Secret Pact Between Hitler and Stalin Stirs New Controversy

A secret agreement made between Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin, which divided Poland between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union and led to its invasion continues to divide historians, journalists, and political leaders as well. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, named after the foreign ministers of the two countries, is seen as the preamble to World War II.

Polish President Lech Kaczynski attends ceremonies in Gdanskmarking the 70th anniversary of the beginning of WW II, 1 Sept 2009 The controversy has to do with how the pact was interpreted and to what degree the Soviet Union was implicated in creating conditions that would lead to war. Discussions about the protocol took center stage in the international media earlier this week as thousands gathered with European and American officials in Gdansk, Poland to commemorate the 70th anniversary of the beginning of World War II.

“I think there is no doubt that the war started with an unprovoked German aggression on September 1, 1939,” says Polish-American historian Piotr Wandycz of Yale University. Attempts recently made by Russian “pseudo-historians” to blame Poland for refusing to accept Hitler’s demands “completely miss the mark,” he says.

However reasonable they may sound to the Russians, Polish historians would not agree. “The green light for the outbreak of the war in my mind was the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact,” says Wandycz.

Wandycz says the problem is that it is extraordinarily hard to separate one’s nationality from one’s notion of who was responsible for starting World War II.

But that’s not how Russians apportion blame for World War II. “Today, the issue of the

Soviet leader Joseph Stalin beginning of World War II and the role of Stalin and the role of the USSR are seen very differently in the countries of Western and Central Europe than in Russia,” says Russian journalist Masha Lipman.

“The desire in Russia is not to see anything in that war except the victory and there is a reluctance to discuss developments that portray Russia as anything other than a victor,” says Lipman. And in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, she says, the desire is to concentrate on the victimhood of their nation at the hands of the USSR – respecting both the USSR’s pre-war foreign policy and its post-war occupation.

“It is very difficult to reconcile the two visions,” Lipman says. The key point here that is often ignored, she notes, is that – of the 50 million people who died as a result of the war – more than half were citizens of the USSR.

Contemporary Germans fully acknowledge their war guilt. “There’s no relativism in terms of trying to share the burden of who was responsible for World War II,” says Matthias Rueb, Washington correspondent Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. They are eager to make amends, he says.

“Poles see not only Germany as the culprit for beginning World War II but also the Soviet Union, which invaded the eastern part of Poland, approximately two weeks after Germany attacked the western part,” Rueb explains.

It is perfectly understandable that Germans would find it easier than Russians do to come to terms with their World War II history, Wandycz says. That’s partly because the Germans, having re-established a state after a long period of division into British, French, and American zones, had to accept their responsibility for the past.

The Russian perspective is colored by more recent history. The disintegration of the Soviet Union in 1991, the dismantling of communism, the economic and political turmoil led to a loss of superpower status. “It had a tremendous effect on Russian morale,” says Wandycz. Prime Minister Putin has called the collapse of the Soviet Union the greatest disaster of the 20th century. From a purely Russian perspective, Wandycz says, that view makes sense. For psychological reasons, he says, it is always important to be able to think well of one’s nation.

Some Russian historians try to justify Stalin’s secret pact with Hitler based on the threat that Nazi Germany posed to the Soviet Union in 1939. “But mainly the revision of Soviet history is for political reasons, not for the discovery of academic truth,” Wandycz says.

The Russian Prime Minister’s acceptance of Poland’s invitation to the ceremonies in Gdansk was an important gesture, says Lipman. “[He] wrote an article in Gazeta Wyborcza (newspaper) in Poland in which he sent a message in conciliatory tones.” In the article, he referred to the 1939 Nazi-Soviet pact to divide Poland as “immoral.” “But I think that even his moderate tone and his conciliatory message would not reconcile many in Poland,” she adds.

However, Rueb remains skeptical of Mr. Putin’s sincerity. He notes German Chancellor Angela Merkel accepted Poland’s invitation to the September 1st commemoration almost immediately, whereas Prime Minister Putin waited for several weeks to make a decision. “I’m not convinced that Putin in his conciliatory note was really speaking for the Russian public or the Russian media,” he says. “I think the Russians still have to go a long way in accepting that they took part – with Germany – in dividing not only Poland but also much of Central and Eastern Europe.”

Rueb also notes that on state television, which is the medium through which most Russians get their news, the Russian leadership has never acknowledged that just before the beginning of World War II, Hitler and Stalin had plans to carve up much of Europe.

The three analysts have genuinely tried to examine the historical record of this critical period in world history by attempting to look at it through others’ eyes. It is, of course, the task of historians and journalists generally – especially in those conflicted areas where identification with one’s own culture makes that job so difficult.

To say anyone else but Hitler is responsible is playing into the game that individuals aren’t responsible for anything but just reacting to forces beyond their control, so can’t be blamed. So basically Hitler has no free will, but Russia and/or the West are responsible

I rather assume that Stalin’s game was to watch while the Brits, French, and Germans chopped each other into rubble, and then fill the vacuum. It didn’t quite work as planned, but he still managed to improve his relative strategic position dramatically with respect to the other Europeans. He didn’t expect the Americans to emerge as the force they turned out to be. That was the one unexpected turn of events.

I visited the Warsaw uprising museum several years ago with a small group of Polish university students. One of them said that his parents and Uncle had fled Warsaw by train heading east when the Germans invaded from the north at Gdansk. As they got off the train at the border, the Russian troops were arriving by train from the east. His family took the next train west back to Warsaw. Clearly the attack on Poland was coordinated.

The Russians also have to explain their invasion of Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania at the same time.

