On the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact

[Infected Mushroom]

One of the aspects of World War II that has always bothered me was the German breaking of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact.

Wikipedia has the following up say on the matter:

The Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact was a non-aggression pact between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union that enabled those two powers to partition Poland between them. The pact was signed in Moscow on 23 August 1939 by German Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop and Soviet Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov[1] and was officially known as the Treaty of Non-Aggression between Germany and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.[2][3] Unofficially it has also been referred to as the Hitler–Stalin Pact,[4][5] Nazi–Soviet Pact[6] or Nazi–Soviet Alliance[7] (although it was not a formal alliance).[8][9]

A few years after signing, Germany invaded the Soviet Union in direct contravention of this agreement. Do you take issue with this?

Why or why not?

Option 1: It’s dishonorable. NAPs matter.
Option 2: It’s a justified breaking of a NAP because the Soviets were planning to break it later down the road (please provide proof), hence the German act was preemptive self defense.
Option 3: It’s justified in the sense that there are no real rules in war.

For me it is evidently a case of Option 1. Imagine being lied to and betrayed in this manner. It is unacceptable. This was very dishonorable conduct on the part of the Germans.

[Washington Resistance Army]

The Soviets had tried for years to build up an anti-Nazi pact and failed at doing so and so they threw a hail mary to buy themselves some more time. There was nothing wrong with breaking the NAP because neither side wanted peace with the other, they both fully planned for a war, the Germans just struck first.

[Just-An-Illusion]

I mean the Soviets would've attacked first if the Nazis didn't attack first... So the only thing the NAP did was to screw Poland over.

Poor Poland

[Kilobugya]

Well three things :

1. The first, and the most important to me, is that USSR tried first to sign an alliance with France and UK, so they would all stand together if Nazi Germany attacked one. Only when UK refused and France was very lukewarm did they turn to the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, because they knew they couldn't face Nazi Germany alone (and after seeing the "bourgeois democracy" let Spanish Republic fall to Hitler-assisted Franco without moving a finger...).
2. The second is that while I can understand USSR signing a non-aggression pact with Nazi Germany in those conditions, I can't approve of the "additional" clauses such as partition of Poland, that was not acceptable.
3. The third, more of the topic on your question, is that it was clear for both USSR and Nazi Germany that the pact was temporary. Communists (even the twisted, authoritarian version of it represented by Stalin) and Nazis always had been firm ideological enemies. The first victims of Nazis were the German Communists. Hitler helped Franco, while USSR helped Spanish Republic. And so on. It was known to both sides it was only a matter of time before the pact crumbled. So who breaks it first isn't really that meaningful. And it's not as if any of the two were betraying a real alliance.

[-SARS-]

One of the aspects of World War II that has always bothered me was the German braking of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact.

Nazis did something bothersome????? SAY IT ISN'T SO!!!!!

[Picairn]

Nazi Germany betraying the Soviet Union was an inevitability. Hitler viewed Communism as an existential threat and Stalin knew this. His hope was to delay the war until 1942, which didn't work out so well.

[Albrenia]

One of the aspects of World War II that has always bothered me was the German braking of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact.

Nazis did something bothersome????? SAY IT ISN'T SO!!!!!

It keeps me awake at night, I tells ya.

[The Lone Alliance]

Germany and the Soviet Union always had a love hate relationship, both of them believed that in the end they would have to turn on one another, but both of them mostly believed that war between them could wait until their mutual enemies, the western allies, were destroyed first.

That's why the Soviets helped the Germans rebuild and provided them with supplies, training, and equipment, Stalin knew eventually Hitler would bite him, it was clear that Germany was waging an Imperialistic campaign and was seeking to gobble up other nations, but it also served as a good buffer state keeping the UK and France away from the Soviets, considering Churchill hated commies almost as much as Hitler did, Stalin had a good reason to distrust the allies.

Ideologically both groups were the types who would betray a pact if it was to their advantage, and they both proved that over and over again. The problem was Stalin didn't think Hitler would be stupid enough to start a war with him, while still fighting England and her colonies.

