Stalin 'planned to send a million troops to stop Hitler if Britain and France agreed pact'

[vostok]

http://www.tacitus.nu/historical-atlas/population/russia.htm

Soviet Union quickly recovered.

France had a population of ~41,630,000 inhabitants in 1914. In 1939,it had a population of ~41,510,000 inhabitants.

Russia - 178 mln in 1914 and 170.5 mln in 1939.

 

[Solomon2]

...The offer of a military force to help contain Hitler was made by a senior Soviet military delegation at a Kremlin meeting with senior British and French officers, two weeks before war broke out in 1939.

The new documents, copies of which have been seen by The Sunday Telegraph, show the vast numbers of infantry, artillery and airborne forces which Stalin's generals said could be dispatched, if Polish objections to the Red Army crossing its territory could first be overcome.

But the British and French side - briefed by their governments to talk, but not authorised to commit to binding deals - did not respond to the Soviet offer, made on August 15, 1939. Instead, Stalin turned to Germany, signing the notorious non-aggression treaty with Hitler barely a week later.

Stalin made the offer and expected the Allies to respond in less than a week? When the Nazis had already been negotiating their pact with Stalin for at least a month? Who's kidding whom here?

 

[Piotr]

Many of the Soviet Unions largest production plants were designed and built with the assistance of American engineers and executives of the Ford company. Within the American government there was a strong push to establish cordial relationship with USSR, particularly by Communist Jews and major Jewish Capitalists and financial magnates.

The Role of American Capitalism In The Rise of Soviet Industry​

"Signed in Dearborn, Michigan, on May 31, 1929, the contract stipulated that Ford would oversee construction of a production plant at Nizhni Novgorod, located on the banks of the Volga River, to manufacture Model A cars. An assembly plant would also start operating immediately within Moscow city limits. In return, the USSR agreed to buy 72,000 unassembled Ford cars and trucks and all spare parts to be required over the following nine years, a total of some $30 million worth of Ford products. Valery U. Meshlauk, vice chairman of the Supreme Council of National Economy, signed the Dearborn agreement on behalf of the Soviets. To comply with its side of the deal, Ford sent engineers and executives to the Soviet Union.

At the time the U.S. government did not formally recognize the USSR in diplomatic negotiations, so the Ford agreement was groundbreaking. (A week after the deal was announced the Soviet Union would announce deals with 15 other foreign companies, including E.I. Du Pont de Nemours and RCA.) As Douglas Brinkley writes in “Wheels for the World,” his book on Henry Ford and Ford Motor, the automaker was firm in his belief that introducing capitalism was the best way to undermine communism. In any case, Ford’s assistance in establishing motor vehicle production facilities in the USSR would greatly impact the course of world events, as the ability to produce these vehicles helped the Soviets defeat Germany on the Eastern Front during World War II. In 1944, according to Brinkley, Stalin wrote to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, calling Henry Ford “one of the world’s greatest industrialists” and expressing the hope that “may God preserve him.”"

No country is a monolith. In USA there were presidents like Herbert Hoover who send tanks against peaceful protesters in Washington (Bonus Army) and there was Roosevelt who initiated „New Deal” policy.

You cannot blame England and especially France trying to appease Germany especially after the effects of the WW1 were still visible at the outbreak of WW2. Millions of soldiers killed,others injured/disabled,terribly affected France's demographics. Much of the fighting was done in France,large part of territories became total wastelands,a violent bloodbath which still affected the minds of everyone back then. Germany was much more populated (thus couldn't match its field army in size) and had a higher industrial capacity.

Anybody had to live in these times to understand the defeatist attitude. We thought we could avoid the worst. But we didn't.

One can blame England for presenting Hitler with Rheinland, Saar, Austria, and Czechoslovakia. England wanted war between Germany and Soviet Union to weaken both countries.

By the way did you heard about “Operation Catapult” that is English attack on French navy in July 1940 ? England killed more than one thousand French sailors. With allies like England one does not need enemies.

