If you didn't think this topic is controversial enough already, we have an even more contentious question for you: Is the Soviet Union basically an Axis Power between 1939 and 1941? Technically the answer is a definite "no" because the USSR will never sign the Tripartite Pact, but it's still worth thinking about. The USSR and Nazi Germany will cultivate a pretty productive relationship after they sign the Non-Aggression Treaty, not only prompting a joint occupation of Poland but also allowing Hitler to invade Western Europe without having to worry about his eastern borders. So when you look at it like that, the USSR directly supported the Nazi war machine. On the other hand, it is probably a bit of a leap to blame the USSR for Nazi expansionism, and Stalin is forced by circumstances to enter into the Pact. The USSR is not ready to fight a war at this point, and the treaty buys not only time but also space, creating a virtual buffer zone between Germany and the Motherland in the form of Poland. Cynical and calculated, yes, but that's diplomacy for you. Stalin will obviously offer a very extreme interpretation of this second argument after the war, casting Soviet actions as a necessary defensive measure against the imperialism of the Western Powers and their supposed encouragement of Nazi Germany. Stalinist myth-making aside, the argument that defensive considerations is a significant factor in the Soviets signing of the Pact does have some merit. This question is more than just an academic exercise. The USSR rightfully gets credit for bearing the brunt of the Nazi onslaught, but would we think differently about it as an Allied power if we also understood as a former Axis power? Let us know what you think below. Stay safe out there. Cheers, Francis. *RULES OF CONDUCT* STAY CIVIL AND POLITE we will delete any comments with personal insults, or attacks. AVOID PARTISAN POLITICS AS FAR AS YOU CAN we reserve the right to cut off vitriolic debates. HATE SPEECH IN ANY DIRECTION will lead to a ban. RACISM, XENOPHOBIA, OR SLAMMING OF MINORITIES will lead to an immediate ban. PARTISAN REVISIONISM, ESPECIALLY HOLOCAUST AND HOLODOMOR DENIAL will lead to an immediate ban.
The controversy surrounding the pact is unfortunately almost totally overlooked in official Soviet and Russian school history textbooks. The pact is framed as an ingenious move to buy crucial time at the dawn of war. The matter of fact, however, is that the USSR had no land border with the Third Reich prior to 1939 and the occupation of Poland the pact procured. Furthermore, it took Germans a mere month to get through most of that newly acquired "buffer zone" riding on tanks and planes produced from and fuelled by Soviet materials. This is without a doubt one of the most shameful pages of Soviet history (and its not like there is no good competition), one that took an unfathomable amount of blood to correct. Stalin was not entirely wrong to distrust the Western powers with their appeasement, but this pact was just as bad, if not worse.
In this comment/text you are more historically accurate and you say that wasnt an alliance and something commanded by the circumstances . But in the title you write "A Soviet-Nazi Alliance". Ok, been provocative has its value, but it is also unfair here.
That's an interesting question I haven't considered before. I would agree the answer is no but it seems simile to america's relationship with the allies before joining formally.(obviously not the exact same) So for those that say US was not neutral, would they have to say the USSR was not neutral ether?
There were degrees of collaboration with Nazi Germany. There were points when the Soviet Union was a closer ally than Italy or Japan. "Axis" is simply not a helpful term since Axis co-operation was sporadic and inconsistent.
The April Fools is actually anyone believing the UK and France would do anything about Poland getting invaded. In September 1939 prime minister of Poland, Skladkowski, calls prime minister of the UK, Chamberlain. Skladkowski: "The Germans are invading! Can you send the troops already? You said you would guarantee our safety." Chamberlain: "Ever heard of the April Fool's Day?"
@@ProjectEkerTest33 yes. It's an old idea. The Confederate peace commissioners proposed to Lincoln at the Hampton Roads Conference, April 1865 that to end the war, both sides should unite and attack French ruled Mexico instead. Lincoln thankfully gave it short shrift.
@@marks_sparks1 Wow I've never heard that before! Honestly I'm not surprised he said no it seems like a really dumb idea to me given that Lincoln's main goals were preventing the South's secession and ending slavery, why would he even consider sigining a white peace and attacking Mexico?
@@Wankshaft Yeah I get why they thought he might want to attack French Mexico but why did they think he'd stop fighting them in order to do it? I mean by 1865 the Union was winning wasn't it? Why would he let them get away with seceeding and slavery? Anyway I guess he didn't and it was probably a last ditch attempt on the Confederate's part.
Yes! ( For the record, I'm a USA citizen and had two great US history teachers in high school, 1971-73. One of them, Mr. Endre K., had escaped from Hungary during the 1956 uprising and was able to eventually make his way to the USA.) This and the other series are so outstandingly presented in an interesting and informative manner, I have been binge watching them lately since I am now retired. Thanks so much to all of you on this team!!
I don't get how you guys in the TimeGhost History team make these topics so thrilling that one is kept on edge and wonder just what happens next, despite the fact that we today already know where it it going.
@@TimeGhost Hold on, isn't that like telling Michael Jordan "Gotta be the shoes"? I'm joking of course. The writing and research is superb. And of course Sparty and Indy are mighty good front men.
Plus Ribbentrop had his fingers crossed behind his back when he signed the pact. Molotov should have screamed "no takebacks!" at the signing and this whole war could have been avoided.
There was a very deep and practical relationship between the 2 pariah States between World War 1 and World War 2. Going to War against Russia was not taken lightly at all by the German High Command.
considering how much bullshitting goes on outside of April 1st to the point where parody becomes reality, April 1st is now April Honesty Day the only day you are not allowed to Bullshit everyone. Every other day find all the fools you can and make that green.
Actually they did cooperate - Germans were training tank crew in USSR in 1930s. First tank prototypes for Germany were built in USSR ;) That is no lie.
Doubt anyone at the time thought it would last,both had opposite goals,motivations and teritorial ambitions to stand the test of time,if anything it was sort of "i gotta kill my enemies so why dont we take a break from hostilities until later" "K"
The premise of your show is the main draw for me, everyone knows what happens. But it is fascinating to look at it through the lens of the moment when they didn't. Can't get enough.
Everybody knows a little about _some_ of what happened. Which sadly, is close to 'hardly anything'. For example, how many consider the impossibility of a mere 6 yrs of R&D (surreptitiously, mind you) by the Nazis to be nearly enough time to close the martial-technolgy gap that most other nations' have had the entire inter-war period of 20 years to widen? _....or did we assume that all those class-leading Panzers, Messerschmidts and Stuckers somehow magically designed and trial-tested themselves?_ 🤔
Good day Sir, I had been following for quite some time your presentations In between 2 wars. I am rather impressed! Being a historian myself I cannot help it but agree to almost each and every assesment of your just remarks. Accurate and thorough facts are put in a well digestive manner. Narrative well ecquired.I'm looking forward to your new episodes. With respect, Willi Sobiegraj, South Africa
@@Feffdc + Mateusz Cetnar hey, the commentary by mateusz, doesn't it mention 1944-1945? Because given the balance of power between the American-English allies and the Soviet armies, I can hardly see the Americans stopping the Russian roller from rolling over them if they were not abandoning Eastern Europe.
Mateusz...Stalin knew he had no opposition from the Yalta members, so he thought that just because he had his Soviets (soldiers who defended their country) die because he made a fatal error in thinking he could trust Hitler, he deserved Eastern Europe (where I'm from too).
Good guys my ass. The west had no issue with Hitler until their interests were hurt. Churchill literally praised musolini and Hitler. And we saw how the west kept propping up similar dictators during the world war.
@@pnutz_2 The population was roughly two thirds Polish speaking. It was awarded to Czechoslovakia because of the peculiar shape of the country, there were only two major rail lines going from west to east, one passed through. If you go to Cesky Tesin today, you can see a huge railway station there with a certain amount of imperial grandeur whilst the one in Cieszyn on the much greater populated Polish side is tiny. Cieszyn incidentally was largely German speaking in 1918.
@@HistoryonUA-cam It was more complex than that. The railroad might have played a role, but one can always build a new railroad. The Czech politicians had better connections in the West, particularly in France. There were some significant French economic interests in that region, which was crucial because: Poland was in a middle of a war with the Soviet Russia, with the outcome hard to predict. In the case of a Soviet win, the Soviets would have been in a position to seize French assets. Keeping them in Czechoslovakia was a safer option. The war also made the Polish side highly dependent on arms deliveries from France, giving the French a key bargaining leverage in the dispute.
Not just Poland and the Baltic States were affected by the non-aggression pact, but also Romania who lost Bessarabia and half of Bukovina to the USSR. Article 3 of the secret protocol gave Bessarabia to the USSR.
@@МаксимБромберг I know that the USSR never recognized the annexation of Bessarabia to Romania. The USSR could never have done that. But that doesn't mean the USSR was correct.
@@МаксимБромберг "USSR never recognized the annexation of Bessarabia by Romania in 1920." Did Moldova recognize the annexation of Bessarabia by the Russian Empire in 1812?
Thank you for this fantastic video. The part about Stalin recognizing the advent of a new global war in 1937 was particularly interesting. Your team has done a great job of exploring the way in which this conflict emerged and played out in ways that go beyond the typical script we have grown accustomed to (Sept. 1, 1939, etc.). There's a tendency to want to put history into neat linear timelines, where things happen in a clear sequence. Ironically, by diving deeply into the chronology (like with your week-by-week series), you show how the real story is more complex and nuanced. You're creating groundbreaking ways for millions of people to learn from the past. Thank you!
> Five Year Plans Reducing industrial lag from the West. > Soviet version of Blitzkrieg This is part of military progress, not an aggressive plan. > Paratroopers, strategic bombers (offensive weapons, not defensive) There is no offensive or defensive weapon. It can be used in any situation. Paratroopers were used in defense during the battle for Moscow. > Purges Preparation for the aggression of the imperialists against the USSR.
Ideology should play second fiddle to pragmatism but it doesn't always with Western diplomacy. It's worse than that: An ideology with a childish belief in the perfectibility and unity of humanity takes primary position.
