If italy Joined the allies World War 2

[ljadw]

What I quoted were Stalin's exact words from the Yalta conference. Yes, not believable and again history speaks for itself. My point is the "poison chalice" quote is yours, not Stalin's?

The quote is mine, but Stalin had the same opinion: the past taught him that Poland only caused troubles for Russia and that it was better off without Poland , and the future (August 1944, June 1956, 1970, 1981 ) proves that my quote is correct .
Besides, if Stalin did not think that Poland was a poisoned chalice, why did he leave Central Poland with Warsaw to Hitler ?
Before, during and after the war the Cheka killed tens of thousands of anti communist/anti-Russian Poles ( there were a lot of Katyns ) and,what was the result ? The result was that the anti Soviet/Russian hostility in Poland was increasing .

 

[GrauGeist]

And I suppose Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia were over run by the Soviet Union by accident?
"Oops, didn't see you guys there, sorry!"

Finland seemed to be having issues with the Soviets, too.

So one asks, at what point these four nations being occupied (one held out, obviously) would create a barrier against Germany?
The premise that Stalin had no idea of Germany invading Poland (or was surprised) is baseless.
So is the excuse the the Soviet Union only wanted Poland as a "buffer" against German aspirations.
Also claiming that the USSR was neutral (while it was fighting the Japanese and Finns) makes no sense.
Switzerland and Sweden were Neutral - meaning they weren't actively invading/fighting someone.

 

[swampyankee]

The Soviet invasions (or reconquest; take your pick) of the Baltic States and Finland was probably no more to spread bolshevism* than to restore what the rulers of the USSR -- who were very much products of the Russian Empire -- thought was rightfully their territory. In the case of Finland, which had somewhat more autonomy than did most of the territories conquered by Russia, the Soviets were unsuccessful. Since I view motivations as less important than actions, whether the Soviets invaded Poland to spread bolshevism or because of revanchism** is largely irrelevant: any invader planning on permanent control will either co-opt or destroy the elites***.

While it is possible to be simultaneously at war and neutral -- the USSR was neutral in the Commonwealth/US/Japan war in the Pacific but not in the Europe, as was the US with regards to the Ottoman Empire, but not Germany, in WW1 -- this was only possible because the US had no significant presence in the Eastern Mediterranean or North Africa and the USSR's border conflicts over the Manchuria|Siberia border were of a low priority for both parties. In both cases, neutrality towards one of the allies of a multinational military alliance was because of distance. For the most part, Europe was much too densely populated for a nation to have this sort of limited neutrality: one needed to maintain neutrality towards everybody or nobody: Finland was not neutral, as far as the US or UK was concerned, it was just too minor to be a concern, so a Finnish diplomat in Washington or London could be expelled or interned.

-----

* I suspect that bolshevism was already in the Baltics; witness, for example, the Red Latvian Rifles.
** Definition of revanchism | Dictionary.com
*** What happened to the English aristocrats who didn't get co-opted by the Normans?

 

[ljadw]

And I suppose Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia were over run by the Soviet Union by accident?
"Oops, didn't see you guys there, sorry!"

Finland seemed to be having issues with the Soviets, too.

So one asks, at what point these four nations being occupied (one held out, obviously) would create a barrier against Germany?
The premise that Stalin had no idea of Germany invading Poland (or was surprised) is baseless.
So is the excuse the the Soviet Union only wanted Poland as a "buffer" against German aspirations.
Also claiming that the USSR was neutral (while it was fighting the Japanese and Finns) makes no sense.
Switzerland and Sweden were Neutral - meaning they weren't actively invading/fighting someone.

Stalin knew very well that Germany would attack Poland .
The Baltics were occupied because in the past they belonged to Russia .
That Stalin was fighting against Japan , a possible enemy of the Wallies, on the other side of the world,does not disqualify him as neutral in the war between the Wallies and Germany .
He attacked Finland because he wanted a small part of Finland which Finland refused .
The whining of the French and British media about Finland,was only hypocrisy, as they would have remained silent if Stalin had declared war on Germany in September 1939 and attacked Finland in December 1939 .