Sure Germany had created the "Anti-Commie" alliance with the other Axis powers, but strategically it didn't make sense to invade Russia. Yeah maybe if England had fallen or sued for Peace he'd have reason to watch out, but Lend Lease and the British Resistance was still ongoing and the Blitz had failed leaving Germany facing an angry UK in the rear. Really the way it was going it looked like World War 2 would turn into a war of attrition between the British, Free French, and German forces. And for that it would be an easy win for Stalin, after a few years of England wearing Germany down, Stalin could have backstabbed him, marched through the rest of Poland, and even pushed on to the rest of Europe in a move not unlike Red Alert.

But Hitler struck first, possibly because he saw the failures of the Winter War as evidence for how dysfunctional the Soviet Army was, and he took the Japanese idea to invade Siberia seriously and thought if he attacked Russia that'd convince the Japanese to join in the invasion like good allies are supposed too. He also likely thought that the Western Allies would sit out the war and simply let them fight it out, not realizing that at that point the UK hated Germany more than they hated the Soviets.

None of the people involved here were good people so to hold either of them to a moral high ground is laughable, there's no honor among tyrants.

[The Free Joy State]

One of the aspects of World War II that has always bothered me was the German braking of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact.

Nazis did something bothersome????? SAY IT ISN'T SO!!!!!

I mean, yes, it was a corrupt action, but of all the shitty, corrupt and downright wicked things the Nazis did, breaking a non-aggression pact was pretty much in the bottom ten.

Operation Barbarossa was basically inevitable. Hitler regarded communism as a threat, he viewed the Russian population as "subhuman" (and everyone knows what Hitler did to populations he regarded as "untermenschen") and he wanted more "lebensraum" for his Nazi empire. I have little doubt Stalin expected to be betrayed. At least the pact bought more time to prepare the fight back.

I am not a fan of the Soviet Union, but had the UK and the US not formed a (somewhat uneasy) pact with them, the outcome of the war may have been very different. Thank God that was not the case.

[The Restored Danelaw]

Given an expansion east at the expense of East Slavs (Especially Poland and Russia) is an old staple of the National Socialist ideology and given the inherent anti-communism in that ideology, there was no question over whether or not Germany would invade the Soviet Union. I'm not entirely sure what the point of your follow up questions are, given Germans during WWII neither gave a flying fuck about the rules of war nor really known to hold their end of any given bargain in perpetuity. Germans, like Russians, signed a temporary peace to deal with more immediate objectives (for Germans, ending what they perceived to be the war in the West; for the Soviets, restoration of the Imperial Borders in Eastern Europe or getting as close to it as possible) before they were to duke it out between each other.

[Risottia]

One of the aspects of World War II that has always bothered me was the German braking of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact.

4.The Nazis were cretins who thought they could take on the British Empire AND the Soviet Union at the same time. As for honour, Nazis never had any honour so who fucking cares.

[Risottia]

Nazis did something bothersome????? SAY IT ISN'T SO!!!!!

I mean, yes, it was a corrupt action, but of all the shitty, corrupt and downright wicked things the Nazis did, breaking a non-aggression pact was pretty much in the bottom ten.

Considering how the first NAP the Nazis signed was with Poland, breaking another NAP was just entirely expected.

[The Huskar Social Union]

One of the aspects of World War II that has always bothered me was the German braking of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact.

Wikipedia has the following up say on the matter:

The Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact was a non-aggression pact between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union that enabled those two powers to partition Poland between them. The pact was signed in Moscow on 23 August 1939 by German Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop and Soviet Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov[1] and was officially known as the Treaty of Non-Aggression between Germany and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.[2][3] Unofficially it has also been referred to as the Hitler–Stalin Pact,[4][5] Nazi–Soviet Pact[6] or Nazi–Soviet Alliance[7] (although it was not a formal alliance).[8][9]

A few years after signing, Germany invaded the Soviet Union in direct contravention of this agreement. Do you take issue with this?

Why or why not?

Option 1: It’s dishonorable. NAPs matter.
Option 2: It’s a justified breaking of a NAP because the Soviets were planning to break it later down the road (please provide proof), hence the German act was preemptive self defense.
Option 3: It’s justified in the sense that there are no real rules in war.

For me it is evidently a case of Option 1. Imagine being lied to and betrayed in this manner. It is unacceptable. This was very dishonorable conduct on the part of the Germans.

