Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!att!cbnews!military
From: military@att.att.com (Bill Thacker)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Russian allies
Message-ID: <9878@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 3 Oct 89 13:07:30 GMT
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Lines: 87
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: military@att.att.com (Bill Thacker)
[mod.note:  This topic has gone beyond any suitability in this
newsgroup.  I have concatenated the two latest replies into
this one posting. No followups will be posted here, though I 
encourage people to direct followups to talk.politics.misc. - Bill ]

From: amdcad!phypawl@joey.cs.buffalo.edu (Jerzy Pawlowski)


In article <27490@amdcad.AMD.COM> cvl!cvl!kayuucee@uunet.UU.NET
 (Kenneth W. Crist Jr.) writes:
>	I'm sure that others will point this out, but here goes. The Soviets
>wanted an alliance with France and Great Britain. Hitler was known to be an
>anti-Communist. It was only after the Allies failed to make any serious
>offer to the Soviets, that they turned to a non-aggression pact with
>Germany. Stalin, I believe, wanted to use this to give the Soviet Union
>time to prepare itself for an expected "Western" attack. He also got part
>of Poland and the the Baltic States out of it. The Allies were reluctant
>to deal with the Soviets, whom they distrusted as Communists, so they did
>not try very hard for a treaty with the Soviets.
>
>					Ken Crist

Yours is the standard Stalinist version of history.
The USSR wanted to enter alliances as long as they expanded Soviet
influence. For example the Soviets offered assistance to Poland in
exchange for Red Army camps in Poland. This would have made Poland
a hostage or satellite. The Soviets offered everybody expansionist
deals. Only Hitler could have accepted them. Even Pravda admits that
Stalin commited a major blunder by not foreseeing Hitlers attack.
By removing Poland and Lithuania Stalin exposed the USSR to Nazi
aggression. The claims that this was farsighted strategy is baloney,
which has been discredited even in the USSR.

			Jerzy
	'Let's do some real physics, not metaphysics!'

Jerzy Pawlowski				SUNY-Buffalo Physics
VAX: V132NREA@UBVMS.BITNET		325 Fronczak Hall
UNIX: phypawl@cs.buffalo.EDU		Amherst, NY 14260


From: gazit%seer.usc.edu@usc.edu (Salit)
Organization: The Piranha Club


In article <27531@amdcad.AMD.COM> cperlebe@encad.Wichita.NCR.COM (Chris Perleberg) writes:

@He also got part of Poland and the the Baltic States out of it. 

>And Bessarabia and Finland as well.

>This is probably the best reason.  Chamberlain was certainly craven
>in giving away Czechoslovakia, but he didn't ask for half.  And I think
>he really believed he was achieving "peace in our time."  I don't think
>Stalin had any such illusions.  I think he was hoping to pick up the 
>pieces after a Western European war, which he certainly knew he was
>making possible.

I agree with the above analysis.

The point I want to make is that Stalin wanted the Baltic states, part of
Finland, part of Rumania etc.  He tried to reach an agreement with the
Western powers so that they would help him in case of German attack.  He
suggested them, in return, help in case Germany would attack them and/or 
Poland.  He wanted an agreement *fast*.  

Chamberlain, who had been so fast in giving Czechoslovakia to Hitler, did not
want to give the Baltic states to Stalin, but he wanted his help.  His
solution was to run the negotiations as slow as possible.  He thought
the negotiations with the USSR would be enough to block Hitler.

I agree that Stalin was a liar, killer, etc.  The question that I want to
raise is: "Was not it better to give Stalin what he wanted in East Europe
in order to block Hitler?"

Please remember that USSR && UK together could cut Germany from its sources of
raw materials.  Russian attack on the Rumanian oil fields && British naval
blockade could cut Germany from *all* its oil supply.

>Chris Perleberg

Hillel                                    gazit@cs.duke.edu

"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent"  --  Salvor Hardin