 

[MIflyer]

If Italy joined the Allies in WWII:

First, the food would improve. Did you know that the Italian military has military canteens for olive oil?

 

[MIflyer]

Stalin knew very well that Germany would attack Poland .

Indeed, the invasion of Poland was in fact a joint invasion by both Germany and the USSR.

 

[Greg Boeser]

That the Soviets waited 2 1/2 weeks to launch their invasion was, perhaps, Stalin waiting to see what the reaction in the West would be. When he saw that they would do little to interfere, he struck, gobbling up the Baltic states and the agreed upon partition of Poland.
Similarly, when advancing into Poland in 1944, he waited while the Germans crushed the Warsaw Uprising, eliminating many Polish freedom fighters. Fewer for the Soviets to have to deal with after the occupation.

 

[pbehn]

That the Soviets waited 2 1/2 weeks to launch their invasion was, perhaps, Stalin waiting to see what the reaction in the West would be. When he saw that they would do little to interfere, he struck, gobbling up the Baltic states and the agreed upon partition of Poland.
Similarly, when advancing into Poland in 1944, he waited while the Germans crushed the Warsaw Uprising, eliminating many Polish freedom fighters. Fewer for the Soviets to have to deal with after the occupation.

Stalin had to wait to see what the effect of the UK and French ultimatum and declaration of war was

 

[MIflyer]

Stalin told the Poles that Soviet forces were entering Poland to help defeat the Germans. Then, "Surprise!"

 

[Greg Boeser]

No Pole would be surprised.

 

[GrauGeist]

The Baltics were occupied because in the past they belonged to Russia .

Interesting.
The Grand Duchy of Lithuania was annexed by the Russian Empire in the 1700's. It never "belonged" to Russia.
Latvia was originally ruled by the Germans. The Poles.and Lithuanians took it from the Germans. Then the Swedes assumed control in the 1600's after their war with Poland. Imperial Russia took over the Latvia in the 1700's.
Estonia was ruled by Germans, Poles, Swedes and even Denmark before becoming a part of thw Russian Empire.

So we simply cannot Cherry Pick which nation these Baltic states "belong" to.

Each one was declared a sovereign nation in 1918 and as such, are no longer available for reclamation by some distant claim. Otherwise, Italy could declare itself the reincarnation of the Roman Empire and claim all of Europe and large portions of the Mediterranean as their rightful property...

 

[cherry blossom]

I think that the Indo-Europeans should go home. Unfortunately, that presents a problem Proto-Indo-European homeland - Wikipedia.

 

[MIflyer]

No Pole would be surprised.

A Polish officer who spent most of WWII in a POW camp told me about the Soviet invasion. His attitude was that war with the Germans was what you expected war to be like. As for the Soviets, he had a much harsher opinion; they took his parents out of Poland and they died in a camp. In his view the Germans saved him from the Soviets, because when he finally escaped he lined up with the US Army.

I hope he lived to see Poland free. But I last saw him in 1978, and I doubt that.

 

[The Basket]

Otherwise, Italy could declare itself the reincarnation of the Roman Empire and claim all of Europe and large portions of the Mediterranean as their rightful property...

DIdnt Mussolini do that? Sure that was the plan.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

The content of the Pact was not the Partition of Eastern Europe, but to make the German attack on Poland not possible, but inevitable . And every one in Europe knew it .The Belgian mobilization started not on September 1, but on August 25 .Two days after the Pact was signed .
As A.J.P. Taylor said on P 318 of The Origins of the Second World War:'' The pact was neither an alliance nor an agreement for the partition of Poland .''
The partition of Poland was the result of the successful German attack and of the inability of France to save Poland .
Stalin, a SOB, did the right thing to defend the interests of the USSR : if he did nothing,, Hitler would occupy the whole of Poland, including 8 million Ukrainians and Russians living in the Eastern Part of Poland.

That is still a far cry from the Poles knowing anything. That is surmise. Again, look up the two words. Language matters.

