции и
Англии в тот период не были заинтересованы в союзе с СССР против
Германии. Они надеялись на то, что коммунистический строй в СССР будет
стерт немецкой агрессией, надо только было сделать так, чтобы Гитлер
повернул свои войска на восток а не на запад. Нападение на Польшу уже
было неизбежным (после Австрии и Чехословакии Польша была очередным
шагом Гитлера). Параллельно с переговорами с Англией и Францией,
Советский Союз предложил Польше для предотвращения немецкой агрессии
ввести в Польшу советские войска и разместить их на границе с
Германией. Это наверняка остановило бы амбиции Гитлера. Но Польша,
понадеявшись на союз с Англией и Францией отказалась от этого
предложения. Вполне логично предположить, что Польша будет разгромлена
в короткие сроки и следующей страной для нападения станет Советский
Союз. Это как раз было бы самым приемлемым результатом для тогдашних
правительств Англии и Франции. Видя, что положительных результатов в
переговорах с Францией и Англией не будет, Сталин, стремясь получить
больше времени для подготовки к началу войны, сделал тот ход, который
так не понравился всем и в настоящее время является предметом больших
дискуссий. Он обратил свой взор на Германию. Вполне логично с его
стороны, ведь если против противника нельзя выставить объединенные
силы, то лучше с ним подружиться и тем самым выиграть время. А может
не только время, НО КОЕ ЧТО БОЛЬШЕЕ. В результате очень быстро, в
течении нескольких дней, между СССР и Германи ей был подписан Договор
о ненападении, иначе его знают как пакт Молотова-Риббентропа. Много
говорят о секретном протоколе этого договора, где между Германией и
СССР распределялись зоны влияния. В результате этого Советские войска
присоединили к СССР Прибалтийские Литву, Латвию, Эстонию, а также
Западную Белоруссию, Западную Украину и Буковину. Все без исключения
рассматривают это как агрессию Советского Союза. Но если копнуть еще
глубже в историю, то Вы увидите, что эти земли были отторгнуты от
Советской России по результатам 1 мировой войны. Тогда после свержения
царя молодая Советская Россия чтобы выжить согласилась на отторжение
этих территорий, лишь бы прекратить войну. Исторически даже Польша
перед революцией входила в состав Российской Империи, а также все
прибалтийские страны и Финляндия. Финляндия получила свою
независимость и государственность из рук молодого Советского
Правительства в 1918 году, из рук самого Ленина. Кстати, руководитель
Финляндии в 30-40 годах барон Маннергейм был в прошлом офицером
царской русской армии.
Таким образом присоединение западных областей Белоруссии и Украины,
прибалтийских государств в то время рассматривалось всего лишь как
возвращение своих ранее потерянных территорий. У этого действия был
еще один огромный плюс - западные границы Советского Союза значительно
отодвинулись. Представьте себе, что присоединения этих областей не
произошло. Тогда они оказались бы занятыми Гитлером. А с началом войны
в 1941 году его танковым армиям дойти до Москвы было бы гораздо легче
и очередного германского блицкрига было бы не избежать. Вряд ли бы
конечно Советский Союз сложил оружие и сдался, наш народ не сломит
даже потеря Москвы (как это было в 1812 году в войне с Наполеоном), но
кто знает где бы тогда мы остановили немцев? На линии Волги? Или может
быть на Урале? А таким образом западные границы были намного
отодвинуты, что в начале войны конечно же сыграло свою положительную
роль.Война с Финляндией была тоже попыткой отодвинуть границы СССР
подальше от Ленинграда. До этой войны граница с Финляндией проходила
почти в пригородах Ленинграда. А так как Финляндия и Гемания были
союзниками, то в этой войне также была необходимость в ТО время.
Согласно пакта Молотова-Риббентроппа, Германия не ввязывалась в эту
северную войну, хотя помогала Финляндии поставками стратегических
материалов.
Почему я говорю, что поставки из Британии были не совсем
бескорыстными? Про оплату золотом я уже говорил. Я пока не говорю о
том, что поставляемые самолеты из Британии на Советский фронт были
устаревшими, слабыми (вообще-то об этом я писал Вам в прошлом своем
сообщении, как впрочем устаревшими были и поставляемые из Британии
танки. В свое время мы коснемся этих тем ближе. Но Британии жизненно
выгодным было чтобы война на востоке продолжалась как можно дольше,
иначе бы покончив с советскими вооруженными силами Гитлер неминуемо
вторгся бы на Британские острова. А Германского натиска Британия не
выдержала бы даже при массированной помощи США. Вот именно поэтому
Британии было выгодно, чтобы Советский Союз продолжал сражаться как
можно дольше. Именно поэтому и пошли конвои с вооружением и техникой
из Британии в Россию. Длительная война ослабляла бы обе стороны
конфликта - и Германию и Россию, вернее Советский Союз. Сама Британия
в те годы практически не вела активных боевых действий с
использованием своих наземных войск, сохраняя свои силы и обновляя
свою боевую технику, устаревшую отправляя "безвозмездно" на
Советско-Германский фронт.
