Soviet enforcement of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact

[Batavian]

This sort of goes along with the "Prussia is Russia" thread here http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=392207

How was the Soviet Union able to maintain the borders established in the Nazi-Soviet pact after the defeat of Germany in WWII?

I think Poland got a fair exchange in accepting loss of her eastern territory for gains in Silesia, Prussia, Pomerania. I can understand Romania's loss for fighting on the wrong side. But I find the reasons for keeping parts of Finland and Czechoslovakia less easy to defend. And of course the Baltic states lost their sovereignty altogether for half a century.

[clandestino]

How was the Soviet Union able to maintain the borders established in the Nazi-Soviet pact after the defeat of Germany in WWII?

Cause they had second most strong military machinery in the world in that point?
Plus German-Soviet agreement didn't establish any borders expect the borders of spheres of influence, there is no single word in agreement that gives any area to USSR or Germany or dividing anything between them.

[Batavian]

there is no single word in agreement that gives any area to USSR or Germany or dividing anything between them.

Really? I didn't know this. Thanks.

[Domen123]

No but it divided Poland for two "zones of influence" or "zones of future occupation". So between future German and Soviet territory. Thus it became almost clear, that if Germany invades Poland, the USSR would have to do the same - earlier or later - if it wanted to get its part.

[Heinz Guderian]

After the Soviet adventure in Finland, annexation of Bessarabia, the Baltic States and also invasion and annexation of Poland (whose independence was guaranteed by Britain and France and the cause of war), i find it suprising the Allies didnt declare war on the Soviets.

[clandestino]

Well if allies declared war on Germany first time when it brake Versailles treaty in 1936 ( remilitarization of Rhineland ) none of this probably wouldn't happen at all, but once they started giving slacks to Germany in so many occasions ( Czechoslovakia, Austria, Memel ) at the end it would be pointless to attack USSR for something they allowed to Germany. Plus I don't see how much declaration of war by France and UK on USSR would be effective. What would they do? Send them angry letters? They didn't even attack Germany which borders France... what the hell they could do to USSR which is like 2000 km away from France and UK?

[ivan_the_terrible]

Which parts of Czechoslovakia did the Soviet Union keep...?

[clandestino]

Transkarpatia or Ruthenia, now part of Ukraine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zakarpattia_Oblast
To be honest it was first annexed by hungary in 1941. or earlier and then after the war it was taken from Hungary and joined with Ukrainian SSR. Generally local Ruthenian population is related with Ukrainians so it wasn't really bad thing.

[RO Citizen]

Eh...ALL the regions USSR took from the pact weren't rightfully/morally/legally theirs. There were just 8 raped by Soviet aggression.

[Batavian]

Eh...ALL the regions USSR took from the pact weren't rightfully/morally/legally theirs. There were just 8 raped by Soviet aggression.

I agree with you about some of these regions. Thus my question.

I can only guess that the western Allies weren't prepared to fight another war over these regions. And over time, the only European regions Russia still possess are parts of Karelia and East Prussia. Of those two regions, I find continued occupation of the Finnish areas hardest to justify. And one wonders whether the Baltic countries deserve any compensation for 50 years of occupation.

[Heathen Hammer]

Well, M-R pact was a direct result of "friendship" between western democracies and European fascism, which was expressed in 1938 in Munich. Western democracies have clearly shown that they do not want to cooperate together with Soviets against fascism, so Stalin had no other choice but to cooperate with nazis against capitalists. Maybe if Britain would not try to appease Germans in almost every way, the M-R pact wouldn't have happened.

[clandestino]

And one wonders whether the Baltic countries deserve any compensation for 50 years of occupation.

Maybe they should ask compensation from all those countries that occupied them in last 1000 years as well.

Of those two regions, I find continued occupation of the Finnish areas hardest to justify.

This and this justify it enough.

I can only guess that the western Allies weren't prepared to fight another war over these regions.

Yeah they should fight over the territories that:
a) belonged to Axis allies ( Romania and Finnland) or Nazi Germany itself ( Prussia, Silesia )
b) belonged to country they betrayed in Munich (Czech )
c) belonged to country that got double worth compensation for its loses (Poland )

[Batavian]

Maybe they should ask compensation from all those countries that occupied them in last 1000 years as well.

This and this justify it enough.


Yeah they should fight over the territories that:
a) belonged to Axis allies ( Romania and Finnland) or Nazi Germany itself ( Prussia, Silesia )
b) belonged to country they betrayed in Munich (Czech )
c) belonged to country that got double worth compensation for its loses (Poland )

@clandestino: Part of the problem with sarcasm is that its difficult to detect in non-verbal communication. If you really believe the statements you made bolster a position, let us know what that position is for serious discussion.

[conon394]

Yeah they should fight over the territories that:
a) belonged to Axis allies ( Romania and Finnland) or Nazi Germany itself ( Prussia, Silesia )
b) belonged to country they betrayed in Munich (Czech )
c) belonged to country that got double worth compensation for its loses (Poland )

Of course I suppose you would eloquent enough to convince the USA and UK (public's that is) to fight a whole new world war over the destroyed carcass of Europe, while Japan was still fighting???

Honestly had things gone different- had Hitler tossed his last assets into the East and or had the US/UK been more successful operationally In France (more German reverses, less Allied death and no Battle of the Bulge) it not out the question the US/UK - USSR alliance might have cracked. Certainly had any Polish troops backed by the West reached Poland a real showdown would no doubt have been in the offing. But as things were there was simply no way to argue with the reality on the ground - remember up until the very nearly the use date the US was not willing to bank of the Atomic bomb and wanted Russian entry into the Pacific war.

[conon394]

They didn't even attack Germany which borders France... what the hell they could do to USSR which is like 2000 km away from France and UK?

Actually you know the French preferred that fact... they figured they could bomb Baku. Given the lack land connection, Soviet bombers, and Navy - a war without the risk of fighting Germany.in France again.

[clandestino]

@clandestino: Part of the problem with sarcasm is that its difficult to detect in non-verbal communication. If you really believe the statements you made bolster a position, let us know what that position is for serious discussion.

Where do you see sarcasm?

[Batavian]

Where do you see sarcasm?

No problem. I just wanted to know which part of the word "smart-ass" applied to your post. Now I know.

[clandestino]

Man, you probably have huge knee problems...