7

A German and a Soviet officer shaking hands at the end of the Invasion of Poland.
"A German and a Soviet officer shaking hands at the end of the Invasion of Poland." (source)

On the 17th of September 1939 the Soviet Union invaded Poland from the east, following a German invasion from the west which started 2 weeks prior.

It's taken for a fact in Poland that at the time Soviets and Nazis were allies, per secret protocols of the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact.

treaty included a secret protocol that divided territories of Romania, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Finland into Nazi and Soviet "spheres of influence", anticipating potential "territorial and political rearrangements" of these countries (Wikipedia)

On the other hand for example in the US many people believe that Soviets and Nazis were always enemies (you can find such a claims for example in comments to Did the USSR have 21 thousand tanks at the beginning of WW2?).

Were Soviets and Nazis de facto allies in September 1939?

Related: Was Stalin planning to attack Germany?

Rodrigo de Azevedo
  • 350
  • 3
  • 16
vartec
  • 26,581
  • 5
  • 97
  • 155
  • 5
    The term "de facto ally" is perhaps unclear: if two powers are intending to fight each other in the future, can they be "allies" in the present? Is there a 'notable claim' that they were de facto allies (because reading the whole of published claim can help to clarify the meaning/context of the claim)? Do answers need to say what the Soviet motive was for invading Poland? – ChrisW Sep 18 '13 at 09:18
  • @ChrisW: *de facto*, as in allies in anything but formal alliance agreement. – vartec Sep 18 '13 at 09:26
  • 5
    "allies" could imply a range of cooperation from joint military action to lesser agreements to not attack each other or to trade. If cooperation existed for some period, even if it was reversed later, then it doesn't seem unreasonable to describe the parties as allies, though it might help to specify the domains of the allegiance. – matt_black Sep 18 '13 at 10:36
  • @matt_black: that's why I'm asking specifically about September 1939, not WW2 as a whole. – vartec Sep 18 '13 at 11:17
  • @ChrisW yes, alliances can be and have been broken many times throughout history. Just because someone is your enemy now doesn't mean he wasn't your friend (or at least associate) in the past and won't be in the future. – jwenting Sep 18 '13 at 11:44
  • @jwenting Yes. On the other hand, if either or both parties knew or suspected that they would become warring enemies as soon as possible, then their "alliance" would be less than whole-hearted: not even a 'marriage of convenience', more like a 'sham marriage'. Their ulterior motives would I expect affect the realities of any present so-called alliance, for example the extent to which they cooperate: for example, some people distinguish between [parallel play](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_play) and [cooperative play](http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081103185908AAc11c7). – ChrisW Sep 18 '13 at 12:20
  • @ChrisW: same could be said about US and Soviets in 1941. – vartec Sep 18 '13 at 12:25
  • @vartec Yes it could. I don't know who predicted US and Soviet emnity, in 1941? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease#US_deliveries_to_USSR and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease#British_deliveries_to_the_USSR demonstrate material aid: so 'cooperative' activity more than only 'parallel'. But http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German%E2%80%93Soviet_Commercial_Agreement_(1940) shows similar aid, and even says that it was only because of Soviet exports that Germany had enough materiel to prosecute a war against the Soviet Union (as well as stating that Germany procrastinated on its deliveries). – ChrisW Sep 18 '13 at 12:45
  • FYI another popular belief is that it was "the Allies" who defeated Nazi Germany. I had a history teacher with a contrarian viewpoint: who said that Torch, Sicily, Italy, D-day, etc., were (relatively) a side-show, which were possible after the Soviet Union had defeated or was defeating Germany, and who continued even after D-day to engage the majority of the German forces. – ChrisW Sep 18 '13 at 13:09
  • 2
    @ChrisW: true, however not relevant. Also Soviets were very much officially part of the Allies. The *"Big Three"* were Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill. – vartec Sep 18 '13 at 13:16
  • @vartec Speaking of whom, you've presumably heard of people getting [written out of the history books](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Newspeak_words#Unperson)? IIRC, in the 1970s I read, in their English-language official history of the Great Patriotic War, that Yalta was attended by Roosevelt, Churchill, and "delegates from the Soviet Communist Party". – ChrisW Sep 18 '13 at 13:37
  • The picture at the top of your question: where is it from? Perhaps you could caption/reference it. – ChrisW Sep 18 '13 at 13:57
  • @ChrisW simplistic view. Without the amount of German manpower drawn west by the allies, and the massive infusion of equipment and supplies by the allies to the Soviet war effort, the Soviets would have had a much harder time at it (and we'd all be speaking Russian now, I hate that language). – jwenting Sep 18 '13 at 15:01
  • The answer is: **yes, but briefly**. The Soviets got part of poland out of it according to the historical drama winds of war, and the nazi's could take half of Poland and hold off war with the Soviets until they felt they were ready. – Mark Rogers Sep 24 '13 at 14:10
  • In order to substantiate an answer to this question, the situation should be analyzed not only from purely the perspective of "ally" vs "not an ally" debate which in my opinion is an international law question, but from rather economical cost/benefit viewpoint. With possibly the exception of Poland and Finland, none of the other states involved had the ability to resist either side for any meaningful amount of time. The value of the deal is, therefore, in terms of negotiating power, not extremely beneficial for either side if you fully discount long-term plans of a military alliance. – Cninroh Jan 22 '18 at 13:28
  • 4
    This shouldn't be on Skeptics. We have [a whole site for historical questions](http://history.stackexchange.com) which has many history experts. You are much more likely to get good answers there. – DJClayworth Sep 17 '18 at 16:57
  • 1
    What exactly is the problem? Are you skeptic about the existence of the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact (including secret parts)? Seems to me like there is strong historical consensus. Perhaps it would be better to challenge the contradicting US views you have spoken about, as long as you can find notable claims thereof. – Scrontch Sep 19 '18 at 12:00
  • @DJClayworth it's a question asked in 2013. No idea why 5 years later it suddenly getting a lot of attention. – vartec Sep 19 '18 at 21:15
  • @vartec it seems some conspiracy theorist who doesn't like historical fact got wind of the post and challenges reality, wanting to get "recent opinions" on whether history really happened... – jwenting Sep 24 '18 at 07:23
  • 1
    The term "de facto allies" is very vague. The question you are asking is impossible to answer unless there is a definition of what constitutes being de facto allies. That said, the official position of the USSR at the time was that the USSR and Germany were not allies, and they rather strictly maintained this position. On the other hand, it seems, Germany was more willing to represent the relarions as an alliance intending Western audience and, possibly their own allies. – Anixx Sep 22 '18 at 17:00