Вот высказываение премьер-министра У. Черчилля:"Я бы хотел видеть
германскую армию в могиле, а русскую - на операционном столе..." И это
в период когда шли кровавые бои. Не объясняет ли такая фраза Черчилля
очень многое?
А вот высказывание Гарри Трумэна, сначала вице-президента, а после
смерти Рузвельта - Президента Соединенных Штатов: "Если мы увидим, что
выигрывает Германия, то нам следует помогать России, а если выигрывать
будет Россия, то нам следует помогать Германии. И пусть они убивают
друг друга как можно дольше..." Вы, Dennis, читали такие высказывания
столь высокопоставленного в те годы человека?
В истории Lend Lease много подводных камней, а мы знаем лишь те,
которые выступают на поверхность. При всем этом Lend Lease в целом
сыграл большую положительную роль в борьбе с гитлеровскими войсками,
потому что был, как у нас говорят, в том месте и в то время, когда это
было нужно. Не вдаваясь сейчас в то, что поставляемое вооружение не
всегда было новых образцов, но кроме вооружения по Lend Lease в
Советский Союз было поставлено много чего другого, что значительно
облегчило бремя войны советскому народу. Но об этом мы поговорим в
другой раз.
И еще прошу Вас всё же различать поставки по Lend Lease, что было
идеей США, и поставки из Британии, которые к Lend Lease в большей
своей массе отношения не имели. На мой взгляд это совершенно разные
вещи.
Here is our preliminary translation of our reader's Russian text. This is a rough computer-generated translation. We hope to eventually improve this translation. We agree with much of his assessment, but take issue with some aspects of his essay.
Stalin reasonably evaluated threats emanating from Germany for entire peace. Certainly, first of all he thought as to secure the Soviet Union from this threat. It was clear that sooner or later THE USSR and Germany would be at war.
The USSR in that period not was not prepared for war with
Germany. You know about the "purges" in the Soviet Union during the 1930s. Enormous destructive repressions underwent the Red Army and the Red Navy. Three of those executed were marshals, 90% of highest officers (Generals,
Admirals and political workers -komisarov) were subjected to
repressions and killed or confined to camps. According to different estimations from 75% to 85% of senior officers with ranks from the Major to Colonel were also punished. In military units such situation occurred, that regiments commanded
the officers in the title of captain, which corresponds only to company component, and by divisions and brigades often commanded Lieutenant Colonels. Certainly the level of their training in no way corresponded to that required. Often these were even semi-iliterate people who in World War I served in
the Tsarist army as non-comissioned officers and sergeant-majors. The end of the purges occurred exactly at 1938-1939, when Germany [?already declared about itself to peace.] The Soviet Union could not have gone to war with this army. The war would have been lost despite the heroism of the Soviet people. [HBC note: We believe our Russian reader is correct that the purges did weaken the Soviet military. What we do not understand is why Stalin would have so devestated the military officer corps at a time in which Hitler was rapidly
expanding the German military.]
You know that in 1939 the Soviet Union was negotiating
with France and England for the purpose of an alliance against the possible Hitler aggression. However, the delegations of France and England did not have sufficient authority to conclude a treaty and in every way dragged out the negotiations, citing various different reasons. The Heads of State of France and England at that time were not interested in an alliance with the USSR against Germany. They hoped that the Communist system in the USSR would be erased by German aggression; they needed only to ensure that Hitler would turn his forces to the east and not to the west. [HBC note: I think our Russian reader is essentially correct here. I do not think that the British and French coldly calculated and attempted to promote a war between Germany and the Soviet Union, but I think the French would have been willing to sit out a war between the Soviets and NAZIs behind the Maginot Line. The British at the time did not have a large enough army to move against the Germans.]
The attack on Poland was already inevitable (after Austria and Czechoslovakia, Poland was next in line for Hitler). At the same time as the talks with England and France, the Soviet Union offered to send Soviet troops into Poland for to prevent German aggression and to place them on the border with Germany. This would probably have stopped Hitler's ambitions. But Poland, having put its trust in the alliance with England and France, declined this proposal. It was completely logical to assume that Poland would be destroyed in short order and the next country for invasion would be the Soviet Union.