@@neilreynolds3858 where in Marxism does it say the goal is to perfect humanity? Marxism rejects Utopianism. It’s amazing that people like you pretend to be experts on an ideology you have never even bothered to research.
...until it doesn't, like when Nazi Germany invades the Soviet Union while still at war with Britain, a two-front war that will be extremely difficult to win and unpragmatic to wage...
No, in this case, the ideologies were aligned. Both ideologically believed in fucking polan, literally. The soviets believed they needed it to industrialize, nazis to de industrialize.
He most notably signed an agreement with Sikorski in 1941, recognizing the Polish Government in Exile (that didn't last long but that's another story). I had to look up what was going on with him after that. Apparently he had a pretty stable and successful career in Soviet government until 1945 when he retired. Shortly before Stalin's death in 1953 he got arrested and sentenced for 6 years for alleged espionage, but was released and rehabilitated in 1955.
Stalin even wanted to help Czechoslovakia in the case of German-Czechoslovak war. But there was a significant problem. USSR and Czechoslovakia didn't have the common border. There were Polish and Romanian territories between them and both of these countries didn't allow Soviet army to move across their territory. Another problem was that the Soviet "help" (yes I still think that Soviets rather wanted to secure their own interests in Czechoslovakia than really help them) was dependent on French help. And we all know what France did aswell as Britain.
Actually Romania was inclined to let Soviet troops to pass to Czechoslovakia. A broad-gauge railway was under construction in Northern Romania for the Soviet troops to use, but unfortunately that railway was not finished before the Munich Diktat happened.
*"I still think that Soviets rather wanted to secure their own interests in Czechoslovakia than really help them"* It might surprise you that Benes himself - you know, that Soviet cheerleader, so eager that Venona intercepts tagged him as their possible asset - had a similar view, which he shared in 1943. Soviets - he complained, adding he wouldn't ever say that openly - had never _really_ promised they were going to help, that their entire MO was to avoid promising anything. Seems fairly damaging to the idea of Stalin The Helper, who got obstructed in his noble goals.
A bunch of songs made by Johannes Bornloff used as some of the background music. The bit of soundtrack used for the intro of WW2 and some bits of this video is the "Death and Glory" series. The intro to WW2 is Death and Glory 01 ifrc
Soviets coveted access to German technology. I was surprised to learn that Moscow sanctioned a covert location, for Germany to 6:40 build planes for Hitler's Luftwaffen, barely 300 miles from Moscow!
It's very easy to look back now with perfect hindsight and see the pact as a fatal mistake. But view things from Stalin's point of view in 1939. The capitalist West aren't friends to the USSR, they're not as openly hostile as fascist Germany and Italy, but they're still antagonistic. The British and French have refused to act to stop Hitler's rearmament and have ignored soviet efforts at collective security. Just one year earlier he saw them sacrifice the Czeks even though their independence was guaranteed by France. The British and French also agreed to exclude the USSR from the negotiations at Munich. The British then unilaterally guaranteed Polish independence without bothering to consult the Soviets. THEN, after all that, they suddenly want a binding treaty but one that doesn't offer the Soviets any sort of incentive. Why would Stalin agree to help? Cynical or not the fact is the British and French had created the situation by their own policy of appeasement and had not made any effort to work with the Soviets. They had also sacrificed Austria and Czechoslovakia to spare themselves. Why wouldn't he assume that if he did join them they would either not declare war or just stay on the defensive and let the Germans and Russians bleed themselves white? That would actually fit with western policy for the past six years. By making a deal with the Germans Stalin got a free hand in eastern Europe and got to stay out of a major war. And IF the British and French did decide to fight he would be the one who could sit back and watch as his enemies bled themselves white. Just looking at the facts in 1939 the pact was a good decision.
the USSR didn't share a border with Germany in 1939. If Stalin truly wanted peace - one his sentance would prevent the war. All what was needed was to say that he would put a war on Germany if they invade Poland and if France & Britain also would do that. Instead - he wanted to gain the situation and get Baltics, parts of Romania, all Finland and half of Poland. The result would be 20 millions or more soviet victims of war...
@@Batmax192 *"All what was needed was to say that he would put a war on Germany if they invade Poland and if France & Britain also would do that."* Eh, not even that. All that was needed to say was _nothing_ and to promise _nothing_ *including* Germany. All that's left to do is to watch. *Option A: Poland gets invaded, Allies DOW Germany and continue as in OTL* Hitler either Full HOI4 and invades USSR without resolving other fronts (yeah, right) or Full Fall Gelb. Randos guarding the East? USSR gets a LOT of options. A decent force stuck in the East? Allies get a lot of options to handle Fall Gelb. *Option B: Poland does not get invaded, at least not in 1939* How important securing eastern flank was for Hitler's decision to invade, HOW to invade or WHEN to invade? *VERY.* What does he do, faced with a Soviet question mark instead of a sealed deal? If he stalls for a bit longer, then Stalin can easily get a LOT more time than in OTL. _For free_ People are slaves to their own limited experiences and biases. Did a humiliation of Russia by Japan before WW1 affect Stalin's perspective of a potential danger she posed in eg. 1935? He did overestimate that danger for *a* reason, after all. The same goes for utterly surreal concept of Poland invading within the same timeframe "because nice with Japan". With what, hungry peasants? And falling apart on their own before 100 miles? But she did humiliate him, personally, so suddenly there was enough danger for approving Polish Operation against everyone with a _dangerous name_ . Entente anemically invading to support Whites? ZOMG, they can totally invade Soviet Union for real, let's ignore a logistical nightmare that it would've represented if you wanted to do anything else than staying in ports. What do those events have in common? All happening within Stalin's lifespan, all happening when he was not in a position to have any professional insight available and while he was lacking any valuable insight of his own. What are the chances half-educated, but calcified opinions of a man, who has no equal, can influence a decision process? Non-trivial, I suppose. There's this strange tendency to interpret Stalin's moves as expert diplomacy *ex post* , instead of a product of tinkering, clever amateur supported by all experts he fancied, but who he could choose to ignore anytime. There were times, when Soviet stance was influenced by either half-assed or completely absurd analysis, but for a lot of reasons potentially bad consequences did not occur. Similarly, a number of gambles based on wishful thinking played out well... for multiple unrelated reasons, too. Imagining OTL long-term results of a R-M were _really_ a product of a careful, clever planning and 7D chess is akin to praising Fall Gelb for anything *but* the end result and certain boldness:)
@@Batmax192 Poland was going to be invaded regardless of what Stalin wanted. Poland was never going to allow Soviet troops to operate on its territory, along with France and Britain unpreparedness for a fight and a very real danger of a war with Japan to top it off, leaves Stalin with very few options.
@@ralphbernhard1757 No! It is not! Just a year before - Poland was in alliance with a Germany - they partitioned Chzechoslovakia AND forbid any USSR passage to help Czhechs. To Stalin Poland in 1939 was Germany Allies/Puppet. So it was no barrier from Soviet perspective. And they were right - Poland would anyway be subjigated by Nazi
@@TimeGhost what happened to Czechoslovakia was more like a footnote in that video though, and wouldn't the geopolitical changes of 1938/1939 in the region before the outbreak of the war deserve it's own video? The Munich dictate (still remembered in Czech national consciousness today), the occupation (to which Hácha agreed after being shouted at by Hitler for hours and being threatened by bombing of Prague) and the creation of a separate Slovak state
You did a good job explaining the diplomatic back stabbing that England and France did when it came to its relations with Czechoslovakia. Poland and Hungary also claimed territory from Slovakia.
When at the Nuremberg Trials, Field Marshal Keitel was asked the question: “Would Germany have attacked Czechoslovakia in 1938 if the Western powers had supported Prague?” He replied: “Of course not. We weren't strong enough militarily. Munich's goal was to drive Russia out of Europe, gain time and complete the armament of Germany. " Later, the French ambassador to Warsaw, Leon Noel, admitted: “The Munich agreements and the resulting betrayal of Czechoslovakia represent one of the most pitiful, shameful and humiliating episodes of the policy pursued on behalf of France between the two world wars, which led to the most disastrous catastrophe in our history. ". As you can see, many even at that time understood who really pushed the world towards war. And, whatever the myth-makers from the European Union wrote, it was not the USSR. On the night of September 29-30, 1938, the famous Munich Agreement was signed. And on September 30, Warsaw presented the Czechoslovak government with a new ultimatum, where it demanded the immediate satisfaction of its demands. German troops entered the Sudetenland. Polish troops occupied the Teshin region of Czechoslovakia.
How come 1920 Kerzone line agreement is a 1939 Molotov-Ribentropp subprotocol and how is it secret? Also how is sayd agreement is an Alliense if the USSR didn't military support the invation of France and war against Britain?
It seems clear to me that the sacrifice of Czechoslovakia may have been a crucial moment in the events leading to the 2nd WW. Had the Allies refused appeasement at that point (and not after the rest of Czechia has been absorbed by Germany), Hitler would probably still have attacked, France and Britain would have been passive, and Czechoslovakia would have fallen. But there would be no reinforcing of German industry and military by the spoils from Czechoslovakia, there probably wouldn't be and Molotov Ribbentrop pact, no supply of grain and oil. Perhaps there would be a coup against Hitler in the early days of this alternative war and relatively fast peace. Who knows? But in hindsight, it was an event that lead to 50 million dead.
