They didn’t, the closest is there being lines neither country should cross. Both the Soviets and Nazis knew war was coming between them and that the treaty would not hold for long, it wasn’t a long-term plan.
Having a pact and zones of interest freed up manpower for Nazis to use in other parts of Europe. That’s how it was part in enabling them. Not that USSR would’ve been guilty of that alone or nowhere near the first to enable the Nazis.
My complaint is making a deals and pacts with Nazis. Again, that includes everyone, not just USSR. If everyone had put up stronger opposition from the start then all could’ve been stopped way earlier.
The USSR tried extremely hard to form a unified opposition to the Nazis, and the Western powers responded by signing pacts with the Nazis. As a result, the USSR was left with the choice to also sign a pact to buy time and keep the Nazis out of some of Eastern Europe for a time, or to let them have Eastern Europe and then have to fight a war from a worse position with less preparation.
They literally did choose the option that allowed them to put up the strongest opposition possible. If they had done what you wanted, the Nazis would have won the Eastern front.
We don’t know when Nazis would’ve invaded USSR. They still had Western Allies to deal with. The pact gave breathing room to USSR but it also pointed them towards West. So same deal as what the West wanted to do.
But they would have invaded, probably sooner, so just letting them have all of Eastern Europe in advance would have resulted in the Nazis winning the Eastern front.
They still had Western Allies to deal with.
Which was true when they invaded them historically too, so I’m not sure what your point was.
The pact gave breathing room to USSR but it also pointed them towards West.
The USSR already did the overwhelming amount of the work in defeating the Nazis, it’s pretty file to say they should have let themselves get annihilated so the West could do even less.
I’m not sure why people think it’s either or when I’ve been very clearly saying that neither should’ve been making the deals. West made deals that damn them, but stopped at Poland. Soviet Union was put in a shitty position but also they agreed to carve up Poland alongside Nazi Germany. I’d say that’s all around pretty objectionable.
Hitler literally wrote a book on how much he hated communists, the bolsheviks and wanted to kill them before he even became chancellor. They were rallying against “judeo-bolshevism” from the very start. It was always very clear that the Nazis saw the main enemy in the east.
The only one trying to do that legitimately was the USSR, Britain and France sabotaged talks of anti-Nazi alliance every single time. The west wanted the Nazis and Soviets to kill each other, and then finish off the weaker one if possible.
The western allies were doing tons of trade with the Nazis and sabotaged talks of alliance with the Soviets up until the war, hoping each would kill the other. This isn’t controversial.
Sure would’ve been great if the Soviet Union had the industrial power to take Nazi Germany on by itself, or had the trade with the west at the time to help close the gap. No perfect solution was available to the Soviets.
We know that the Soviet Union was industrializing at incredibly high rates, but was still far behind Germany in total industrialization. We know that the west was trading a ton with the Nazis, and were hostile to the Soviets. We know that the Nazis and Soviets hated each other. What should the Soviet Union have done? Declare war before they were ready, and risk everyone allying with Nazi Germany? Let the Nazis take all of Poland?
Prepare for war within their own borders, mobilize. That alone would’ve helped overall anti-Nazi effort. Now they could first divide Poland with the Soviets and then focus on the West and then head East. East and West being mobilized would’ve been a big barrier.
Gotcha, so you would’ve let the Nazis take all of Poland, with all of the consequences of that, such as extending the Holocaust to further ground. The Soviets were doing all they could to prepare, so this just reads as you preferring Poland be sacrificed so the Soviets could have maintained “moral purity.”
Their instance hints it’s rather a defence mechanism against the moral ramifications of making a deal with Nazis. It’s not an unfamiliar thing to me, I’ve seen it a lot
Sorry, I’ll try to put it more clear for you: You write like a teenager who thinks overwriting lazy insults with lots of purple prose that you picked up from Japanese children’s cartoons makes them something more than just lazy insults.
I’m not a native speaker, I’m just writing how we’ve been taught to write in school. If that comes off as “purple prose” or anime, then not sure what to tell you. Miyazaki wasn’t a big part of our school curriculum.
Start with not making a pact with Nazis to divide Europe imo. That’s one part that was enabling the Nazi expansion.
They didn’t, the closest is there being lines neither country should cross. Both the Soviets and Nazis knew war was coming between them and that the treaty would not hold for long, it wasn’t a long-term plan.
Having a pact and zones of interest freed up manpower for Nazis to use in other parts of Europe. That’s how it was part in enabling them. Not that USSR would’ve been guilty of that alone or nowhere near the first to enable the Nazis.
So your complaint is that the USSR didn’t take even more of the brunt of the Nazis forces.
My complaint is making a deals and pacts with Nazis. Again, that includes everyone, not just USSR. If everyone had put up stronger opposition from the start then all could’ve been stopped way earlier.