Correction Germany and Soviet Union Collectively Attacked Poland. Don't Distort History.
While Germany had a real reason for its tensions with Poland due to alleged ethnic cleansing of Germans by Poles. Soviet Union had no apparent reason to invade Poland except territorial expansion. In fact All the Battles fought by Germany war broke out was for German Persecution in other regions.
But one thing is a mystery to me that will never be answered by anyone. Both soviets and Nazis Attacked Poland but Britain and France only Declared War on Germany and not Soviet Union. Thats pretty Strange and Answer to this question is always lame excuses.
One more thing As far as i have read. Hitler saw Potential Allies in Britain and France and Despised Bolsheviks. The Soviet-Nazi Pact was just a non aggression Pact against each other not an alliance or treaty of mutual defense.
And Leaked documents of German Intelligence revealed that German invasion of Soviet Union was a pre-emptive strike as Soviet Union was already planning to Invade Germany Midway of War and Catch them off-guard. And Germans almost succeeded in crushing Bolsheviks if only Russians had not fought the toughest urban battle in history of mankind. The Legendary Volgograd City Siege.

Germany attacked Poland at 1 September 1939 and Soviet Union attacked at 17 September 1939 that is sixteen days later when it was already obvious that we would lose. What our “allies” from England and France did to help us? Nothing at all! Hitler could have been easily defeated in 1939 by Poland, England and France. But London didn’t want to defeat Hitler in 1939 but wanted Hitler to attack Soviet Union.

 

[Solomon2]

One can blame England for presenting Hitler with Rheinland, Saar, Austria, and Czechoslovakia.

One can blame the Brits for Austria but I think one has to blame the French for accepting the Nazi occupation of the Saarland.

England wanted war between Germany and Soviet Union to weaken both countries.

If that was true then England would have not supplied the S.U. with massive amounts of arms even after the the victories at Stalingrad and Kursk decisively turned the tide AND Britain would have supported Finland throughout since the Finns were doing such a good job of bleeding and starving the Russians.

Anybody had to live in these times to understand the defeatist attitude. We thought we could avoid the worst. But we didn't.

I understand, given the history between France and Germany, why such an attitude existed: during the 1870 war the occupied French merely had to supply the German Army's requisitions to be left in peace. But by 1935 it was quite clear that Nazi Germany was quite a different beast, one fueled by racism rather than nationalism. The 1870 and 1914 wars could have been avoided because mere pride was at stake, so pacifism was a logical response; but the monster of Nazism demanded active defense, for acceptance meant death or co-option into evil.

 

[Piotr]

One can blame the Brits for Austria but I think one has to blame the French for accepting the Nazi occupation of the Saarland.

If that was true then England would have not supplied the S.U. with massive amounts of arms even after the the victories at Stalingrad and Kursk decisively turned the tide AND Britain would have supported Finland throughout since the Finns were doing such a good job of bleeding and starving the Russians.

from: https://orientalreview.org/2015/05/12/wwii-lend-lease-was-the-us-aid-helpful-enough-i/
How important was the US lend-lease?
During the war, Soviet factories produced more than 29.1 million small arms of all major types, while only 152,000 small arms (0.5% of the total) were manufactured by American, British, and Canadian plants. Looking at all types of artillery systems of all calibers we see a similar picture – 647,600 Soviet weapons and mortars vs. 9,400 of foreign origin, representing less than 1.5% of the total.

The numbers are less grim for other types of weapons: the ratio of domestic vs. allied tanks and self-propelled artillery was, respectively, 132,800 vs. 11,900 (8.96%), and for combat aircraft – 140,500 vs. 18,300 (13%).

Out of the almost $46 billion that was spent on all lend-lease aid, the US allocated only $9.1 billion, i.e., only a little more than 20% of the funds, to the Red Army, which defeated the vast majority of the divisions from Germany and her military satellites.

During that time the British Empire was given more than $30.2 billion, France – $1.4 billion, China – $630 million, and even Latin America (!) received $420 million. Lend-lease supplies were distributed to 42 different countries.

But perhaps, despite the fact that the quantities of transatlantic assistance were fairly negligible, is it possible that it did play a decisive role in 1941, when the Germans were at the very gates of Moscow and Leningrad, and within 24-40 km from the Red Square?

