Posted on 09/17/2025 10:09:11 AM PDT by marcusmaximus
Eighty-six years ago, Soviet forces crossed into Poland from the east, executing their part of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact; as in other campaigns both before and since, the Kremlin would follow a familiar playbook, using propaganda to mask their aggression and frame themselves as liberators.
Having fought gallantly since Germany launched its Blitzkrieg on September 1, 1939, Poland’s hopes of survival crumbled on the morning of September 17 when approximately half a million Soviet troops poured over the border, backed up by almost 5,000 armored vehicles and 2,000 aircraft.
Now fighting a war on two fronts, the country was left scrambling to defend itself in the face of impossible odds—but in truth, its fate had been sealed weeks earlier.
The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, signed in Moscow on August 23, 1939, had been presented as a non-aggression pact between Germany and the Soviet Union, but in reality, it included a secret annex that outlined the carve-up of Poland.
(Excerpt) Read more at tvpworld.com ...
I once took a history course where the professor looked at historical events from the point of view of the “other guy”.
In regards to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact:
The West did nothing when Hitler reoccupied the Rhineland.
The West did nothing when Hitler occupied Austria.
The West did nothing when Hitler occupied the Sudetenland
The West did nothing when Hitler occupied the rest of Czechoslovakia.
So maybe Stalin thought he’d be next, and the West would do nothing. So better to ally with Hitler than be his next victim.
Note the “maybe” there. The professor was just proposing a theory for discussion. By the way, he was a stanch anti-communist. He had no respect for Stalin or the USSR.
What did your enlightened professor give as an excuse for why Stalin ordered the Katyn massacre?
The professor was asking the students to see things from Stalin’s view. This is a valid inquiry as to why Stalin did what he did. Anyone who wants to understand why people do what they do needs to ask about the context in which they make decisions. This is simply a teacher teaching good historical analysis.
> What did your enlightened professor give as an excuse for why Stalin ordered the Katyn massacre? <
As I noted earlier, this professor was a fierce anti-communist. So it is a bit misleading to call him “enlightened”. He was an old school anti-communist. Probably none of them left in universities today.
The Karyn massacre was not discussed. I’m sure that was because of time. The course covered the entire 20th century, not just the eastern front in WW2.
So as horrible as the Karyn massacre was, it was not a major event like, say, Pearl Harbor was.
So why did Stalin order the Katyn massacre?
Sorry, Katyn not Karyn, in my post #5. Autocorrect sure messed that one up.
Did he say why the Japs bombed Pearl Harbor?
Hitler offered the Soviet Union half of Poland, the Brits and French didn’t. That’s why Stalin signed with Hitler.
Your professor was right to a degree.
Stalin was buying time. He just purged most of his best generals, so he knew it wouldn’t be until 1943, before the Red Army would be ready to launch an offensive war.
The other thing about the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, is that it came just right Germany, Japan and Italy signed the Anti-Comintern Pact. And to put it mildly, the Japs were not happy at all with the Pact.
Then Zhukov kicks Japan’s ass at Khalkin Gol, and the Japs signed their own Non-Aggression Pact with Moscow, which meant Hitler wasn’t going to get any help from Japan, with regards to his fight with The Soviet Union.
> Did he say why the Japs bombed Pearl Harbor? <
Yes. FDR had cut off all American oil exports to Japan earlier that year. So the Japanese decided to seize the oil fields in the Dutch East Indies. That would make up for the lost American oil.
But that move would have been risky, as the American fleet in Pearl Harbor could cut the Japanese supply lines. So best to get rid of that fleet.
Remember, the professor was explaining the Japanese point of view, not justifying it.
(FDR probably would not have cut off American oil had Japanese not been so aggressive in China in the first place. So it still was Japan’s fault.)
20 years before, the State of Poland didn’t exist. Poland’s territory was divided between Germany, Austro-Hungary and Russia. As a result of WWI, and the Treaty of Versailles, Poland became an Independent State.
Why not?
Regards,
British hypocrisy at its finest.
Germany invades Poland - Britain declares war on Germany.
Soviets invade Poland - Britain looks the other way.
Maybe because they had recently been whipped by the Red Army. Zhukov's forces defeated the Japanese Sixth Army in the 1938 - 1939 war.
Because Japan was counting on Germany’s help against the Soviet Union.
Originally Japan was going to attack the Soviet Union in Siberia for their resources.
When they lost, they turned their attention elsewhere, mainly to the Dutch East Indies, and well, you know what that ultimately led to.
When they lost what?
And I though that Japan did attack the Soviet Union - though not in Siberia; rather, in the Soviet Union's "Far East" region: the Battle of Lake Khasan (July–August 1938) and the Battles of Khalkhin Gol (May–September 1939).
Regards,
I did refer to Japan’s defeat at the Battle of Khalkin Gol.
The purpose was to decapitate Polish leadership. Military officers generally constitute a patriotic leadership class. If you want to subjugate a people and make them leaderless you can kill off their military officer class. Fewer leaders for any resistance.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.