Britain and France declared war on Germany,as such there was an active state of war.
As for the Winter War,the only reason it flared up so much is because the Finn's made such a big fuss over a simple land swap,had it not been the middle of winter the Finn's would have been smashed fairly rapidly,but as it was the Red Army of 1939-1940 had some serious command and control issues which helped the Finn's get out of the whole mess alive.
yes, they declared war, but did not much. there is reason why this period is called sitzkrieg.
if it was just simple land swap...then why soviets were so eager to force it, even thought war.
negotiation is when two sides are talking about deal, to which they later agree or not. and if not, nothing changes.
but if one side is demanding something , and using theat of force to get it, it is blackmail.
and if they actualy use force, it is robbery.
period.
Stalin had already offered a united front,which the allies refused.
What was he suppose to do?
Guarantee Poland then watch the French and British laugh as the Red Army and the Poles bleed white fighting the Germans?
If Britain and France wouldnt take their fair share of the burden of fighting the Reich then he would simply take what he was offered and let them slaughter each other.
Besides,Stalin waited until Warsaw itself was encircled before making his move,which at that point amounted to salvaging what was left of Poland before the Nazis could get to it.
well, what prevented stalin to still guarante poland without aliance anyway ? that will only mean tht germany will face war from two sides, with two unallied powers.
and actualy yes, situation for soviet-german war in 39 was in bigger favor for soviets than it was in 41.
and i just LOVE your logick, you absolutely have no problem with soviets sitting idly and watching that germans and west figting each other, but it totaly breaks your heart situation in which germans and soviets fighted each other and west just watched.
whats the difference ? (in principe)
and about what salvaging of poland you are gibbering about ? soviets saved nothing from polish land , army or anything. occuping land given by m-r pact is no salvaging.
Warsaw was already encircled,getting involved at that point would simply mean throwing the Red Army against the bulk of the Wehrmacht while the French happily camp in their Maginot line.
An utterly pointless effort from a Soviet point of view.
well, if it will be pointless to throw soviet army against wermacht, then why they marched to poland in first place ?
if you go to poland to save them from "german barbarians", then refusing to fight them, is at best, hypocrysy.
Its simple geopolitics.
The Allies wont help you,Germany is going to take all of Poland anyways,and you arent prepared to fight the war solo and bear all the cost.
Only reasonable course of action is to at least ensure you can limit what Germany can take.
I doubt you would think that it would have been reasonable for France to declare war on Japan and then expect the USSR to fight it for them.
Same situation here.
what you call geopoliticks, others simply call thugs metods, as originaly was (he robed some ppl and some banks), until his crimes forced him to chose between jail and to become spy for czars regime.
and i just extremly love your japan example, do you know that japan was ally of germany ? and soviets were allies of uk, france, dutch and others which fighted against japan ?
so that soviets as matter of fact were entitlet to dow them ?
They were fighting across North Africa,Britain was raiding coastal areas,Germans were raiding the Atlantic shipping,and they were carpet bombing each other,that classifies as them bleeding men and material resources in a war.
well, africa campaign was - while still important - limited theatre, with limited use of resources. no side there deployed more than 6% of thiers total units, with periods in which it was way less.
and carpet bombing, while nice display of power, it have very limited ability of reducing ability to wage war. to reduce it, you need to take ability from him to produce war materal, and that can be done only through land combat and taking his lands.
Stalin didnt think there would be an invasion,nobody did.
Even high ranking members of the Reich leadership thought it was a terrible idea,Goring being among them.
hmm, they thought that no invasion is posible, so they thought that not resisting it, invasion will come to stop ?
I dont see why you are so obsessed about this one order meant to simply avoid any escalations.
I dont suppose that you are suggesting that Stalin somehow intentionally sabotaged the front line.
It was a simple misunderstanding of the situation.
Given how many resources the USSR was trading with the Reich,together with Germany still having to keep control over half the continent and fight Britain,there was no reason to believe the Germans would open up a new front.
why im so "obssesed" with that one order ? mayby to find logick behind it, why it was issued ? (asuming there is some logic at all), or maby for other reason.
and how can you label full scale invasion as just escalation ?
and honestly, it REALY dont matter if stalin intentionaly sabotageged front line or not. his order did have that effect. and very cripling one. thats why it is important fo find out why he was issued.
and it realy doesnt matter how much german invasion was likely or not, it was duty of geerals and soldiers to be prepared for it, and they miseably failed in it.
They could try,they would just lose horribly.
Geopolitics exists for a reason,so nations can judge what they can and cant get away with.
Besides,if we will judge who has more grievances then i think the Soviets had the most,since practically everyone betrayed them around 3 times.
In the civil war,in WW2 and then in the 90s.
and for first part, i realy didnt expected different answer from you, best exapmle that you have no morals at all.
and if you are only judging geopoliticks from perspective of force, then dont cry if you dont have power to get what you want.
and pls, tell me, who and how betrayed soviets in civil war, WW2 and in 90s.
btw, dont cry that other betray you when you are one which keeps betraying every time.
