I just got back from a four day trip to Washington DC (it was lovely, thanks for asking ). One of our many stops included the National Holocaust Museum, which was- overall- great. One of the best museums I’ve ever been to, actually.
One thing stuck out to me as not quite right, so I’m hoping I can get some clarification.
At a certain point in the exhibition, there are three maps of Europe on the wall: one from right about when Hitler took control of Germany, one from the mid to late 1930s, and one from 1940-1941. Each map showed German territory, German allies, those that were fighting against Germany, and neutral states.
The first two maps (I can’t remember the exact dates on each, but the two covered 1933-1939) showed Russia as “neutral”. The last showed Russia as actively fighting against Nazi Germany.
Now, that last part makes complete sense- Operation Barbarossa and all that jazz. But the first two leave me quite confused. Up until this point, I thought that Russia was quite active in aiding Adolf Hitler in any way Stalin could manage- heck, it’s said Stalin admired Hitler and trusted him more than anyone.
I can perhaps justify the first map showing neutrality, as Russia was busy with their own issues; but the second map absolutely makes no sense to me. Are they perhaps basing it on the fact that Russia didn’t officially support Nazi Germany (was that even the case?)? Or something else?
Until June, 1941, the Soviet Union was neutral. Hitler and Stalin had concluded a non-aggression pact and a generous trade agreement, but Soviet forces wer not engaged in any operations against the British or French, and cooler heads had prevailed when the British and French tought about declaring war on the Soviets during the invasion of Poland and the Finnish Winter War in 1940.
I can’t think of why Stalin would have wanted to aid Hitler - he only did so out of his own interests (getting swathes of Poland and Romania), and out of a desire to make sure the Nazis didn’t attack the USSR. Apparently he believed that giving Hitler lots of raw materials and signing the non-aggression pact would make him safe - he didn’t believe it when first told the Germans were attacking.
Just because a country (the USSR) trades with a belligerent (Germany), doesn’t make them belligerent - they can still be neutral.
Molotov-Ribbentrop was in 1939. Before this they were ideological enemies, which is why the pact came as such a suprise to everyone. Even Molotov-Ribbentrop was only an agreement to remain NEUTRAL if one of the parties was attacked, not an alliance. On the other hand the USSR had effectively been ostrasized from European politics after the Bolsheviks took power so for all intents and purposes, they were neutral. The USSR has certainly done nothing to actively assist the Nazis up to this point, and even after 1939 their invasion of Poland wasn’t explicitly in co-operation with the Germans’ invasion (although of course it was, really).
No, the maps are right. Until the Germans invaded the Soviet Union, they stayed out of the war, spending their time invading the Baltics and Finland. Even though the Baltic states and Finland were nominally German allies, the Germans, as per the secret protocals of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, ignored the Soviet actions.
Well, son of a gun, that’s seems about right. I suppose my question would then be: was Russia doing as much trading with the Allies as they were with the Axis? Certainly trade is trade, but I recall reading that Russia was giving the Nazis all kinds of new and exciting weapons. During a time of war, that is far from neutral (unless, again, they were doing the same with the Allies).
And in regard to Stalin not believing that the Nazis were attacking-- I just read a book that said that it is documented that Stalin was warned on minimum of 87 different occasions about the impending Nazi attack. Of those 87 warnings, about 10 came directly from Roosevelt and Churchill. Another large chunk of warnings came from actual Nazi officers. Yet, Stalin chose to believe that Hitler wouldn’t hurt him.
The whole situation interests me greatly, especially considering everything that I’ve read places Stalin as one of those people that simply wouldn’t even trust his own grandmother if she told him the sky is blue. Yet, he trusted Hitler. Go figure.
And also, thank you to kawaiitentaclebeast and Captain Amazing as well! The clarifications and citations have been really helpful- the map thing just seemed contradictory to what I know. Then again, I was fairly certain that the National Holocaust Museum would not get something that simple wrong.
I’m just starting to learn a lot about WW2 in depth. Of late, I’ve found myself very into military history (so much so, that I think this is what I’ll go to grad school for), so I’m taking a lot of time to study each war that interests me. It looks like it’s time for me to go read up on pre-Barbarossa German-Russian relations. Fun!
While I’d have to check, it wouldn’t surprise me if the Soviet Union did more trade with Germany during that period than the Allies. Germany and the Soviets did share a land border, after all (what used to be Poland), and it was a lot easier to ship material back and forth. Trading with Britain would have meant the Soviets sending their small merchant marine into naval war zones.