Well how important was Czechoslovakia for Germany really that?They just gained about 250 Panzer 35ts plus several tens of outdated tanks(they probably discarded after annexation),43.000 machine guns,1.1 million rifles and more than 2000 artillery pieces.İt was formidable was it was just useful for Wehrmacht as stockpile.Germans on the other hand already produced more than 3000 tanks,more than 7.000 10.5 cm and 15cm howitzers,about 4000 75mm infantry guns,about 150.000 machine guns(great portion of them are MG-34s like 84.000) and between 4-5 million Kar-98 rifles during pre war.Czech stuff was maybe large to equip %30 of German Army as somebody claims it wasn't really that vital.But yes if we add that to German inventory it really making very strong.Plus Germany gained about 2 million tons of steel and iron ore capacity,some 10 million peoples including 3.5 million in Sudetenland,several billions kilowatt/hours of electric power and decent armament industry of Czechs. By the way how many tons of grains did Germany produced in 1939 and 1940,i read in somewhere they produced about 30.3 million tons in 1913 which looks decent for me but problem was that recovered. books.google.com.tr/books?id=KYMiAAAAQBAJ&pg=PR8&dq=&hl=tr&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiO25fTptToAhXho4sKHexhAh4Q6AEIJzAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
@@AFT_05G The Czech Republic, which surrendered without a fight in 1938-1939 to the Germans during the Second World War, became a real weapons workshop for the Third Reich. A powerful military industry, skilled Czech workers and engineers produced aircraft engines, weapons and ammunition for Germany and its allies. Czech factories made a particularly noticeable contribution to the production of armored vehicles for Hitler. Germans received from the Czechs more than 1.4 million rifles and pistols, over 62 thousand machine guns, about 4 thousand guns and mortars. Czech trophies in 1939 were equipped with 5 Wehrmacht infantry divisions, in 1940 - 44 more. Hundreds of Czech armored vehicles, tankettes and light tanks entered service with the German, Romanian and Slovak armies, and the latter were then considered the best in the world, “an ideal machine for a blitzkrieg ". On June 22, 1941, Czech-made armored vehicles made up one fourth of the fleet of German 1st echelon tank divisions. Later, the occupied factories began to produce self-propelled and assault guns instead of obsolete tanks by that time.
This is a damn good video, explaining the Soviet reasoning for the pact. And it would have worked perfectly for them if France wasn’t a potato. Imagine France losing the war over 2 years rather than 2 weeks. The west and germany would be exhausted, while the Soviets would be unstoppable.
Better cooperation between the UK and France when it came to confronting the German Army (or even a few more imaginative and well-placed leaders) probably would have helped a lot. The other channel did a great job showing how evenly matched the forces were in 1940, but that it was the Allies' inability to adapt to the Germans' better tactics that made the difference. Looking at that situation from Stalin's point of view, I can see why he would assume that the war in the West would be a long grinding one that would benefit the USSR in the long run. I can also see why their mood suddenly changed after the fall of France (and the Winter War of 1939-40) where the USSR suddenly started to take war preparations a lot more seriously.
Great episode, well presented as usual. 1 nit pick - you did not mention the Japanese-Russian fighting going on 1939 in Khalkhin Gol, Mongolia, at the time. That puts an additional reason for Stalin to sign, to avoid a possible 2 front war. The Japanese were hoping for such a war to capture Siberia, so when the M-R Pact was signed, they were really crushed, and gave up on Siberia.
@@mojewjewjew4420 Nope, Japan lost a border war, an were already struggling with China, going up against the Soviets in their most hostile climate would be suicidal. Just look at the Soviet Invasion of Manchuria in 1945 to see how they'd fare.
@@zexal4217 1. Japanese weren't fully commited to that border war so we dont know what would happen in a full scale war. 2.Japan could have signed a peace treaty or armistice with China if they weren't so greedy. 3.Soviets were more occupied with the european part so they wouldn't face strong resitstence. 4.The soviets weren't immune to the cold....or were they? Hmm 5.in 1945 you mean when the Soviets defeated a already demoralized,under equipped and outnumbered enemy. Japanese army at that point wasnt much of a army anymore it was like kicking a corpse.
12:55: "And why would the guarantee for Poland not be against all enemies?" - funny thing is, it actually was against Germany. Because that's what the context of the guarantee was, and what the Poles asked for. A few months later, out of concern that Poland might be dragged into war against Italy, Polish side insisted to include respective statement into the secret protocol of the treaty with Britain. That's what the first article of the said protocol was: "1. (a) By the expression "a European Power" employed in the Agreement is to be understood Germany. (b) In the event of action within the meaning of Article 1 or 2 of the Agreement by a European Power other than Germany, the Contracting Parties will consult together on the measures to be taken in common."
I think a lot of the conclusions are based on hindsight. I would say that Stalin, like Mussolini, acted as a jackal helping himself to the other countries and invaded six countries during his pact with Hitler. However, the only way of getting effective assistance to Poland was via the USSR and this was blocked by the Polish government. The British government sent a delegation to Stalin in August 1939 via a transport ship which took several days, whereas Ribbentrop flew to Stalin making one stop in Koenigsburg for refuelling - which clearly showed which side was being the most serious. However a major factor was the way in which the Polish government openly courted Hitler for many years, participated in the attack on Czechoslovakia and even when the danger to Gdańśk was utterly clear gave diplomatic support to the Nazis in their attack on Lithuania in March 1939. One wonders what might have happened had the Central European countries, Austria, Czechoslovakia and Poland had stood together. Their combined military strength outnumbered that of Hitler - even after the occupation of Austria, the Czech and Polish forces were almost at parity. But of course that is also coming to conclusions based on hindsight!
@@ralphbernhard1757 Of course Ralph, some saw their future with Hitler, others behaved in a spiteful and incredibly shortsighted manner. I am writing with the benefit of hindsight.
What about McMeekin's "Stalin's War" thesis: Stalin's negotiations with the West and Germany were carried out under the guiding intention of drawing the capitalist powers into a self-destructive war. Sure, Stalin was not able to manipulate all events but he was always seeking a way to do this in the midst of the ongoing negotiations and concerns over Hitler's intentions. Was the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact the seizing of an opportunity he saw to draw the British and other European powers into the war he hoped would destroy them all and leave the Soviet Union-Communism in control?
Stalin and Hitler wanted just to crush each other in the first place. Ribbentropp-Molotov treaty was just a mutual smokescreen. Hitler on spring, 1941 realized, that he lost the war at the moment of signing the Ribbentropp-Molotov pact. That is why he tried to minimize the scale of defeat by attacking Soviets before Stalin hits Germany. We should remember, that Barbarossa began at the moment, when Germany still fought with Britain on the West and began the war against Allies in Africa. The war at three fronts - not a great scenario, even for a military superpower. Only US could simultaneously win on 2 fronts in history. three fronts - it is just too much.
Surely to Stalin no war with Germany for a time and the Nazis not taking all of Poland would have seemed pretty good for the USSR. It would mean more time to prepare for the war they expected, plus would also mean the Nazis would begin an invasion of the USSR much further from Moscow. Bad for Poland of course, but so was a German invasion without the pact. The only thing that may have saved Poland was a solid alliance protecting them, but considering the Nazi plans for invasion of Poland were already laid, it seems Stalin was not prepared to spend any more time gambling on getting a possible agreement with the UK and France -- who at the time were engaging in appeasement, which to the Soviets must have looked like Western powers enabling Germany to strengthen and expand its borders..
1:31 "both fund opposing sides" I read that the spanish goverment paid in gold for all the soviet aid it (or it's factions) receieved whilst the rebels got credit from their allies. Anyone know more exactly ?
Yeah, the actual aid from the USSR to the Spanish republic was pretty minimal, whereas the support from Hitler and Mussolini to Franco was huge. There is a bit of false equivalency going on here.
USSR: Yo, I am asking once again for an anti-Germany deal. Allies: Again with that shit, Ivan?! We're going with Germany to a party in Munich! You aren't invited BTW. USSR: [forever_alone.jpeg] USSR later: Yo, Germany, wanna make a deal? Allies: [surprised_pikachu.jpeg]
Apart from being a brilliant discourse on the pre-war events, this youtube episode has reminded me of my favourite 20th century painter: Tamara de Lempicka. For that alone: thanks. P
Great episode! Although part of me thinks that, especially considering how hotly this topic is debated by some, maybe it would be better to not release it on April 1? Anyway, it's great to see this series nearly reaching it's completion.
I think that Stalin's actions in the 1920 Polish-Soviet War, contributing to the Red Army's defeat outside Warsaw, may also have been a factor. Stalin would very likely to have liked an opportunity to "fix" that, and get back at Poland who had caused him some degree of humiliation back in 1920. The other thing is this: "Danzig ist Deutsch" was a motto of even the peaceful Weimar Republic, let alone Hitler. The creation of "Danzig Frei Stadt" was just sweeping the issue of the Polish Corridor under the carpet at Versailles, just hoping it would go away. It didn't of course.
" As we say in Germany, if there’s a Nazi at the table and 10 other people sitting there talking to him, you got a table with 11 Nazis. " -Vyacheslav Molotov 2018, on some internet forum, probably
We have made an entire video about that: Did WW2 Start in 1937? - The Rape of China | BETWEEN 2 WARS I 1937 Part 1 of 2 - ua-cam.com/video/_3vPGpamtDI/v-deo.html
@@TimeGhost Yes, that's a great video! Thank you. And if you had either said "from Stalin's perspective" or "from Moscow's perspective", there would be no dispute. Any leader sitting in Stalin's chair would have drawn the same conclusion.
Here And There that’s not what the record indicates. When you look at public opinion across the globe at the time, both West and East, the general feeling was that it became a _World_ War when fighting broke out in Europe, so that both Asia, Africa, and Europe were theaters of war. This is not our opinion, but the opinion of the time. Politicians like Stalin had a different perspective of course. Historians today can quibble about when it was ‘really’ a world war, but the vast majority, again in the West _and_ the East agree that public opinion of the time is the correct measure, putting the dates from September 1, 1939 to September 2, 1945. Outlying opinions argue 1937-1945 or 1941-1945, but both of these are very much fringe views.
Thanks,@@ralphbernhard1757, great question! Although some people make a fairly plausible argument that the two World Wars were really a single conflict with somewhat of a lull, most would agree that they were definitely separate conflicts. So, let's add a bit of context. Following the Allies anti-Bolshevik intervention, the Japanese Imperial Army was the last to withdraw in early summer of 1922. Meanwhile, the Anglo-Japan alliance became defunct in 1921 and ended officially in 1923. So, including the Bolshevik invasion of Mongolia, it seems that all of this can be grouped as part of the aftermath of World War I. But, if we do need a clear demarcation year to divide the two wars, I would nominate 1925. Mussolini dissolved parliament; Sun Yat-Sen died, which led to the break between Chinese communists and nationalists in the ruling party; Hitler published Mein Kampf; and Tokyo outlawed communist and socialist organizations - reversing it's slow slog towards democracy and rushing towards its unique brand of hyper nationalism. And, just to throw more wood on the fire, the Japan Communist Party has always maintained that World War II began in 1931 in Manchuria. They call it the 15-year war. So, make your choices and place your bets.
