(ps: native Russian speaker here, but the German version looks similar.)
The lack of a binding authority means what you're really doing is communicating and clarifying your intentions. Knowing full well that either party could unilaterally chose to breach the terms.
One of the reasons that bilateral arms control agreements usually include a breach clause. "If you do X, we will do Y." Where Y is calculated to make X less advantageous.
The contract was to be enforced by the militaries of these belligerents, and to be interpreted and settled privately.
It may well be the case that this was never intended as a formal contract, but I am responding to the assertion that there was no way for it to be. I stand by the claim: the issue is authority/power, not the necessary legal means.
> The territory marked No. I on the 1st and 2nd of October; the territory marked No. II on the 2nd and 3rd of October; the territory marked No. III on the 3rd, 4th and 5th of October; the territory marked No. IV on the 6th and 7th of October. The remaining territory of preponderantly German character will be ascertained by the aforesaid international commission forthwith and be occupied by German troops by the 10th of October.
Lets agree to do this or there will be a war.
Therefore, what is best for large, highly militarized sovereign countries that solved their disagreements by trying to utterly destroy the other's regime might not work so well in civil life, where making sure we know exactly how he judiciary will interpret the contract is so important we incorporate in Delaware not just because it's cheap, but because we know how the judge will interpret the legalese.
> Despite publication of the recovered copy in western media, for decades, it was the official policy of the Soviet Union to deny the existence of the secret protocol
Agree on the comment re this being one of the most important documents of the 20th century.
Those French guys also should chip in earlier.
Don't take it personally it is a just historical joke!
"Neither party will attack the other for 10 years, with an automatic extention to this clause, if neither party denounces the other."
"In the Baltics, the northern border of Lithuania is the border of the interest of influence of both participants."
"Each party is interested in a chunk of Poland, divided by such and such river. If both parties are interested in an independent Poland, we can discuss this later."
"Any disagreements regarding this agreement should be resolved through a peaceful exchange of ideas."
There was a local case involving some harassing txt messages, the evidence was a series of photocopies of an iPhone on a copier....
That would mean the West hoped that Hitler would attack Poland as that was the only possible way that Hitler could even get to the Soviet Union at the time the pact was negotiated.
The Soviet Union wanted to modernize and expand. Hitler gave them that opportunity. If anything, it was the Soviet Union that hoped that Hitler and Western Europe would duke it out thereby weakening all their enemies.
I would go so far as to say that it is completely rational for Poland to doubt the intentions of Germany, Austria, Hungary, and Russia to this day.
The Russian version is titled: "Polish march/hike/walk of the Red Army (1939)", and Russian speaking Wikipedians don't like the idea of changing the title.
It's so convenient to ignore the Munich agreement and the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia by Germany, Poland and Hungary with the approval of the West and despite the USSR's objections.
The same signal was reinforced by the failure of the USSR to form an anti-Hitler alliance with France and the GB.
The events that followed prove the lack of will to fight Hitler on part of the West - the Great Britain declared war on the Germany after it invaded Poland, but this war is called the Phony War for a reason - the GB didn't actually do anything.
So when you reduce the history to "the USSR signed the pact with Hitler and they together started WW2" it is at the very least uninformed.
PS: I like sharp counterarguments, but I guess it cannot go as "P1: We did wrong! P2: What about that time you did wrong?"
There is a direct cause and effect relationship between the Munich agreement and the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. Talking about the latter starting the WW2 without mentioning the former is at the very least misleading.
Edit: Please don't substantially edit your comments after they have a reply.
And you still need to elaborate.
PS: In 1919, it was USSR who fought the war on Polish ground, and lost. I don't think you'll find too much material to play moral high ground here.
If you consider Polish ground whatever was high mark of Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth, then good luck with that. It was empire building in the making, they overstretched and didn't make it. It is no Polish ground exactly in the same sense, that Balkan is not Turkish either.
Versailes declaration (FR, UK, IT), with support of Polish statehood - June 1918 /
End of WW1 - November, 1918 /
2nd Polish Republic established - November, 1918 /
Start of Polish-Sovet war - February, 1919
After Versailles, the Poland was established on the territory of Germany, Austro-Hungarian empire and Russian empire. However, the Russian empire part was supposed to be up to the Curzon line.
