What’s historical revisionism is claiming the parade to celebrate the Nazis being pushed out of areas of Poland by the Soviets was a celebration of allyship, or claiming the “spheres of influence” were a real plan for dividing Europe and not a way for the Soviets to dissuade the Nazis from pressing too far while ramping up for war. Both the Soviets and the Nazis knew war was coming between them, the treaty was always on borrowed time and in no-way signaled long-term planning on either side, the Soviets wanted to stop the Nazi threat and the Nazis intended on wiping out the Soviets, “spheres of influence” be damned.
The Eastern Pactwas the hopeful alliance between Poland and the Soviets (among others like Lithuania) against the Nazis, but this fell through due to France and Britain working against it, and Polish hatred of Russians. From the French ambassador to Poland at the time:
If, in reality, the most serious danger for Poland is Germany, “the Russian”, whatever the regime to which he is subject, always appears to the Poles as “enemy n° 1”: if the German remains an adversary, he is no less a European and a man of order; the Russian is, for the Pole, a barbarian, an Asian, a dissolving and corrupting element, with whom any contact would be perilous, any compromise fatal.
— Léon Noël, [17], 1938-06-31, Warsaw, p. 975-976
The UK and France regularly sabotaged talks of alliances with the Soviets and made their non-aggression pacts far earlier, doing far more trade and having far more Nazi synpathy among their publics and ruling class. Churchill is a famous fan of the Nazis until his hand was forced.
What’s historical revisionism is claiming the parade to celebrate the Nazis being pushed out of areas of Poland by the Soviets was a celebration of allyship
The Nazis took Brest initially, despite it being past the demarcation line. When the Soviets arrived, the Nazis voluntarily withdrew and both armies saluted one another. They then held a joint victory parade before the Nazis returned westwards, back behind the demarcation line.
The Nazis definitely weren’t “pushed out”, that’s BS. As much as you say that the west had Nazi sympathies, they never actively invaded a third nation together, collaborating militarily, and divided the spoils. But you conveniently forgot to address the military cooperation between the Nazis and the Soviets during their joint invasion of Poland, because it directly undermines your false narrative.
You’re also conveniently ignoring that the Soviets “accidentally” let slip what their secret protocols with Germany entailed to the Lithuanians, in order to pressure them into joining with the Soviets after the invasion of Poland. The Polish distaste for Russia also may have had something to do with the decades of Russian imperialism the Polish suffered from.
Undermining alliance talks is something all the great powers did. The Polish Intermarium was sabotated by the Soviets for example. That’s not unique to the Allies in the slightest.
The Nazis took Brest, and when the Soviets arrived, the Nazis pulled back rather than directly antagonizing the Soviets and risking war before Barbarossa. This isn’t complicated, had the Soviets not arrived, the Nazis would have stayed or pushed onward. As for the Nazi request for support, the Soviets only partially complied, trying to tread the line between collapsing the non-agression pact and giving as little support as possible. I didn’t bother responding to this point because you were already lying elsewhere.
The Soviets informing Lithuania of the details of the non-aggression pact was a good thing. What’s your point, exactly? That the nation that spent a decade trying to form an anti-Nazi alliance, was ideologically opposed to Nazism, when the Nazis were murdering communists, were secretly friends the whole time and that the war was an unexpected betrayal? This kind of nonsense anti-communism is historical revisionism and erasure of context.
It remains true that the country that did the most to try to stop the Nazi threat before World War II, and contributed the most to stopping the Nazis during it, was the Soviet Union, and it isn’t close.
The Soviets arrived in Brest because that’s what they had agreed upon with the Nazis. The Nazis just stuck to their end of the deal. Your attempt to frame this as the Soviets “liberating” Brest from the Nazis is laughably inaccurate. There was no antagonism when the Soviets arrived.
The Nazis would have had to stay in Brest if the Soviets didn’t show up, because both parties also agreed to suppress any Polish resistance against either side. The Nazis suddenly leaving would have given an opening to Polish resistance.
The Soviets basically told Lithuania “we decided to divvy up eastern Europe with the Nazis. You are on our side of the demarcation line, and we already invaded Poland. Know what happens when you resist”. It was a direct threat, not a promise of an alliance.
The UK and France guaranteed Polish independence and declared war on Germany when Hitler invaded. The Soviets could have done the same, but didn’t. Instead, they joined forces with the Nazis. They were just as ineffective at stopping the Nazis as the Allies were, when he wasn’t directly helping them out. Once war was declared that picture shifts, and the Soviets delivered an immense effort to stop the Nazis, most notably their sacrifice in human lives (something that must be respected and remembered). But before the war that was very different, despite attempts to minimize the Soviet collaboration by revisionists.