@@ralphbernhard1757 Very insightful. I would argue that our current predicament stems largely from the naivite of Washington's foreign policy makers. "We'll just conveniently park our Air Force here in Saudi Arabia. What could possibly go wrong?" More recently, "We'll invite Ukraine into NATO and ignore that Moscow's Black Sea Fleet has been headquartered in the Crimea since 1783 - the same year Britain acknowledged U.S. independence. We'll also ignore that the Crimea only became part of Ukraine in 1954." I'm not saying that the responses to either of these events was "justified". I'm saying that it would be more prudent to limit military action and alliances to well within one's sphere of influence unless potential consequences have been carefully accounted for - and prepared for - beforehand.
4 роки тому+1
Thumbs up for making the best out of the current situation. :)
The Baltic States are located in Northern Europe. The only respectable source that says otherwise is the CIA fact-book, which uses cold war terminology. PS Finland was considered a fourth Baltic State during this time period and had the same problems with the Soviets. In the pact it was included in the Soviet sphere of influence and Lithuania was in the German sphere.
Brilliant video, The Molotov Ribbentrop pact makes sense for Russia. Why should the Russians ( main Eurasian power) get exhausted/ spent fighting Germany and Japan and the French, British and USA comes in real the benefits for free. Excellent analysis.
Ralph Bernhard hitler would invade Poland in any case. There were 2 scenarios: 1) hitler invade whole Poland. 2) hitler invade only half of it. Of course Stalin preferred the second variant. You just don’t understand simple thing. Nobody could stop Germany at that time. Nobody. Nor Poland, neither ussr. France and Britain didn’t want to make alliance with Stalin. So his last attempt was only to sign MRP, to create additional distance between Germany and Moscow or other large cities of ussr.
@@ralphbernhard1757 "Chamberlain "signed away" 3 million German speakers, in an honest attempt at keeping the peace. Stalin "signed away" 20 million Poles, in an attempt to enable war. Not the same thing..." that is what western propaganda all about. You are not being objective on the subject!
You know Indy, if you could edit down the Between 2 Wars and possibly the Great War and WW2 so they do not have he usaul thank you's to patreons and were straight pieces on to a downloadable format in their entirities or DVD then I would go out and buy them and I dare say a lot of other people would too. People who miss the time to watch a 15 minute but are happy to binge-watch. Only a thought.
It's a nice thought but TGW is owned by another company and physical media is dying, slowly. It's a lot of cost and time to get that manufacturered and on shelves somewhere. I really doubt it would be worth it to do.
@@Arbiter099 So make it a digital download then! I would gladly pay a few bucks to see Indy's work as a coherent series like The World at War by the BBC narrated by Laurence Olivier or any other series. Only do it! Indy gives a refeshing intake in to history like no other!
We have had a lot of similar requests - but 1. we don't own the Great war and 2. we don't have the time and resources to handle manufacturing and distribution at the moment. Not to mention the re-editing that has to be done to cut out the Call to Actions and references to the 'link in the description'. Furthermore, everyone can already binge it as it's freely available on UA-cam, right?
Excellent episode! One of the sad but necessary realities of WW2 is that to defeat one of two most murderous monsters we had to ally ourselves with an equally murderous monster.
@@ruskyhusky69 Except that Czechoslovakia took that land from Poland beforehand by force, in other words all the Poles did was get it back years later.
@@AFGuidesHD How? Poland didn't take German land by force, it was the other way around, remember the partitions of Poland? And if we wanna talk about Danzig, it was in Polish hands for hundreds of years, until the Germans took it from the Poles during the partitions.
14:52 How can you create a buffer between Soviets and Germany with Red Army entering Poland? That's riddiculous claim, while Poland is in fact independent buffer between them...
@@mateuszg9866 Stalin knew that France and GB where not going to really go to war with Germany for the sake of Poland. If Hitler had conquered the whole of the polish territory, there was a great probability that Moscow could had fallen in Operation Barabarossa. With Moscow conquered, would the Soviet Union survived ? If not, there is a great possibility that Poland didn,t be in existence at the present time.
@@luisdortahernandez7933 this was not possible in 1939. First of all Stalin Line was staffed - unlike in 1941. Second of all - Germany couldn't beat Poland without USSR cutting of areas east from Bug river.
@@luisdortahernandez7933 if stalin really wanted this he would have contacted the polish command to coordinate a defence strategy against the germans together.. instead he agressed the polish army, weakened it and as if it was not enough the polish civilians. If he really wanted the safety of his country he would have cooperated and supported Poland keeping away the war from his civilians...however he pokered for more..for more territory..the one russia stole from poland in 1770...
The Molotov-Rippentrop Pact? Yes, I believe I have heard of this romance story before, I really found the relationship surprising and the climax to be the most betrayal in love stories of all time
If you didn't think this topic is controversial enough already, we have an even more contentious question for you: Is the Soviet Union basically an Axis Power between 1939 and 1941?
Technically the answer is a definite "no" because the USSR will never sign the Tripartite Pact, but it's still worth thinking about. The USSR and Nazi Germany will cultivate a pretty productive relationship after they sign the Non-Aggression Treaty, not only prompting a joint occupation of Poland but also allowing Hitler to invade Western Europe without having to worry about his eastern borders. So when you look at it like that, the USSR directly supported the Nazi war machine. On the other hand, it is probably a bit of a leap to blame the USSR for Nazi expansionism, and Stalin is forced by circumstances to enter into the Pact. The USSR is not ready to fight a war at this point, and the treaty buys not only time but also space, creating a virtual buffer zone between Germany and the Motherland in the form of Poland. Cynical and calculated, yes, but that's diplomacy for you. Stalin will obviously offer a very extreme interpretation of this second argument after the war, casting Soviet actions as a necessary defensive measure against the imperialism of the Western Powers and their supposed encouragement of Nazi Germany. Stalinist myth-making aside, the argument that defensive considerations is a significant factor in the Soviets signing of the Pact does have some merit.
This question is more than just an academic exercise. The USSR rightfully gets credit for bearing the brunt of the Nazi onslaught, but would we think differently about it as an Allied power if we also understood as a former Axis power? Let us know what you think below. Stay safe out there.
Cheers, Francis.
*RULES OF CONDUCT*
STAY CIVIL AND POLITE we will delete any comments with personal insults, or attacks.
AVOID PARTISAN POLITICS AS FAR AS YOU CAN we reserve the right to cut off vitriolic debates.
HATE SPEECH IN ANY DIRECTION will lead to a ban.
RACISM, XENOPHOBIA, OR SLAMMING OF MINORITIES will lead to an immediate ban.
PARTISAN REVISIONISM, ESPECIALLY HOLOCAUST AND HOLODOMOR DENIAL will lead to an immediate ban.
The controversy surrounding the pact is unfortunately almost totally overlooked in official Soviet and Russian school history textbooks. The pact is framed as an ingenious move to buy crucial time at the dawn of war. The matter of fact, however, is that the USSR had no land border with the Third Reich prior to 1939 and the occupation of Poland the pact procured. Furthermore, it took Germans a mere month to get through most of that newly acquired "buffer zone" riding on tanks and planes produced from and fuelled by Soviet materials. This is without a doubt one of the most shameful pages of Soviet history (and its not like there is no good competition), one that took an unfathomable amount of blood to correct. Stalin was not entirely wrong to distrust the Western powers with their appeasement, but this pact was just as bad, if not worse.
Mason Stewart we saw them - many thanks!
In this comment/text you are more historically accurate and you say that wasnt an alliance and something commanded by the circumstances . But in the title you write "A Soviet-Nazi Alliance". Ok, been provocative has its value, but it is also unfair here.
That's an interesting question I haven't considered before. I would agree the answer is no but it seems simile to america's relationship with the allies before joining formally.(obviously not the exact same) So for those that say US was not neutral, would they have to say the USSR was not neutral ether?
There were degrees of collaboration with Nazi Germany. There were points when the Soviet Union was a closer ally than Italy or Japan. "Axis" is simply not a helpful term since Axis co-operation was sporadic and inconsistent.
No guys, don’t worry, it’s an April Fools! Poland will never get invaded!
The April Fools is actually anyone believing the UK and France would do anything about Poland getting invaded.
In September 1939 prime minister of Poland, Skladkowski, calls prime minister of the UK, Chamberlain.
Skladkowski: "The Germans are invading! Can you send the troops already? You said you would guarantee our safety."
Chamberlain: "Ever heard of the April Fool's Day?"
The germans will surely get crushed by the Winged Hussars!
Mojew Jewjew WHEN WINGED HUSSARS ARRIVED
Mojew Jewjew Lol yeah i’m sure about that :)
@@keybchet9986
*Prussens gloria and Erika earrape intensifies*
Panzers: Roll it
Hussars: why do I hear boss music?
Isn't it beautiful when former enemies set aside their differences, make peace and decide to work together for a common goal?
And what unites enemies more then desiring the destruction of a third enemy?
@@ProjectEkerTest33 yes. It's an old idea. The Confederate peace commissioners proposed to Lincoln at the Hampton Roads Conference, April 1865 that to end the war, both sides should unite and attack French ruled Mexico instead. Lincoln thankfully gave it short shrift.
@@marks_sparks1 Wow I've never heard that before! Honestly I'm not surprised he said no it seems like a really dumb idea to me given that Lincoln's main goals were preventing the South's secession and ending slavery, why would he even consider sigining a white peace and attacking Mexico?
@@ProjectEkerTest33 The Monroe Doctrine. It wouldn't happen of course, but that was the confederate's line of thought.
