Poland 1939

[Franconicus]

66 years ago Germany invaded Poland. This was the official start of WW2. During this and during the occupation millions of Poles were killed.

Lately I read an article about it. The statements there were strange to me and I wonder if it was right or wrong. I know we have some high skilled experts for WW2 and Poland here. I'd like to hear your opinion.

The article said:

1) Germany and Poland had good relations before 1939, even someking of friendship treaty or military cooperation or something like that. The article was not very precise. Does anybody know?

2) Danzig was an issue. However, both sides were willing to find an agreement and expected to solve this issue peacefully.

3) After the annexation of the Czech Republic and the breaking of the Munich treaty, however, England changed his policy and gave guarantees to Poland. This changed the position of the Polish government and it did not want to have a compromise any longer.

4) In 1939 Hitler did not want to have a war with England and France. He just wanted to solve the Danzig issue and prepare his invasion of Russia. When the Poles refused to cooperate and the English gave their guarantees he made the pact with the USSR and Poland was devided.

5) If England would have continued his policy, the appeasement would have worked, at least for the western countries. Hitler would have attacked Stalin
instead of making war in the west.

So what do you think? Is it just an attempt to deny the blame for WW2?

[cegorach]

[QUOTE=Franconicus]

The article said:

1) Germany and Poland had good relations before 1939, even someking of friendship treaty or military cooperation or something like that. The article was not very precise. Does anybody know?

Obviously not. Poland's official doctrine was the idea of two enemies - Germany and the SU and it was concerned to keep both at certain distance with possible neutral, even quite friendly relations ( if it was at all possible), but without any closer treaties.
True, Polish-German relations improved after Hitler took the power, however strange it seems ( he was to weak to confront it and he hoped fto include Poland to antikomintern alliance) , but Poland still proposed France to attack Germany in 1934.
When France refused, Poland decided to sign the non-aggression pact with Germany followed after some time with similar agreement with the SU.

It was also to scare France a little, because since Locarno it was trying to get out of the alliance with Poland it signed in early 20s.
The main concern was that Germany wanted to take the territories it lost after the 1st WW ( even if those were Polish populated) and the Allies were not as reliable allies as they claimed ( Locarno treaty and earlier inability to give any help in 1920).

On the other hand Hitler tried to convince the Poles to enter alliance with Germany offering large territories in the SU for that ( it is easy to give someone else's land ) - most likely aiming to reduce Poland to the status of vasal state as it was done with Hungary, Romania etc.

2) Danzig was an issue. However, both sides were willing to find an agreement and expected to solve this issue peacefully.

Initially, but later it was just an excuse to attack Poland - the fate of Czechoslovakia was the best lecture about Hitler's foreign policy.

3) After the annexation of the Czech Republic and the breaking of the Munich treaty, however, England changed his policy and gave guarantees to Poland. This changed the position of the Polish government and it did not want to have a compromise any longer.

It is unlikely, actually impossible that the Polish government would capitulate without fight anyway - the sad end of Czechoslovakia was one thing, but the strong, even stubborn character of the people in power was another one.

4) In 1939 Hitler did not want to have a war with England and France. He just wanted to solve the Danzig issue and prepare his invasion of Russia. When the Poles refused to cooperate and the English gave their guarantees he made the pact with the USSR and Poland was devided.

France remained his primary enemy. Poland would for sure attack Germany if it invaded France, that is why it was a better target, besides Hitler believed the allies wouldn't react after Poland is invaded. He was right and wrong - they did declare war, but didn't move while Poland was fighting ( it was decided in MAY 1939 not to attack and leave the fate of Poland to 'the future outcome of the war') lying all the time ( especially the French HQ) that numerous divisions are engaged in fighting. Shame...

5) If England would have continued his policy, the appeasement would have worked, at least for the western countries. Hitler would have attacked Stalin
instead of making war in the west.

France was Hitler's obsession and not only his. Russia might be the future lebesraum (sp ?), but France had to be humilated for what it did to Germany - that was his idea. Another thing was that this would cause shockwaves through the political systems of the UK and France and cause some irreversible damage to their international position.

So what do you think? Is it just an attempt to deny the blame for WW2?