2 Answers2

11

Churchill (who was of course partisan) alleged that they weren't exactly cooperating: from http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/policy/1939/1939-10-01a.html

"Russia has pursued a cold policy of self-interest. We could have wished that the Russian Armies should be standing on their present line as the friends and allies of Poland, instead of as invaders. But that the Russian Armies should stand on this line was clearly necessary for the safety of Russia against the Nazi menace.

At any rate the line is there, and an Eastern Front has been created which Nazi Germany does not dare assail. When Herr von Ribbentrop [German Foreign Minister] was summoned to Moscow last week, it was to learn the fact, and to accept the fact, that the Nazi designs upon the Baltic states and upon the Ukraine must come to a dead stop.

I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a [riddle] wrapped in mystery inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest."

On the other hand, Wikipedia's article on The secret protocol of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact says,

With the Western nations unwilling to accede to Soviet demands, Stalin instead entered a secret Nazi–Soviet alliance.[77]

In summary the answer seems to me to depend on what you think "de facto ally" means.

The section titled Expansion of raw materials and military trading seems to me to meet at least the second definition of "ally", and quite possible the first as well:

  • noun: a state formally cooperating with another for a military or other purpose, typically by treaty.
    antonyms: enemy, opponent
    a group of nations taking military action together, in particular the countries that fought with the US in World War I and World War II.
  • verb: combine or unite a resource or commodity with (another) for mutual benefit.

On the other hand, per for example Churchill's view, they were also "opponents".

It's possible that the Soviets were "reluctant allies" (for example, if I were cooperate with you because you had a gun to my head, I'm uncertain whether that would make me your "ally").

Various points of view are discussed in Wikipedia's Post-war commentary regarding the motives of Stalin and Hitler.

