Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
The
NaziSoviet
Pact
Who gained
the most?
Paul Letters examines the
significance of the 'devils pact'
Exam context
Knowledge of the NaziSoviet Pact is required for papers 1, 2 and 3
of the new syllabus (first examinations 2017).
Joseph Stalin
Nazi Germany and Communist USSR were not natural allies. Stalin
feared an attack by Hitler, so he invited Lord Halifax, the British
foreign secretary, to Russia to negotiate an alliance against Germany.
The British delayed and, in August 1939, a month away from war,
eventually sent a low-ranking official called Reginald Aylmer
Ranfurly Plunckett-Ernle-Erle-Drax instead of the foreign secretary.
The USSR wanted to send troops into Poland if Hitler invaded.
Britain was against that, and the talks ended in failure.
Also in August 1939, Germany held talks with the USSR. Hitler
promised not to attack the USSR, and in the secret clause to be
included in the NaziSoviet Pact in exchange for not fighting
against Germany, Stalin could take almost half of Poland. Hitler
also suggested that the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania
could come under Soviet control.
Stalin knew that if he supported Britain, the Soviet Union would
end up fighting a war in Poland without British soldiers and he
was probably right, for when Britain did declare war on Germany, it
sent no troops to Poland. Indeed, the appeasement by Britain and
France of Germanys remilitarisation of the Rhineland (March
1936), Anschluss with Austria (March 1938) and invasion of the
Sudetenland (October 1938) and the rest of Czechoslovakia (March
1939) had convinced both Hitler and Stalin that Britain and
France would not send troops to fight against Germany. A common
mistake that IB students make on questions concerning the origins
of the Cold War is that it began in 1945 this pre-war mistrust
between the USSR and Western powers shows that the schism
between East and West began much earlier.
In 1939 Stalin wanted to feel safer from
an invasion from the west, and the secret
clause handed him territories that would act
as a buffer for the Soviet Union a buffer that
would be needed in 1941. The USSR would gain
territory and peace with Nazi Germany.
Stalin may have brutalised his own people
and picked fights with smaller nations, but when
it came to major powers he repeatedly acted to
avoid war. For example, in 1941 he made a peace
pact with Japan that lasted until August 1945.
Economic gains
Ribbentrop and Molotov signed an economic deal on 19 August
1939 4 days before the main pact. Germany would provide
military equipment in exchange for raw materials such as iron, oil
and grain.
Britain had initiated a naval blockade to stop goods being
imported into Germany by sea. This economic agreement helped
Germany circumvent the British blockade until Hitler broke the
NaziSoviet Pact in June 1941. In 1940 over half of the USSRs total
Timeline
1 September 1939
3 September 1939
17 September 1939
June 1940
22 June 1941
Nothing to lose?
Until Hitler chose to invade the USSR on 22 June 1941, the Nazi
Soviet Pact kept the Soviets out of the fight, and Germany was
successful in avoiding a two-front war. The economic agreements
probably gave Germany more than it lost.
However, the USSRs economy and military were better prepared
for war in June 1941 than in September 1939. Whats more, the
territories the USSR gained remained under Soviet influence until
the 1990s.
Hitlers betrayal of the pact brought about Germanys defeat,
whereas Stalin felt emboldened to complete a sweep of eastern
Europe: within a decade of August 1939 Stalin controlled all of the
lebensraum Hitler had desired. This process of Soviet empire building
began with the NaziSoviet Pact.
Theory of knowledge
1 Is it possible to know why Stalin and Hitler acted as they did?
Did Stalin agree to the Nazi-Soviet Pact more because he wanted to
avoid war (with Germany) or because he wanted to gain territory? In
history, can we ever know for sure the reasons why people acted as
they did?
2 Are there times in history where false evidence, or an as-yetunrevealed hoax, may continue to fool us today?
3 Can we ever have all the possible evidence to make knowledge
claims? How can we guarantee that we have enough evidence?
4 Can we ever trust a historical interpretation with 100% certainty?
If not, does that mean every historical interpretation is, at least in a
sense, untrue or false?
IB Review February2016