"The Soviet Role in World War II: Realities and Myths" Topic

"It would be much better not only for the history of Russia but also for the country's future if Russian leaders were willing to permit—and even encourage—a much more even-handed discussion of the Soviet Union's role in the war. MARK KRAMER

This history is important to bear in mind nowadays because the Soviet Union's role in the war has been obscured in myths—myths that arose initially during the Soviet period and that have multiplied in recent years under Vladimir Putin. One of the more disingenuous myths, fostered last year and earlier this year by Putin, is that Poland started the war—a bizarre claim that turns history on its head. Another myth is that the Soviet Union's role in the Second World War began on 22 June 1941, when the Wehrmacht attacked the USSR. In reality, the Soviet Union was a leading participant from the very start, colluding for nearly two years with Nazi Germany.

The brutality of the Soviet occupation of eastern Poland, including massacres and widespread rapes, is a taboo subject in Russia nowadays under legislation adopted in May 2014 at Putin's behest. The legislation allows criminal charges, punishable by up to five years of prison as well as large fines, to be brought against anyone in Russia who "spreads information on military and memorial commemorative dates related to Russia's defense that is clearly disrespectful of society" or who "spreads intentionally false information about the Soviet Union's activities during World War II." Russian scholars who wish to investigate and write about sensitive topics, such as the collaboration of Russians with the Nazi occupiers or the atrocities committed by Soviet troops, are deterred from doing so lest they be sent to prison. Prosecutions and convictions have indeed occurred…"

link

Armand

Anyone claiming WW2 began on Aug 23 1939 does not deserve a seconds indulgence

Some context around the 23-August-1939 date…

Wiki – Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact 1939

Eric Blair Wiki – ORWELL, George 1949 – 1984 is probably spinning in his grave about the ruzzian legislation:

Wiki – Russia law May-2014

There is no 'context' that can change the date of the start of WW2

Can anyone remind me of the 3 nations (as in 1, 2 & 3 ) who dismembered Czechoslovakia between them. Nation 1 is easy-Germany but who were 2 & 3 ?

mkenny +1
The USSR was prepared to send a 30,000-strong corps with tanks and aircraft to defend Czechoslovakia, its official military ally, but Poland refused to allow these troops to pass through its territory. Moreover, she herself took an active part in the division of Czechoslovakia, occupying, at the same time as the Nazis, one of its most industrially developed regions – the Tesin region. This is a fact.

"Another myth is that the Soviet Union's role in the Second World War began on June 22, 1941, when the Wehrmacht attacked the USSR. In reality, the Soviet Union was a leading participant from the very start, colluding for nearly two years with Nazi Germany."
Ha… The USSR needed technology and equipment to prepare for war. The West refused to provide them, and, moreover, handed over the USSR's only European ally to Hitler for devourment. Therefore, the USSR had no reason to believe in a joint fight against Hitler. It intended to fight alone, and on two fronts. Before this, the USSR had two significant conflicts with Japan. So, the USSR did indeed enter World War II earlier – from July 7, 1937, to June 22, 1941. China received enough weapons and military equipment from the USSR to equip 20 divisions, including tanks and aircraft. And Soviet pilots launched an air strike on Japanese territory (a military base in Taiwan) as early as February 23, 1938. So when did the USSR enter the war and on whose side?

The war that was to become WW2 started with the Marco Polo Bridge incident. It became a world war when the UK and France entered in August 1939.

context

My bad – should have been:

information

Thanks

Armand

mkenny +1
The USSR was prepared to send a 30,000-strong corps with tanks and aircraft to defend Czechoslovakia, its official military ally, but Poland refused to allow these troops to pass through its territory. Moreover, she herself took an active part in the division of Czechoslovakia, occupying, at the same time as the Nazis, one of its most industrially developed regions – the Tesin region. This is a fact.

1. Poland rejected the request, but Romania supported it. So Soviet planning was to send a Motorized/armored expeditionary force through Romania and send in paratroops and aircraft immediately.

2. Yes, Poland and Hungary both opportunistically sided with Hitler against the Czechs in 1939 to partition parts away. So Poland can't really claim to be just an innocent victim.

HOWEVER, the USSR made a PACT with the Nazis to invade and divide up Poland and create mutually accepted Spheres of Influence. Indications are that BOTH Stalin and Hitler expected to backstab the other at some point, and Hitler got the first punch in -- which surprised Stalin and threw him into a multi-day funk during the opening days of Barbarossa.

Good reminder….

Armand

I doubt anyone thought the Molotov – Ribbentrop Pact was anything but a stopgap. Hitler's entire philosophy was based around destroying the Bolshevik Revolution (a so called Jewish conspiracy) and Stalin had spent years trying, unsuccessfully, to build an anti-fascist coalition link . They both had it in for each other

Cheers,
John

Both were demons playing the game of mirrors… their political parties too… the difference is that fortunately Hitler and his henchmen were eliminated while Stalin and his legacy persist to this day…

Armand

…yep, Tango01, zombie communism shambling from the graveyard of the Soviet Union…

You have said it…

Armand

Can we be honest…about everyone. In the 1930s Nazi Germany was the great destabilizing factor in Europe. The choice other nations had was whether to resist, to accommodate, to keep their heads down and hope it blew over, or to profit from Germany's actions.

In the case of the U.S.S.R. we in the west tend to focus on the fact Stalin sought to profit from Hitler's efforts both in the September 1939 to 1940 time frame and again in the 1944 to 1945 time frame. It's therefore fair to say Barbarossa doesn't turn make the Soviets as pure as the snow. OTOH I haven't waded through Soviet archives, but what I've seen suggests the Soviets were genuine in their willingness to join a coalition that would stop Hitler in the years leading up to August 1939. I agree there was a risk of what might happen once Stalin got his troops securely lodged somewhere west of the pre-WW2 Soviet border. However we are talking about the risk of what Stalin might do v. the certainty of what Hitler was doing.

Soviet involvement in 1938 on behalf of the Czechs and 1939 on behalf of the Poles had the potential to be a game changer. So if my supposition is correct it is only fair to ask what other nations and other national leaders did or didn't do which led to the decision of the Soviets to align with Germany in August 1939.

That's how I was thinking about it Bill N. it's not about painting Stalin as some kind of saviour but I think he was more realistic about the threat represented by Hitler than, say, Neville Chamberlain. And he did try to build an alliance to contain the threat. It seems to me the west was more concerned about the threat of (mostly already purged) bolshevism than they were about Nazism.
Cheers,
John

I would go with 1931 as a start date myself.

Since WWI was just an Armistice isn't WWII really a continuation of WWI?

Wolfhag

The argument for 1931 goes:
1918 to 1939 was 21 years so hardly a short pause.
Japans success in manchuria emboldened first mussolini then Hitler.

WWI was ended by the Treaty of Versailles, But, in practice, many would agree with Wolfhag.

Armistices, ceasefires, treaties are funny things and ending wars a complicated business. Korea and Vichy France are two classics

Agree…

Armand