TRHS AP Euro

Monday, March 05, 2007

Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact

Do any of these points stand out to you? Comment as necessary.

Take your thoughts from the previous post (Chamberlain). Now, comment on this. Do you think Chamberlain was naive or simply wanting to keep peace at all costs?

Due: MIDNIGHT, Monday, March 5

posted by RJS at 8:13 AM

8 Comments:

  • Well, the first half is basically just a normal non-aggression pact, though it does theoretically restrain Russia from possibly entering any sort of alliance with the allis in article IV. The obviously much more alarming part is the second half as it speaks of the upcoming "political rearrangement" of the Baltic states, Finland, Poland, and Bessarabia. This clearly shows that Hitler never had any intention of stopping his expansion at Czechoslovakia, even if that expansion didn't seem to foretell something as he was surrounding Poland (like the US has recently taken places on both sides of Iran...). If Hitler were truly content, then this huge diplomatic movement would not have happened, despite its being a non-aggression pact in theory. I don't believe Chamberlain was naive, but I don't think he knew how bent Germany was on expansion and how well they could implement it even if Britain finally decided to step in.

    By Blogger Unknown, at Monday, March 05, 2007 5:24:00 PM  

  • I love the wording of the first part of the secret provision. Territorial rearrangement! Rearrangement with Junkers and Panzers, maybe.
    The rest of it is pretty much self-explanatory, though I must comment on both the ease of language and the brevity of the document. I'll give the Nazis this, they got to the point pretty quickly.
    Now then, this document doesn't change my mind about Chamberlain. He couldn't have known about the implications of the treaty which occured AFTER the Munich Pact. Churhcil and others, however, guessed the motives of Germany without having to have them presented in writing. THAT'S why Britain outlasted everyone else in Europe. While Chamberlain was dawdling, discrete efforts were being made to find engineers and scientists to build up the British RAF. Churhcill knew as Hitler did that a German attack would have to come through the air. That's why the British had radar and Spitfires while the Germans had Messerschmitts and double the casualties. All Chamberlain had was a worthless scrap of paper.

    By Blogger ThomasBatson, at Monday, March 05, 2007 7:01:00 PM  

  • There's nothing particuarlly fishy or interesting about the public half of the pact. It seems that the first half were guidelines to keep the two countries at peace because (as the second half hints at) their borders would soon become alot closer together than they were before events surrounding the pact. I agree with Gabriael: Germany and Russia had a good idea getting together because most of Europe felt ill towards Germany and Communism. They seemed to be each other's only help. Because they were in the same boat together, and the land between them could be taken with little force, the pact was benefitial to each because it kept peace between the two whilst they both grew closer together as they spread their borders. The articles I noticed the most were the first 2 of the secret part of the pact. They didn't out right say that Germany and Russia would be taking the land over between them, they just stated protocol "in the event" that such should happen (as if it might not actually happen or something strange like that....)

    By Blogger TeganLove, at Monday, March 05, 2007 8:44:00 PM  

  • Oh sorry. forgot. Yeah, Chamberlain was a bit naive. Germany and Russia were growing more powerful as the 1930's came to a close, and the western powers pushed the two countries together by alienating them and/or appeasing them. You can't give a kid a cookie and say "You be good, now." and expect him to think he's not allowed to take every cookie left from the cookie jar. It simply isn't done. He's going to push his luck to get every cookie until you lay him flat out on the ground and tell him he's never getting another cookie in his entire life.

    By Blogger TeganLove, at Monday, March 05, 2007 8:49:00 PM  

  • I think Chamberlain's naivete grew out of his sheer desperation for peace. Slicing Czechoslovakia (terribly sorry if I spelled that wrong) is something I would call an act of desperation. I think Chamberlain's actions were not so purely out of naviete as they were a dire need for a reality that simply could not exist under the methods employed to achieve it. Everything carries its price, and it's all in how you pay it.
    The first part of the treaty is your standard I won't kill you if you won't kill me sort of deal, which to me seems to be more wishful thinking. It also seemed also a comming together of Europe's black sheep. Everyone was scared of Germany, and generally baffled by Russia.
    The second was basically how they were going to carve and butcher the Baltics, Poland, and Czechoslovakia, using such lovely terminology. Both of these documents, however, reflect lack of comprehension of the full weight of Hitler's goals.

    By Blogger laura, at Monday, March 05, 2007 9:19:00 PM  

  • Article I. Both High Contracting Parties obligate themselves to desist from any act of violence, any aggressive action, and any attack on each other, either individually or jointly with other Powers.
    -This article shows the dedication that went into this Nazi-Soviet collaboration. Everyone was hating on Germany and ignoring Russia, and everyone needs someone to back them up.

    Another idea that was interesting was the emphasis on resolving any disagreements. A couple of acts state that should any disagreement or conflict ever arise, then they shall be resolved through "friendly exchange of opinion." This was the first time (that I know of) that a pact clarified the importance of a bond between the countries. This established a sort-of friendship between Germany and Russia because now they both had someone they could lean on.

    I can't decide on Chamberlain. He was definitely naive because he ignored Hitler's past and believed that a little piece of paper would declare peace in Europe forever. But I wonder if he knew what he was doing in the back of his mind. He was determined to keep Britain from another war and I know that influenced his appeasement of Hitler, but with all that time on a plane, did he ever think that maybe Hitler would brush off this agreement like he did with the Versailles Treaty? I would think so.

    By Blogger taylor, at Monday, March 05, 2007 10:36:00 PM  

  • This is really interesting, to see the facade meant for the world to see and then the ulteriour motives underneath. Both sides did feel short-changed by the other european powers, and because of this pact they felt like they were both helping each other get what they deserved. Unfortunately, Russia will eventually get stabbed in the back when the Nazis invade it (through Poland?), and Neville Chamberlain will realize his grave mistake in appeasing Germany for so long. Tegan made a good point, with reference to the cookie thing. Chamberlain had really just given Hitler the idea of entitlement, and he was going to push further and further east until France and Britain intervened. More than anything I think Hitler was just itching to start the second world war and show off Germany's new organized military supremacy. I still think Chamberlain had intentions of preventing war at all costs, but the way he handled it opened many doors for Germany to become aggressive, consequently creating the opposite effect.

    By Blogger Victoria, at Monday, March 05, 2007 10:46:00 PM  

  • The aims of these two are not so different. Germany wishes peace with Russia in a manner which resembles Britain wanteding peace with Germany. Germany, I think, goes about it a lot better though. By writing up an actual document and offering Russia land and things of that nature. This document still seems a little idealized though, talking about "through friendly exchange of opinion" is how they will settle their disputes. You know, because thats the way Hitler and Stalin settle their disputes all the time.
    I think chamberlain wanted peace at all costs but he was naive to think that he had achieved it.

    By Blogger manxomefoe, at Tuesday, March 06, 2007 12:18:00 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home