@@Wankshaft Yeah I get why they thought he might want to attack French Mexico but why did they think he'd stop fighting them in order to do it? I mean by 1865 the Union was winning wasn't it? Why would he let them get away with seceeding and slavery? Anyway I guess he didn't and it was probably a last ditch attempt on the Confederate's part.
“A toast to our new Bolshevik friends”.
Hoi4 gang where you at?
@Lord Polish enjoy it while it lasts, bolsheviks!
*Operation Barbarossa Soundtrack Plays*
Everybody laughin' until event germany.89
wow, i really never read that lol, how hilarious
Oh my, Astrid. Yes. This is a King among ties. All the anticipation was well worth it. 5/5
thank you Gianni, I wanted to make you proud of me :))
@@astriddeinhard433 Well you very much did, Astrid. This is a gem. Well done!
Combined with the black, almost featureless suit, it's certainly striking.
If this guy had been my history teacher in school, you wouldn’t have been able to get me out of the class room.
Yes! ( For the record, I'm a USA citizen and had two great US history teachers in high school, 1971-73. One of them, Mr. Endre K., had escaped from Hungary during the 1956 uprising and was able to eventually make his way to the USA.) This and the other series are so outstandingly presented in an interesting and informative manner, I have been binge watching them lately since I am now retired. Thanks so much to all of you on this team!!
As an history teacher I taught history the same way
He is quite attractive...
I don't get how you guys in the TimeGhost History team make these topics so thrilling that one is kept on edge and wonder just what happens next, despite the fact that we today already know where it it going.
It's because our writers are very talented ;)
Signed - one of the writers.
@@TimeGhost Hold on, isn't that like telling Michael Jordan "Gotta be the shoes"? I'm joking of course. The writing and research is superb. And of course Sparty and Indy are mighty good front men.
Nazis × soviets.
One of the weirdest ships to become canon.
And I almost faint from seeing that thumbnail
Oh god Hitler, can't believe you're into Stalin 😂
Brought to you by the nazbol gang.
@@TheZINGularity And sponsored by Raid Shadow Legends
Wait until we get to the part where the Nazbol comes in
Only a One Year Stand. Mostly Buttstuff cause it turned Europe into shit...
Rippentrop - We promise not to invade our Soviet friends.
Also Rippentrop two years later - Did you remember what day it was? ;3
Plus Ribbentrop had his fingers crossed behind his back when he signed the pact. Molotov should have screamed "no takebacks!" at the signing and this whole war could have been avoided.
Haha, that's a funny April Fools Joke, they would never form an alliance ;-)
There was a very deep and practical relationship between the 2 pariah States between World War 1 and World War 2. Going to War against Russia was not taken lightly at all by the German High Command.
They tried to form an alliance, twice, on Stalin's request.
considering how much bullshitting goes on outside of April 1st to the point where parody becomes reality, April 1st is now April Honesty Day the only day you are not allowed to Bullshit everyone. Every other day find all the fools you can and make that green.
@@Marinealver they tried to form an alliance.
Period.
Actually they did cooperate - Germans were training tank crew in USSR in 1930s. First tank prototypes for Germany were built in USSR ;)
That is no lie.
Surely none of them will try to betray that pact, right ?
Never, we are the most trustworthy friends you will ever have!
Doubt anyone at the time thought it would last,both had opposite goals,motivations and teritorial ambitions to stand the test of time,if anything it was sort of "i gotta kill my enemies so why dont we take a break from hostilities until later" "K"
The premise of your show is the main draw for me, everyone knows what happens. But it is fascinating to look at it through the lens of the moment when they didn't. Can't get enough.
it's like rewatching car crash in slow motion...
@@dotboy9080 60 million car crashes
Everybody knows a little about _some_ of what happened. Which sadly, is close to 'hardly anything'.
For example, how many consider the impossibility of a mere 6 yrs of R&D (surreptitiously, mind you) by the Nazis to be nearly enough time to close the martial-technolgy gap that most other nations' have had the entire inter-war period of 20 years to widen?
_....or did we assume that all those class-leading Panzers, Messerschmidts and Stuckers somehow magically designed and trial-tested themselves?_ 🤔
Germany:Hey Poland,prepare for trouble!
Soviets:Make it double!
+
I do love this guy's brilliant presentation. His enthusiasm is is so infectious. Keep well Sir.
Thanks!
Good day Sir, I had been following for quite some time your presentations In between 2 wars. I am rather impressed! Being a historian myself I cannot help it but agree to almost each and every assesment of your just remarks. Accurate and thorough facts are put in a well digestive manner. Narrative well ecquired.I'm looking forward to your new episodes. With respect, Willi Sobiegraj, South Africa
Your presentation is without peer. Direct, succinct. Neither so fast that you can’t digest nor slow to cause impatience. Really nice work.
"Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer."
Ultimately few years later the Western powers gave Stalin all he initially wanted and much more...
It must be said that contrary to what the American movies claim, the Red Army was much more powerful and numerous. lol
@@waardlafrance110 Yes but what it has to do with the comment
@@waardlafrance110 More powerful than what?
@@Feffdc + Mateusz Cetnar hey, the commentary by mateusz, doesn't it mention 1944-1945? Because given the balance of power between the American-English allies and the Soviet armies, I can hardly see the Americans stopping the Russian roller from rolling over them if they were not abandoning Eastern Europe.
Mateusz...Stalin knew he had no opposition from the Yalta members, so he thought that just because he had his Soviets (soldiers who defended their country) die because he made a fatal error in thinking he could trust Hitler, he deserved Eastern Europe (where I'm from too).
Congratulations, Astrid, on one of the most striking combinations of shirt and tie that I've seen Indy wearing!
Allies committed so many mistakes before the war, which shows that the evil often grows, because good guys do nothing.
Good guys my ass. The west had no issue with Hitler until their interests were hurt. Churchill literally praised musolini and Hitler. And we saw how the west kept propping up similar dictators during the world war.
Question: How much territory did Poland actually annex when Czechoslovakia was invaded by Hitler following the Munich Agreement?
About 906 km2, 200.000 inhabitants, mostly Poles.
@@comdo831 I thought there had been a demographic shift and the territory was lacking in ethnic poles by 1938
@@pnutz_2 The population was roughly two thirds Polish speaking. It was awarded to Czechoslovakia because of the peculiar shape of the country, there were only two major rail lines going from west to east, one passed through. If you go to Cesky Tesin today, you can see a huge railway station there with a certain amount of imperial grandeur whilst the one in Cieszyn on the much greater populated Polish side is tiny. Cieszyn incidentally was largely German speaking in 1918.
@@Isometrix116 Hungary took the tip of Slovakia. What Poland took was closer to the city of Ostrava in today's Czech Republic.
@@HistoryonUA-cam It was more complex than that. The railroad might have played a role, but one can always build a new railroad. The Czech politicians had better connections in the West, particularly in France. There were some significant French economic interests in that region, which was crucial because: Poland was in a middle of a war with the Soviet Russia, with the outcome hard to predict. In the case of a Soviet win, the Soviets would have been in a position to seize French assets. Keeping them in Czechoslovakia was a safer option. The war also made the Polish side highly dependent on arms deliveries from France, giving the French a key bargaining leverage in the dispute.
This is some of the best video content anywhere on the internet. Congratulations for developing a great method for teaching history.
Thanks!
Not just Poland and the Baltic States were affected by the non-aggression pact, but also Romania who lost Bessarabia and half of Bukovina to the USSR. Article 3 of the secret protocol gave Bessarabia to the USSR.
USSR never recognized the annexation of Bessarabia by Romania in 1920.
* in 1918.
@@МаксимБромберг I know that the USSR never recognized the annexation of Bessarabia to Romania. The USSR could never have done that. But that doesn't mean the USSR was correct.
@@Mentol_ It was impossible to Romania to to it in 1918.
@@МаксимБромберг "USSR never recognized the annexation of Bessarabia by Romania in 1920." Did Moldova recognize the annexation of Bessarabia by the Russian Empire in 1812?
You guys have the best youtube channel no doubt , thanks alot for your efforts .
I don't know what's more beautiful a new upload from TGH or Indy's amazing Tie.
Did you notice the combination of Black(Nazi) and Red(USSR) in the clothes? I wonder if that had any significance.....
Geeeze, the allies completely dropped the ball with appeasement. Multi-facetted failure by alienating the USSR as well.
remarquable analyse historique. Aucun parametre de la crise n'est oublié. C'est complet, exhaustif...
Thank you for this fantastic video. The part about Stalin recognizing the advent of a new global war in 1937 was particularly interesting. Your team has done a great job of exploring the way in which this conflict emerged and played out in ways that go beyond the typical script we have grown accustomed to (Sept. 1, 1939, etc.). There's a tendency to want to put history into neat linear timelines, where things happen in a clear sequence. Ironically, by diving deeply into the chronology (like with your week-by-week series), you show how the real story is more complex and nuanced. You're creating groundbreaking ways for millions of people to learn from the past. Thank you!
> Five Year Plans
Reducing industrial lag from the West.
> Soviet version of Blitzkrieg
This is part of military progress, not an aggressive plan.
> Paratroopers, strategic bombers (offensive weapons, not defensive)
There is no offensive or defensive weapon. It can be used in any situation. Paratroopers were used in defense during the battle for Moscow.
> Purges
Preparation for the aggression of the imperialists against the USSR.
Such a great episode!
Thanks!
Incredible video. Sheds a whole new light and perspective on this even as a history nerd!
The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact is a prime example that ideology always plays second fiddle to pragmatism.
Ideology should play second fiddle to pragmatism but it doesn't always with Western diplomacy. It's worse than that: An ideology with a childish belief in the perfectibility and unity of humanity takes primary position.
@@neilreynolds3858 where in Marxism does it say the goal is to perfect humanity? Marxism rejects Utopianism. It’s amazing that people like you pretend to be experts on an ideology you have never even bothered to research.
...until it doesn't, like when Nazi Germany invades the Soviet Union while still at war with Britain, a two-front war that will be extremely difficult to win and unpragmatic to wage...
No, in this case, the ideologies were aligned. Both ideologically believed in fucking polan, literally.
The soviets believed they needed it to industrialize, nazis to de industrialize.
