Sergey Ivanov: Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact helped the Soviet Union

The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, signed back in 1939, is a topic of constant speculation, both in Russia and in the post-Soviet space.




The Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Russian Military Historical Society, the President’s Special Representative for Environmental Affairs, Sergei Ivanov, explained the benefits the Soviet Union received by signing this pact.

Ivanov is convinced that the signing of the pact helped the USSR avoid a war on two fronts. In addition, the absence of a Soviet-German treaty would lead to the fact that the war would not begin with the Brest Fortress, but much more east.

Sergei Ivanov recalls that the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact forced Japan to abandon plans to start a war against the Soviet Union in the Far East, which subsequently made it possible to transfer part of the forces to the European part of the USSR, defend Moscow and carry out the offensive for the first time.

Recall that the Russian Military Historical Society on June 2 published the Soviet original of the Non-aggression Treaty between the USSR and Germany, which is more often referred to as the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.

As follows from the previously published additional secret protocol to the treaty, the countries divided among themselves the areas of interest in Eastern Europe.
  • Photos used: https://popularhistoria.se
Ad
The publication is looking for authors in the news and analytical departments. Requirements for applicants: literacy, responsibility, efficiency, inexhaustible creative energy, experience in copywriting or journalism, the ability to quickly analyze text and check facts, write concisely and interestingly on political and economic topics. The work is paid. Contact: [email protected]
30 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Oleg RB Offline Oleg RB
    Oleg RB (Oleg) 4 July 2019 17: 36
    -5
    With the voice of artists playing Dzhugashvili - "rattle"
  2. Nikolai Miracles (Nikolai Chudov) 4 July 2019 19: 12
    0
    1979 film "Time chose us". Episode about the Non-Aggression Pact.

  3. 1000 svolder Offline 1000 svolder
    1000 svolder (1000 svolder) 4 July 2019 23: 36
    -1
    The accession of Bessarabia in July 1940 caused the overthrow of the king in September, the coming to power of Antonescu and the transition of Romania and the Balkans to German guardianship from the Anglo-French sphere of influence. And about the old border - 1 German tank group crossed it at Zvyagel on July 6, 1941, the Germans were in Pskov on July 9, and Minsk was captured on June 26; where is 2-3 months here
    1. Bakht Offline Bakht
      Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 5 July 2019 00: 45
      +2
      Romania lost only Bessarabia? For what reason did the Balkans leave the "Anglo-French sphere of influence"? Is it because of the Moscow Treaty? There were no other reasons?
      1. 1000 svolder Offline 1000 svolder
        1000 svolder (1000 svolder) 5 July 2019 02: 20
        0
        Don't leave the topic. The starting point of WWII was the Molotov-Ribentrop Pact. The Balkans withdrew from the "Anlo-Saxon-French" sphere due to the growth of German influence. It is because of the Pact. Churchill's main problem was the Ploiesti oil fields, which were appropriated by the Germans in September 1940.
        1. Bakht Offline Bakht
          Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 5 July 2019 06: 00
          +2
          The Balkans did not leave because of the Moscow Treaty. This is not a departure from the topic, namely, an incorrect interpretation of events. The Balkans left due to the fact that in the summer of 1940, France was defeated, and England was thinking about its own survival. Specifically, Romania lost territory on the Vienna arbitration. And came under the guarantee of Germany due to the fact that she lost her patron in the form of France.
        2. Bakht Offline Bakht
          Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 5 July 2019 06: 03
          +2
          The starting point of WWII was not the Moscow Treaty, but the Munich Agreement. The Moscow treaty could not be a starting point, if only because it was concluded very late. The attack on Poland was planned for August 26, 1939, and the Treaty was concluded on August 24. In two days spent all the training?
          So partners in WWII start are Great Britain, France and ... Poland
  4. Bakht Offline Bakht
    Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 5 July 2019 06: 10
    +2
    At dawn on August 26, 1939, six days before the start of the war, the German Wehrmacht's special forces suddenly captured the Jablunkovsky Pass in Poland. She had the task of keeping it open until the advance of the ground forces arrived; more than 2000 Polish soldiers were captured. Hitler's order to postpone the offensive envisaged for 26 August could no longer reach this "detachment for operations in the dark" in time. He had to withdraw in small groups to the German border.