Several possible motives are alleged, including:

  • In return for 'non-intervention' Stalin secured a breathing space of immunity from German attack
  • The claim that the Soviet Union was at the time threatened by Hitler, as Stalin supposed,...is a legend, to whose creators Stalin himself belonged
  • Stalin's primary motive for signing the Soviet–German non-aggression treaty was his calculation that such a pact could result in a conflict between the capitalist countries of Western Europe
Laurel
  • 30,040
  • 9
  • 132
  • 118
ChrisW
  • 26,552
  • 5
  • 108
  • 141
  • 12
    Churchill, as every other Western commentator, didn't have full view at the time, given that secret protocols were in fact secret and it's existence was denied by Stalin. I'd much rather take more recent opinion of historians having access to the documents. – vartec Sep 18 '13 at 10:06
  • 1
    @vartec what is the recent opinion? – Jamie Clinton Sep 18 '18 at 22:06
10

Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact merely involves partitioning of Poland.

If that pact is considered an alliance, then what is generally sanitized as "Munich" or "Munich Conference" in Anglosphere would also constitute an alliance in between Britain and Germany, since it was about partitioning Czechoslovakia without even letting Czechoslovaks a chair at the conference table. Britain itself did not take any part of the country, but it gave approval to that partition and guaranteed non aggression against Germany due to the partition. But Anglo literature never calls it 'Munich Treaty' or 'Munich Pact' or 'Munich Alliance'; it is always called 'Munich', as if it was a rock concert or sports meet. At the time Britain (tories) were doing everything in their power to prevent any alliance against Germany in between France, Poland, Czechoslovakia and USSR, and even went to the extent of protesting when such an alliance potential appeared, saying "Germans will fear you are surrounding them!" and proceeded to prevent any alliance by individually going from country to country to diplomatically sabotage it. It was not so much a secret that Britain and its establishment (especially industrialists) wanted to use Germany against the rising threat of Soviet Union, lest it would empower social and economical demands of the people within Britain. (minimum wage, better working conditions, weekend vacation, 8 hour workday, retirement, social security etc).

This phenomenon is explained splendidly in one of small lectures of historian Michael Parenti, including circumstances leading to this situation:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9Lievywdoo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDmovEja_f0

Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was signed at the backdrop of this diplomatic scene, after all attempts of USSR for arranging any alliance against Germany was thwarted. On top of that, there were the territories Poland took from USSR during the civil war, and Soviets wanted those territories back. The final factor for the signing of the pact was Stalin's intent to delay a war in between USSR and Germany at whatever cost in order to give USSR time to prepare (no one doubted Germans would eventually want a war since they came to power in Germany by chanting "Death to communists" over one decade), and also put a buffer in between USSR and Germany in the form of Poland's territory.

Most important thing to notice is that its interestingly signed right after who was going to win the Battle of Khalkhin Gol in between USSR and Japan became clear, and under what conditions.

Khalkhin Gol affair easily explains what was the position of these two countries against each other - im going to quote from my answer on a relevant subject on Quora:

Battle of Khalkhin Gol as USSR vs Japanese starts in east asia at 11 May. The date is important, so please pay attention to it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_Khalkhin_Gol

Anti-Comintern Pact

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Comintern_Pact

Anti Comintern pact was a pact signed in between Fascist countries against 'Communist enemies'. That practically being USSR. Japan was one of the axis countries and was in anti comintern pact. It was a pact made explicitly against communist countries. That being USSR at the time.So there is no way in hell german staff did not know about what was about to transpire in Khalkhin Gol.

Japanese said the battle was because of a rogue general taking initiative and initiating the conflict and Tokyo didn't have a hand in it, but thats total bull - during 4 months Tokyo could have ordered their general to stop or removed him. They didnt.

This means that this explanation is just an excuse japan government used to test USSR before engaging in a full scale war. So we can easily say that Nazis knew about Khalkhin Gol beforehand, and the test was not only for Japan's ambitions, it was also a test of anti-Comintern against USSR.

Things get interesting after this point; Khalkhin Gol lasts 4 months - and Molotov-Ribbentropp pact is signed on august 23.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact

You can easily guess that by august, the rate Khalkin Gol battle was going was evident - since 20 august was the date Zhukov started Soviets' final attack which moped up the Japanese and ended the war. So signing of Molotov-Ribbentrop pact is AFTER the final soviet offensive starts in khalkin gol, at which point there was no mistaking who won the confrontation and with what kind of result. Basically soviets overran japanese, actually using the very tactics and strategies they were going to use in beating the Nazis.

