Historical Help: Munich 1938

[Hereward]

Yes, Stalin was highly enthusiastic of an alliance pre-Munich, but it should not be forgotten that Stalin obviously intended to take eastern Europe as a prize for doing so, had demonstrated, at that point, a greater savagery towards the people under his control, and had also stabbed non-Soviet communists in the back during the Spanish Civil War. Also, the counterfactuals ignore the unintended consequences of such an almost pre-emptive alliance, i.e. what how would the German people have reacted to another perceived stab in the back. The issue was finally resolved because the Germans recognised their moral responsibility. Without that, you are essentially setting up a WWIII revenge scenario.

[Celestial]

Quote

Bold simply isn't true. Stalin, along with Churchill, was one of the earliest to see the danger in Hitler/rearming, and was sending repeated overtures to Britain and France to form an alliance.

You've made this point before and I recall it was thoroughly debunked by Horza.

So now only one thing I have to ask: what is the basis of this belief that Stalin would have honored his commitments? The bolded part you were replying to and your own refutation are not mutually exclusive. It's perfectly possible that Stalin saw indeed the danger of Hitler rearming and sent "repeated overtures to Britain and France" for an alliance. It is also perfectly possible that, even if those overtures were accepted, if/when fighting would have started between France/Britain and Germany, Stalin would have claimed that his army wasn't ready (or whatever) and let Germany and the Western powers fight it out, while he occupied chunks of Eastern Europe.

France/Britain and Soviet Union were NOT natural allies, and any negotiations were pretty pointless. Such alliance between powers fundamentally hostile to each others can work only if your potential ally has an interest not to see you lose. Otherwise, whatever treaty you sign is worthless.

Quote

Hitler's game plan of conquering the East for slave labour and natural resources was clearly laid out in MK, which Stalin had studied closely.

Problem was that to Britain and France the USSR wasn't much preferred to the Nazis (if at all) and so they preferred to aim the German gun everyone knew was being loaded towards Stalin (they'd read MK too). Hence Munich.

Seriously? You know who else is targeted in Mein Kampf? France. I took the liberty of checking Mein Kampf himself instead of relying on hearsay like others. Here is a excerpt: "The future goal of our foreign policy ought not to involve an orientation to the East or the West, but it ought to be an Eastern policy which will have in view the acquisition of such territory as is necessary for our German people. To carry out this policy we need that force which the mortal enemy of our nation, France, now deprives us of by holding us in her grip and pitilessly robbing us of our strength. Therefore we must stop at no sacrifice in our effort to destroy the French striving towards hegemony over Europe."

Another: "By the winter of 1922-23 the intentions of the French must already have been known for a long time back. There remained only two possible ways of confronting the situation. If the German national body showed itself sufficiently tough-skinned, it might gradually blunt the will of the French or it might do--once and for all--what was bound to become inevitable one day: that is to say, under the provocation of some particularly brutal act of oppression it could put the helm of the German ship of state to roundabout and ram the enemy. That would naturally involve a life-and-death-struggle. And the prospect of coming through the struggle alive depended on whether France could be so far isolated that in this second battle Germany would not have to fight against the whole world but in defence of Germany against a France that was persistently disturbing the peace of the world."

A third: "Only when the Germans have taken all this fully into account will they cease from allowing the national will-to-life to wear itself out in merely passive defence, but they will rally together for a last decisive contest with France. And in this contest the essential objective of the German nation will be fought for. Only then will it be possible to put an end to the eternal Franco-German conflict which has hitherto proved so sterile. Of course it is here presumed that Germany sees in the suppression of France nothing more than a means which will make it possible for our people finally to expand in another quarter."

Another: "Finally, we must be quite clear on the following point: France is and will remain the implacable enemy of Germany. It does not matter what Governments have ruled or will rule in France, whether Bourbon or Jacobin, Napoleonic or Bourgeois-Democratic, Clerical Republican or Red Bolshevik, their foreign policy will always be directed towards acquiring possession of the Rhine frontier and consolidating France's position on this river by disuniting and dismembering Germany."

Your argument has absolutely no ground to stand on, because, if you check the primary source (somewhich which it seems you did not do), it results that Soviet Union was not first on Hitler's hit list. France was. While Hitler clearly expressed his intention to expand Germany towards east, he was rational enough to understand that France was not going to sit idly by while he conquered the whole Eastern Europe and Russia, because a Germany in control of that much land and all its resources could have crushed France like a bug.

Second, Munich wasn't about aiming any gun anywhere. The whole shtick about Munich being some nefarious plot to direct Germany against the Soviet Union is nothing but soviet propaganda. Czechoslovachia was not an adequate launchpad for an invasion of Russia anyway. If the goal was to goad Hitler into attacking Russia, why would England and France place themselves squarely in front of the German march towards east by giving security guarantees to Poland in 1939 and draw upon themselves the main German blow before the potential attack on USSR?

