Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

"Before the Nazi Invasion" (Soviets in Sep 1939 - June 1941)

POST REPLY
Soviet cogitations: 724
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Mar 2011, 14:10
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 20 Jan 2016, 21:09
https://archive.org/details/BeforeTheNaziInvasion

Scanned by me.

Quote:
Chapter 1. HISTORICAL REALITY AND ITS FALSIFICATION
1. Could the Second World War Have Been Prevented?
2. ". . . Let Us Face the Truth Squarely"
3. Main Directions and Specifics of Soviet Foreign Policy
4. Ingredients of a Lie
Chapter 2. IN THE WEST AND NORTHWEST
1. Anxious Month of September 1939
2. The USSR and Finland
3. Developments in the Baltic
Chapter 3. THE USSR'S RELATIONS WITH BRITAIN, FRANCE, AND THE USA
1. The USSR and the Anglo-French Coalition After the Outbreak of the Second World War
2. From Anti-Sovietism to Planning an Attack on the USSR in the North
3. Payment for Anti-Soviet Blindness
4. Soviet-British Relations After the Defeat of France
5. The Soviet Union and the United States of America
Chapter 4. IN THE SOUTHWEST AND THE BALKANS
1. Troublesome Relations with Romania
2. The USSR and Bulgaria
3. The USSR and Hungary
4. The USSR and Yugoslavia
Chapter 5. IN THE SOUTH
1. The USSR and Turkey
2. The USSR and Iran
3. The USSR and Afghanistan
Chapter 6. IN THE EAST
1. Military and Political Situation in the Far East
2. The USSR and Japan: Negotiations, 1939-1940
3. Soviet-Japanese Neutrality Pact
4. Soviet Assistance to the Chinese People
Chapter 7. RELATIONS WITH GERMANY AND ITALY
1. Latent Conflict With Germany During the "Phoney War" in Europe
2. Bilateral Relations with Germany: Trade and Economic Aspects
3. The Nazi Threat Grows
4. Soviet-German Political Confrontation in November 1940
5. The USSR and Italy
6. Last Months Without War: Opportunities for Diplomacy Narrow Down
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1004
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Aug 2011, 22:59
Ideology: Other Leftist
Party Member
Post 08 Feb 2016, 11:23
Does it cover the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact, too?
Soviet cogitations: 724
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Mar 2011, 14:10
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 08 Feb 2016, 20:54
Yes, the whole book is literally about Soviet foreign policy from the signing of the pact to the Nazi invasion of the USSR two years later.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1004
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Aug 2011, 22:59
Ideology: Other Leftist
Party Member
Post 08 Feb 2016, 23:37
According to the book, was it absolutely correct to have that pact?
And according to the world socialist movement, was it correct?
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3829
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 12 Jun 2006, 02:14
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Politburo
Post 09 Feb 2016, 01:01
Again with the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact??

Read and discuss the book mentioned here, or start another thread on the appropiate historic forum.


"Where Argentina goes, Latin America will go".
Leonid Brezhnev

Forum Rules
Soviet cogitations: 724
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Mar 2011, 14:10
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 09 Feb 2016, 03:04
EdvardK wrote:
According to the book, was it absolutely correct to have that pact?
Yes, it was forced on the Soviets after the UK and France refused to agree to a system of collective security between themselves and the USSR against fascist aggression. The pact allowed the USSR to strengthen its defenses in preparation for the Nazi invasion two years later.

Quote:
And according to the world socialist movement, was it correct?
Yes, the Comintern pointed out the reasons for the pact, as did the parties affiliated to it. So for example the American Communists, through the journal Soviet Russia Today, published an article titled "The Meaning of the Non-Aggression Pact." The Communist Party of Yugoslavia also wrote materials explaining the pact and its significance.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1004
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Aug 2011, 22:59
Ideology: Other Leftist
Party Member
Post 09 Feb 2016, 22:04
You don't have to believe me and you can easily shut me up, but the fact is that the pact was an act of treachery by the USSR and whoever tries to justify it, be it a Soviet, a Yugoslav or any other moron, will not change that fact. For that alone, the supreme leader of USSR should've been tried and persecuted.
Soviet cogitations: 724
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Mar 2011, 14:10
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 12 Feb 2016, 06:46
EdvardK wrote:
You don't have to believe me and you can easily shut me up, but the fact is that the pact was an act of treachery by the USSR and whoever tries to justify it, be it a Soviet, a Yugoslav or any other moron, will not change that fact. For that alone, the supreme leader of USSR should've been tried and persecuted.
Why was it "an act of treachery"?
Soviet cogitations: 12389
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Apr 2010, 04:44
Ideology: None
Philosophized
Post 13 Feb 2016, 04:09
Britain and France were never going to sign a pact with the USSR while there was still a reasonable chance of somehow using Germany as a proxy to wipe it off the map.

Hitler's biggest regret was that, thanks to the stupidity of Ribbentrop, he ended up going to war with Britain and France as his enemies and the USSR as his temporary ally - the complete reverse of what he had hoped for.

Meanwhile, who was the USSR being treacherous toward? Poland was a traditional enemy of many centuries. It was always in the back of Russia's mind to crush Poland.

As for Finland, Lenin certainly didn't let go of any former Imperial territory by choice, and he retained everything he could keep his hands on. The USSR was always going to claim whatever bit of Finland they could get their hands on, if not the whole country.
Miss Strangelove: "You feed giants laxatives so goblins can mine their poop before the gnomes get to it."
Soviet cogitations: 724
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Mar 2011, 14:10
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 14 Feb 2016, 05:40
Comrade Gulper wrote:
As for Finland, Lenin certainly didn't let go of any former Imperial territory by choice, and he retained everything he could keep his hands on. The USSR was always going to claim whatever bit of Finland they could get their hands on, if not the whole country.
It's worth noting that the Soviets had no territorial designs on Finland. All they wanted were temporary leases to safeguard the security of Leningrad in the event of a Nazi invasion. The Finnish negotiators sent to discuss the matter actually thought Stalin gave Finland a good deal, but the reactionary Finnish government was against it. Then Stalin put forth another proposal, even more favorable to the Finns, but this was again rejected.
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.