This would have been the most acceptable result for the governments of England and France of the time. [HBC note: It is true that Stalin made this offer to the Poles. But Soviet entry into Poland was from the Polish point of view little better than NAZI invasion. Both Stalin and Hitler in 1939 wanted to destroy Polish national identity. Stalin demonstrated this with brutal actions by the NKVD in the eastern sector of Poland that the Soviets eventually occupied (September 1939)].
Seeing that there would be no positive results from negotiations with France and England, Stalin, attempting to obtain more time to prepare for war, took that step, which was so disliked by all and which is still the object of great discussions. He turned his gaze to Germany. It was completely logical from his point of view; if you cannot deploy united forces against your enemy, then it is better to make friends with him and thus gain time. And perhaps not only time, but something more. As a result, very quickly, in the course of a few days, a nonaggression treaty between the USSR and Germany was signed, known as the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.
Much is spoken about the secret protocol of this agreement, where Germany and the USSR were assigned zones of influence. As a result of this, Soviet troops annexed to the USSR the Baltic states of Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and also West Belorussia, West
Ukraine and Bukovina. Everyone, without exception, considers this as aggression of the Soviet Union. But if you dig still deeper into history, then you will see that these lands were torn away from Soviet Russia as a result of World War I. Then, after the overthrow of the tsar, young Soviet Russia agreed to give up these territories in order to survive, just to end the war. Historically, even Poland, before the revolution, was part of the Russian Empire, as were all the Baltic countries and Finland. Finland obtained its independence and statehood from the hands of the young Soviet government in 1918, from Lenin himself. By the way, the leader of Finland in the 30’s and 40’s, Baron Mannerheim was previously an officer of the tsarist Russian army. Thus the annexation of the western regions of Belorussia and Ukraine, the Baltic states at that time was considered to be merely the return of previously lost territories
[HBC note: Our Russian reader is correct that the series of aggressions carried out by Stalin during the early phase of World War I were limited to territory that had been paet of the Tsarist Empire. We disagree, however, that this justified the Soviet aggression. The areas seized (part of Finland, the Baltic Republics, and Bessarabia were areas populated by non-Russians who did not want to be part of the Soviet Union. Eastern Poland was more complicated as there was a substantial population of Lithuanians, White Russians, and Ukranians who were not happy with Polish rule. I do not know, however, that they were anxious for Soviet rule.]
In this action was one additional enormous plus - the Western borders of the Soviet Union moved considerably. Suppose that these regions had not been annexed. Then they would have been occupied by Hitler. And from the beginning of the war in 1941 it would have been significantly easier for his Panzers to
reach Moscow and it would have been impossible to resist the German Blitzkrieg. It is unlikely that the Soviet Union would have laid down its arms and surrendered; our people will not break even at the loss of Moscow (as in the 1812 war with Napoleon), but who knows where we would have stopped the Germans? On the line of the Volga? Or maybe in the Urals? But the western borders having been considerably moved played a significant positive role. [HBC note: It may well be that the buffer Stalin created played a role in stopping the Soviets before Moscow and Lenningrad. It did mean that the Wehrmacht had further to go. We have seen military assessments, however, that to occupy these new territories that the Red Army was moved west out of prepared defenses and thus was more vulnerable to the NAZI Blitkrieg when it came.]
The Winter War with Finland was also an attempt to move the borders of the USSR further from Leningrad. Before this war the boundary with Finland passed almost through the suburbs of Leningrad. But since Finland and Germany were allies, this war was necessary at that time. In accordance with the Molotov –Ribbentropp pact, Germany did not get involved in this northern war, although it helped Finland with deliveries of strategic materials. [HBC note: Here we disagree with our Russian reader. Finland and NAZI Germany were not allies. Finland only turned to the NAZIs after the Soviet Union invaded (Winter War). And even so they never sined the Axis Pact. Notably, while the Finns joined in on Barbarissa (June 1941), they did not advance significantly beyond the territory that the Soviets occupied. This meant that they did not press an attack on Lenningrad. Had the Finns done so, it is likely that the NAZIs would have been able to take the city.]
Why do I say that the deliveries from Britain were not entirely unselfish? I have already spoken about the payment in gold. I am not yet going to speak about the aircraft supplied from Britain to the Soviet Front being obsolete, weak (in general I wrote to you about this in my last letter, and the tanks supplied by Britain were obsolete too.) Длительная война ослабляла бы обе стороны
конфликта - и Германию и Россию, вернее Советский Союз.
