Por que Hitler e Stálin INVADIRAM a Polônia?

Summary

In this engaging and thought-provoking discussion, the complexities of the Nazi-Soviet Pact are explored, delving into its historical significance, the paradoxical alliance between fascism and communism, and its lasting impact on World War II. Experts debate the motivations behind Stalin’s decisions, the implications of the secret protocols, and how this agreement shaped global politics. With insights into the relationship between totalitarian regimes, the interview critiques how Soviet actions were motivated by strategic interests, questioning the ideological justifications for the terror and violence unleashed by both Stalin and Hitler.

Takeaways

• 🕊️ The video contextualizes the Nazi–Soviet Pact as a unique and deeply consequential alliance between two opposing totalitarian regimes, setting the stage for WWII’s early territorial divisions.
• 📜 The historian Hiroaki Kuromiya emphasizes that the secret protocols of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact were explicitly imperialistic, dividing Central and Eastern Europe into German and Soviet spheres of influence.
• ❌ Kuromiya argues that claims minimizing the Nazi–Soviet Pact by comparing it to other European agreements (like Munich) are misleading because those agreements did not involve secret plans to partition sovereign nations.
• 🇵🇱 The professor stresses that Poland and similar countries could not trust Soviet proposals for military passage, since allowing the Red Army in likely meant permanent occupation.
• 🕵️‍♂️ Russian and Soviet historians have historically used forged documents to shape narratives absolving the USSR of responsibility in pre-WWII diplomacy, making many of their claims unreliable.
• ⚒️ Kuromiya asserts that both fascist and communist regimes opposed the liberal world order, allowing them to cooperate despite ideological differences, and that Moscow has long used both left and right movements to advance its geopolitical interests.
• 🌪️ The professor claims that the Russian Revolution fundamentally altered global politics and that without it, WWII—at least in the form it took—likely would not have occurred.
• 🩸 Stalin’s use of systemic terror, class extermination, and exported revolutionary violence helped inspire and intensify the brutality later exhibited by Nazi Germany, creating what scholars call the ‘bloodlands’ dynamic.
• 🔨 Trotskyist arguments that a Trotsky-led USSR would have been less brutal are rejected; Kuromiya insists that terror was rooted in the foundations of Soviet ideology, and Trotsky himself supported aggressive policies.
• 💣 The Nazi–Soviet Pact strengthened both dictatorships, enabling their mutual expansionism and directly contributing to the catastrophic scale of violence, genocide, and devastation in WWII.

Q & A

What was the Nazi-Soviet Pact, and why was it significant in World War II?

The Nazi-Soviet Pact, also known as the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, was a non-aggression treaty signed between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union in 1939. It was significant because it allowed both countries to divide Eastern and Central Europe into their respective spheres of influence, effectively ensuring that neither side would attack the other, which facilitated the outbreak of World War II by enabling Germany to invade Poland without Soviet interference.

How did the Nazi-Soviet Pact contribute to the brutality of World War II?

The pact allowed Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union to divide Poland and other Eastern European countries. This division led to mass suffering as both countries occupied and brutalized these regions. The cooperation between two regimes with vastly opposing ideologies also led to heightened violence and terror, with the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany strengthening each other during the early years of the war.

What role did the secret protocol of the Nazi-Soviet Pact play in the war?

The secret protocol of the Nazi-Soviet Pact, which was never publicly disclosed at the time, outlined the division of Eastern Europe between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. It gave Stalin and Hitler the freedom to invade and occupy the regions without facing military opposition from one another. This agreement played a key role in the subsequent invasions and occupations of Poland, the Baltic States, and parts of Finland and Romania.

Why did the Soviet Union sign the Nazi-Soviet Pact despite ideological differences with Nazi Germany?

Stalin signed the Nazi-Soviet Pact to buy time for the Soviet Union to prepare for a potential conflict with Nazi Germany. At the time, Stalin believed that the Allies, particularly Britain and France, would not be able to form a meaningful alliance with the Soviet Union to fight Germany. The pact also aligned with Soviet interests in securing territorial gains and ensuring Soviet security in the short term.

What is the significance of Stalin’s willingness to join the Axis Powers, according to Professor Hiroak Kuromia?

Professor Kuromia suggests that Stalin’s willingness to join the Axis Powers, conditional on certain terms, demonstrates his pragmatism as a politician. He recognized the need to secure Soviet interests and saw an opportunity to align with Nazi Germany temporarily. However, this potential alliance was never finalized due to ideological differences and mutual distrust, which would eventually lead to Hitler betraying Stalin with the invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941.

What was the position of Poland in relation to the Nazi-Soviet Pact, according to the conversation?

Poland’s position was one of balance and skepticism toward both Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. While Poland did not ally itself with Nazi Germany, it also did not trust the Soviet Union. Poland remained aligned with the United Kingdom and France, though the Nazi-Soviet Pact made Poland a victim of both totalitarian regimes, as they divided the country between them.

How did the Soviet Union’s actions in Eastern Europe during the war impact its international reputation?

The Soviet Union’s actions in Eastern Europe, especially its occupation of Poland and the Baltic States, greatly tarnished its international reputation. Stalin’s government was seen as a brutal occupier, contributing to the widespread suffering and terror in these regions. The secret protocols of the Nazi-Soviet Pact, in particular, reflected Soviet imperial ambitions that contradicted the communist ideology of anti-imperialism, thus fueling disillusionment and distrust toward the Soviet regime.

What role did Soviet historians play in shaping the narrative about the Nazi-Soviet Pact?

Soviet historians, particularly during the Cold War, downplayed or denied the existence of the secret protocol of the Nazi-Soviet Pact and its implications. Figures like Vyacheslav Molotov, who signed the pact, consistently denied any secret agreements, even in later interviews. Some Russian historians, such as Levi Sotskov, attempted to present a narrative that the Soviet Union was trying to form alliances against Nazi Germany, though these documents were often suspected to be fabricated by Soviet authorities.

What does Professor Hiroak Kuromia say about the ideological motivations behind the Nazi-Soviet Pact?

Professor Hiroak Kuromia argues that the Nazi-Soviet Pact, while seemingly an alliance between two opposing ideologies (fascism and communism), was primarily motivated by both regimes' desire to oppose the liberal capitalist order. Stalin and Hitler both saw the capitalist powers, particularly Britain and France, as threats to their respective regimes. Thus, their temporary cooperation was a strategic move to counter this common enemy, even though their long-term goals were fundamentally different.

What might have happened if the Russian Revolution had never occurred, according to the professor?

Professor Hiroak Kuromia believes that without the Russian Revolution and the rise of the Soviet Union, World War II would have unfolded differently. He argues that the Soviet Union’s creation and its anti-capitalist stance led to the rise of fascism in Europe as a counter-reaction to the perceived threat of communism. Without the Soviet threat, Europe may have seen less extreme ideological polarization, potentially resulting in a less militaristic and less genocidal 20th century.