There was no antagonism from the Nazis because they had agreed to not press farther, or risk breaking the non-aggression pact. Without the non-aggression pact, Poland would have been totally colonized by the Nazis and subject to the Holocaust. It effectively stalled the Nazi advance without the Soviets needing to go to war quite yet.
The Soviets informed Lithuania to warn them of Nazi aggression, not to threaten them. Britain and France declared war but didn’t do jack shit, to the point that this era was remembered as the “Phoney War.” What happened next, was Britain extending diplomacy with the USSR and trying to finally form a cohesive alliance.
Again, because you’re relentlessly dodging this, what’s your point, exactly? That the nation that spent a decade trying to form an anti-Nazi alliance, was ideologically opposed to Nazism, when the Nazis were murdering communists, were secretly friends the whole time and that the war was an unexpected betrayal? This kind of nonsense anti-communism is historical revisionism and erasure of context.
My point is that your link claiming the Soviets didn’t agree to invade Poland with the Nazis is historical revisionism, blatantly ignores facts and context and just does not hold up under mild scrutiny. It’s literally what I stated in my first comment.
When the Soviets did not manage to get an alliance with the west (the west still deemed the communists a huge threat as well), they did genuinely attempt to ally with the Nazis. And that’s what initially happened. Stalin didn’t believe the alliance would last of course, but ultimately he too was surprised by how early Hitler invaded. Molotov even called fascism “a matter of taste”, to demonstrate the collaboration between the two nations at that point.
The “Phoney war” has always been a bit of a misnomer. Poland fell before the British expeditionary force could even be deployed. Later revealed French intelligence showed that France severly overestimated the German strength on the French border. They didn’t press hard yet because they believed they wouldn’t be able to.
But they UK and France didn’t declare war for performative reasons. They stepped in, even if not immediately effectively, whereas the Soviets initially collaborated with the Nazis and waited to be attacked instead. They too could have unilaterally guaranteed Poland, yet chose not too. They spied an opportunity for themselves to regain lands lost to Poland in an earlier war instead and took it.
The Soviets, plainly and simply, did not agree to invade Poland. That was not a part of the non-aggression pact, nor what “spheres of influence” entailed. Those were lines the other party was not meant to cross if the likely war broke out, and secondly neither party expected the other to uphold them long-term. The Soviets never intended on allying with the Nazis, non-aggression is not an alliance. You are doing historical revisionism, as much as you deride me for it.
As for the British and French, again, they did absolutely nothing of value and watched it all happen. Should the soviets have let Poland fall entirely to the Nazis? Should the soviets have launched a war they weren’t ready for? Seems to me you wished the soviets were stronger than they were at the time and could have taken on a far more industrialized power with a fair degree of confidence, or otherwise let Poland fall to the Nazis and be subject to Nazi slaughter and the Holocaust.
Explain to me why the Soviets agreed on a sphere of influence that went straight down the middle of a sovereign country. Explain to me why the Soviets coordinated militarily with the Luftwaffe during the invasion, even before the Soviets entered the war. You keep incessantly dodging these questions because the facts do not fit your false narrative.
The UK and France weren’t ready for war either. As already mentioned (which you also keep ignoring) the BEF wasn’t deployable before Poland fell, and France believed they weren’t able to attack and defeat Germany yet. Despite that, they declared war.
The Soviets could have unilaterally guaranteed the Poles. Such a guarantee, on top of the Allied one, could have deterred Hitler for longer. The Soviet army could at least have given the Poles a fighting chance. The Germans would have been less effective without the military assistance from the Soviets. Instead, they did prepare the Red Army for war; one against Poland.
The Germans weren’t ready for a two-front war yet. With no eastern front left, they were able to break through France and capitulate them. With the knowledge that the Germans would be fighting in Russia, France may have successfully invaded the Nazis.
I didn’t dodge either of those points. They agreed to spheres of influence that contained areas of Ukraine and Lithuania, inhabited by ethnic Ukrainians and Lithuanians, and they didn’t give support, they only partially complied in a way that didn’t really help.
I’m aware that France didn’t do anything, the BEF wasn’t deployable in time and they actively sabotaged talked of alliances leading up tk that moment.
The Soviets could not risk their lives protecting a country that hated them and starting a war they would have likely lost. The west had proven incapable of allying with the Soviets as a preventative measure. Germany would not have been less effective, if you actually checked the article I linked the impact of the Soviet’s partial compliance was marginal at best.