I kind of what became of the hapless Comrade Myski.
As far as I remember, he would become a chief negotiator with the Polish government in exile in London after the start of Barbarossa...
He most notably signed an agreement with Sikorski in 1941, recognizing the Polish Government in Exile (that didn't last long but that's another story). I had to look up what was going on with him after that. Apparently he had a pretty stable and successful career in Soviet government until 1945 when he retired. Shortly before Stalin's death in 1953 he got arrested and sentenced for 6 years for alleged espionage, but was released and rehabilitated in 1955.
Currently living in Hollywood under the name Nicolas Cage.
Wait, sorry, wrong historical conspiracy theory.
OK. I need to know which is the right historical conspiracy theory channel for this.
Stalin even wanted to help Czechoslovakia in the case of German-Czechoslovak war. But there was a significant problem. USSR and Czechoslovakia didn't have the common border. There were Polish and Romanian territories between them and both of these countries didn't allow Soviet army to move across their territory. Another problem was that the Soviet "help" (yes I still think that Soviets rather wanted to secure their own interests in Czechoslovakia than really help them) was dependent on French help. And we all know what France did aswell as Britain.
Actually Romania was inclined to let Soviet troops to pass to Czechoslovakia. A broad-gauge railway was under construction in Northern Romania for the Soviet troops to use, but unfortunately that railway was not finished before the Munich Diktat happened.
*"I still think that Soviets rather wanted to secure their own interests in Czechoslovakia than really help them"*
It might surprise you that Benes himself - you know, that Soviet cheerleader, so eager that Venona intercepts tagged him as their possible asset - had a similar view, which he shared in 1943. Soviets - he complained, adding he wouldn't ever say that openly - had never _really_ promised they were going to help, that their entire MO was to avoid promising anything.
Seems fairly damaging to the idea of Stalin The Helper, who got obstructed in his noble goals.
Gotta give it to Indy - his conclusion crescendos are really good.
I still need to find the soundtrack music for this series and the Great War.
Not sure about the Great War but music used in these episodes should be posted in their description.
Here is soundtrack list used in The Great war :
www.epidemicsound.com/albums/album/690/
A bunch of songs made by Johannes Bornloff used as some of the background music. The bit of soundtrack used for the intro of WW2 and some bits of this video is the "Death and Glory" series. The intro to WW2 is Death and Glory 01 ifrc
Cheers indy from serbia you are the best history youtuber in the world good luck in the future brother
Can we get F for Comrade Maisky who must have shit himself when he saw Stalin single him out as a potential enemy
Soviets coveted access to German technology. I was surprised to learn that Moscow sanctioned a covert location, for Germany to 6:40 build planes for Hitler's Luftwaffen, barely 300 miles from Moscow!
It's very easy to look back now with perfect hindsight and see the pact as a fatal mistake. But view things from Stalin's point of view in 1939. The capitalist West aren't friends to the USSR, they're not as openly hostile as fascist Germany and Italy, but they're still antagonistic. The British and French have refused to act to stop Hitler's rearmament and have ignored soviet efforts at collective security. Just one year earlier he saw them sacrifice the Czeks even though their independence was guaranteed by France. The British and French also agreed to exclude the USSR from the negotiations at Munich. The British then unilaterally guaranteed Polish independence without bothering to consult the Soviets. THEN, after all that, they suddenly want a binding treaty but one that doesn't offer the Soviets any sort of incentive. Why would Stalin agree to help? Cynical or not the fact is the British and French had created the situation by their own policy of appeasement and had not made any effort to work with the Soviets. They had also sacrificed Austria and Czechoslovakia to spare themselves. Why wouldn't he assume that if he did join them they would either not declare war or just stay on the defensive and let the Germans and Russians bleed themselves white? That would actually fit with western policy for the past six years. By making a deal with the Germans Stalin got a free hand in eastern Europe and got to stay out of a major war. And IF the British and French did decide to fight he would be the one who could sit back and watch as his enemies bled themselves white. Just looking at the facts in 1939 the pact was a good decision.
the USSR didn't share a border with Germany in 1939. If Stalin truly wanted peace - one his sentance would prevent the war. All what was needed was to say that he would put a war on Germany if they invade Poland and if France & Britain also would do that. Instead - he wanted to gain the situation and get Baltics, parts of Romania, all Finland and half of Poland. The result would be 20 millions or more soviet victims of war...
@@Batmax192 *"All what was needed was to say that he would put a war on Germany if they invade Poland and if France & Britain also would do that."*
Eh, not even that. All that was needed to say was _nothing_ and to promise _nothing_ *including* Germany.
All that's left to do is to watch.
*Option A: Poland gets invaded, Allies DOW Germany and continue as in OTL*
Hitler either Full HOI4 and invades USSR without resolving other fronts (yeah, right) or Full Fall Gelb. Randos guarding the East? USSR gets a LOT of options. A decent force stuck in the East? Allies get a lot of options to handle Fall Gelb.
*Option B: Poland does not get invaded, at least not in 1939*
How important securing eastern flank was for Hitler's decision to invade, HOW to invade or WHEN to invade? *VERY.*
What does he do, faced with a Soviet question mark instead of a sealed deal? If he stalls for a bit longer, then Stalin can easily get a LOT more time than in OTL. _For free_
People are slaves to their own limited experiences and biases. Did a humiliation of Russia by Japan before WW1 affect Stalin's perspective of a potential danger she posed in eg. 1935? He did overestimate that danger for *a* reason, after all. The same goes for utterly surreal concept of Poland invading within the same timeframe "because nice with Japan". With what, hungry peasants? And falling apart on their own before 100 miles? But she did humiliate him, personally, so suddenly there was enough danger for approving Polish Operation against everyone with a _dangerous name_ . Entente anemically invading to support Whites? ZOMG, they can totally invade Soviet Union for real, let's ignore a logistical nightmare that it would've represented if you wanted to do anything else than staying in ports.
What do those events have in common? All happening within Stalin's lifespan, all happening when he was not in a position to have any professional insight available and while he was lacking any valuable insight of his own. What are the chances half-educated, but calcified opinions of a man, who has no equal, can influence a decision process? Non-trivial, I suppose.
There's this strange tendency to interpret Stalin's moves as expert diplomacy *ex post* , instead of a product of tinkering, clever amateur supported by all experts he fancied, but who he could choose to ignore anytime. There were times, when Soviet stance was influenced by either half-assed or completely absurd analysis, but for a lot of reasons potentially bad consequences did not occur. Similarly, a number of gambles based on wishful thinking played out well... for multiple unrelated reasons, too. Imagining OTL long-term results of a R-M were _really_ a product of a careful, clever planning and 7D chess is akin to praising Fall Gelb for anything *but* the end result and certain boldness:)
@@Batmax192 Poland was going to be invaded regardless of what Stalin wanted. Poland was never going to allow Soviet troops to operate on its territory, along with France and Britain unpreparedness for a fight and a very real danger of a war with Japan to top it off, leaves Stalin with very few options.
@@ralphbernhard1757 No! It is not! Just a year before - Poland was in alliance with a Germany - they partitioned Chzechoslovakia AND forbid any USSR passage to help Czhechs. To Stalin Poland in 1939 was Germany Allies/Puppet. So it was no barrier from Soviet perspective. And they were right - Poland would anyway be subjigated by Nazi
Wow! A reasonable comment in this comment section! Other people just refuse to look from Soviet perspective - even Indy!
That thumbnail tho.
so no followup episode on Czechoslovakia, Munich dictate and occupation? sad
The episode is already aired: ua-cam.com/video/OpmFvu_0Auk/v-deo.html&t
@@TimeGhost what happened to Czechoslovakia was more like a footnote in that video though, and wouldn't the geopolitical changes of 1938/1939 in the region before the outbreak of the war deserve it's own video? The Munich dictate (still remembered in Czech national consciousness today), the occupation (to which Hácha agreed after being shouted at by Hitler for hours and being threatened by bombing of Prague) and the creation of a separate Slovak state
There will be another B2W episode, the last one
You did a good job explaining the diplomatic back stabbing that England and France did when it came to its relations with Czechoslovakia. Poland and Hungary also claimed territory from Slovakia.
When at the Nuremberg Trials, Field Marshal Keitel was asked the question: “Would Germany have attacked Czechoslovakia in 1938 if the Western powers had supported Prague?” He replied: “Of course not. We weren't strong enough militarily. Munich's goal was to drive Russia out of Europe, gain time and complete the armament of Germany. "
Later, the French ambassador to Warsaw, Leon Noel, admitted: “The Munich agreements and the resulting betrayal of Czechoslovakia represent one of the most pitiful, shameful and humiliating episodes of the policy pursued on behalf of France between the two world wars, which led to the most disastrous catastrophe in our history. ".
As you can see, many even at that time understood who really pushed the world towards war. And, whatever the myth-makers from the European Union wrote, it was not the USSR.
On the night of September 29-30, 1938, the famous Munich Agreement was signed. And on September 30, Warsaw presented the Czechoslovak government with a new ultimatum, where it demanded the immediate satisfaction of its demands. German troops entered the Sudetenland. Polish troops occupied the Teshin region of Czechoslovakia.
So excited to watch the last episode. Can't guess what it's going to be about 👀
Almost..
3:22 Operation Prangertag, will Gereon Rath be able to stop it?
Wow. Babylon Berlin.
Operation Prangertag is a coup of a military leaders of Reichwehr.
This segment is perhaps one of your best documented and well researched episodes, I continue to to support you, Cheers
We can't thank you enough! It's much appreciated!
How come 1920 Kerzone line agreement is a 1939 Molotov-Ribentropp subprotocol and how is it secret?
Also how is sayd agreement is an Alliense if the USSR didn't military support the invation of France and war against Britain?