It depends who wrote it. It is an overstatement + some facts are omitted and some rumours added. Generally it is a sort of 'tabloid history'.

Regards Cegorach

[Hepcat]

Also wasn't it that Hitler hoped Britain wouldn't intervene and stated that the Kaiser's biggest mistake was going to war with Britain.

[Keba]

Also, I may point out that the decision by the allies not to aid Poland militarily is what drove the Soviets to sign the Molotov-Ribbentrop treaty.

Essentially, the Soviets were willing to throw the might of the Red Army, some 100 or even more divisions to the fight in the event of war. France then admitted it could muster maybe 20 divisions, and the British representative made vague promises amounting to a grand total of 2 divisions.

That, understandably, made the Soviets understand one thing ... that if war came, they would essentially be on their own. So, they went and signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop treaty to ensure that the Germans wouldn't attack them.

[cegorach]

So they invaded Poland to help Hitler in response to that...

Sorry, but it is unreasonable that:

1. Stalin had any reason to help Poland - he was interested in invading Europe himself and was fanatically anti-Polish,

2. That Poland would agree for such 'help' - after all Russians and Soviets were quite well known for their inability to abandon any territory they were in,

3. That the SU mad the decision to ALLY with Hitler and helped him from the beginning ( Luftwaffe used a beacon radiostation set by the Soviets for this purpose for the entire war in 1939), just because the Allies decided

' not to aid Poland militarily is what drove the Soviets to sign the Molotov-Ribbentrop treaty'

- the decision was made in secret actually, which in Poland was later rightly seen as a betrayal, but the SU wasn't informed too.

4. For some reason I doubt that the Soviet leadership decided to attack Finland, annex the Baltic states and blackmail Romania in addition to invading Poland, just because the allies let Poland down.

It is blaiming the wrong people. Despite the naive, childish and just stupid decisions made by the UK and French leaders clearly it is GERMANY AND THE SOVIET UNION which started the war and they are responsible.

Maybe some people forget that on the 17th September Red Army used 1 000 000 soldiers with 3 000 tanks and 1000 airplanes to attack Poland breaking the non-agression pact ( Hitler at least announced it invalid) when 90 % of Polish army was involved in struggle with Germany - for some reason I have a strange feeling that is very far from peaceful policy.

[KrooK]

Here I have to TOTALLY SUPPORT previous post.

[Watchman]

Uh... wasn't it just the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact (or rather, the secret parts thereof) where Hitler and Stalin pretty much divided East Europe between themselves ? Both would get a piece of Poland, and if the Soviets now felt like it they could attack Finland all they wanted as far as Berlin cared (at the time the Nazis were still largely dismissing Finns as a bunch of Mongols little different from the Russians, which attitude duly changed drastically once they became potential allies... kind of like how they went through some impressive rhetorical and theoretical contortions to rank the Japanese as "Aryans"). Unless I've been getting something important entirely wrong for a very long time, the invasion of Poland only came after that, right ?

AFAIK aside from sheer land-grabbing opportunism what motivated Stalin to go with the deal was his inability to get France and the UK agree to some sort of defense treaty against Germany, which he was (quite correctly) rather worried about. Failing that he then got friendly with the Germans in the hopes that'd keep them off his case - no doubt both Nazi and Communist sympathizers worldwide swallowed their tongues at the supposed arch-nemeses getting all cozy like that too...

[cegorach]

[QUOTE=Watchman]

Unless I've been getting something important entirely wrong for a very long time, the invasion of Poland only came after that, right ?

And ? They did sign the treaty before the invasion, but does it change a thing ?

inability to get France and the UK agree to some sort of defense treaty against Germany, which he was (quite correctly) rather worried about. Failing that he then got friendly with the Germans in the hopes that'd keep them off his case

His suspected worries resulted in removing the only buffor which was between the SU and Germany. I have always wandered how could it help - the additional teritory he got was lost in one week's time in 1941 or even less, his invasion in 1939 backstabbed Polish defence shortening the campaign by no lesss than 2 weeks.

[Keba]

Well, the Soviets did get to work on making a pretty impressive defensive line in Poland ...