To summarize;

  • USSR and Germany could not have been allies by any legality, because USSR and Germany were already enemies due to Anti-Comintern pact.

  • Khalkhin Gol affair and Molotov-Ribbentrop pact's signing overlap - pact is signed only after it was evident that Soviets were going to win an overwhelming victory in Khalkhin Gol battle. Japan tested Soviets on behalf of anti-comintern pact, and they were found quite strong. And a direct offensive against USSR seeming impractical at that point in time.

  • It was a given that by attacking Poland, Germany would confront UK and France in actual war. Having USSR uncooperative, nervous or even hostile was not a good prospect. Thus, the incentive for some kind of neutrality.

  • Both parties had historical claims to various Polish land, USSR had a particular vengeance coming from 1919 invasion Poles did all the way to Ukraine with French support. Hence more incentive for the affair.

  • Neither Germany nor USSR could let the other take over Poland uncontested. It would be strategically dangerous, and also they would lose their claims to the lands they claimed. Therefore both sides needed to act. The best way to do this without risking conflict would be an agreement.

Therefore, we can easily say that there was no point in time in which these parties even felt as allies, leave aside actually being allies, and this affair was as it seems - an uneasy postponing of hostilities and resolution of a problem in which both parties had a stake in.

Nazis came to power by claiming to be defending 'western civilization against communism', and used the excuse of 'preventing communism from spreading' to sell their actions to the west in a lot of the annexations and moves they did in central Europe. They had the 'untermensch' label for the Slavs, they were in need of massive industrial resources, oil, manpower. They couldn't let an uncontested USSR build up their industry and military in their eastern border, which would have been suicide in their quest of dominating their 'lebensraum' - aka Europe.

Nazis knew this. Soviets knew this. Both sides knew that they were eventually going to go to war, and Soviets were preparing silently for it, keeping their preparations in the west to a minimum in order to not risk provoking Germans to a preemptive attack, whereas Germans were openly building for it.

The pact was just a postponing of the ultimate and inevitable conflict for convenience, and history has shown it to have been so.

Incidentally, almost every major European country had treaties with Nazi Germany, as can be seen in the below list. All of those treaties just go 'unmentioned' like 'Munich' when talking about the period.