Instead, the Poles went opportunistic far behind it. What they gained in the war (because Soviets were weak at the time), they lost in the war 20 years later (table has turned, they were weak at the time).
Not that they didn't similar things elsewhere; they had to annex parts of Czechoslovakia too (1919-1920).
Sorry, I don't have sympathy when a conqueror loses whatever they conquered.
- The territorial gains of Poland in 1919-1920 materialized, because it won a war started by the Soviet Union
- Curzon line was proposed/described only in 1920
- Those lands (that you described as conquered and re-conquered) weren't Russian etnically, more like Belarusian, Ukrainian, Lithuanian, and Ruthenian
- (edit) The secret pact (Germany-USSR) didn't say Soviet union will recover the territorial gains from 1920-1921, but that it will occupy Eastern Poland (east of Vistula River), making it effectively partition of Poland, so no Curzon line here too.
PS: Please reply if you'd like, and EOT for me. This whole centithread started because I wanted to display that the current Russian historiography is heavily biased (way more than other "western" countries) towards minimizing its own misdeeds, and portraying them as innocent, normal or justified.
Looks quite strange at least about Ukrainians (which were half as many as Russians). Do you think they stayed home?
Meanwhile Poland occupied ethnic Ukrainian territories https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish–Ukrainian_War (east of future Curzon line).
This helped Bolshevik to overthrow https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_People%27s_Republic
Of course Bolshevik never intended to stop until all Europe is in fire.
That's Poland who started the war https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiev_Offensive_(1920)
> Piłsudski also said:
Closed within the boundaries of the 16th century, cut off from the Black Sea and Baltic Sea, deprived of land and mineral wealth of the South and South-east, Russia could easily move into the status of second-grade power. Poland as the largest and strongest of new states, could easily establish a sphere of influence stretching from Finland to the Caucasus.
I can't see Poland in good light here - same imperial attitude, same old flows in ethnic politics. Same as Russia.
As for the pact
> The terms of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact of August 1939 provided for the partition of Poland along the line of the San, Vistula and Narew rivers which did not go along Curzon Line but reached far beyond it and awarded the Soviet Union with territories of Lublin and near Warsaw.
> Soviet Union annexed all territories east of the Curzon Line plus Białystok and Eastern Galicia.
PS: I've replied only because I wanted to display that the comment is heavily biased (way more than other "western" countries) towards minimizing its own misdeeds, and portraying them as innocent, normal or justified.
Those lands were not Poland ethnically.
hey were weak at the time
Essentially, Poland was occupying these territories between 1921 and 1939. Also, Poland had a dictatorship (quite typical in Europe at that time) and they were highly aggressive with respect to their neighbors: Polish-Ukrainian War (1918–19), Polish-Lithuanian War (1920, culminating in Żeligowski's Mutiny), Polish-Czechoslovak border conflicts (beginning in 1918).
As for the conflicts you'd decribed, some of them were conflicts without clear aggressor (e.g. Polish-Czechoslovak conflicts of 1918) typical of those times, some were misdeeds of Polish state (annexation of Vilnus and Czechoslovakian Zaolzie in 1938).
There's no way you can deny that the USSR invaded a state of Poland that still existed and was still fighting against aggressors right when Russia troops passed the frontier.
One source, out of many: https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k4437527/f1.item.zoom
Note that your comment is actually pure propaganda from Staline's himself (this is exactly what the USSR claimed when they invaded Poland, and they presented themselves as liberators and protectors instead of invaders). Of course, you should know better than to trust the communist propaganda.
When Soviets crossed Polish borders in 1939, the Polish statehood was exactly in the same defunct state as the Soviet in 1919-21.
Soviet Union decided to attack, it lost the war, it had to ceede territory.
Roosevelt and Churchill seemed to believe Stalin's promises about Poland at Yalta. Only later did they seem to realise Stalin's words were empty. Churchill was hugely criticised in parliament right after for the poor treatment of Poland, including by his own party. There was even a vote of confidence in the government.
Of course post-war Europe ended up looking very suspiciously like the Molotov-Ribbentrop lines...
If we get lucky maybe we can sneak in a reunion with Moldova within the next few decades while Russia goes through its usual cycle: https://www.economist.com/sites/default/files/images/print-e...
The focus on China and Iran is also pragmatic. China has gotten more aggressive lately and Iran is likely getting punished.
German army was to complete the occupation of the Sudetenland (part of Czechoslovakia) by October 10 (1938), and an international commission would decide the future of other disputed areas. Czechoslovakia was informed by Britain and France that it could either resist Germany alone or submit to the prescribed annexations. The Czechoslovak government chose to submit.
The Soviet Union also had a treaty with Czechoslovakia, and it indicated willingness to cooperate with France and Great Britain if they decided to come to Czechoslovakia’s defense, but the Soviet Union and its potential services were ignored throughout the crisis.
>Польский поход Красной армии (17—29 сентября 1939 года), в советской историографии освободительный поход РККА, в современной историографии также советское вторжение в Польшу
Polish march of the Red Army, liberating march of The Workers' and Peasants' Red Army in soviet historiography, also Soviet invasion of Poland in modern historiography.
I'm not being provocative here. Saying that "genocide of Jews during ww2 is an established fact," for example, does not feel to be an insult or provocation to any level headed person.
Why are you accommodating such people?
Comparing your comment to something that everybody knows is misleading in this case. You made a provocative claim on an inflammatory topic (which all nationalistic topics are, and unfortunately getting more so). That's flamebait by default, so to follow the HN guidelines, you need to pack your comment with flame retardants like substantive information and neutral language.
I too used to hitchhike in the Balkans and usually tried to avoid politics or sensitive subjects but I guess I wouldn't be able to resist myself in this case. Probably ending up thrown out by the driver considering current Poland-Russia relations. Sad how people in Central/Eastern Europe are still traumatized by the consequences of WW2.
2. Going to jail in Russia is a 1 in 10 to 1 in 5 chance to die from terrible conditions or prison violence. And that is of course will be more aggravated if you are a political prisoner.
3. A list of people who went missing going into thousands now
Can you please stop with this bullshit, really? We even have this is school textbooks: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6jSNt06CW1HQlM5ekpUWDVfdUU...
For non-Russian speakers I can confirm that on page 203 of the above-referenced history book for the 9th grade it says that World War II started on Sep. 1, 1939 with the German invasion of Poland. It also contains plenty of info on Soviet invasion of Poland, albeit in such context as “it was necessary to create a buffer zone” etc - but it’s there. The Soviet-German pact is also referenced and so is the secret addendum, and it specifically states that Germany and USSR have divided Poland and other countries of Eastern Europe into “spheres of influence”. Which is pretty much what the actual newly declassified document says.
The biggest omission being the use of word invasion or statements amounting to Soviet-German conspiracy to start the war against these countries.
> specifically states that Germany and USSR have divided Poland and other countries of Eastern Europe into “spheres of influence”
You have to admit, dividing "spheres of influence" sounds way more benign in comparison to "joint invasion plan"
This surprised me. What's the officially sanctioned version of history?
For some reason some people over here are very eager to 'prove' some weird fantasies.
I even bothered to find a scanned copy of a moder school text book. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6jSNt06CW1HQlM5ekpUWDVfdUU...
The polish invasion is there. Not awful lot about it, just that Hitler and Stalin desided this is how it shall be and that sovieat army entered Poland on 17th.
To hear the official version, you have to ask first, and that either gets you a jail term for "denial of historical facts (of course, without stating which facts)" or you will just go missing to be found in separate body parts a month later.
The Russian government cares about one thing - perpetuating the Russian government. Nobody in it cares about 80-year-old history.
My communist ancestors would call this "getting swallowed by the night"
I would be curious what your sources are, if any.
Just because there is limited freedom of the press in Russia doesn’t mean it’s a Stalinist dystopia.
"Union invaded Poland"
in public gets you killed
Russia isn't even the Soviet Union, and the leader at the time was Georgian.
WWII, its dates and events were all in history textbooks in Russla when I was in school (1995-2005) and they are stil there.
We do not teach about The Great Patriotic War instead of the WWII. For TGPW is the greatest part of the WWII, for obvious reasons, that is why it is tought in more deapth and has more hours than other parts combined.
In schools it was taught that …
Now, nothing, or at least in newer textbooks. USSR just "did nothing for the whole of nineteen thirties"
A more liberal Brandt's textbook, the one posted above, been heavily edited year after year to its current state where the pact, invasion of Poland, and whole of thirties was reduced to just few pages.