Thing is, Stalin was misguided ... the line would have taken 5 years to build, and Soviet troops were moved to the new positions immediately, the old ones (on the former border with Poland) abandoned.

However, the new positions were not equipped, and not even remotely finished, so when the Germans attacked, they simply rolled over the defenses (no radio and barely any weapons were sent at that stage).

The border was shorter, you see ... that way, the Soviets could more easily fight off any attacks. But, they weren't exepcting a war, ever (Stalin) or, at least, until Britain fell (most everyone else).

[Kalle]

Considering the points you put forward from that article it seem like it come from some revisionist source. Especially point 3 seem so stupid not even the author of the article could believe it.

3) After the annexation of the Czech Republic and the breaking of the Munich treaty, however, England changed his policy and gave guarantees to Poland. This changed the position of the Polish government and it did not want to have a compromise any longer.

1. Who broke the Munich treaty and who annexed Czeck Republik? I can give a clue: it was neither England nor was it Poland.

2. England guarantees the border of a small country threatened and pressured by a big aggressive neighbour. My oh my they must be guilty for the start of the war then. The only thing to blame England for here is that they should have put down the foot earlier.

3. Umm but why should Poland have to compromise at all? If Germany leave Poland and surrounding states alone there would be no trouble.

Kalle

[Kraxis]

Kalle, perhaps Franconicus wasn't clear in his post, but he knows very well that Hitler broke the treaty.

The point was that after Germany broke the treaty Britain took a harder stance and guaranteed Poland. Thus Poland felt it didn't need to negotiate with Germany over Danzig/Gdansk, for now it was being protected and Germany wouldn't dare a twofront war... would it?

True, why should Poland compromise? Well, Germany lost areas that really were German after WWI. Poland got those areas (other areas were lost too which were Polish to be certain). Now Hitler wanted those areas back.
So both Germany and Poland had a claim on them (the areas had been Polish a number of times earlier, and German a number of times, thus it was not a new situation).

So while we can sit back and say "bad Germany... BAAAD Germany" it wasn't without a basis. We do know however that Hitler sort of wanted a war from this, given how he reacted after the Munich Treaty ("they deprived me of my war").
But hindsight is always perfect. People back then didn't know what we do, and what would the sensible action be for them?

[Kalle]

Kalle, perhaps Franconicus wasn't clear in his post, but he knows very well that Hitler broke the treaty.

Im not talking against Franconius, im talking against the absurd statement that has been made in the article that Franconius present.

The point was that after Germany broke the treaty Britain took a harder stance and guaranteed Poland. Thus Poland felt it didn't need to negotiate with Germany over Danzig/Gdansk, for now it was being protected and Germany wouldn't dare a twofront war... would it?

And how can this in any way put blame on either Poland or England? It is Germany, or rather Hitler, pointing his guns in all directions demanding their "rights". Who cares about if it mean two front war or one front war. The warmongerer was Germany. I have for instance not heard that Poland was demanding areas in Germany, threating with violence and aggresive diplomay to get its will. That was in this case germanys doing.

True, why should Poland compromise? Well, Germany lost areas that really were German after WWI. Poland got those areas (other areas were lost too which were Polish to be certain). Now Hitler wanted those areas back.
So both Germany and Poland had a claim on them (the areas had been Polish a number of times earlier, and German a number of times, thus it was not a new situation).

Doesnt help Germanys rights one bit. Again their diplomacy was aggresive, and threatening. They showed in Austria and Tjeckia and elsewhere how trusted they could be. Give them the littlefinger and they eat ur entire arm and body. There are also numerous accounts on particulary the Polish question that Hitler know wanted war and his only fear was that some fool would offer a compromise that would stop it.

It would have been a diffrent matter had Germany not broken Munichtreaty, not Anschlussed Austria, not put armies on every side on Poland and so on but instead in civil diplomatic measures adressed any issues regarding Poland and Danzig through fair, honest and nonthreating diplomacy with an understanding that you dont get all you want.

As this was not the case no blame can be put on Poland for taking a firmer stand.

Yes, bad Germany, or rather bad Hitler and his friends.