This is all alt-history fanfic on your part. It remains true that the country that did the most to try to stop the Nazi threat before World War II, and contributed the most to stopping the Nazis during it, was the Soviet Union, and it isn’t close.
What’s historical revisionism is claiming the parade to celebrate the Nazis being pushed out of areas of Poland by the Soviets was a celebration of allyship, or claiming the “spheres of influence” were a real plan for dividing Europe and not a way for the Soviets to dissuade the Nazis from pressing too far while ramping up for war. Both the Soviets and the Nazis knew war was coming between them, the treaty was always on borrowed time and in no-way signaled long-term planning on either side, the Soviets wanted to stop the Nazi threat and the Nazis intended on wiping out the Soviets, “spheres of influence” be damned.
The Eastern Pact was the hopeful alliance between Poland and the Soviets (among others like Lithuania) against the Nazis, but this fell through due to France and Britain working against it, and Polish hatred of Russians. From the French ambassador to Poland at the time:
The UK and France regularly sabotaged talks of alliances with the Soviets and made their non-aggression pacts far earlier, doing far more trade and having far more Nazi synpathy among their publics and ruling class. Churchill is a famous fan of the Nazis until his hand was forced.
The Nazis took Brest initially, despite it being past the demarcation line. When the Soviets arrived, the Nazis voluntarily withdrew and both armies saluted one another. They then held a joint victory parade before the Nazis returned westwards, back behind the demarcation line.
The Nazis definitely weren’t “pushed out”, that’s BS. As much as you say that the west had Nazi sympathies, they never actively invaded a third nation together, collaborating militarily, and divided the spoils. But you conveniently forgot to address the military cooperation between the Nazis and the Soviets during their joint invasion of Poland, because it directly undermines your false narrative.
You’re also conveniently ignoring that the Soviets “accidentally” let slip what their secret protocols with Germany entailed to the Lithuanians, in order to pressure them into joining with the Soviets after the invasion of Poland. The Polish distaste for Russia also may have had something to do with the decades of Russian imperialism the Polish suffered from.
Undermining alliance talks is something all the great powers did. The Polish Intermarium was sabotated by the Soviets for example. That’s not unique to the Allies in the slightest.
The Nazis took Brest, and when the Soviets arrived, the Nazis pulled back rather than directly antagonizing the Soviets and risking war before Barbarossa. This isn’t complicated, had the Soviets not arrived, the Nazis would have stayed or pushed onward. As for the Nazi request for support, the Soviets only partially complied, trying to tread the line between collapsing the non-agression pact and giving as little support as possible. I didn’t bother responding to this point because you were already lying elsewhere.
The Soviets informing Lithuania of the details of the non-aggression pact was a good thing. What’s your point, exactly? That the nation that spent a decade trying to form an anti-Nazi alliance, was ideologically opposed to Nazism, when the Nazis were murdering communists, were secretly friends the whole time and that the war was an unexpected betrayal? This kind of nonsense anti-communism is historical revisionism and erasure of context.
It remains true that the country that did the most to try to stop the Nazi threat before World War II, and contributed the most to stopping the Nazis during it, was the Soviet Union, and it isn’t close.
The Soviets arrived in Brest because that’s what they had agreed upon with the Nazis. The Nazis just stuck to their end of the deal. Your attempt to frame this as the Soviets “liberating” Brest from the Nazis is laughably inaccurate. There was no antagonism when the Soviets arrived.
The Nazis would have had to stay in Brest if the Soviets didn’t show up, because both parties also agreed to suppress any Polish resistance against either side. The Nazis suddenly leaving would have given an opening to Polish resistance.
The Soviets basically told Lithuania “we decided to divvy up eastern Europe with the Nazis. You are on our side of the demarcation line, and we already invaded Poland. Know what happens when you resist”. It was a direct threat, not a promise of an alliance.
The UK and France guaranteed Polish independence and declared war on Germany when Hitler invaded. The Soviets could have done the same, but didn’t. Instead, they joined forces with the Nazis. They were just as ineffective at stopping the Nazis as the Allies were, when he wasn’t directly helping them out. Once war was declared that picture shifts, and the Soviets delivered an immense effort to stop the Nazis, most notably their sacrifice in human lives (something that must be respected and remembered). But before the war that was very different, despite attempts to minimize the Soviet collaboration by revisionists.