We will touch on these themes in their own time. But to Britain it was a vital advantage for the war in the east to continue as long as possible; otherwise having finished with the Soviet armed forces, Hitler would inevitably have invaded the British Isles. But Britain could not have withstood German pressure even with massive aid from the USA. For this very reason it was profitable for Britain for the Soviet Union to continue to battle for as long as possible. This is the reason why convoys of armament and equipment were sent from Britain to Russia. A long war would have weakened both sides in the conflict – both Germany and Russia, or rather, the Soviet Union. Britain itself during those years in carried out practically no active military action, with its ground forces, preserving its forces and renewing its combat technology, sending the obsolete material "gratis" to the Soviet-German Front. Here is a quote from Prime Minister W. Cherchill “I would like to see the German army in the grave, and the Russian - on the operating table..." And this at a time when bloody combat was taking place. Does this phrase of Churchill not explain a great deal?
[HBC note: HBC is not familiar with British war aid to the Soviet Union. We know the British did rush material to the British during the critical Winter of 1941-42 through the at times almost suisidal Arctic Convoys. As to the quality of the arms shipped we just do not know. It is true that Churchill was very critical about the Soviet Union, but given Stalin's terrible deeds in and outside the Soviet Union did not he have good reason. These statements were made before the NAZI invasion. We wonder what was Stalin and other Soviet officials saying about Britain, France, and America before the War? We suspect very hostile things were being said. A British reader takes issue with some of the comments about the Soviet view of Britain's role in the War.]
And here is a statement of Garry Truman, initially Vice President, and after the death of Roosevelt - the President of the United States: "If we see, that Germany is winning, then we should help Russia, and if Russia is winning, then we should help Germany. And let them kill each other as long as possible..." Have you, Dennis, read such statements of person of such high rank at that time? In the history of Lend Lease there are many underwater rocks, and we know only those, which protrude to the surface. [HBC note: It is true that Truman did say this. He was, however, not the Vice President, but a senator. More importantly he said it in 1941 soon after the NAZI invasion. At the time because of the Soviet actions against neigboring states (Finland, the Baltic Republics, Poland, and Romania), the Soviet Union did not look much different than NAZI Germany.
There was some opposition in the Congress for making Lend Lease assistance available in the Soviet Union. But President Roosevelt secured authorization quickly. Again it is one thing to quote the statements of politicans who in a democratic society express a wide range of views. It is another thing to look at actions. The Soviet Union for nearly 2 years (August 1939-June 1941) supplied NAZI Germany with strategic materials. The United States even as a neutral country never did so and immeditely after the NAZI invasion began taking steps to supply the Soviet Union with war materials.]
In spite of all this, Lend Lease as a whole played a large positive role in the fight with Hitler’s armies, because it was, as we say, in the place and time that it was needed. Without going into the fact that the supplied armament was not always new models, but besides armament Lend Lease provided the Soviet Union with much, which considerably eased the burden of the war on the Soviet people. But we will talk about this another time. And again I ask you to distinguish between deliveries on Lend Lease, which was the idea of the USA from the deliveries from Britain, which for the most part had no relation to Lend Lease. These are completely different things in my view. [HBC note: I am not familiar with British aid at this time. I can speak to American aid. The Soviet Union was provided up to date equipment through Lend Lease, in part because American arms production before 1939 was very limited and there were not large stocks of old equipment available. The Air Cobra delivered to the Soviet Union was not one of the best American planes, but production lines were in place and it was available in 1942 and 43 and I understand the Red Air Force found it useful in a tank busting role. Other aircraft provide were the most modern available. The Soviets may have been disappointed in American tanks, but so were American tank crews. The Soviet T-34 was superior to American tanks until the Pershings arrived at the end of the War. One of the most valuable items delivered were trucks. (Studabaker etered the Russian language at this time.) Without the American trucks the Russian drive west would have been much slowed. Food (especially canned goods like spam) and supplies like blankets were also very important.]
Bogdanov. Victor, Email message, October 8, 2005.
Navigate the CIH WW II Baltic Section:
[Estonia]
[Latvia]
[Lithuania]
Navigate the Boys' Historical Clothing Web Site:
[Return to Non-Aggression Pact: Stalin's Calculations page]
[Return to Main NAZI-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact page]
[Return to Main Soviet communism page]
[About Us]
[Biographies]
[Campaigns]
[Children]
[Countries]
[Deciding factors]
[Diplomacy]
[Geo-political crisis]
[Economics]
[Home front]
[Intelligence]
[Resistance]
[Race]
[Refugees]
[Technology]
[Bibliographies]
[Contributions]
[FAQs]
[Images]
[Links]
[Registration]
[Tools]
[Return to the Main World War II page]