Advertisement

Crisis and Conflict, 1940–1941

  • Geoffrey Roberts
Chapter
  • 16 Downloads

Abstract

Under the aegis of the Nazi-Soviet pact the USSR gained time, space and resources in which to prepare for war. But there were two problems with this strategy. The first was that Russia was not the sole beneficiary of the pact. Nazi Germany also gained time, space and resources in which to prepare for war — against Russia. Moscow hoped that the phoney war in the west would not last and that eventually Germany would be drawn into a costly war of attrition with Britain and France. That hope was destroyed by the German blitzkrieg in Western Europe. When France fell in June 1940 Soviet Russia found itself in a position more vulnerable to attack than it had been in 1939. The Russians now faced a Germany with its military might unimpaired and with the combined resources of much of continental Europe at its disposal. Britain, led now by Churchill, seemed determined to fight on but its capacity to resist either Hitler or the siren voices of appeasement at home calling for peace seemed doubtful.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes and References

  1. 1.
    See G. Roberts, The Unholy Alliance: Stalin’s Pact with Hitler(London, 1989), pp. 185#x2013;7.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Clause 3 of the secret additional protocol to the Nazi-Soviet pact stated: ‘With regard to Southeastern Europe attention is called by the Soviet side to its interest in Bessarabia. The German side declares its complete political disinterestedness in these areas.’ This is sometimes interpreted as an agreement that the Soviets could occupy this area if they wanted to. In truth what it amounted to was a restatement of a longstanding Soviet legal claim to this Romanian province and a keep-out message to the Germans.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    On German foreign policy during this period see W. Carr, Poland to Pearl Harbor(London, 1985), pp. 112–27Google Scholar
  4. and H. W. Koch, ‘Operation Barbarossa — The Current State of the Debate’, Historical Journal, 31, no. 2 (1988).Google Scholar
  5. Also: G. T. Waddington, ‘Ribbentrop and the Soviet Union, 1937–1941’, in J. Erickson and D. Dilks (eds), Barbarossa: The Axis and the Allies(Edinburgh, 1994).Google Scholar
  6. 4.
    R. J. Sontag and J. S. Beddie (eds), Nazi-Soviet Relations, 1939–1941(NSR), pp. 144 and 148.Google Scholar
  7. 5.
    See the telegram of the Soviet military attaché in Bulgaria (6/6/40) in Izvestiya Tsk KPSS, no. 3 (1990).Google Scholar
  8. 6.
    M. Toscano ‘Italo-Soviet Relations 1940–1941: Failure of an Accord’, in his Designs in Diplomacy: Pages from European Diplomatic History in the Twentieth Century(Baltimore, MD, 1970), pp. 146–56.Google Scholar
  9. For the back ground to Soviet-Italian relations see J. Calvitt Clarke’s highly informative Russia and Italy Against Hitler: The Bolshevik-Fascist Rapprochement of the 1930s(Westport, CT, 1991).Google Scholar
  10. 7.
    Toscano, ‘Italo-Soviet Relations’, p. 157.Google Scholar
  11. 8.
    Ibid., p. 160.Google Scholar
  12. 9.
    J. Degras (ed.), Soviet Documents on Foreign Policy, vol. 3 (Oxford, 1953), pp. 457–8.Google Scholar
  13. 10.
    The Russians later claimed that they expected their statement to Rosso on 25 June to be transmitted to Berlin and that, in effect, it constituted a proposal to Germany as well as Italy. NSR, pp. 193–4. See also Molotov’s complaints to Rosso on this score. Cited by Toscano, ‘Italo-Soviet Relations’, p. 203.Google Scholar
  14. 11.
    See Yehuda Lahav, ‘Soviet Policy and the Transylvanian Question (1940–1946)’, Soviet and East European Research Centre (Hebrew University of Jerusalem), Research Paper, No. 27, pp. 10–11; A. L. Zapantis, Greek-Soviet Relations 1917–1941(New York, 1982), p. 397, n. 60;Google Scholar
  15. D. Sirkov, ‘Bulgaria’s National Territorial Problem during the Second World War’, Bulgarian Historical Review, no. 3 (1991), 5; and Documents on German Foreign Policy(DGFP), series D, vol. 10, pp. 132, 208–9.Google Scholar
  16. 12.
    Toscano, Ttalo-Soviet Relations’, pp. 167–9.Google Scholar
  17. 13.
    See G. Gafencu, The Last Days of Europe: A Diplomatic Journey in 1939(London, 1947) ch. 2.Google Scholar
  18. 14.
    ‘The Breach Between Germany and the Soviet Union’, in Survey of International Affairs 19391946, p. 372.Google Scholar
  19. 15.
    NSR, pp. 180–3 and 190–6.Google Scholar
  20. 16.
    Soviet foreign policy archives. Cited by P. Sevostyanov, Before the Nazi Invasion(Moscow, 1984), p. 169.Google Scholar
  21. 17.
    DGFP, series D, vol. 11, pp. 296–7.Google Scholar
  22. 18.
    See Khrushchev Remembers(London, 1971), p. 115.Google Scholar
  23. 19.
    DGFP, series D, vol. 11, pp. 353–4.Google Scholar
  24. 20.
    A. M. Vasilevsky, Delo Vcei Zhizn(Moscow, 1973), p. 113.Google Scholar
  25. 21.
