Does that mean in 100 years it’ll be Russia’s turn to team up with Poland against Germany? Is that how this works now? Can’t we just rock-paper-scissors best 2 of 3 instead?
After the refusal of France, England and Poland to enter a military alliance against the Nazis with the USSR, the only alternative to a partial Soviet occupation of Poland was a total Nazi occupation of Poland. Tell me, would you prefer a total Nazi occupation of Poland?
Erm, Stalin did a deal with Hitler, the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact. In a secret protocol, they agreed to carve up Europe between them with the USSR to take Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Finland, Bessarabia and half of Poland. The Finland part didn’t work out so well, and Hitler went on to break the pact. The details of this were proven only when it was made public during the Nuremberg trials.
You haven’t answered my question: would you have preferred a total Nazi occupation of Poland?
Erm, Stalin did a deal with Hitler, the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact
Yes, to postpone as much as possible the war between the 100-year-old industrial power that was Germany, and the 10-year-into-industrialization USSR. This was done after the Soviets were consistently denied mutual defense agreements with Poland, England and France, in which Stalin offered to send ONE MILLION soldiers to France and Poland to defend against the Nazi threat (together with artillery, tanks and aviation). The Soviets even offered to collectively start war against the Nazis instead of the Munich agreements in defense of Czechoslovakia, which the western powers again refused. It was then and only then when the Soviets changed the previous minister and put Molotov in place, to postpone the inevitable war against the Nazis for as long as possible during the key industrialisation years.
Last time Russia and Germany invaded Poland together. Presumably this would be Germany and Poland invading Russia.
Does that mean in 100 years it’ll be Russia’s turn to team up with Poland against Germany? Is that how this works now? Can’t we just rock-paper-scissors best 2 of 3 instead?
After the refusal of France, England and Poland to enter a military alliance against the Nazis with the USSR, the only alternative to a partial Soviet occupation of Poland was a total Nazi occupation of Poland. Tell me, would you prefer a total Nazi occupation of Poland?
Erm, Stalin did a deal with Hitler, the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact. In a secret protocol, they agreed to carve up Europe between them with the USSR to take Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Finland, Bessarabia and half of Poland. The Finland part didn’t work out so well, and Hitler went on to break the pact. The details of this were proven only when it was made public during the Nuremberg trials.
You haven’t answered my question: would you have preferred a total Nazi occupation of Poland?
Yes, to postpone as much as possible the war between the 100-year-old industrial power that was Germany, and the 10-year-into-industrialization USSR. This was done after the Soviets were consistently denied mutual defense agreements with Poland, England and France, in which Stalin offered to send ONE MILLION soldiers to France and Poland to defend against the Nazi threat (together with artillery, tanks and aviation). The Soviets even offered to collectively start war against the Nazis instead of the Munich agreements in defense of Czechoslovakia, which the western powers again refused. It was then and only then when the Soviets changed the previous minister and put Molotov in place, to postpone the inevitable war against the Nazis for as long as possible during the key industrialisation years.
Please, answer my question above