It seems clear to me that the sacrifice of Czechoslovakia may have been a crucial moment in the events leading to the 2nd WW. Had the Allies refused appeasement at that point (and not after the rest of Czechia has been absorbed by Germany), Hitler would probably still have attacked, France and Britain would have been passive, and Czechoslovakia would have fallen. But there would be no reinforcing of German industry and military by the spoils from Czechoslovakia, there probably wouldn't be and Molotov Ribbentrop pact, no supply of grain and oil. Perhaps there would be a coup against Hitler in the early days of this alternative war and relatively fast peace. Who knows? But in hindsight, it was an event that lead to 50 million dead.
Well how important was Czechoslovakia for Germany really that?They just gained about 250 Panzer 35ts plus several tens of outdated tanks(they probably discarded after annexation),43.000 machine guns,1.1 million rifles and more than 2000 artillery pieces.İt was formidable was it was just useful for Wehrmacht as stockpile.Germans on the other hand already produced more than 3000 tanks,more than 7.000 10.5 cm and 15cm howitzers,about 4000 75mm infantry guns,about 150.000 machine guns(great portion of them are MG-34s like 84.000) and between 4-5 million Kar-98 rifles during pre war.Czech stuff was maybe large to equip %30 of German Army as somebody claims it wasn't really that vital.But yes if we add that to German inventory it really making very strong.Plus Germany gained about 2 million tons of steel and iron ore capacity,some 10 million peoples including 3.5 million in Sudetenland,several billions kilowatt/hours of electric power and decent armament industry of Czechs.
By the way how many tons of grains did Germany produced in 1939 and 1940,i read in somewhere they produced about 30.3 million tons in 1913 which looks decent for me but problem was that recovered.
books.google.com.tr/books?id=KYMiAAAAQBAJ&pg=PR8&dq=&hl=tr&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiO25fTptToAhXho4sKHexhAh4Q6AEIJzAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
@@AFT_05G The Czech Republic, which surrendered without a fight in 1938-1939 to the Germans during the Second World War, became a real weapons workshop for the Third Reich. A powerful military industry, skilled Czech workers and engineers produced aircraft engines, weapons and ammunition for Germany and its allies. Czech factories made a particularly noticeable contribution to the production of armored vehicles for Hitler. Germans received from the Czechs more than 1.4 million rifles and pistols, over 62 thousand machine guns, about 4 thousand guns and mortars. Czech trophies in 1939 were equipped with 5 Wehrmacht infantry divisions, in 1940 - 44 more. Hundreds of Czech armored vehicles, tankettes and light tanks entered service with the German, Romanian and Slovak armies, and the latter were then considered the best in the world, “an ideal machine for a blitzkrieg ". On June 22, 1941, Czech-made armored vehicles made up one fourth of the fleet of German 1st echelon tank divisions. Later, the occupied factories began to produce self-propelled and assault guns instead of obsolete tanks by that time.
@@mariapetrova8671 Should we hold France and Britain responsible for WW2? They gave Germany a huge weapons factory.
All around great production... as always. Your work deserves to be taken seriously.
This is a damn good video, explaining the Soviet reasoning for the pact. And it would have worked perfectly for them if France wasn’t a potato. Imagine France losing the war over 2 years rather than 2 weeks. The west and germany would be exhausted, while the Soviets would be unstoppable.
Better cooperation between the UK and France when it came to confronting the German Army (or even a few more imaginative and well-placed leaders) probably would have helped a lot. The other channel did a great job showing how evenly matched the forces were in 1940, but that it was the Allies' inability to adapt to the Germans' better tactics that made the difference. Looking at that situation from Stalin's point of view, I can see why he would assume that the war in the West would be a long grinding one that would benefit the USSR in the long run. I can also see why their mood suddenly changed after the fall of France (and the Winter War of 1939-40) where the USSR suddenly started to take war preparations a lot more seriously.
Thanks @Raskolnikov70 - here's a link to the video of the first week of the Battle of France: ua-cam.com/video/6CG7uBZK8L8/v-deo.html
The mental scarring of being the one to bleed the germans dry during ww1 took it's toll on the french order of command
Congratulations. Very good episode.
Thanks!
I have decided to DESTROY the Like Button.
Great writing, perfect execution
Great episode, well presented as usual.
1 nit pick - you did not mention the Japanese-Russian fighting going on 1939 in Khalkhin Gol, Mongolia, at the time. That puts an additional reason for Stalin to sign, to avoid a possible 2 front war.
The Japanese were hoping for such a war to capture Siberia, so when the M-R Pact was signed, they were really crushed, and gave up on Siberia.
It'll be talked about in next week's episode actually- didn't want to cover it before it finishes.
@@Southsideindy Can't wait for more videos about Japan!
@@Southsideindy Would Japan stand a chance to occupy Siberia?
@@mojewjewjew4420 Nope, Japan lost a border war, an were already struggling with China, going up against the Soviets in their most hostile climate would be suicidal. Just look at the Soviet Invasion of Manchuria in 1945 to see how they'd fare.
@@zexal4217 1. Japanese weren't fully commited to that border war so we dont know what would happen in a full scale war.
2.Japan could have signed a peace treaty or armistice with China if they weren't so greedy.
3.Soviets were more occupied with the european part so they wouldn't face strong resitstence.
4.The soviets weren't immune to the cold....or were they? Hmm
5.in 1945 you mean when the Soviets defeated a already demoralized,under equipped and outnumbered enemy.
Japanese army at that point wasnt much of a army anymore it was like kicking a corpse.
12:55: "And why would the guarantee for Poland not be against all enemies?" - funny thing is, it actually was against Germany. Because that's what the context of the guarantee was, and what the Poles asked for. A few months later, out of concern that Poland might be dragged into war against Italy, Polish side insisted to include respective statement into the secret protocol of the treaty with Britain. That's what the first article of the said protocol was:
"1. (a) By the expression "a European Power" employed in the Agreement is to be understood Germany. (b) In the event of action within the meaning of Article 1 or 2 of the Agreement by a European Power other than Germany, the Contracting Parties will consult together on the measures to be taken in common."
I think a lot of the conclusions are based on hindsight. I would say that Stalin, like Mussolini, acted as a jackal helping himself to the other countries and invaded six countries during his pact with Hitler. However, the only way of getting effective assistance to Poland was via the USSR and this was blocked by the Polish government. The British government sent a delegation to Stalin in August 1939 via a transport ship which took several days, whereas Ribbentrop flew to Stalin making one stop in Koenigsburg for refuelling - which clearly showed which side was being the most serious. However a major factor was the way in which the Polish government openly courted Hitler for many years, participated in the attack on Czechoslovakia and even when the danger to Gdańśk was utterly clear gave diplomatic support to the Nazis in their attack on Lithuania in March 1939. One wonders what might have happened had the Central European countries, Austria, Czechoslovakia and Poland had stood together. Their combined military strength outnumbered that of Hitler - even after the occupation of Austria, the Czech and Polish forces were almost at parity. But of course that is also coming to conclusions based on hindsight!
@@ralphbernhard1757 Of course Ralph, some saw their future with Hitler, others behaved in a spiteful and incredibly shortsighted manner. I am writing with the benefit of hindsight.
Britain has talent for pushing nations into wars.
PS. Best episode so far!!!
Britain, but mostly oil.
And leaving/selling their allies to the enemy.
So it's Britain's fault that Hitler decided to colonise eastern europe?!!
Britain: What kind of scoundrel would make a secret pact to carve up territory?
Stalin: _laughs in Sykes-Picot_
Come on, English men ignited many conflicts, mostly by careless politics... But still.
To the quote at the end: There is another one (don't remember from who): "Hug your enemy, so he can't move!"
Thank you for the video. Good work as usual...
What about McMeekin's "Stalin's War" thesis: Stalin's negotiations with the West and Germany were carried out under the guiding intention of drawing the capitalist powers into a self-destructive war. Sure, Stalin was not able to manipulate all events but he was always seeking a way to do this in the midst of the ongoing negotiations and concerns over Hitler's intentions. Was the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact the seizing of an opportunity he saw to draw the British and other European powers into the war he hoped would destroy them all and leave the Soviet Union-Communism in control?
Fantastic thumbnail!
Stalin and Hitler wanted just to crush each other in the first place. Ribbentropp-Molotov treaty was just a mutual smokescreen. Hitler on spring, 1941 realized, that he lost the war at the moment of signing the Ribbentropp-Molotov pact. That is why he tried to minimize the scale of defeat by attacking Soviets before Stalin hits Germany. We should remember, that Barbarossa began at the moment, when Germany still fought with Britain on the West and began the war against Allies in Africa. The war at three fronts - not a great scenario, even for a military superpower. Only US could simultaneously win on 2 fronts in history. three fronts - it is just too much.
Surely to Stalin no war with Germany for a time and the Nazis not taking all of Poland would have seemed pretty good for the USSR. It would mean more time to prepare for the war they expected, plus would also mean the Nazis would begin an invasion of the USSR much further from Moscow. Bad for Poland of course, but so was a German invasion without the pact. The only thing that may have saved Poland was a solid alliance protecting them, but considering the Nazi plans for invasion of Poland were already laid, it seems Stalin was not prepared to spend any more time gambling on getting a possible agreement with the UK and France -- who at the time were engaging in appeasement, which to the Soviets must have looked like Western powers enabling Germany to strengthen and expand its borders..
1:31 "both fund opposing sides"
I read that the spanish goverment paid in gold for all the soviet aid it (or it's factions) receieved whilst the rebels got credit from their allies.
Anyone know more exactly ?
Yeah, the actual aid from the USSR to the Spanish republic was pretty minimal, whereas the support from Hitler and Mussolini to Franco was huge. There is a bit of false equivalency going on here.
USSR: Yo, I am asking once again for an anti-Germany deal.
Allies: Again with that shit, Ivan?! We're going with Germany to a party in Munich! You aren't invited BTW.
USSR: [forever_alone.jpeg]
USSR later: Yo, Germany, wanna make a deal?
Allies: [surprised_pikachu.jpeg]
Amazing! As always..
Thanks!
Imagine if someone other then Hitler was in charge and the soviets and the germans were allies
Apart from being a brilliant discourse on the pre-war events, this youtube episode has reminded me of my favourite 20th century painter: Tamara de Lempicka. For that alone: thanks.
