In 1939 which way did these countries lean (Axis vs Allies)?

[Alfatwosix]

I believe that the original question was: in 1939 where did these countries stand".

If you think of that period, Holland, Belgium and Luxemburg were on a strict neutrality course. Though Belgium mobilized in September '39, it still refused to allow French or British troops on its soil for fear of provoking the Germans.

I believe the same went for the Danish, Swedes and Norwegians... until the German mass tourism waves came

[Matthias]

on the What if : britain vs ussr

germany would have joined britain the second that britain let them, it was the mass mood of germans and hitler that britain and germany should join forces, its just britain didn't share hes view, so either brtain would refuse germany help coz they were wining against the ussr, or more then likly they accepted germany as they needed the allies..and the germans steam rollered poland then russia....with british help.

[SSgt Viljuri]

Michael Emrys wrote:

That statement can be disputed. With few exceptions (mainly East Prussia, which I suppose could be regarded as a spoil of war), Stalin only annexed lands that were part of pre-Revolution Russia.

How about Tannu Tuva ?

Friends of Tuva

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Sgt. Viljuri:

How about Tannu Tuva ?

Who cares?

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Matthias:

germany would have joined britain the second that britain let them, it was the mass mood of germans and hitler that britain and germany should join forces, its just britain didn't share hes view, so either brtain would refuse germany help coz they were wining against the ussr, or more then likly they accepted germany as they needed the allies..and the germans steam rollered poland then russia....with british help.

This to me feels like playing fast and loose with history. Something along these lines may in fact have been Hitler's fantasy, but it really wasn't Chamberlain's. Chamberlain would, up until early 1939, have liked to ally with Germany against the USSR, but to deter and contain the latter, not conquer them. And he certainly would not have countenanced Germany running all over the other Central European countries. Most of the European countries were interested in preserving peace and the status quo. Only a few were looking toward conquest and aggrandizement, and Germany was chief among these.

Michael

[LordCalvert]

Sweden had, you could say, a very pragmatic approach to the war. Selling iron ore to Germany, exporting Bofors AA-guns to Britain, letting German troops go by train through Sweden to Finland. They also had volunteers in the finnish army (though not many I think), and even a few aircraft. As the German war machine began to run into problems Sweden began to lean more to the allied side...

[Tero]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

What does that have to do with this discussion? The 1979 invasion of Afghanistan occurred 34 years after the end of WW II and 26 years after the death of Stalin. Don't muddy the waters.

Goes to the expansionistic tendencies of the regime.

The USSR was among the few nations to come out of the war with its territory expanded beyond its 1939 borders.

The borders of 1939 were legal. IMO any and all "final" alterations in the USSR borders were expansionistic in nature.

By 1979 the leaders of USSR had forgotten there was a possibility to fail in active exportation of the faith.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Tero:

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />What does that have to do with this discussion? The 1979 invasion of Afghanistan occurred 34 years after the end of WW II and 26 years after the death of Stalin. Don't muddy the waters.

Goes to the expansionistic tendencies of the regime. </font>

[Tero]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

What happened in 1979 doesn't say much about 1939 one way or the other.

Well, in 1939 they invaded Finland and got a bloody nose for their effort. In 1979 they invaded Afganistan and got a bloody nose for their effort. As a result in 1939 they brought about Barbarossa, in 1979 they brought about Perestroika and the eventual downfall of their empire.

In any event, if it did, it would tend to prove the opposite of what you claim. The Soviets were willing to abide a truly neutral Afghanistan, but in the mid-70s there was a pro-Western coup that ousted the monarchy. It looked like the CIA might be planning to use Afghanistan as a base for stirring up seperatist feeling among the Islamic republics of the southern USSR. So the Soviets sponsored a Pro-communist counter-coup. When that looked like not settling the question, they finally sent in their own forces with the result we are familiar with. However ill-advised their involvement may have been, it is hard to make a case that it was done for reasons of expansionism.

Their form of government was expansionistic by nature to begin with. Just because they did not actively expand their actual territorial mass between 1945 and 1979 does not mean they were not expansionistic.

If you accept the empire building nations as having been expansionistic then I see the USSR as an expansionistic state.

[Joachim]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Joachim:

The USSR was expansionist.

That statement can be disputed. With few exceptions (mainly East Prussia, which I suppose could be regarded as a spoil of war), Stalin only annexed lands that were part of pre-Revolution Russia. He did not annex the countries that eventually became the WarPac, although he certainly occupied them and set up puppet governments in them as well as adjusting their borders. But he wanted them to continue to exist as entities in order to provide a pro-Soviet buffer against invasion from the West.

Stalin wanted even small countries.

Only those that had broken away from the Russian Empire. I don't think that makes his actions morally defensible necessarily, but it's important to note that he wasn't just given to indiscriminant land grabs.

</font>

[Sergei]

The policies pursued under Molotov were totally, fundamentally, absolutely different from those pursued under Gromyko (to overemphasize my point). If you want to point out actual signs of continuity in the Soviet foreign policy that clearly connect 1939 and 1979, then by all means do so. But ambiguous claims of the "nature" of Soviet government are too easy to dismiss.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Joachim:

IMHO it doesn't matter if you annex a country or use a puppet government. Being a puppet country or a republic in the Union ofSSRepublics - you still are under Stalin's rule.

I should point out that there was a great difference. Just ask any Pole how much they would have fancied becoming Soviet citizens. Only from Stalin's point of view the difference wasn't so great. In the case of Finland, which was practically under Stalin's thumb after the war, total independence was revived after the Allied Control Commission left and Soviets returned back their military base 50 km from Helsinki.

Maybe Hitler hoped they would accept his occupation of pre-revolution German soil just as the Western Allies accepted Stalin taking over pre-revolution Russia?

Now you're confusing matters. It was Hitler who accepted Stalin taking over those territories, not Chamberlain or Daladier!! Later Churchill and Roosevelt gave their blessings to Stalin, but this was at a time when they had already become allies, thanks to Hitler. In 1939-40, however, the situation was totally different, and the Allies nearly went to war against Soviet Union.

[Tero]

Originally posted by Sergei:

If you want to point out actual signs of continuity in the Soviet foreign policy that clearly connect 1939 and 1979, then by all means do so.

OK.

Was there at any point between 1939 and 1979 a time when USSR was NOT supplying or otherwise helping/supporting communist governments or rebelious movements outside her borders ?

[Kanonier Reichmann]

Alfatwosix wrote:

To return to the original topic, most of the overrun countries in Europe had a government in exile (mostly London) whilst the Germans placed a puppet regime to lead the occupied country. This was certainly the case for Poland, Belgium, The Netherlands, Norway, France (with General De Gaule).....

The way that it reads it seems to be saying that De Gaule was the leader of the Vichy French puppet government! I'm sure you didn't mean that but just to set the record straight it was the former general of WW I fame, General <strike>Focker</strike> Foch who led the Vichy government.

Regards

Jim R.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Kanonier Reichmann:

it was the former general of WW I fame, General <strike>Focker</strike> Foch who led the Vichy government.

And I always thought it was Marshal Petain. :confused:

[Joachim]

Originally posted by Sergei:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Joachim:

IMHO it doesn't matter if you annex a country or use a puppet government. Being a puppet country or a republic in the Union ofSSRepublics - you still are under Stalin's rule.

I should point out that there was a great difference. Just ask any Pole how much they would have fancied becoming Soviet citizens. Only from Stalin's point of view the difference wasn't so great. </font>

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Tero:

Originally posted by Sergei:

If you want to point out actual signs of continuity in the Soviet foreign policy that clearly connect 1939 and 1979, then by all means do so.

OK.

Was there at any point between 1939 and 1979 a time when USSR was NOT supplying or otherwise helping/supporting communist governments or rebelious movements outside her borders ?

No. That hardly proves your claim, however.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Joachim:

They did not like it. Maybe they nearly went to war with the Soviet Union. But they did not take any serious actions vs the USSR. That's what I call "accept it". Not accepting it means doing something meaningful, and that means going to war.

Gruß

Joachim

Your idea of "accepting" or "opposing" is strange... countries don't always go to war just because they don't accept something, did you know that?

Any serious actions, when and for what? What exactly are you talking about? Or do you mean that as Hitler invaded Poland and then Stalin used this as a public pretext for invading the eastern parts of it (as secretly agreed between the two countries), Allies should have declared war on Soviet Union too? It was a fait accompli as Poland was already defeated, and while aerial bombardment of Soviet oil fields in Caucasus would have been a possibility, it hardly would have helped in the war with Germany.

During Winter War Britain and France would have gone to war with Russia, but only if Finland would have requested them to do so (because of League of Nations rules). Finland didn't see any benefits coming from such an alliance, however, as Norway and Sweden were opposed to the Allies moving through their territories and it was obvious that Britain was more interested in blocking Swedish iron ore from Germany, so no invitation was given. If Finland had, for some peculiar reason, wanted so, the course of history would have changed at this point.

Well, Soviet Union was removed from the League of Nations. That's serious action, isn't it?

[Kanonier Reichmann]

Originally posted by Sergei:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Kanonier Reichmann:

it was the former general of WW I fame, General <strike>Focker</strike> Foch who led the Vichy government.

And I always thought it was Marshal Petain. :confused: </font>

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Tero:

Originally posted by Sergei:

If you want to point out actual signs of continuity in the Soviet foreign policy that clearly connect 1939 and 1979, then by all means do so.

OK.

Was there at any point between 1939 and 1979 a time when USSR was NOT supplying or otherwise helping/supporting communist governments or rebelious movements outside her borders ?

Was there ever any point between 1945 and 1989 when the US was not supporting capitalistic countries, even when those regimes were demonstrably dictatorships? What does any of that prove one way or the other about expansionist tendencies? You still haven't proven your case, or even taken a significant step toward doing so.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Kanonier Reichmann:

Alfatwosix wrote:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />To return to the original topic, most of the overrun countries in Europe had a government in exile (mostly London) whilst the Germans placed a puppet regime to lead the occupied country. This was certainly the case for Poland, Belgium, The Netherlands, Norway, France (with General De Gaule).....

The way that it reads it seems to be saying that De Gaule was the leader of the Vichy French puppet government! I'm sure you didn't mean that but just to set the record straight it was the former general of WW I fame, General <strike>Focker</strike> Foch who led the Vichy government. </font>

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Sergei:

...while aerial bombardment of Soviet oil fields in Caucasus would have been a possibility, it hardly would have helped in the war with Germany.

Steps were actually put in motion to bomb the Caspian oilfields, the pretext being that the USSR was shipping oil to Germany (as in fact it was). This was aborted by the timely attack on France and the low countries in May, 1940, before the plan could be put into effect.

Michael

[Tero]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

[qb]Was there ever any point between 1945 and 1989 when the US was not supporting capitalistic countries, even when those regimes were demonstrably dictatorships? What does any of tha

[ January 28, 2004, 07:03 AM: Message edited by: Tero ]

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Tero:

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

Was there ever any point between 1945 and 1989 when the US was not supporting capitalistic countries, even when those regimes were demonstrably dictatorships? What does any of that prove one way or the other about expansionist tendencies?

I never claimed US was NOT expansionistic.

And if troops in combat in foreign soil count as expansionistic then US was/is more expansionistic than USSR ever was.

Thank you. That was a point I considered making, but you have saved me the trouble.

I think the problem is that you have an exceedingly non-standard definition of 'expansion'. Traditionally it means expanding a country's borders to incorporate new lands with or without new peoples. Merely interferring in another country's internal politics does not in and of itself constitute expansion, though obviously it could be a precursor to expansion (e.g., Nazi agitation in the Sudetland and in Austria).

Michael

[Joachim]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

I think the problem is that you have an exceedingly non-standard definition of 'expansion'. Traditionally it means expanding a country's borders to incorporate new lands with or without new peoples. Merely interferring in another country's internal politics does not in and of itself constitute expansion, though obviously it could be a precursor to expansion

Michael

This is an interesting definition. But in dictatorships where you have the "I am the country"-attitude of Louis XIV., expansionism is not only the expansion of the state but the expansion of the "empire" of the ruler(s). States and countries matter little for them. They expand their territory.

Gruß

Joachim