Kalle

[Kraxis]

Well, you first post indicated that you had thought the article meant Britain broke the Munich treaty.

The opinion of the article aside it isn't that susprising that Poland would pursue a more firm policy when Britain gave her support. That is only logical.
That point alone doesn't lay blame, it merely gives a reason for it. When we work with it alone I can't see why it is so important to lay a blame... And we ARE working with the points on a one to one basis. Do they hold water at all, or are they faulty?
And this point is pretty logical to me.

[Kalle]

I am afraid I dont see your point at all Kraxis.

Well, you first post indicated that you had thought the article meant Britain broke the Munich treaty.

Hm, that was not the intention and after rereading my post I dont see how you come to this conclusion. I am just showing the absurdity of critizising Englands and Polands firmer stand and blaming them as if they provoced the war after HITLER broke the Munichpact because critizising Poland and England for making a firmer stand against a warmongerer is what the article does.

The opinion of the article aside it isn't that susprising that Poland would pursue a more firm policy when Britain gave her support. That is only logical.

Yes indeed. I must repeat though that I didnt see any Polish demands for German territory and so on. It was Germany pointing its guns on Poland - thankfully other European countries finally realised it was time to say stop.

That point alone doesn't lay blame, it merely gives a reason for it. When we work with it alone I can't see why it is so important to lay a blame... And we ARE working with the points on a one to one basis. Do they hold water at all, or are they faulty?

The points present in that article do not hold water at all. Perhaps if you ask David Irving they do but no serious historian will support those statements. Not important to lay blame you say... Well it is equally important not to make any dubious arguments as this article does trying to put blame where it definitly do not belong.

Can I ask you to be frank. Do you support the statements made in that article or not?

Again I am sorry to say I fail to see your point.

Kalle

[Samurai Waki]

I always thought, that the molotov-ribbentrop pact was agreed by Stalin because he knew that the Soviet Army was ill-equipped and undermanned. He had no interest in dealing with the Nazi's personally, but was using the pact as a means to give him some breathing space for his own military build up. Stalin probably could've cared less if a chunk of Poland was added into his realm or not based on the treaty, but as it was, why not add a little bit to the realm? In any event, had Germany not attacked the Soviet Union, then the Soviets would've been the first to attack Germany. They were just waiting for their own build up, but War came a little too early to react capably with ill experienced officers.

Unfortunately, Poland has a history of being the best place to invade for a logistical spring board into other territories.

[cegorach]

[QUOTE=Kraxis]


I cannot agree with one statement of yours:

True, why should Poland compromise? Well, Germany lost areas that really were German after WWI. Poland got those areas (other areas were lost too which were Polish to be certain). Now Hitler wanted those areas back.
So both Germany and Poland had a claim on them (the areas had been Polish a number of times earlier, and German a number of times, thus it was not a new situation).

True those areas were in Germany, however the crushing majority of population was undeniably Polish.

This map is based on German data gathered in early XXth century and Allied research which was often hardly pro-Polish




You see Germans were quite numerous - about 1 000 000 in 35 000 000, but they were living in various areas with only a couple of mostly German districts or towns, HOWEVER since late XVIIIth century Prussian/later Imperial German propaganda tried to implement some sort of superiority complex in them.
Simply they already believed they are better and rascist, nationalistic propaganda of early XXth century was especially popular in these areas they were the minority.

Funny, that Germans have almost always been the most reliable minority and the easiest to be polonised , yet they were so ready to accept the fairy tales about 'those brave Teutonic settlers fighting with Slavic barbarians'.

Simply the law in Prussia was virtually apartheit one ( Poles were banned to buy land, learn Polish etc) and the local Germans were under special care of the government - all that was lost after independent Poland re-emerged and in addition trashed them in a couple of battles.
No wonder there were numerous supporters of this 'reconquista'.

[Kraxis]

No, I do not support any notion that Britain or Poland was at fault, of course not. Why should I support it?
I merely say that the point presented in ITSELF doesn't lay any blame, it gives a reason which as far as I can see is pretty clear.