enter image description here

unity100
  • 225
  • 2
  • 5
  • 6
    All good and sound on a strategic level, but it doesn't contradict the fact that Nazis and USSR were allies for the operations in Poland, September 1939. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany%E2%80%93Soviet_Union_relations,_1918%E2%80%931941#World_War_II . They even held joint victory parades! – Scrontch Sep 19 '18 at 12:20
  • 1
    An alliance necessitates mutual defense. The pact doesnt provide any such clause. Cooperation for a single objective, maybe - that could be said. But an alliance would be an incorrect term. It was named pact, and technical terminology is correct - it is a non-aggression pact in its core, guaranteeing no hostilities towards each other while partitioning a 3rd country among themselves. This definition als fits what is called 'Munich'. – unity100 Sep 19 '18 at 14:53
  • 2
    @Scrontch the parade you are refering to is not a victory parade but a German parade diring the transfer of Brest-Litovsk from Germany to the USSR. It was dedicated to transfer of power, not to victory. "Look how we are strong but we depart and leave the city to you". – Anixx Sep 22 '18 at 17:07
  • 1
    @unity100 a non-aggression pact, with mutual economic cooperation, makes you allies. There's no need for a mutual defense component. And yes, the Molotov-von Ribbentrop pact was real, both parties abided by it for several years. The German army and Air Force trained in the USSR for years prior to WW2 to get around the restrictions of the treaty of Versailles. Just because you don't like reality doesn't mean reality is wrong. – jwenting Sep 24 '18 at 07:26
  • @jwenting Then it means that Britain and Germany were allies since 'Munich'. Since it also contains non-aggression in case of Czechoslovakia occupation. Germans having been helped by USSR while Nazi party was pretending to have socialist sympathies does not make a statement for anything. Night of the long knives tells all about that angle... As for your last statement - it actually is valid for what is called "Munich", not the other way around... – unity100 Sep 24 '18 at 15:49
  • 1
    @jwenting And you are factually wrong, before any of that: A non aggression pact is not an alliance, it never has been. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_pact – unity100 Sep 24 '18 at 15:58
  • 5
    @unity100 you're factually wrong, in that the German-Soviet alliance went way beyond a non-aggression pact. There were agreements to jointly attack Poland, economic cooperation, joint military exercises. – jwenting Sep 25 '18 at 04:30
  • 1
    The wikipedia reference is enough to establish the fact about the term non aggresion pact.... Cooperating in partitioning a country does not make an alliance: If it did, - as you still seem to have not noticed - that would also make UK an ally of Germany since UK signed the Munich Treaty. Not only signed actually, but also helped in lead to make it happen. – unity100 Sep 25 '18 at 16:32
  • 2
    Additionally, a non aggression pact is always an indicator of hostility in between states: US and UK have fought against each other numerous times in the past 200 years, yet not once needed to sign a non aggression pact. Same with France and UK. It is accepted that these countries wont attack each other unprovoked and with intent of destroying each other. Hence no need for any such pact. Whenever a non aggression pact is signed, it is always in between hostile countries who are existential threats to each other. – unity100 Sep 25 '18 at 16:33
  • 1
    @unity100 I myself am quite suprised why the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact is always mentioned as a pact for the partition of a country (i.e Poland) while the Munich treaty is not seen in the same way – Andrei Kh Oct 19 '19 at 19:52
  • Indeed. But Munich is not the only one. All the treaties which other countries made with Nazi Germany is just left 'unmentioned'. And there is a ton. https://i.imgur.com/hfi8c22.jpg – unity100 Oct 21 '19 at 01:32
  • 1
    @AndreiKh maybe because 1) the other parties, except Germany, didn't intend to get territorial benefits from the separation, and 2) the Munich treaty, even in the countries that signed it, is currently universally condemned and regarded as an error, while Russian "patriots" constantly try to whitewash the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact – IMil Oct 22 '19 at 02:10
  • 1
    There is the exact problem: Munich Treaty an 'error' as opposed to M-R Pact being something evil. With the added criteria of 'not seeking territorial benefit' being added to modify 'Munich'... UK basically lead giving out practically entire Czech territory to Nazi Germany. **Which boosted German war production ~30%**. Even giving them the famous P-38 which became a backbone of Panzer forces at the start of the war. The damage which 'Munich' did is not possible to rationalize. – unity100 Oct 23 '19 at 03:05
  • 3
    @IMil Well, there are patriots everywhere who will excuse anything, but what has this to do with historical accuracy? Just because some Russians want to whitewash the MR pact, does not mean that the other pacts become something different right? I mean, Poland got a territorial gain from the Munich pact but lost territory due to the MR pact. However, where I went to school (Germany), Poland was presented as a quite "innocent" country which was divided between the Germans and the Soviets. The Munich pact got presented in a much more neutral light that the MR pact. – Andrei Kh Oct 23 '19 at 16:41
  • 1
    @IMil The thing is that then the people who went to school in Germany will have a much more negative image of the Soviets than the British or Polish than they objectively should. That is quite problematic. – Andrei Kh Oct 23 '19 at 16:47
  • @unity100 Which of those nations invaded their neighbors? Japan, for which history excoriates them? Treaties made for peace may be mistakes, but they're different from a treaty Stalin made to conquer Poland (land which it controlled until 1989.) – prosfilaes Jun 22 '22 at 19:39
  • @prosfilaes Leaving aside the imperialist history of the major ones, Poland took over part of Czechoslovakia along with Germany after the Munich treaty. And every other country in Central and East Europe cooperated with Nazi Germany as can be seen from the list of treaties. – unity100 Jun 23 '22 at 20:11
  • Every other country, if by that you mean 4 out of 12, or 5 out of 15, depending on how I'm counting. And it's clear the Baltic states and Denmark only did so in a desperate (and futile) attempt to not get invaded. – prosfilaes Jun 24 '22 at 18:02
  • No, they didn't. They were pretty collaborative all the way from the start. In fact, even major countries like Britain were pretty collaborative with Germans and Nazis, with their press and prominent politicians advocating for joining Germany to attack Soviets. For the simple reason that Nazism was seen as a good way to repress the worker's movements. The interwar history of Europe paints a totally different picture than what you were led to believe. – unity100 Jun 25 '22 at 00:40