The Nazis were always going to attack the USSR. Always. It was a huge cornerstone of their ideology to secure living space in the east and destroy the Bolshevik threat. The Non Aggression pact was simply to buy time for both sides as the USSR didnt exactly like Nazi germany either and as Wash said they tried to build up an anti-nazi pact for years which failed so they agreed to an NAP with Germany to buy more time as the Soviet Military in 1939 was undergoing a huge modernization campaign was not ready for war.

For me it is evidently a case of Option 1. Imagine being lied to and betrayed in this manner. It is unacceptable. This was very dishonorable conduct on the part of the Germans.

Man if that annoys you wait till you find out what else the Germans did.

[The Huskar Social Union]

One of the aspects of World War II that has always bothered me was the German braking of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact.

4.The Nazis were cretins who thought they could take on the British Empire AND the Soviet Union at the same time. As for honour, Nazis never had any honour so who fucking cares.

And the USA later on as contrary to memes on the internet Hitler was ecstatic about Pearl Harbour being attacked.

[Risottia]

4.The Nazis were cretins who thought they could take on the British Empire AND the Soviet Union at the same time. As for honour, Nazis never had any honour so who fucking cares.

And the USA later on as contrary to memes on the internet Hitler was ecstatic about Pearl Harbour being attacked.

He was a fuckin' moron whose only talents were propaganda and rhetorics.

[Albrenia]

And the USA later on as contrary to memes on the internet Hitler was ecstatic about Pearl Harbour being attacked.

He was a fuckin' moron whose only talents were propaganda and rhetorics.

Is it correct that he was quite intelligent around the start of the war, but getting addicted to various drugs eroded his senses until such grand delusions took hold?

[The Holy Therns]

IM, what do you think the pact was for?

[The Free Joy State]

He was a fuckin' moron whose only talents were propaganda and rhetorics.

Is it correct that he was quite intelligent around the start of the war, but getting addicted to various drugs eroded his senses until such grand delusions took hold?

In 1941, Hitler became addicted to a designer opiate (he had been receiving various injections for some years already and depended on his private doctor, but this is when, by accounts, he began to take hard drugs). Drugs were not uncommon in Germany in this era. In the mid-30s, stimulants were added to chocolates and housewives were encouraged to eat them to get through the housework. The whole German war machine, by some accounts, marched on drugs.

It seems plausible that the drugs he became addicted to may have given him a sense of invulnerability. But I'm not sure that he was ever any great intelligence. I seem to remember reading once that he was a mediocre student, mediocre artist, mediocre soldier. His one talent was public speaking.

I'm not sure it'd have been better for the world or worse if he'd have been a mediocre speaker: true, he might not have become the leader of the Nazi Party; but there were plenty of anti-Semites (at least some of whom weren't drug addicts) who could have taken his place.

[Ifreann]

IM, what do you think the pact was for?

Obviously it was an honourable agreement of honour.

[Dogmeat]

The Nazis broke basically every treaty they made. Why does this one bother you?

[Ifreann]

The Nazis broke basically every treaty they made. Why does this one bother you?

Guessing IM only knows about this one.

[Kuomintang Government]

Why are the same genre of 无聊 questions being asked by the same nation every time

[The Free Joy State]

The Nazis broke basically every treaty they made. Why does this one bother you?

I'm confused about why breaking a treaty is the thing that bothers them about the Nazis. Seems to me there are many, many, many, many, many, many, many things to "bother" one about the Nazis.

[Page]

The Nazis broke basically every treaty they made. Why does this one bother you?

I'm confused about why breaking a treaty is the thing that bothers them about the Nazis. Seems to me there are many, many, many, many, many, many, many things to "bother" one about the Nazis.

IM is all about dat honor

[Ifreann]

The Nazis broke basically every treaty they made. Why does this one bother you?

I'm confused about why breaking a treaty is the thing that bothers them about the Nazis. Seems to me there are many, many, many, many, many, many, many things to "bother" one about the Nazis.

IM has argued previously that the Nuremberg trials were illegitimate and argued in favour of turning Jews over to the Nazis. The war crimes of the Nazi regime are not bothersome to our illustrious OP.