If Poland was negotiating and suddenly stopped, then it should be little surprise that Germany might do something, that is the whole point. Should it be done? Yes! Of course I don't want to put anything onto Polish shoulders here, I can understand if someone would think it was a terrible price to pay and perhaps not worth it, but I think it was what was needed.

I'm surprised that you would think I am some sort of revisionist. I have all along tried to get away from the whole lay blame as I don't see the point as it is written laying any blame. The intention behind it, coupled with the other points do indicate a sort of "Germany was forced" kind of agenda, but not the point itself.

Thank you cecorach for the image, I had been under the impression that the Danzig/Gdansk corridor was a good deal more German. The western borders seem pretty fair in this image.

[Franconicus]

Let me foment the discussion once again.

Sometime ago I red the book from Valentin Falin. If I understood him right, the Sovient view is:

- The USSR realized from the beginning that Hitler was a threat for their country and whole Europe
- The USSR tried to form an alliance of collective security for all nations, trying to contain Hitler's Germany
- The Western Democracies never accepted the USSR as an equal partner. All their proposals aimed a higher security for the Western countries at the prize of lower security for the SU. The west even tried to redirect German expansionism against the SU.
- When the SU finally realized that the concept of collective security for equal partners was not feasible, they tried to secure themselves, by installing a buffer between the SU and Germany.
- The part of Poland, that the SU occupied, was originally part of Belarus, which was occupied by the Poland illegally. The SU occupied it to protect the Russian population.
- The occupation of the Baltic States was similar to Churchill's plans to occupy Norway; a justify mean to contain German agression.

[KrooK]

- The part of Poland, that the SU occupied, was originally part of Belarus, which was occupied by the Poland illegally. The SU occupied it to protect the Russian population.

Tell me who teached you history - Uncle Molotov?
First of all - these territories can't be described as one big eastern part of Poland - rather as 2 of them - Grodzienszczyzna (north) and Lwowszczyzna (south).
It has never been part of Belarus because at the beginning of XX centrury there simply were not nation that could be called Belarussians - it's probably youngest nation of the Europe. They formed themselves as a nation in the middle of XX century and even now they are forming it. That territory has not been occupied illegaly - IT WAS PART OF POLISH COUNTRY SINCE 1385. PEOPLE LIVING THERE WERE MOSTLY POLES and they want be citizens of Poland, not Soviet Union. I can only tell that if we would look from your point of view then Schleswig-Holstein or Lorraine were always part of Germany and France and Denmark illegally occupied that territories.

People who were living there were mostly Poles (even now there is about 300.000 Poles into Belarus), Jews or people who didn't feel that they are any nation - they were called tutejsi. There were hardly any Russians - i don't think more than 10%. Furthermore these territories were parts of Great Princedom of Lithuania which was part of polish-lithuanian country - Republic of Both Nations, shortly Kingdom of Poland. In 1772 and 1793 Russians conquered these territories.
Poles reconquered these territory into 1920 after battles od Warsaw and of Niemen. Before Treaty of Riga SU proposed Poland rest of something you call Belarus. Poles refused because into todays Eastern Belarus Poles were minority. So don't tell that they cared about people living there.

Situation at southern territory - Lwowszczyzna was more complicated. There were very big Ukrainian minority. Poles had to fight with Ukrainians to gain this territory but Lwow was polish city that time. Furthermore there was clean that only war can decide who will gain that territory - there were simply absolutely no etnical border. But one is absolutely sure - there were hardly any Russians too. In the end I would like to ask about that "protection" - maybe similar to hunger at eastern Ukraine?

- The occupation of the Baltic States was similar to Churchill's plans to occupy Norway; a justify mean to contain German agression

Germans did not want occupy these territories. Lithuania was quiet ally of Germany into 30ties. Soviet Union simply wanted gain as much territory as he could.



At the end I have some questions to you.
Who teached you history and from which books?
Have you read any SERIOUS book (not tabloid history courses) about Polish - Russians relation - not only 1918-1920 but maybe 1700 - 1939?
Have you ever read anything about Belarussian nation?


Something you call Belarus was part of polish-lithuanian country. People living there were citizens of that country and they did not like Russia and did not want be Russians.

[Franconicus]

Tell me who teached you history - Uncle Molotov?