Let’s look at the statistics for arms shipments from that year. From the onset of the war until the end of 1941, the Red Army received 1.76 million rifles, automatic weapons, and machine guns, 53,700 artillery and mortars, 5,400 tanks, and 8,200 warplanes. Of these, our allies in the anti-Hitler coalition supplied only 82 artillery weapons (0.15%), 648 tanks (12.14%), and 915 airplanes (10.26%). In addition, much of the military equipment that was sent – in particular, 115 of the 466 tanks manufactured in the UK – did not even make it to the front in the first year of the war.

If we convert these shipments of arms and military equipment into their monetary equivalent, then, according to the well-known historian Mikhail Frolov, DSc (Velikaya Otechestvennaya Voina 1941-1945 v Nemetskoi Istoriografii.[Great Patriotic War 1941-1945 in German historiography], St. Petersburg: 1994), “up until the end of 1941 – the most difficult period for the Soviet state – under the Lend-Lease Act, the US sent the USSR materials worth $545,000, out of the $741 million worth of supplies shipped to all the countries that were part of the anti-Hitler coalition. This means that during this extraordinarily difficult period, less than 0.1% of America’s aid went to the Soviet Union.

“In addition, the first lend-lease shipments during the winter of 1941-1942 reached the USSR very late, although during those critical months Russia was able to put up an impressive fight against the German aggressors all on her own, without any assistance to speak of from the democracies of the West. By the end of 1942 only 55% of the scheduled deliveries had made it to the USSR.”

For example, in 1941 the United States promised to send 600 tanks and 750 aircraft, but actually sent only 182 and 204, respectively.

 

[Solomon2]

...During the war, Soviet factories produced more than 29.1 million small arms of all major types, while only 152,000 small arms (0.5% of the total) were manufactured by American, British, and Canadian plants. Looking at all types of artillery systems of all calibers we see a similar picture – 647,600 Soviet weapons and mortars vs. 9,400 of foreign origin, representing less than 1.5% of the total -

Oh, everybody agrees that the USSR's artillery and small-arms industry was sufficient. But it took more than cannons and rifles to fight the war.

Consider first the tank situation: huge amounts of war materiel and production plants were lost in the opening weeks of Barbarossa; surviving plants and personnel were out of operation for months while they were relocated west of the Urals. The Brits rushed to supply their own "Churchill" tanks to fill the gap: over thirty percent of Soviet tanks in the critical Battle of Moscow were of British-made.

Churchill writes that at first the Russians wouldn't tell the Brits what supplies were a priority: the Brits had to guess! But eventually Stalin stepped in and the concentration was on aircraft, aluminum, rubber, and (especially once American supplies began) motorized transport. Without these last the U.S.S.R. could well have defended itself but it would not have been able to engage in large and fast offensive operations; indeed, I think the Red Army likely would not have been able to carry the war into Germany at all.

 

[Hamza913]

I once read an article in the magazine - author (he was translator or secretar of Molotov, if I am not mistaken) described almost every day of August 1939. The Soviet Union made enormous efforts to form an anti-Nazi alliance in those days - but failed because West did not want it. If Stalin had not signed the pact with Hitler, the Nazi troops after the defeat of Poland would have started a war against the USSR in September 1939. It was absolutely unacceptable - the USSR was not ready to fight with Germany back then.

Imo, the Nazis were just as evil as the allies.

They were both racist, genocidal hacks. But at least the Nazis didn't lie about it and were honest.

 

[Solomon2]

Imo, the Nazis were just as evil as the allies.

They were both racist, genocidal hacks. But at least the Nazis didn't lie about it and were honest.

The Nazis were HONEST???? They deceived French soldiery with false bonhomies and sent the Jews to concentration camps where the gas chambers were disguised as showers? And those are just the first two things that come to mind.

 

[Joe Shearer]

A rare good thread. Thanks to the participants.

 

[Desert Fox]

Both soviets and Nazis Attacked Poland but Britain and France only Declared War on Germany and not Soviet Union.

This is perhaps one of the greatest mysteries of history.