As for Stalin's good intentions, that's entirely another thread. Suffice it to say that as many people he had put to death by labor or execution, I don't lend much credence to Stalin's alleged good intentions.

ETA: The secret protocol addressed much more than the partition of Poland. Quoted below from the Wilson Center's archives:

Spoiler

The original agreement:

1. In the event of territorial-political reorganization of the districts making up the Baltic states (Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania), the northern border of Lithuania is simultaneously the border of the spheres of interest of Germany and the USSR. The interests of Lithuania with respect to the Vilnius district are recognized by both sides.

2. In the event of territorial-political reorganization of the districts making up the Polish Republic, the border of the spheres of interest of Germany and the USSR will run approximately along the Pisa, Narew, Vistula, and San rivers.

3. Concerning southeastern Europe, the Soviet side emphasizes the interest of the USSR in Bessarabia. The German side declares its complete political disinterest in these areas.

4. This protocol will be held in strict secrecy by both sides.

Further amendments to the secret annex are also listed in the linked document. The secret annex specifically mentions the Baltic states and Bessarabia in addition to carving up Poland, so your claim that it wasn't about defining "spheres of interest" (i.e., partitions) is inaccurate. One part of the Pact -- oddly enough, the one which was not public knowledge -- divided Eastern Europe, including but not limited to Poland, between the two signatories.

 

[Greg Boeser]

Interesting.
The Grand Duchy of Lithuania was annexed by the Russian Empire in the 1700's. It never "belonged" to Russia.
Latvia was originally ruled by the Germans. The Poles.and Lithuanians took it from the Germans. Then the Swedes assumed control in the 1600's after their war with Poland. Imperial Russia took over the Latvia in the 1700's.
Estonia was ruled by Germans, Poles, Swedes and even Denmark before becoming a part of thw Russian Empire.

So we simply cannot Cherry Pick which nation these Baltic states "belong" to.

Each one was declared a sovereign nation in 1918 and as such, are no longer available for reclamation by some distant claim. Otherwise, Italy could declare itself the reincarnation of the Roman Empire and claim all of Europe and large portions of the Mediterranean as their rightful property...

This is the starting point of any nationalist politician. Always hark back to the time when some prince or potentate had temporarily brought a large area under their political sway.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The quote is mine, but Stalin had the same opinion: the past taught him that Poland only caused troubles for Russia and that it was better off without Poland , and the future (August 1944, June 1956, 1970, 1981 ) proves that my quote is correct .
Besides, if Stalin did not think that Poland was a poisoned chalice, why did he leave Central Poland with Warsaw to Hitler ?
Before, during and after the war the Cheka killed tens of thousands of anti communist/anti-Russian Poles ( there were a lot of Katyns ) and,what was the result ? The result was that the anti Soviet/Russian hostility in Poland was increasing .

OK, your comment so noted - all good, but earlier the comment was made about the Poles having "a choice." Many years ago I spent time in a part of upstate NY where there was a large Polish population and I actually met transplants who lived through the German and Soviet invasions/occupations. I think if you had made that statement to some of them you probably would have found great distress applied to your facial area or would have had a striking blow from a sizable shoe to your lower extremities. The impression I got from these people were BOTH Soviets and Nazis were hated and they had NO choice. In the aftermath of WW2 they realized that they were just a part of the pie and did their best to endure until the time was right or if they had the opportunity to leave, which many of them did. (Ever hear of the Mirabel shuffle?) The impression I got from these survivors was they didn't want to make a choice, they just wanted to be left alone.

 

[Greg Boeser]

Are you accusing Poles of having abnormally large feet?

 

[MIflyer]

My friend the WWII Polish POW came to the US after the war (he met his wife when he woke up in a US Army hospital after running over a land mine). He went to work as an engineer for the USAF and for a while was assigned to a base in Europe. He drove into Poland to see what things were like and found that the people in the villages walking back from church would not get out of the road. They knew that the only person driving a car had to be a "Communist Party SOB." Then once he got past them would see the US flag on he back of his car and would mob him.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Are you accusing Poles of having abnormally large feet?

Or very bad tempers!