When I was in school I used this time in history as a litmus test for history books. The liberal ones would gloss over Stalin’s alliance with Hitler.

So basically Hitler has no free will, but Russia and/or the West are responsible

What?!? No, what people are saying is that: first, it would have been much riskier for Hitler to have invaded Poland without the pact with Russia, so the pact made war more likely. This is a fact, which has nothing to do with "free will"... just common sense. And secondly, as soon as Poland was crushed in the West by the Wehrmacht, the USSR took advantage of this to invade and conquer part of a sovereign nation. This is also an indisputable fact.

The Russian argument is a little bit like arguing that, after watching a passerby get mugged, beaten senseless, and robbed of his wallet, it's also OK for you to step in to steal the watch off of his arm as he lies there unconscious. Sorry, no one with any sense or morality would agree...

"The Russians also have to explain their invasion of Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania at the same time."

and Finland too.

They invade Poland, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, and Finland...but they were not the aggressors?

If only the Russian argument were as convincing as that.

But the real analogy would be: Hitler tells you he's going to kill a guy and invites you to join in. You don't jump in right away because you're not sure how tough he is, and besides, your own army isn't really very good (yet.) Seeing things are going well, you decide to jump in, take some booty, and announce, by the way, that your arrangement with him entitles you to kill a couple of cripples over at the hospital named Yugoslavia, Romania, and the Baltics as well.

It's darkly hilarious that Neville Chamberlain (and to a lesser extent Clemenceau) have taken such a beating over the years. No one has more responsibility for empowering Hitler at the time of his greatest weakness than Josef Stalin. No one.

Thank you, I forgot Finland. The Russian claims of innocence — let alone nobility — in Hitler's conquests are thoroughly laughable.

The battle of Britain failed and Hitler had no sea lift capacity to mount an invasion of the British Isles (let alone stand up to the British Navy.) Stalin's invasions in Eastern Europe went too far, and at that point the opportunists fell out because Hitler could go no further than the English Channel.

Both Dictators understood clearly that at some point the Nazis would turn East -- or that the Soviets would press further West. Stalin decided that he would get more territory by playing for time with Hitler, and get nothing but a defensive alliance by bargaining with the West. The Russian People paid as dearly for Stalin's duplicity and bad faith as the Germans did for Hitler's.

Reminds me of a scene from the movie, "Europa, Europa", where Poles and Jews are crossing the river heading East to escape the Nazis, they encounter Poles coming from the East telling them that the Soviets have invaded. The Gentiles turn around and head back to the Nazis, while the Jews kept going towards the East.

It is darkly hilarious that Neville Chamberlain( and to a lesser extent Clemenceau) have taken such a beating over the years.

I keep meaning to keep off the subject because my views are not the usual mantra on Chamberlain. Now there is of course, a valid argument that had Chamberlain given Hitler an ultimatum, when Hitler took the Sudetenland, then Czechoslovakia, he would have backed off. We will never know.

Britain lost 900,000 men in WW1. Thousands returned gassed and shell shocked. Britain lost all it's huge money reserves. Chamberlain was well aware of war and it's agony. There was malnutrition in that country afterward.

Now one most telling point was that Britain had only six all metal fighter planes operational in 1938. They had 1,200 on the drawing boards and a frantic upsurge in production. At the declaration of war, Britain had over a 1000 all metal fighter planes ready.

They can crime Chamberlain all they want. He bought valuable time- whether he intended to do so or not- this I don't know. He was my Prime Minister.

What happened to Poland from 1939 until the rise of Solidarity is one of the great tragedies of the Twentieth Century. But people forget that prior to her alliance with Britain and France, Poland was Germany's ally and participated fully in the destruction of Czechoslovakia.

After the fall of France, Britain could have cut a deal with the Nazis. Certainly Hitler wanted one after the Luftwaffe failed to deliver. That she did not make a dishonorable peace in a dark hour says everything about the character of her people.

Whatever Chamberlain's failures, he asked for nothing for Britain. Had he been a Soviet dictator, he would have taken the half of Czechoslovakia that Germany did not want (immediately, at least.) And, had he been a Soviet dictator, he would've been celebrated in his country's history for his greed and duplicity, instead of being reviled for his perceived weakness.

Personally, I think the reoccupation of the Rhineland was the time to act. By Munich, it was too late. Not militarily: the Wehrmacht Generals admitted that they would have had a very difficult time with Czechoslovakia's defenses and had no chance of invading Bohemia in the East with France so strong (in theory at least) attacking from the West. But psychologically, both for Hitler and the West, in my opinion the Rhineland was the time to have delivered the ultimatum.

Personally I think the time of the re-occupation of the Rhineland was the time to act. By Munich, is was too late.

I have read, although no documentation exists, that Hitler was always quite the arrogant bully as he was with poor Herr Schusnigg of Austria. He was not too sure of himself and wondered why he could get away with what he did. Had they acted then.....

I have a photograph of my Dad with troops under canvas, dated 1928/9. British infantry regiment. The allies had occupied part of Germany then. I do not remember the circumstances though. He liked the Germans at that time. Was at Dunkirk 1940.

My Dad arrived in France in 1944. His father had already been there in 1917. Both were Americans of 100% German ancestry, from a little town in Southeastern Pennsylvania named after a town in Central Germany: Han(n)over. Only Low German -- Plattdüütsch as it's called in Amish Country or Niederdeutsch in Germany itself -- was ever spoken in my grandparents' house. The ironies of War.

As my grandfather told my Dad several times, "God turned Hitler's head at Dunkirk." You have to think he was right about that. It was a miracle, indeed.

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.