It's not as if the USSR was the only country to have an appeasing position to Nazi Germany prior to their direct involvement, thereby facilitating the necessary military build-up.
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
There is a difference between appeasement and the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Following the failure of the former, Britain and France declared war on Germany for invading Poland. In the later, the USSR invaded Poland and had a joint victory parade with Nazi troops through the streets of Brest-Litovsk.
In the early stages of WW2 most great-power response to Nazi Germany was strategic. The idea of an ideological struggle against Nazism started after the war, it did not precede it. Imperial powers, like the USSR, France and the UK were all more than happy until their interests opposed Germany.
"Is this the end of an old adventure, or is it the beginning of a new?"
"Is this the last attack upon a small State, or is it to be followed by others? Is this, in fact, a step in the direction of an attempt to dominate the world by force?"
The USSR were allies with the Nazis and stayed that way until Germany invaded them, so you can't group the UK and France in with them. The Soviets also had an economic pact with Nazi Germany to supply their war effort that lasted until Operation Barbarossa. The Russians like to forget these facts
It's the difference between helping defend neutral countries and helping to conquer them. Stalin turned over German Communist dissidents to the Nazis to be murdered. German tanks rolled into France fueled by Soviet gas.
I wouldn't pretend that the British EMPIRE had some great ideological opposition to the invasion of neutral countries. The opposition was because the Nazis were a strategic rival. For example, British oil exports continued to Japan such that Japanese tanks rolled into China fueled by UK gas.
The British did not make a treaty with Imperial Japan to help carve up China - they protested at the League of Nations. British troops didn't parade alongside the IJA through the streets of Nanjing. Unlike the Soviets, British diplomats weren't lining up to beg Hitler to join the Axis in 1940.
Oh this is super interesting, thanks! Can you explain what models of tanks the Japanese were using in 1900 which would have been "fueled by UK gas" as you said? I'm having trouble finding any Japanese tanks before the 1920s.
You are citing an event four decades prior to the outbreak of the Second Sino-Japanese War. When Japan invaded Manchuria, the British joined the rest of the League of Nations in condemning it. They subsequently funneled supplies to the Chinese through Hong Kong. The Americans sent planes and pilots.
The primary reason was that Stalin believed the Third Reich could give the USSR a better deal and a freer hand in Eastern Europe. In order to achieve imperial conquest, he broke the non-aggression treaty the USSR had signed with Poland to seize new territory.
The USSR had no strong ideological commitments to its new partner. But it was quite happy to sit back and fund Hitler's war against the capitalist West. This is as opposed to the US and UK, who repeatedly refused to make a separate peace with Hitler and leave the USSR to face Nazism alone.
Appeasement is more complicated because France had overstretched their security guarantees in Central Europe and because no one was in position from blocking Germany from occupying territory with German populations.
Comments
"Is this the last attack upon a small State, or is it to be followed by others? Is this, in fact, a step in the direction of an attempt to dominate the world by force?"
Neville Chamberlain, March 17th 1939
I think you'll find that the imperial powers did align to carve up China. You ignorant fuck.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight-Nation_Alliance