As I wrote I have these statements from a book of Valentin Falin. He was security advisor of Gorbadschow, so I think his view is the official Soviet view. I learned some history in school, but to be honest, the time at the end of WW1 until let's say 1930 was fucused on internal history. It is very hard to get information about what was going on in Poland then.

What Falin wrote was in most points different to what I had learned at school. Therefore, I was wondering if everything I have learned is right. I guess every nation has his own interpretation of history. That is the reason why I placed these statements in this discussion.

Thanks for your information!

Germans did not want occupy these territories. Lithuania was quiet ally of Germany into 30ties. Soviet Union simply wanted gain as much territory as he could.

That is exactly what I learned at school. Falin, however, says that Hitler intented to occupy the Baltic States in case the SU would enter the war.
By the way, Churchill did not want to occupy Norway because the Germans wanted. He wrote that the violation of the Norway neutrality was justified by the fight against the evil Nazis. Falin says that the Russians claimed the same for the Baltics.

At the end I have some questions to you.
Who teached you history and from which books?
Have you read any SERIOUS book (not tabloid history courses) about Polish - Russians relation - not only 1918-1920 but maybe 1700 - 1939?
Have you ever read anything about Belarussian nation?

No, in our history courses Poland plays a minor role and Belarus none. There are not many books about this topic and most of those are, let's say, a bit revanchist. I did not read them.
I'd like to learn more about that part of history and so I decided to contact my friends in the org.

[cegorach]

[QUOTE=Franconicus]Let me foment the discussion once again.


I will answer this directly, but I will try to avoid arguments used by Krook.

Sometime ago I red the book from Valentin Falin. If I understood him right, the Sovient view is:

- The USSR realized from the beginning that Hitler was a threat for their country and whole Europe

They had severla opportunities to stop Hitler before if they wanted. Actually there was strong military cooperation with Germany earlier ( tank commanders trained in Russia freely) and Staling changed little, there was much talking, but almost no action to stop Hitler made by the SU.
Help in Spain ended when the gold of Republican government run out, besides NKVD spent a lot of time killing trockists and anarchists rather than doing something positive.

- The USSR tried to form an alliance of collective security for all nations, trying to contain Hitler's Germany

They only signed a series of non-aggression pacts with its neighbours ALL of those were broken untill 1941.

- The Western Democracies never accepted the USSR as an equal partner. All their proposals aimed a higher security for the Western countries at the prize of lower security for the SU. The west even tried to redirect German expansionism against the SU.

To some degree. Tey more tried to use the SU sacrificing eastern Europe. Actually it is amazing how naive they were when dealing with a country which openly declared all capitalists enemies and used terrorism, political assassinations to overthrow at least a couple of governments e.g. in Bulgaria.
Komintern was nothing more than a state funded terrorist organisation - just check the kind of training they got in Russia - 'how to plant explosives' was a good example.

- When the SU finally realized that the concept of collective security for equal partners was not feasible, they tried to secure themselves, by installing a buffer between the SU and Germany.

By destroying the buffer completely actively supporting Germany and helping them in making the war with Poland in 1939 notably shorter...
Basic logic tells something different.

- The part of Poland, that the SU occupied, was originally part of Belarus, which was occupied by the Poland illegally. The SU occupied it to protect the Russian population.

There was little or no Russian population. Most of those actually escaped the revolution so were hardly waiting for 'liberation'.
Treaty of Riga in 1922 after the wasr which the SU lost was fully legal - unless of course only wars won by the Communists are legal...
Besides what rights had the SU to get these territories except that it Tzarist Russia invaded and conquered the territory in 1792-95 and later quelled several bloody uprisings.
Belorussian nation's rights is a different question of course.

- The occupation of the Baltic States was similar to Churchill's plans to occupy Norway; a justify mean to contain German agression.

In Estonia or Latvia ? I wonder how the Germans were going to get here in the first place.
There are no proofs that Germany was trying anything to get those countries.
Of course the entire idea was to justify the conquest of three independent states little less than the thing which was done to Belgium or Luxemburg in 1914.




Overall it is a perfect example of Soviet imperialism and Soviet history - most likely the most biased in the world along with the Nazi one.