P
Thank you for naming her. I'm just beginning my adventure into learning about great artists and architects of the art deco style. I love it.
Great episode! Although part of me thinks that, especially considering how hotly this topic is debated by some, maybe it would be better to not release it on April 1?
Anyway, it's great to see this series nearly reaching it's completion.
I think that Stalin's actions in the 1920 Polish-Soviet War, contributing to the Red Army's defeat outside Warsaw, may also have been a factor. Stalin would very likely to have liked an opportunity to "fix" that, and get back at Poland who had caused him some degree of humiliation back in 1920.
The other thing is this: "Danzig ist Deutsch" was a motto of even the peaceful Weimar Republic, let alone Hitler. The creation of "Danzig Frei Stadt" was just sweeping the issue of the Polish Corridor under the carpet at Versailles, just hoping it would go away. It didn't of course.
" As we say in Germany, if there’s a Nazi at the table and 10 other people sitting there talking to him, you got a table with 11 Nazis. "
-Vyacheslav Molotov 2018, on some internet forum, probably
All those proximity Nazis at NASA
Who painted the 2 portraits on either side of Indy? I really like them! 😊🎨
Press F for Comrade Myski.
I am a huge ww2 history fan indy i watch your ww2 history channel every day
In Stalin's opinion? I realize it's hard for many Westerners to accept, but World War II, actually did begin with Japan's invasion of China.
We have made an entire video about that: Did WW2 Start in 1937? - The Rape of China | BETWEEN 2 WARS I 1937 Part 1 of 2 - ua-cam.com/video/_3vPGpamtDI/v-deo.html
@@TimeGhost Yes, that's a great video! Thank you. And if you had either said "from Stalin's perspective" or "from Moscow's perspective", there would be no dispute. Any leader sitting in Stalin's chair would have drawn the same conclusion.
Here And There that’s not what the record indicates. When you look at public opinion across the globe at the time, both West and East, the general feeling was that it became a _World_ War when fighting broke out in Europe, so that both Asia, Africa, and Europe were theaters of war. This is not our opinion, but the opinion of the time. Politicians like Stalin had a different perspective of course. Historians today can quibble about when it was ‘really’ a world war, but the vast majority, again in the West _and_ the East agree that public opinion of the time is the correct measure, putting the dates from September 1, 1939 to September 2, 1945. Outlying opinions argue 1937-1945 or 1941-1945, but both of these are very much fringe views.
Thanks,@@ralphbernhard1757, great question! Although some people make a fairly plausible argument that the two World Wars were really a single conflict with somewhat of a lull, most would agree that they were definitely separate conflicts. So, let's add a bit of context. Following the Allies anti-Bolshevik intervention, the Japanese Imperial Army was the last to withdraw in early summer of 1922. Meanwhile, the Anglo-Japan alliance became defunct in 1921 and ended officially in 1923. So, including the Bolshevik invasion of Mongolia, it seems that all of this can be grouped as part of the aftermath of World War I. But, if we do need a clear demarcation year to divide the two wars, I would nominate 1925. Mussolini dissolved parliament; Sun Yat-Sen died, which led to the break between Chinese communists and nationalists in the ruling party; Hitler published Mein Kampf; and Tokyo outlawed communist and socialist organizations - reversing it's slow slog towards democracy and rushing towards its unique brand of hyper nationalism. And, just to throw more wood on the fire, the Japan Communist Party has always maintained that World War II began in 1931 in Manchuria. They call it the 15-year war. So, make your choices and place your bets.
@@ralphbernhard1757 Very insightful. I would argue that our current predicament stems largely from the naivite of Washington's foreign policy makers. "We'll just conveniently park our Air Force here in Saudi Arabia. What could possibly go wrong?" More recently, "We'll invite Ukraine into NATO and ignore that Moscow's Black Sea Fleet has been headquartered in the Crimea since 1783 - the same year Britain acknowledged U.S. independence. We'll also ignore that the Crimea only became part of Ukraine in 1954." I'm not saying that the responses to either of these events was "justified". I'm saying that it would be more prudent to limit military action and alliances to well within one's sphere of influence unless potential consequences have been carefully accounted for - and prepared for - beforehand.
Thumbs up for making the best out of the current situation. :)
The Baltic States are located in Northern Europe. The only respectable source that says otherwise is the CIA fact-book, which uses cold war terminology.
PS
Finland was considered a fourth Baltic State during this time period and had the same problems with the Soviets. In the pact it was included in the Soviet sphere of influence and Lithuania was in the German sphere.
I love your channel keep up the great stuff!!!
Oh god that thumbnail LOL!
What's the next ship? Churchill and Roosevelt?
Be safe and healthy Indy and crew.
You too!
Brilliant video,
The Molotov Ribbentrop pact makes sense for Russia.
Why should the Russians ( main Eurasian power) get exhausted/ spent fighting Germany and Japan and the French, British and USA comes in real the benefits for free.
Excellent analysis.
Ralph Bernhard hitler would invade Poland in any case. There were 2 scenarios: 1) hitler invade whole Poland. 2) hitler invade only half of it. Of course Stalin preferred the second variant.
You just don’t understand simple thing. Nobody could stop Germany at that time. Nobody. Nor Poland, neither ussr. France and Britain didn’t want to make alliance with Stalin. So his last attempt was only to sign MRP, to create additional distance between Germany and Moscow or other large cities of ussr.
@@ralphbernhard1757 "Chamberlain "signed away" 3 million German speakers, in an honest attempt at keeping the peace.
Stalin "signed away" 20 million Poles, in an attempt to enable war. Not the same thing..." that is what western propaganda all about. You are not being objective on the subject!
@@cyberqirexx how can you know the Nazis would have invaded Poland without a grantee the USSR wouldn't start a 2 front war
One more episode. Will you cover Italian invasion of Albania, German occupation of Czechoslovakia and Memel, Battle of Khalhin Ghol?
We have a final episode coming out next week which wraps everything up so stay tuned for that.
Stalin calling the kettle black
Very nice symbolism with black shirt and red tie together, great job!
Thanks! Credit to Astrid as always for her amazing set design.
You know Indy, if you could edit down the Between 2 Wars and possibly the Great War and WW2 so they do not have he usaul thank you's to patreons and were straight pieces on to a downloadable format in their entirities or DVD then I would go out and buy them and I dare say a lot of other people would too.
People who miss the time to watch a 15 minute but are happy to binge-watch.
Only a thought.
It's a nice thought but TGW is owned by another company and physical media is dying, slowly. It's a lot of cost and time to get that manufacturered and on shelves somewhere. I really doubt it would be worth it to do.
@@Arbiter099 So make it a digital download then! I would gladly pay a few bucks to see Indy's work as a coherent series like The World at War by the BBC narrated by Laurence Olivier or any other series. Only do it! Indy gives a refeshing intake in to history like no other!
We have had a lot of similar requests - but 1. we don't own the Great war and 2. we don't have the time and resources to handle manufacturing and distribution at the moment. Not to mention the re-editing that has to be done to cut out the Call to Actions and references to the 'link in the description'. Furthermore, everyone can already binge it as it's freely available on UA-cam, right?
gotta love the molotov-Ribbentrop photos right next to u indy xD
well they buried the hatchet, in each others skull...
Great video, did see it yesterday, commenting to appease the algorithm.
Peace between bloodhungry wolves :/
Absolutely love it, to many people don't know about that...
The German-Soviet -Non- agressive Pact.
Excellent Presentation . History is Complex .
.
Excellent episode! One of the sad but necessary realities of WW2 is that to defeat one of two most murderous monsters we had to ally ourselves with an equally murderous monster.
Do you think Russia forgot about the role of Western capital in nurturing Hitler? your Wall Street bastards needed a war.
Looking very Gangsta Indy!
Poor Poland.
Well, we did our best.. You see how difficult things have been.
Poland did the same thing with landgrab when Germany invaded Czechoslovakia - read about Germany Occupation of Czechoslovakia, 1938.
@@ruskyhusky69 Except that Czechoslovakia took that land from Poland beforehand by force, in other words all the Poles did was get it back years later.
@@ghostrider.49 you just justified the german invasion of poland lol
@@AFGuidesHD How? Poland didn't take German land by force, it was the other way around, remember the partitions of Poland? And if we wanna talk about Danzig, it was in Polish hands for hundreds of years, until the Germans took it from the Poles during the partitions.
Two great things. The new tie and the Green Lady. Keep up the great work. We are so close to when the World Will Hold Its Breath!!!
14:52 How can you create a buffer between Soviets and Germany with Red Army entering Poland? That's riddiculous claim, while Poland is in fact independent buffer between them...
Rethink what you just wrote and tell my whe it's a bullshit.
@@mateuszg9866 Stalin knew that France and GB where not going to really go to war with Germany for the sake of Poland. If Hitler had conquered the whole of the polish territory, there was a great probability that Moscow could had fallen in Operation Barabarossa. With Moscow conquered, would the Soviet Union survived ? If not, there is a great possibility that Poland didn,t be in existence at the present time.
@@luisdortahernandez7933 this was not possible in 1939. First of all Stalin Line was staffed - unlike in 1941. Second of all - Germany couldn't beat Poland without USSR cutting of areas east from Bug river.
@@luisdortahernandez7933 if stalin really wanted this he would have contacted the polish command to coordinate a defence strategy against the germans together.. instead he agressed the polish army, weakened it and as if it was not enough the polish civilians. If he really wanted the safety of his country he would have cooperated and supported Poland keeping away the war from his civilians...however he pokered for more..for more territory..the one russia stole from poland in 1770...
Paul Sevenitz Stalin tried to negotiate with the western allies and Poland ya achieve a anti nazi alliance, but was rebuffed by all .
@TimeGhostHistory And, BTW, where is an episode about Memel/Klaipeda annexation?
The Molotov-Rippentrop Pact? Yes, I believe I have heard of this romance story before, I really found the relationship surprising and the climax to be the most betrayal in love stories of all time
I felt like they had no chemistry. The writers should have made them like each other if they really felt the need to insert this love story.
A Superb Episode Indeed 10/10 !!!
Battle of Khalkhin Gol