    Hitler postponed the attack on Poland because of the position of Italy. The position of Moscow was not very interesting to him. So the starting point of WWII was Munich. Why is the capture of Czechoslovakia not considered the beginning of a war? Or Austria or Czechoslovakia are not suitable for the Anglo-Saxon hypothesis?
  5. Bakht Offline Bakht
    Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 5 July 2019 06: 23
    +2
    Hitler's speech at the secret meeting of the commanders of the Wehrmacht troops in Obersalzberg on August 22, 1939

    It was clear to me that sooner or later it should come to a clash with Poland. I made a decision back in the springbut I thought that at first in a few years I would come out against the West, and only then against the East. However, the sequence in time cannot be determined in advance. In addition, you can not close your eyes to a threatening situation. Initially, I wanted to establish acceptable relations with Poland, so that later I would start the struggle against the West. However, this plan that appealed to me was not feasible, since the essential circumstances have changed. It became clear to me: in a clash with the West, Poland will attack us. Poland seeks access to the sea. After occupying the Memel region, the further course of events showed this, and it became clear to me that under certain conditions Poland would be able to attack us at an unfavorable moment for us.

    Where is the position of the USSR? It was in the spring of 1939 that the Czech Republic was finally liquidated. Thank Chamberlain and Daladier.
  6. Bakht Offline Bakht
    Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 5 July 2019 06: 58
    +1
    On August 24, 1939, at 12 noon, Colonel General von Rundstedt took command of the army group. On August 25, at 15.25, an encrypted order arrived from the OKH: “Operation Weiss, the first day of Ch - 26.08, 4.30.”

    The decision to start a war, which until then we did not want to believe, was therefore made.

    I sat with Colonel-General von Rundstedt at our headquarters in the Geiliges Kreuz Monastery in Neuss (Nysa) at dinner, when at 20.30 the following order was transmitted from OKH by telephone:

    “Opening hostilities is prohibited. Stop the troops immediately. Mobilization continues. Weiss and West deployment will continue as scheduled.

    Every soldier can understand what this change in order at the last moment means. Three armies marching to the border in an area extending from Lower Silesia to eastern Slovakia had to be stopped for several hours; it should be borne in mind that all the headquarters, at least up to and including the headquarters of the divisions, were also on the march and that, due to camouflage considerations, radio communications were not yet allowed. Despite all the difficulties, it was nevertheless possible to transmit the order everywhere in a timely manner. A great achievement for the controls and communications! One motorized regiment in eastern Slovakia, however, could only be detained because the officer sent on the Fiesler-Storch plane landed at night at the very head of the regiment’s column.

    The conclusion of the Moscow Treaty had a definite purpose. According to Hitler, this was supposed to force Poland to accept the German conditions of surrender.