Chamberlain and Daladier might have been weak or cynical, but not demented.

Quote

Ideally those two would exhaust one another in a costly war and then the Western Powers could clean up. 

Perhaps. Why do you think that the same ideas weren't harboured by Stalin, though?

Quote

the idea that Stalin was indifferent to Hitler's threat or undesirous of containment alliances earlier is a 180 from the truth.

Why do you never consider the possibility that Stalin's intentions all along was to goad France/Britain and Germany into a mutually destructive conflict and then he could clean up?

If you take Mein Kampf at face value, then Stalin has nothing to worry about, at least for a while: it is stated there pretty clearly that Hitler intends to settle the score with France first and in 1938-1939 no one could have known how long such a war would last. From your logic it results that Stalin's first and foremost desire was to save France's ass.

What exactly is the rationale for attributing more honest intentions to a well-known mass murderer, who deceived and murdered not only his party comrades, but even his own family members?

[Celestial]

29 minutes ago, Hereward said:

Yes, Stalin was highly enthusiastic of an alliance pre-Munich, but it should not be forgotten that Stalin obviously intended to take eastern Europe as a prize for doing so, had demonstrated, at that point, a greater savagery towards the people under his control, and had also stabbed non-Soviet communists in the back during the Spanish Civil War. Also, the counterfactuals ignore the unintended consequences of such an almost pre-emptive alliance, i.e. what how would the German people have reacted to another perceived stab in the back. The issue was finally resolved because the Germans recognised their moral responsibility. Without that, you are essentially setting up a WWIII revenge scenario.

I repeat the same question I asked Arryn. I see often such statements, that Stalin wanted an anti-Hitler alliance etc. Let's assume that Britain and France agreed and signed whatever Stalin asked them to. Then Hitler flies into a rage and attacks France/Britain in retaliation. What do you think Stalin would do? Order the Red Army to enter Poland and fight Germany in order to save France from defeat?

Stalin also signed the Atlantic Charter where he agreed that all people had a right to self-determination. Did he honored that commitment? No.

Stalin signed a non-aggression pact with Japan in april 1941, which expired in april 1946. Soviet Union denounced the pact on 5 April 1945, but Molotov confirmed to the Japanese ambassador that it was to remain in force until April 1946, as originally agreed. In August 1945 Soviet Union attacked Japan, in direct violation of the treaty.

Stalin constantly did not keep his word. Then what is all the noise about good Stalin who really, really wanted to sign an alliance to stop Hitler, but evil Britain and France did not agree and instead tried to aim a big, bad pistol at the Soviet Union?

[Hereward]

I think you missed the rest of the post where I said that Stalin's enthusiasm was motivated by a desire to expand his own empire and that he had already demonstrated both his own savagery and his inability to be trusted.

[Celestial]

2 minutes ago, Hereward said:

I think you missed the rest of the post where I said that Stalin's enthusiasm was motivated by a desire to expand his own empire and that he had already demonstrated both his own savagery and his inability to be trusted.

I think I might have misinterpreted your words, but, in that context, the word "alliance" should be taken with a grain of salt. An alliance has to be mutually beneficial. Britain/France acquiescing completely to Stalin's terms was not.

[Hereward]

OK, then substitute alliance for pact or understanding. My point remains the same.

[Horza]

8 hours ago, James Arryn said:

Problem was that to Britain and France the USSR wasn't much preferred to the Nazis (if at all) and so they preferred to aim the German gun everyone knew was being loaded towards Stalin (they'd read MK too). Hence Munich. Ideally those two would exhaust one another in a costly war and then the Western Powers could clean up. 

Weird, because right after Munich both French and British rearmament spending accelerated even faster, with a huge emphasis on Britain's part on fighter aircraft and radar. It's almost like they were anticipating some kind of... war, with a power much closer to them than the USSR... There's also that weird episode you keep somehow overlooking where they extended their full diplomatic support to Poland in April 1939.

 

Quote

It was only after Munich when Stalin read the writing on the wall and then decided a deal with Hitler was better than no deal with anyone given Russia's military situation at the time, and that lead to Molotov-Ribbentrop. Then Stalin decided he and Hitler were soul brothers, and the rest went down as we know, but the idea that Stalin was indifferent to Hitler's threat or undesirous of containment alliances earlier is a 180 from the truth.

Munich took place over September-October 1938 while the Pact was signed in August 1939. I guess Stalin was a slow reader and he only fully processed it while hosting the Drax mission?