No,i was talking about the Allies and Soviets invading a neutral country from 2 directions ala Poland for the sake of simpler logistics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Soviet_invasion_of_Iran
well, and how is this relevant to polish partioning between gemany and su ?
in iran case, yes, invasion happened, but that all. indepence of persia was not chalenged, parts of teritory didnt changed ownership. everyday live of common was not changed.
and tell me, which logistic reasosn did soviets have to invade poland and annex parts of them ?
I have the book and read it multiple times.
He says the best way to win a war is to do it without fighting.
That is what Stalin was trying to do.
Let the Allies and Axis bleed each other white and then waltz in.
The French folding like a wet tissue paper put a dent in his plan so he switched to buying more time so he could be fully prepared for the war.
He says the best way to win a war is to do it without fighting.
and how is waging war against poland and finland winning without fighting ?
and if stalin knowed in 40 that war comming, then WHY THE HELL was giving so much oil and other war important material to germany ? just stoping sending them it will slowed down german war machine more than anything else.
and to quote lenin "capitalist is person who will sell you rope on which you will hang him".
stalin was truly capitalist.
You are missing the timeline here.
By the time of the invasion of France all the partitioning of Eastern Europe was already done.
As such Stalin had no way of knowing the French would fail so horribly.
no i dont miss timeline, invasion to poland hapened before fall of france.
and you totaly missed my point.
for france sacrisfiing of czech in 38, didnt bueyd them enough time. it backfired in 40 when they fallen. 2 years after thier treachery and betrayal.
for soviets anexing of part of poland, breaching of non-agresion packt between them, and in effect betraying them, didnt buyed time for soviets to rearm and prepare for war. it backfired same 2 years after thier treachery.
Karma ?
How so?
It cleaned out the entire Baltic coastline,dug deeper into Romania pushing the border away from Ukraine and got half of Poland as a buffer.
As for Finland,i dont even know what they were trying to achieve in WW2.
They refused to go past their old borders,allowed their German allies to get wrecked and then back stabbed them to appease the Soviets who simply took back everything the Finn's had captured.
As such Finland went into WW2 doing nothing of value and achieving nothing.
Well thats not totally true,they did manage to get over a million civilians starving to death in Leningrad.
The simple fact Stalin allowed Finland to live after such foolishness is truly remarkable.
i realy have have trouble deciding if you are troll, idiot, or fail to understand what is writen.
do you see diference between FRONTLINE and TERITORY SIZE ? no ? then no help for you.
clearing of baltic line just created need for soviets to guard coastline, which they didnt have previously (against germany naval invasion).
diging deeper into romania, just make sure that romanians will be mortal enemies of soviets, instead of not taking that action they should perusade romania to be neutral. so in effect ading more frontline to defend.
anexing of polnd jsut cerated common borders between germany and soviets which prevously didnt existed. so another frontline to defend, which didnt existed before. poland will serve as buffer zone wayyyyy more effectitely if it was independed, and not splited up.
for finns ? well, doing winter war adventure simply added ANOTHER state to anti soviet camp, without it, there will be no reason at all to join in continuation war.
and from where you got idea that finns did particiated in siege of leningard ? thats nonsense.
and for leningrad - civilian causalties should be waaaay smaller if soviets were shiping inside more food and less material for war production only to be shiped from leningrad to other places of front.
and for last stalin remark...i just wonder why you dont sigh every post with hail stalin or something similiar, you are true heir to his legacy.
f the Western Front had been a stalemate like in WW1 then the Soviets would have had all the time in the world to fortify their new borders and build up their armies to smash the Germans when the time was right.
They simply got caught with their pants down due to Allied incompetence.
and when and why soviets get idea that new war will be like old one (WW1) ? fall of poland showed this war will be greatly different.
and if soviets didnt conqured poland, they will not need time to build forts in new lands at all.
they did have whole ethernity to build forts on old teritories.
and when they sow allied incopetence, why they didnt helped them ?
The Soviets had 4 options:
1.Fight the Germans alone.
2.Let the Germans take all of Eastern Europe.
3.Form a united front with the Allies.
4.Grab what they could while the Allies and Germans kill each other.
First is madness,since it gives the Soviets no tangible benefit while costing them greatly.
Second is out of the question,since it means giving the Germans every advantage.
Third was attempted but the French and British wouldnt cooperate.
As such only the Fourth remained.
and fourth option miserably failed, since it didnt much to strengten them against germany.
so mayby they should think about something else.
and i realy love you joy over "west and germany figting to death" and then soviets grabing what they want and moping up rest. but totaly brokes your heart if similiar situation should arouse for west.
why ? it is exactly same side of same coin.
Stalin wanted to make sure the West do real fighting, not just words. That is from the fact the previous alliance of USSR-France-Czech become useless to protect Czech because France didn't send troop. Also the West refused to do anything if German attack USSR through Baltic states and Finland.
It was an emergency time. Germany become very near in invading Poland and Japanese troop already pour in in the East. No way Soviet can take on both of them, alone!
Stalin wanted to make sure the West do real fighting, not just words - and how is this exactly acomplished by ocuppying baltic states and invading finland in winter war ?
yes, france showed it have no spine, and it bacfired against them.
and germany did have plans to invade soviet lands via baltic states and finland ? newer heard about it, can you post link to back up it ?
and to avoid two front war is best to not create new when you allready have one.
so why to invade poland and risk of creating new one ?