To quote Stalin’s reply when General Zukhov reported from Berlin that Hitler had killed himself: “So the bastard gets away. Well, it’s a shame you weren’t able to capture him alive.” – that hardly sounds like admiration or trust! Now that was after Hitler invaded Russia, so it’s likely colored by that. But even before that, the political philisophy of Hitler’s Nazis was completely opposed to Stalin’s Communism. Plus both were absolute dictators; those types tend not like others of the same type, but to see them as potential enemies.
And I don’t think there is much evidence that Stalin ever trusted anybody!
True dat. In fact the United States was in a pretty analogous position vis-a-vis Britain – witness the destroyers for bases agreement for an example of taking neutrality right up to the edge.
According to most historians, Stalin didn’t TRUST Hitler anymore than he trusted anyone else, and in fact was pretty certain that a showdown with the Germans was inevitable just as Histler was vice versa. He was simply desperate to buy time until the Red Army could get itself re-organized into an effective fighting force after the purgers of the late 20s and early 30s. His goal WRT the state of the Red Army was probably reasonable, and he was probably (again quite reasonably)expecting the Germans to be tied down in the west for a lot longer than they were. Remember, eveyone outside of Germany was expecting a re-run of WW1 in the west, and in WW1 France didn’t surrender in 6 weeks.
In point of fact, Stalin’s purge of the Red Army generals (and navy admirals) took place in 1937/1938. Thus he had very little time indeed to reorganise his armed forces before the start of WWII.
In my opinion, purging one’s top brass just before a world war breaks out smacks of supreme folly driven by paranoia. It is arguable whether or not the perceived weakness of the Red Army prompted Operation Barbarossa (the German invasion of Russia) in June 1941.
Depends on the quality of the brass that is purged.
Often, the qualities that result in promotion during peacetime are not at all the qualities that are needed in wartime officers.
Take, for example, the US Pacific submarine commanders in WWII. Before the war, important qualities for promotion were working a ‘team player’, good relationships with other Navy officers, careful & conservative adherance to the rules, and taking no risks with the expensive submarine. But during wartime, most of those were disadvantages; the main leadership quality needed was success at sinking Japanese ships, and that required aggressive & risky use of the submarine. It’s said that the success of US Pacific submarine fleet didn’t really come until after most of the pre-war submarine commanders had been replaced by new, younger commanders.
Purging the officers as early as Stalin did, a few years before the war starts, is probably counter-productive. It just resulted in a new group of yes-men officers, who wouldn’t talk back to Stalin even when they know his military instructions are wrong.
But it’s been argued that it would be quite effective to, as soon as war is declared, force all your peacetime senior officers to retire, and replace them with younger, more aggressive officers.
And this is an interesting site. Under Purge of the Army:
That, if true, is quite a purge. It’s difficult for me to believe that some of these officers weren’t capable of wartime activity. In any event, Stalin seems to have followed the precept indicated in your statement above.
On the other hand we have this:
However, Suvorov’s take on the Red Army purge cannot be relied upon according to most historians of the Soviet era. I include this quote for completeness but I hazard that the first set of numbers aren’t far away from the truth.
A documentary I saw about the Winter War addressed this. On the one hand, the Soviet Union’s dismal performance against the Finns might certainly have given the impression that the USSR was a paper tiger. On the other hand, it’s arguable that the shock of how poorly Soviet forces fared finally convinced Stalin to stop decimating his own military. Possibly, the Soviets might have been even less well prepared to meet Barbarossa then they were if the Finns hadn’t slapped them in the face.
It seems like a bit of a stretch to describe the USSR as “neutral” if they were busy invading the Baltic states. Wouldn’t it be a bit more accurate to say that they were neutral vis-a-vis the war between Germany and France (and Great Britain), but not in their own territoral ambitions? If you want to talk about a “World War”, it seems rather arbitrary to exclude some nations who were actually fighting.
Did you see any maps of Japan that described her as “neutral” during the same period?
I don’t think Stalin trusted Hitler; I don’t think Stalin trusted anyone. But I think Stalin believed that the current state of peace and trade between Germany and the Soviet Union benefitted both countries and he figured Hitler would act in his own best interest.
). One of our many stops included the National Holocaust Museum, which was- overall- great. One of the best museums I’ve ever been to, actually.