    The first consideration was that, as a result of a pact with the Soviet Union, the situation in Poland became hopeless. If we take into account that the consequence of this was the deprivation of England the blockade, and that indeed, to help Poland, it could only go along the bloody offensive in the West, then it seemed likely that England, under pressure from France, would advise Poland to make concessions. On the other hand, it should now become clear to Poland that the British guarantees were practically null and void. Moreover, she had to reckon with the fact that in the event of a war with Germany, the Soviets would come out behind her in order to achieve the fulfillment of her old demands regarding eastern Poland. How could Warsaw not make concessions in such an environment?
    1. 1000 svolder Offline 1000 svolder
      1000 svolder (1000 svolder) 5 July 2019 08: 59
      0
      You piled on me a bunch of copy-paste, thank you, but I know the topic of relations between Romania and the UK, mainly
      1. Bakht Offline Bakht
        Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 5 July 2019 09: 42
        +1
        Relations between Romania and Great Britain are completely uninteresting in this topic. You just gave the example of Romania as a consequence of the Pact. This is not true. Romania and the Balkans went under Germany, because the guarantors of their independence ran out. All the limitrophes of Europe (children of Versailles) were blown away after the fall of France. This applies to the Baltics too. "The ugly brainchild of Versailles," I think, was called by Lord Curzon. Back in the 20s.
      2. Bakht Offline Bakht
        Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 5 July 2019 09: 46
        0
        Unfortunately, you can't do without copy-paste. I have been communicating on the forums for a long time. And I know that my personal opinion does not interest anyone. Major quotes from Manstein "Lost Victories" and Jacobsen "World War II. Chronicle and Documents"
    2. 1000 svolder Offline 1000 svolder
      1000 svolder (1000 svolder) 5 July 2019 09: 04
      -2
      Much interesting has been written about the Munich agreement, but Sergei Ivanov has not read anything about it. It would not hurt him to create a creative union with Masha Zakharova
    3. 1000 svolder Offline 1000 svolder
      1000 svolder (1000 svolder) 5 July 2019 09: 18
      0
      The secondary nature of the Munich agreement in relation to the outbreak of World War II is obvious. The Sudetenland was imposed on Czechoslovakia by the Anglo-French following the results of the Paris Conference, contrary to the categorical opposition of the United States in the person of Lansing. He considered the inclusion of German-occupied territories of the Austrian Empire into a Slavic country unacceptable.
      1. Bakht Offline Bakht
        Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 5 July 2019 09: 37
        +1
        The secondary nature of the Moscow Treaty is also absolutely obvious. But the secondaryity of Munich is a big question. It is especially interesting to read about the role of Poland in the surrender of Czechoslovakia. Munich is the main trigger of WWII. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact should be regarded precisely as pressure on Poland, but in no way as the cause of the war. This is what I want to say.
        1. 1000 svolder Offline 1000 svolder
          1000 svolder (1000 svolder) 5 July 2019 10: 11
          0
          What are you rushing about with this Munich Conspiracy? Everyone went crazy. The Sudetenland is a strip of land of the former Bohemia and that’s it. She was dragged back under Stalin from Czechoslovakia. A very correct decision was made in September 1938. This is how the situation of the creation of the Sudetenland problem in 1919 is described, E. background Weizsacker, diplomat and state secretary of the fascist Foreign Ministry:

          U.S. Secretary of State R. Lansing in very harsh terms said that he was against such borders (Lansing proposed transferring to Germany a significant territory where the so-called Sudeten Germans lived, but in the end left the border that existed between Germany and Austria-Hungary.). At the conference, he stated that the new German-Czech border “directly contradicts the spirit of the League of Nations, the trend towards international disarmament and the politics of the United States.