Britain and France declared war on Germany because the latter "violated" Polish territorial integrity. But when the Soviet Union did the same there wasn't a peep from Britain or France.

Makes you wonder, did Britain and France really care about Poland? Or was this just a ploy by powerful Political and financial forces to destroy Germany?

Also, Hollywood and the American establishment was full of Russian Jews who fled the persecutions of Tsarist Russia and were very pro-Bolshevism/Communist and viewed the Soviet Union with great sympathy. The entire media and press in America would portray Soviet Union as similar to Western Democracy, whereas Germany, Italy and Japan were portrayed as evil Authoritarian nightmarish nations.

This is corroborated by the Polish ambassador to America Count Jerzy Potocki:

"The feeling now prevailing in the United States is marked by a growing hatred of Fascism and, above all, of Chancellor Hitler and everything connected with Nazism.Propaganda is mostly in the hands of the Jews who control almost 100 percent radio, film, daily and periodical press. Although this propaganda is extremely coarse and presents Germany as black as possible -- above all religious persecution and concentration camps are exploited -- this propaganda is nevertheless extremely effective since the public here is completely ignorant and knows nothing of the situation in Europe.

It is interesting to note that in this extremely well-planned campaign which is conducted above all against National Socialism, [the] Soviet Russia is almost completely excluded. If mentioned at all, it is only in a friendly manner and things are presented in such a way as if Soviet Russia were working with the bloc of democratic states. Thanks to the clever propaganda the sympathy of the American public is completely on the side of Red Spain."

@Nilgiri @The Sandman @Psychic

 

[Hamza913]

The Nazis were HONEST???? They deceived French soldiery with false bonhomies and sent the Jews to concentration camps where the gas chambers were disguised as showers? And those are just the first two things that come to mind.

I meant honest as in they didn't really try to hide their contempt or act like they were the moral authority out to save the world.

They just did what they thought was best for their people, and didn't care what others thought. They did whatever they thought was needed and didn't feel ashamed about it.

 

[Desert Fox]

No country is a monolith. In USA there were presidents like Herbert Hoover who send tanks against peaceful protesters in Washington (Bonus Army) and there was Roosevelt who initiated „New Deal” policy.

Right, no disagreement there. But my point was that American industrialists and Jewish finance played a massive role in the industrialization of the Soviet Union.

Without them there would be no Soviet war machine.

One can blame England for presenting Hitler with Rheinland, Saar, Austria, and Czechoslovakia. England wanted war between Germany and Soviet Union to weaken both countries.

I would disagree. England was more concerned with the rise of France as the sole continental power after the defeat and dismemberment of Germany at the end of WW1.

Keep in mind that England's foreign policy was shaped by the Balance of Power on continental Europe. England did not want either Germany or France to overtake the other.

As far as the Soviet Union was concerned, yes there was apprehension on the part of English elites towards Soviet Union however the major Jewish financial powers made sure nothing conclusive was done towards that end, just like the Jews in America were also pro-Communist and pushed for relations between America and the USSR.

By the way did you heard about “Operation Catapult” that is English attack on French navy in July 1940 ? England killed more than one thousand French sailors. With allies like England one does not need enemies.

Also, to add to the above, more French civilians were killed by American and British carpet bombing than under German occupation:

"Between the time of the German victory in the Battle of France and the liberation of the country, the Western Allies bombed many locations in France. In all 1,570 French cities and towns were bombed by Anglo-Americanforces between June 1940 and May 1945. The total number of civilians killed was 68,778 men, women and children (including the 2,700 civilians killed in Royan).[1]"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_France_during_World_War_II

Germany attacked Poland at 1 September 1939 and Soviet Union attacked at 17 September 1939 that is sixteen days later when it was already obvious that we would lose. What our “allies” from England and France did to help us? Nothing at all! Hitler could have been easily defeated in 1939 by Poland, England and France. But London didn’t want to defeat Hitler in 1939 but wanted Hitler to attack Soviet Union.

England used Poland as bate to declare war on Germany and destroy all of Europe.

England did not care about Polish territorial integrity. The English simply brushed aside the Polish government in exile when the Katyn Massacre controversy came out that Soviets murdered and tortured Polish officers.