There was no antagonism from the Nazis because they had agreed to not press farther, or risk breaking the non-aggression pact. Without the non-aggression pact, Poland would have been totally colonized by the Nazis and subject to the Holocaust. It effectively stalled the Nazi advance without the Soviets needing to go to war quite yet.
The Soviets informed Lithuania to warn them of Nazi aggression, not to threaten them. Britain and France declared war but didn’t do jack shit, to the point that this era was remembered as the “Phoney War.” What happened next, was Britain extending diplomacy with the USSR and trying to finally form a cohesive alliance.
Again, because you’re relentlessly dodging this, what’s your point, exactly? That the nation that spent a decade trying to form an anti-Nazi alliance, was ideologically opposed to Nazism, when the Nazis were murdering communists, were secretly friends the whole time and that the war was an unexpected betrayal? This kind of nonsense anti-communism is historical revisionism and erasure of context.
My point is that your link claiming the Soviets didn’t agree to invade Poland with the Nazis is historical revisionism, blatantly ignores facts and context and just does not hold up under mild scrutiny. It’s literally what I stated in my first comment.
When the Soviets did not manage to get an alliance with the west (the west still deemed the communists a huge threat as well), they did genuinely attempt to ally with the Nazis. And that’s what initially happened. Stalin didn’t believe the alliance would last of course, but ultimately he too was surprised by how early Hitler invaded. Molotov even called fascism “a matter of taste”, to demonstrate the collaboration between the two nations at that point.
The “Phoney war” has always been a bit of a misnomer. Poland fell before the British expeditionary force could even be deployed. Later revealed French intelligence showed that France severly overestimated the German strength on the French border. They didn’t press hard yet because they believed they wouldn’t be able to.
But they UK and France didn’t declare war for performative reasons. They stepped in, even if not immediately effectively, whereas the Soviets initially collaborated with the Nazis and waited to be attacked instead. They too could have unilaterally guaranteed Poland, yet chose not too. They spied an opportunity for themselves to regain lands lost to Poland in an earlier war instead and took it.
The Soviets, plainly and simply, did not agree to invade Poland. That was not a part of the non-aggression pact, nor what “spheres of influence” entailed. Those were lines the other party was not meant to cross if the likely war broke out, and secondly neither party expected the other to uphold them long-term. The Soviets never intended on allying with the Nazis, non-aggression is not an alliance. You are doing historical revisionism, as much as you deride me for it.
As for the British and French, again, they did absolutely nothing of value and watched it all happen. Should the soviets have let Poland fall entirely to the Nazis? Should the soviets have launched a war they weren’t ready for? Seems to me you wished the soviets were stronger than they were at the time and could have taken on a far more industrialized power with a fair degree of confidence, or otherwise let Poland fall to the Nazis and be subject to Nazi slaughter and the Holocaust.
Explain to me why the Soviets agreed on a sphere of influence that went straight down the middle of a sovereign country. Explain to me why the Soviets coordinated militarily with the Luftwaffe during the invasion, even before the Soviets entered the war. You keep incessantly dodging these questions because the facts do not fit your false narrative.
The UK and France weren’t ready for war either. As already mentioned (which you also keep ignoring) the BEF wasn’t deployable before Poland fell, and France believed they weren’t able to attack and defeat Germany yet. Despite that, they declared war.
The Soviets could have unilaterally guaranteed the Poles. Such a guarantee, on top of the Allied one, could have deterred Hitler for longer. The Soviet army could at least have given the Poles a fighting chance. The Germans would have been less effective without the military assistance from the Soviets. Instead, they did prepare the Red Army for war; one against Poland.
The Germans weren’t ready for a two-front war yet. With no eastern front left, they were able to break through France and capitulate them. With the knowledge that the Germans would be fighting in Russia, France may have successfully invaded the Nazis.
I didn’t dodge either of those points. They agreed to spheres of influence that contained areas of Ukraine and Lithuania, inhabited by ethnic Ukrainians and Lithuanians, and they didn’t give support, they only partially complied in a way that didn’t really help.
I’m aware that France didn’t do anything, the BEF wasn’t deployable in time and they actively sabotaged talked of alliances leading up tk that moment.
The Soviets could not risk their lives protecting a country that hated them and starting a war they would have likely lost. The west had proven incapable of allying with the Soviets as a preventative measure. Germany would not have been less effective, if you actually checked the article I linked the impact of the Soviet’s partial compliance was marginal at best.
This is all alt-history fanfic on your part. It remains true that the country that did the most to try to stop the Nazi threat before World War II, and contributed the most to stopping the Nazis during it, was the Soviet Union, and it isn’t close.