          Criticism was received with understanding, because, in accordance with all recognized Wilson principles, the expected world had to rest on the right of peoples to choose their own destiny.
          At that time no one asked the opinion of the Sudeten Germans. The lands where they lived directly bordered on Germany, so that no one had to be resettled anywhere if they became part of the Reich. But this region was part of Czechoslovakia, whose government over the past years limited the participation of local Germans in governing the country, refusing to grant them autonomy. As a result, the German national minority of about 3 million people unanimously supported the future event, despite all its politically dubious nature. ”Churchill was against the transfer of the Sudetenland to the Nazis, no one talks about this.
          1. Bakht Offline Bakht
            Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 5 July 2019 10: 33
            +1
            We rush with Munich because others rush with the Covenant. The date of August 23 is already celebrated at EU level. Many were against the Versailles borders. So what? We are talking about the beginning of WWII. The Sudetenland was very important for the security of Czechoslovakia. Czechoslovakia was very important for the security of Europe.
            Poland, together with Germany, launched the process of launching WWII. This is what needs to be discussed. And not the Moscow Treaty, which at the beginning of the war has nothing to do.
            1. 1000 svolder Offline 1000 svolder
              1000 svolder (1000 svolder) 5 July 2019 13: 20
              0
              Crimea is very important for the security of Ukraine, which is very important for the security of the European Union. What SudetyOur worse than CrimeaOur?
              1. Bakht Offline Bakht
                Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 5 July 2019 17: 03
                +1
                Crimea is very important for the security of Russia. Ukraine does not need it. And he is also very important to the States, as a bridgehead in the confrontation of Russia. While Ukraine was in non-aligned status - the issue of Crimea was not raised. Since the time of Yushchenko, I have convinced Ukrainians that as soon as they go to NATO, Crimea will leave. Saakashvili said the same thing in 2014. Putin spoke clearer in 2008, it seems. Bush was told that if Ukraine joins NATO, then there will be no Ukraine.
              2. Bakht Offline Bakht
                Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 5 July 2019 17: 11
                0
                Tell me, what is the likelihood that the Russian Federation will attack any NATO country? Say, to Poland or Estonia? Currently.
            2. 1000 svolder Offline 1000 svolder
              1000 svolder (1000 svolder) 5 July 2019 13: 48
              -1
              You are running around with the Munich deal in order to find those responsible for Hitler's coming to power and the attack on the USSR. Speech, in this case, then should not be about the British-Washington establishment, but about you. Only about you if you consider Putin's Russia the successor of Stalin's USSR. More precisely, the Moscow power of the "invisible front fighters" against the Bandera followers of the Stalinist Cheka.
              1. Bakht Offline Bakht
                Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 5 July 2019 17: 10
                +1
                You come up with some thoughts about me. I DO NOT consider Putin's Russia as the successor of Stalin's USSR. Putin is no match for him. Or, as one person said, "You are not even worth his little finger."
                I say certain things. Munich opened the gateways of the Second World War. The West does not like this scary. This is especially not like Warsaw. Because it was Warsaw that torpedoed the help of Czechoslovakia, tore off the collective security treaty in Europe.
                As for Hitler, we have already discussed here. Hitler came to power in the wake of revenge. And supported by large capital.
                You rush with the Pact because you want to hide the role of the West in unleashing the Second World War.
                1. 1000 svolder Offline 1000 svolder
                  1000 svolder (1000 svolder) 5 July 2019 20: 03
                  0
                  Explain then how Munich could open the gateways of the Second World War. Munich could help Germans renounce the 1935 Sea Treaty
                2. 1000 svolder Offline 1000 svolder
                  1000 svolder (1000 svolder) 5 July 2019 20: 13
                  -1
                  Something I do not remember that after the Czech Republic joined the Reich, some special threat appeared for the USSR. There is nothing. Stalin did not see anything either. He was probably busy counting the confiscated and looted.
                  1. Bakht Offline Bakht
                    Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 5 July 2019 20: 30
                    +1
                    Munich changed the balance of power in the center of Europe. And strengthened Germany militarily and economically.
                    And what did Stalin calculate after Munich? Enlighten.
                    At the same time, tell me exactly how the Moscow Treaty caused WWII? And what does this have to do with the maritime treaty?
                    You have an unprecedented flight of fantasy. But specifically, I do not see anything.
                    At the same time, I would like to hear what is the likelihood of a Russian attack on European countries? I ask because you claim that Ukraine is important for the security of Europe.
          2. Bakht Offline Bakht
            Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 5 July 2019 10: 35
            +1
            The starting point of WWII was the Molotov-Ribentrop Pact.

            Is this your phrase? It is not true.
    4. 1000 svolder Offline 1000 svolder
      1000 svolder (1000 svolder) 5 July 2019 09: 24
      0
      Reigning - so it was called
  7. Sergey Latyshev Offline Sergey Latyshev
    Sergey Latyshev (Serge) 5 July 2019 08: 42
    +1
    The contract is garbage, it was not particularly strong.
    It is much worse that both the cheers-patriots and the cheers-liberals lied, they lie, there will be gates around him ....

    But the real story that was taught in the USSR is somehow forgotten ...
    1. 1000 svolder Offline 1000 svolder
      1000 svolder (1000 svolder) 5 July 2019 08: 55
      0
      Liberals, at least, did not hurt to know history so that they knew where their leader leads the country.