And when the war was over England allowed Poland to fall under Soviet occupation.

Poles made a big mistake taking the English bate and agitating a border issue with Germany that could have easily been resolved peacefully.

 

[Indika]

I once read an article in the magazine - author (he was translator or secretar of Molotov, if I am not mistaken) described almost every day of August 1939. The Soviet Union made enormous efforts to form an anti-Nazi alliance in those days - but failed because West did not want it. If Stalin had not signed the pact with Hitler, the Nazi troops after the defeat of Poland would have started a war against the USSR in September 1939. It was absolutely unacceptable - the USSR was not ready to fight with Germany back then.

Soviets were plainly lucky that west dint have pact with germany. If hitler was a bit lenient or was smart diplomatically , west would have had him in their group. If hitler hadnt started the war abruptly things would have been different. Probably he could have had another agreement with chamberlain to partition france among themselves.

 

[vostok]

There is quite interesting American film "Mission to Moscow", 1943. For some reason on YouTube there is no full version in English. In this film, it is the USSR, and not England and France, shown America's main friend and ally against Germany. Stalin is shown as a wise leader, making global modernization and industrialization of the country.

 

[mike2000 is back]

Oh, everybody agrees that the USSR's artillery and small-arms industry was sufficient. But it took more than cannons and rifles to fight the war.

Consider first the tank situation: huge amounts of war materiel and production plants were lost in the opening weeks of Barbarossa; surviving plants and personnel were out of operation for months while they were relocated west of the Urals. The Brits rushed to supply their own "Churchill" tanks to fill the gap: over thirty percent of Soviet tanks in the critical Battle of Moscow were of British-made.

Churchill writes that at first the Russians wouldn't tell the Brits what supplies were a priority: the Brits had to guess! But eventually Stalin stepped in and the concentration was on aircraft, aluminum, rubber, and (especially once American supplies began) motorized transport. Without these last the U.S.S.R. could well have defended itself but it would not have been able to engage in large and fast offensive operations; indeed, I think the Red Army likely would not have been able to carry the war into Germany at all.

No matter how much you explain to that guy, he wont accept it. He is a Russian nationalist living in Poland, as such he harbors a deep hatred of the Anglo Saxons powers(Britain and the U.S). I'm already used to his posts, since all his posts revolves around how evil the U.S and Britain are, and how peaceful/loving and righteous Russia is, it doesn't matter what the topic is. lol So don't waste your time. lol

This is perhaps one of the greatest mysteries of history.

Britain and France declared war on Germany because the latter "violated" Polish territorial integrity. But when the Soviet Union did the same there wasn't a peep from Britain or France.

Makes you wonder, did Britain and France really care about Poland? Or was this just a ploy by powerful Political and financial forces to destroy Germany?

Also, Hollywood and the American establishment was full of Russian Jews who fled the persecutions of Tsarist Russia and were very pro-Bolshevism/Communist and viewed the Soviet Union with great sympathy. The entire media and press in America would portray Soviet Union as similar to Western Democracy, whereas Germany, Italy and Japan were portrayed as evil Authoritarian nightmarish nations.

This is corroborated by the Polish ambassador to America Count Jerzy Potocki:

"The feeling now prevailing in the United States is marked by a growing hatred of Fascism and, above all, of Chancellor Hitler and everything connected with Nazism.Propaganda is mostly in the hands of the Jews who control almost 100 percent radio, film, daily and periodical press. Although this propaganda is extremely coarse and presents Germany as black as possible -- above all religious persecution and concentration camps are exploited -- this propaganda is nevertheless extremely effective since the public here is completely ignorant and knows nothing of the situation in Europe.

It is interesting to note that in this extremely well-planned campaign which is conducted above all against National Socialism, [the] Soviet Russia is almost completely excluded. If mentioned at all, it is only in a friendly manner and things are presented in such a way as if Soviet Russia were working with the bloc of democratic states. Thanks to the clever propaganda the sympathy of the American public is completely on the side of Red Spain."

@Nilgiri @The Sandman @Psychic

I agree completely