The USSR tried extremely hard to form a unified opposition to the Nazis, and the Western powers responded by signing pacts with the Nazis. As a result, the USSR was left with the choice to also sign a pact to buy time and keep the Nazis out of some of Eastern Europe for a time, or to let them have Eastern Europe and then have to fight a war from a worse position with less preparation.
They literally did choose the option that allowed them to put up the strongest opposition possible. If they had done what you wanted, the Nazis would have won the Eastern front.
We don’t know when Nazis would’ve invaded USSR. They still had Western Allies to deal with. The pact gave breathing room to USSR but it also pointed them towards West. So same deal as what the West wanted to do.
But they would have invaded, probably sooner, so just letting them have all of Eastern Europe in advance would have resulted in the Nazis winning the Eastern front.
Which was true when they invaded them historically too, so I’m not sure what your point was.
The USSR already did the overwhelming amount of the work in defeating the Nazis, it’s pretty file to say they should have let themselves get annihilated so the West could do even less.
I’m not sure why people think it’s either or when I’ve been very clearly saying that neither should’ve been making the deals. West made deals that damn them, but stopped at Poland. Soviet Union was put in a shitty position but also they agreed to carve up Poland alongside Nazi Germany. I’d say that’s all around pretty objectionable.
Hitler literally wrote a book on how much he hated communists, the bolsheviks and wanted to kill them before he even became chancellor. They were rallying against “judeo-bolshevism” from the very start. It was always very clear that the Nazis saw the main enemy in the east.
I’m not sure what you feel this is in reply to. Their mutual hatred was well known
The only one trying to do that legitimately was the USSR, Britain and France sabotaged talks of anti-Nazi alliance every single time. The west wanted the Nazis and Soviets to kill each other, and then finish off the weaker one if possible.
Western Allies were fighting way before USSR. So was Poland.
The western allies were doing tons of trade with the Nazis and sabotaged talks of alliance with the Soviets up until the war, hoping each would kill the other. This isn’t controversial.
It isn’t, neither is that they were the first ones (after Poland) to actually fight the Nazis. So can’t knock them on that account
Sure would’ve been great if the Soviet Union had the industrial power to take Nazi Germany on by itself, or had the trade with the west at the time to help close the gap. No perfect solution was available to the Soviets.
I mean we don’t know what would’ve happened but yes everyone was playing time and hoping Nazis would look elsewhere for at least some time.
We know that the Soviet Union was industrializing at incredibly high rates, but was still far behind Germany in total industrialization. We know that the west was trading a ton with the Nazis, and were hostile to the Soviets. We know that the Nazis and Soviets hated each other. What should the Soviet Union have done? Declare war before they were ready, and risk everyone allying with Nazi Germany? Let the Nazis take all of Poland?
Prepare for war within their own borders, mobilize. That alone would’ve helped overall anti-Nazi effort. Now they could first divide Poland with the Soviets and then focus on the West and then head East. East and West being mobilized would’ve been a big barrier.
Gotcha, so you would’ve let the Nazis take all of Poland, with all of the consequences of that, such as extending the Holocaust to further ground. The Soviets were doing all they could to prepare, so this just reads as you preferring Poland be sacrificed so the Soviets could have maintained “moral purity.”
I would’ve liked to see USSR try to prevent the invasion from happening instead of joining it.
Them: “so what should they have done?”
You: “Well I’ll tell you what they shouldn’t have done!”
So, in short, you can’t actually answer the question.
Haha, what a crazy way of thinking.
“Don’t eat your own shit!”
“Well, what should I do instead of eating my own shit?! 😕”
Still can’t answer the question, I see
Removed by mod
Damn, that’s a lot of words to still not be able to answer the question
“So what should they have done??”
“Don’t make a pact with them prepare for war”
You: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxnJcZvuRK8&t=140
Why are you linking youtube videos instead of answering the question?
The question has been answered, you’re being purposefully obtuse and I’m making fun of that.
Has it? All I can see is you endlessly saying what they shouldn’t have done, while refusing to say what they should have done.
You might want to read again then.
It’s just a troll :)
Trolling is when anyone questions western Chauvinists
Their instance hints it’s rather a defence mechanism against the moral ramifications of making a deal with Nazis. It’s not an unfamiliar thing to me, I’ve seen it a lot
Why do you losers always try to talk like anime villains?
I have no idea what this even means. Too many big words or what
Sorry, I’ll try to put it more clear for you: You write like a teenager who thinks overwriting lazy insults with lots of purple prose that you picked up from Japanese children’s cartoons makes them something more than just lazy insults.
I’m not a native speaker, I’m just writing how we’ve been taught to write in school. If that comes off as “purple prose” or anime, then not sure what to tell you. Miyazaki wasn’t a big part of our school curriculum.