Can you not blame them, they fear that if the let the Soviets in, they might not leave.the Polish one (which is nearly impossible, they are ice cold about the idea of allowing Soviet troops in).
Seeing that this Anglo-Franco-Soviet Alliance is unlikely ever to have happen, i never have heard Stalin was afraid of a Anglo-Franco-German Alliance.
So the country who wanted a alliance with the west to stop Germany in order to protect itself signs a treaty with the same country it considers the greatest danger on Earth.Soviet Union was very anxious and worried about German rearmament program along with Hitler's 'Mein Kampf' quotes about 'living space on the east'.
So since 1933 soviet diplomacy tried several times to form some kind of defensive alliances against Germany. Soviet Unions actually had mutual assistance pact with Czechoslovakia which was lost in vain when Benes was persuaded to surrender.
Imagine yourself in the Stalin's chair. You could see a rising tide of a right-wing governments in the Central Europe. Germany. Annexed Austria. Hungary. Romania. Spanish Civil War. Splitting of Czechoslovakia. Poland actually taking part in the chainsawing of Czech state (Tesin region). And every time you've raised your voice against these events, no one is taking you seriously. Or just mutters something like 'huh, no way I'll help these commies!'. France barely saved itself from the fascist coup in the 1934.
And now you discover about Allied delegation trying to waste your time until Hitler invades Poland. You ask them repeatedly - would you, a bunch of cowards, help me in pushing this madman back? No one answers positively.
So you have all reasons to think about some powers trying to appease Hitler and set him against your Soviet state.
So the country who wanted a alliance with the west to stop Germany in order to protect itself signs a treaty with the same country it considers the greatest danger on Earth.
Do not know, but i wonder, did the French and British delegation know about the German approach to the Soviet Union.To keep Hitler from advancing for some time, no more, no less. Bad outcome, but still some kind of solution.
What would've been your own decision as Stalin after Drax delegation failed? Remember you still have a German foreign minister waiting in your lobby, with non-aggression treaty in his pocket.
Do not know, but i wonder, did the French and British delegation know about the German approach to the Soviet Union.
But the Anglo-Franco-Soviet Alliance could also done that, of course Poland would have to change its mind first.The significance of now shameful and stenching M-R Pact for the USSR was not only 'peace along the entire border', not only 'more time to rearm itself' and not only 'neutrality in the meat grinder of Europe'. Germany stood before presumably the strongest army in Europe - French army, and behind the french army was the first economic power of the globe - the British Empire, with all it's colonies. The significance of the pact was a guarantee of Germany's defeat in the long run and hence the guaranteed place of the USSR among the winners.
But the Anglo-Franco-Soviet Alliance could also done that, of course Poland would have to change its mind first.
It's a fair question. I like to think, if I were in Stalin's shoes, I would have recalled that:What would've been your own decision as Stalin after Drax delegation failed? Remember you still have a German foreign minister waiting in your lobby, with non-aggression treaty in his pocket.
And can they also give a 100 % guarantee that the Soviets who not only have to move true Poland but also begin their invasion of Germany from Poland will not decide to stay in Poland for ever.I think Poland could be persuaded if someone from the french or british govt estimated their countries unpreparedness for an actual European war and came to Poland in person to try and plead them to start talking with the Soviets.
Looks like 'mirroring Rudolph Hess flight'. Someone from the French govt boards the plane and arrives to Warsaw to personally persuade the govt to stop dreaming about polish flag over Reichstag and start actually save everyone's asses.
Stalin and other soviet leaders were very afraid about Hitler secretly making an arrangement with the western powers to chew through Poland and go straight to the Motherland. So when Ribbentrop promised the non-aggression pact, Stalin was eager to sign it.
Soviet Union of 1939 was very unprepared for a one-to-one war, even without example of Winter War. M-R pact was a hard and churlish decision, but it actually bought Soviets almost two years to prepare.
ITTL that would be an astonishing decision. To sign the treaty with the admiral Drax and sign another with Hitler the next day! Oh my goodness, this one night someone in the Kremlin actually decided to shut out from any wars in Europe?
And it wasn't purely a cynical exercise in buying time on Stalin's part. He genuinely seems to have trusted Hitler more than the West. It's true that the West had given him small reason to trust them, but surely Hitler had given none at all.
Soviet Union was more than ready to fight Germany on defensive setting in 1939. There is no plausible scenario, and it was known already in 1939, that Germany could fight the might of the Soviet Union. Stalin gave Hitler almost two additional years to prepare the Wehrmacht for Barbarossa.
But let's go the other way, what could be the maximum realistic targets for Soviets in 1939 negotiations with UK and France? What could UK and France offer? How about technology transfers, preferential trade status and a free hand in the Far East? Maybe, say, the R-class battleships for the Soviet Pacific Fleet or some other drastic offer?
I doubt that Stalin trusted Hitler. But the M-R pact promised more gains to the Soviets at little or no cost (Baltic states, Bessarabia, Eastern Poland) than what the West could offer. Plus the West couldn't offer much military support in 1939 so the Soviets would have had to do the bulk of the fighting. The M-R pact wasn't a disastrous idea for the Soviets in August 1939 (trading peace for time to build up) but it turned out to be one due to the Fall of France.It's a fair question. I like to think, if I were in Stalin's shoes, I would have recalled that:
And it wasn't purely a cynical exercise in buying time on Stalin's part. He genuinely seems to have trusted Hitler more than the West. It's true that the West had given him small reason to trust them, but surely Hitler had given none at all.
- the non-aggression treaty amounted to no more than a Nazi promise; and
- Hitler is one of the few people on the planet less trustworthy than me.
So another question: did Stalin actually have to jump one way or the other? Could he not have stayed strictly neutral? Also a perilous course, but at least an option worth exploring.
I doubt that Stalin trusted Hitler. But the M-R pact promised more gains to the Soviets at little or no cost (Baltic states, Bessarabia, Eastern Poland) than what the West could offer. Plus the West couldn't offer much military support in 1939 so the Soviets would have had to do the bulk of the fighting. The M-R pact wasn't a disastrous idea for the Soviets in August 1939 (trading peace for time to build up) but it turned out to be one due to the Fall of France.