I am glad that it is going to die out sooner or later except its last pockets of resistance Russia and Belorus where still people hear about Polish cutthroats attacking heroic NKVD which improved the life of many people - obviously by mass executions which followed the invasion in 1939.

[Watchman]

They had severla opportunities to stop Hitler before if they wanted. Actually there was strong military cooperation with Germany earlier ( tank commanders trained in Russia freely) and Staling changed little, there was much talking, but almost no action to stop Hitler made by the SU.

By all accounts whatever else he was Stalin was brutally pragmatic and had few qualms about kicking ideology to the sidelines for expediency. Anyway, I've read the joint military developement program Germany and the USSR had going was really a pre-Hitler thing - unlike Stalin Adolf was a True Believer in his own junk, and I understand he didn't much like the idea of close cooperation with Bolshevik Untermenschen. By that point the German military had nonetheless already picked up the proto-Blitzkrieg ideas the Soviets were toying with and later put them into good practice, but one side effect was that came Barbarossa the Germans only had some very vague ideas of what the Soviet military was or wasn't...

Anyway, AFAIK Stalin was never one to go out looking for trouble. As far as he was concerned Hitler could do his thing somewhere else so long as he didn't try to horn in on his turf, and would no doubt have been quite happy with the two of them leaving each other alone if it came to that. Hitler wasn't running on a similarly unscrupulously rational program though, which is apparently one reason Barbarossa came as such a shocking surprise to Stalin - he couldn't comprehend someone would try an irrational gamble like that just because.

Help in Spain ended when the gold of Republican government run out, besides NKVD spent a lot of time killing trockists and anarchists rather than doing something positive.

AFAIK Stalin loathed the Spanish socialists. True to form the Iberians went very much their own way even in ideology, and Comintern Stalinism was quite at odds with the eclectic jumble of anarchists, branch socialists, Trotskyists and whoever else made up the Spanish ideological Left. Which in practice meant the Soviets made some efforts to support the Republicans for the sake of appereances - unscrupulous as he was Stalin still had to maintain some facade of ideological credibility, and undermining your self-declared arch-fiends like Fascists was just common sense - but was more concerned hijacking and/or undermining the whole operation.

To some degree. Tey more tried to use the SU sacrificing eastern Europe. Actually it is amazing how naive they were when dealing with a country which openly declared all capitalists enemies and used terrorism, political assassinations to overthrow at least a couple of governments e.g. in Bulgaria.
Komintern was nothing more than a state funded terrorist organisation - just check the kind of training they got in Russia - 'how to plant explosives' was a good example.

To be fair, the Soviets had zero reason to be even remotely amiable towards the "West" - the latter had, after all, made some spirited if war-weary contributions at an attempt to "stamp out the Red virus" during the Russian Civil War. Given that after the dust settled the USSR was functionally a pariah in world politics, and had some justified reasons the suspect about everyone else really did want to see it crash and burn, it is perhaps understandable they were pretty paranoid.

'Course, the way "saboteurs" were regularly blamed for the many shortcomings of the Soviet system and the isolation of the state did nothing to lessen any of that, and the revolutionary Communism it at least claimed to follow was pretty much by definition an export good...

By destroying the buffer completely actively supporting Germany and helping them in making the war with Poland in 1939 notably shorter...
Basic logic tells something different.

Strategic depth, pure and simple. When the Soviet front positions were in Poland any trouble would begin that much farther from the Soviet heartlands; additionally, if Stalin had any ambitions about further expansions - for example at the expense of a Germany worn out by a drawn-out war against the Western Allies with most of its troops somewhere else... - this would be that much better forward base to realize any such from.

Buffer zones are nice, but then again if it's made your territory you can make use of its resources to help your own defense plan, as well as see for yourself that the defenses are suitably strong. Another problem with buffer states is that if you don't happen to be in an outright military alliance with them the enemy can potentially overrun them on his own accord and come right to your doorstep without you having any say in the matter...

[KrooK]

Ok but how can you explain Besarabia or Finland?

[cegorach]

Sma way, I guess. Anyway I will respond to those arguments later, have no time now.