    Molotov to Stalin, 13/11/41 in Mezhdunarodnaya Zhizn, June 1991 p. 132. For full reference citation see note 23 below.Google Scholar
  26. 22.
    Degras, Soviet Documents, pp. 461–9 for Molotov’s speech.Google Scholar
  27. 23.
    NSR, pp. 217–54; ‘Nakanune: Peregovory V. M. Molotova v Berline v Noyabre 1940 goda’, Mezhdunarodnaya Zhizn, June and August 1991.Google Scholar
  28. 24.
    NSR, p. 253.Google Scholar
  29. 25.
    V. M. Berezhkov, S Diplomaticheskoi Missiei v Berlin 1940–1941(Moscow, 1966), p. 33.Google Scholar
  30. 26.
    Stalin’s telegrams are published in the collection cited in note 23 above. They are all businesslike in character and concerned with tactics in the negotiations with the Germans. None of them bears any remote resemblance to the message recalled by Berezhkov.Google Scholar
  31. 27.
    NSR, pp. 255–8.Google Scholar
  32. 28.
    Ibid., pp. 258–9Google Scholar
  33. 29.
    J. Erickson, ‘Threat Identification and Strategic Appraisal by the Soviet Union, 1930–1941’, in E. R. May (ed.), Knowing One’s Enemies(Princeton, NJ, 1984), p. 414.Google Scholar
  34. 30.
    This point was brought to my attention by R. L. Garthoff, Detente and Confrontation: American-Soviet Relations from Nixon to Reagan(Washington, DC, 1985), p. 941, n. 152. Also of interest is Stalin’s telegram to Molotov on 11/11/40 where he states that any reference to India in any Soviet-German declaration should be deleted on grounds that it could be a trick aimed at ‘kindling war’. See Mezhdunarodnaya Zhizn, June 1991, p. 125.Google Scholar
  35. 31.
    Mezhdunarodnaya Zhizn, August 1991, p. 119.Google Scholar
  36. 32.
    According to Dmitri Volkogonov in his biography of Stalin, Molotov came back from Berlin convinced that Hitler was not about to attack the Soviet Union. However, he does not clarify the nature of Molotov’s belief in this respect nor does he provide any evidence to support his assertion.Google Scholar
  37. 33.
    Soviet Foreign Policy archives. Cited by P. P. Sevostyanov, Pered Velikim Ispytaniem(Moscow, 1981), pp. 210–11.Google Scholar
  38. Sevostyanov’s reference in the text is to a history of the Bulgarian communist party, but the same statement is partially cited by Istoriya Diplomatii, vol. 4 (Moscow, 1975), pp. 153–4, and here the reference is to Soviet archives.Google Scholar
  39. 34.
    Istoriya Diplomatii, p. 158, and S. Rachev, Anglo-Bulgarian Relations During the Second World War(Sofia, 1981), pp. 38–9.Google Scholar
  40. 35.
    Istoriya Diplomatii, p. 154, and Sovetsko-Bolgarskie Otnosheniya, vol. 1 (Moscow, 1976), docs 567, 569 and 588.Google Scholar
  41. 36.
    See A. L. Narochnitskii, ‘Sovetsko-Ugoslavskii Dogovor 5 Apelya 1941g o Druzhbe i Nenapadenii’, Novaya i Noveishaya Istoriya, no. 1 (1989), 4–5.Google Scholar
  42. 37.
    Degras, Soviet Documents, p. 449.Google Scholar
  43. 38.
    See V. K. Volkov, ‘Sovetsko-Ugoslavskiye Otnosheniya v Nachalnyi Period Vtoroi Mirovoi Voiny v Kontekste Mirovykh Sobytii (1939–1941 gg)’, Sovetskoe Slavyanovedeniye, no. 6 (1990).Google Scholar
  44. 39.
    Soviet Foreign Policy archives. Cited by Sevostyanov, Before the Nazi Invasion, p. 190.Google Scholar
  45. 40.
    See J. Haslam, ‘The Policy of the Communist International from August 1939 to June 1941’ (unpublished paper, CREES, Birmingham University).Google Scholar
  46. 41.
    Soviet Foreign Policy archives. Cited by Sevostyanov, Before the Nazi Invasion, pp. 190–1.Google Scholar
  47. 42.
    Soviet Foreign Policy archives. Cited in SSSR v Borbe Protiv Fashistskoi Agressii 19331945(Moscow, 1986), p. 139.Google Scholar
  48. 43.
    Sovetsko-Bolgarskie Otnosheniya, doc. 56.Google Scholar
  49. 44.
    Degras, Soviet Documents, p. 482.Google Scholar
  50. 45.
    Ibid., pp. 482–3.Google Scholar
  51. 46.
    Sovetsko-Bolgarskie Otnosheniya, docs 581 and 582.Google Scholar
  52. 47.
    Degras, Soviet Documents, p. 483. Sovetsko-Bolgarskie Otnosheniya, doc. 583. See also NSR, pp. 277–9.Google Scholar
  53. 48.
    ‘Mozhno li Bylo Predotvratit Aprelskuu Voiny? (Novye Dokumenty o Sovetsko-Ugoslavskom Dogovore o Druzhbe i Nenapadenii 1941g.)’, Vestnik Ministerstva Inostrannykh Del SSSR, 15 August 1989, p. 58.Google Scholar
  54. 49.
    Ibid., pp. 59–60.Google Scholar
  55. 50.
    Narochnitskii, ‘Sovetsko-Ugoslavskii Dogovor’, pp. 13–14.Google Scholar
  56. 51.
    NSR, pp. 316–18 and Vestnik documents cited above, pp. 61–2 for the Soviet report of this meeting.Google Scholar
  57. 52.
    Degras, Soviet Documents, pp. 484–5.Google Scholar
  58. 53.
    Foreign Relations of the United States 1941, vol. 1 pp. 301–2 and 312–15. But see Narochnitskii, ‘Sovetsko-Ugoslavskii Dogovor’, pp. 18–19 who argues that any serious Soviet aid to Yugoslavia was ruled out by Stalin’s determination to avoid provoking Hitler for as long as possible.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Geoffrey Roberts 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Geoffrey Roberts

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations