Survey - Significance of the nazi-soviet non aggression pact

Question 1

Context

Answer 1

23rd August 1939, German foreign Minister Joachim Von Ribbentrop and Russian foreign minister Vyacheslav Molotov signed the Nazi soviet pact
Ideologically opposed nations, pledged for the next ten years neither side would wage war on the other, or come to the aid of a country the other is at war with
Multifaceted significance
Longstanding intentionalist-structure argument concerning the nature of Nazi policy making
Plays an important role in any anglo-soviet relations
Treaty can be seen trigger for the outbreak of the second world war less than 2 weeks later
Signing the non-aggression pact, marked a u-turn in soviet foreign policy, and blatantly constricted the anti-fasict rhetoric articulated by the regime
Hitler associated communism with judaism
Pact was deeply at odds with what Nazis stood for, with Hitler writing in mein kampf that he wanted to expand living space in Russia

Question 2

German Motives

Answer 2

Nazi foreign policy was incoherent and driven by desire for its own sake, rather than clearly defined program
Nazi soviet pact shows Hitler clearly took advantage as they arose, element of pragmatism

The pact would enable Germans to receive vital raw materials from the USSR, and most significantly avoid fighting any future war on two fronts

Question 3

Soviet Motives

Answer 3

Time to build own armed forces
While the territorial clauses contained contained within the secret protocol meant that Russia could fulfil its own expansion ambitions in the baltic process

Question 4

Soviet relations with Germany

Answer 4

● USSR/Germany shared hate of Treaty of Versailles
● early 1920s: secret military cooperation
○ German army train/munitions factories on Soviet soil
○ Germany help train Red Army
● 1934: Russia joins League of Nations
○ membership would enable calling for assistance under collective security agreement
● 1935: Russian treaties with France/Czechoslovakia
● USSR harboured suspicion Britain/France wouldn’t stop Hitler
○ confirmed in reoccupation of Rhineland/Spanish Civil War
● 1937: disillusioned by Britain/France → began to turn to Hitler as alternative for support
● March 1938: seizure of Austria → USSR sent diplomatic signals
○ made clear that time was running out for Allies’ to have Soviet support against Hitler
● 1938: Czechoslovakian crisis ○ USSR reiterated readiness to stand by agreement if France would do likewise
■ French take up suggestion
● September 1938: Munich conference
○ USSR not invited: offended, drew on conclusions of outcome
● 1939: Stalin ordered negotiations with Germany/Allies
○ Allies dragged out negotiations/offended Stalin
○ 26 July: Germany would turn over large tracts of Eastern Europe to Soviets in return for Russian neutrality.
● 23rd August 1939: Nazi-Soviet Aggression Pact signed
○ included more diplomatic/military issues
○ Article 1: agreed not to declare war on each other
○ Article 2: remain neutral if either became militarily involved with a third power
○ great significance
■ set scene for WWII
■ evident that Nazi/Soviet intentions were to destroy isolated Poland
● little practical help could be offered by Britain/France, easy victory for Hitler
■ mutually beneficial:
● significant territorial gains for USSR
○ eastern Poland, territory in Finland, Baltic States to Romania
● gave USSR more time to prep for war
● significant material benefits to Germany, avoided war on both fronts

Question 5

Causes of WW2 (this is from the entire survey)

Answer 5

Collective security

LOFN - Too ambitious - Hoare-Laval pact undermined → convicted Hitler he would be unchallenged
Reduction of military ineffective → Europe remains militarised → Broad acceptance of militarisation ( Hitler - Rhineland - increasing spending) → Britain and France weren’t increasing military = weak
Didn’t overturn self interest → allowed independent policy to be pushed
Abyssinia: Demonstrates freedom to be aggressive
Spanish Civil war: Hitler testing Luftwaffe (air defence)

Nazi soviet pact

Paved the way for the Nazi attack in Poland
Support in the East → greenlight to conduct the fall of Poland (attack on both sides)
Lebensraum (living space)

Appeasement

Chamberlain didn’t regard Hitler as a real threat
Pervasive idealism/passivity
Anschluss/Czech
Wehrmacht (army) was ordered to take the rhineland, however, if France attempted to stop this, Hitler would have taken the troops back
Lack of opposition encourage for Hitler + Mussolini
Allowed time to rearm → cant catch up on military weakness before Hitler invades Poland
Chamberlain was a wishful thinker and egotistical
Chamberlain kept trying to satisfy hitler
Halifax was incompetent

Other

Treaty of Versailles - WW2 as an extension of WW1. Exacerbates tensions/encourages opposition, rise of Hitler, encourages hate/support for militarism
Environment of conflict: fear, modern warfare, weakened state
Extremism in politics/incapacity of democracies
The great depression
Hitler → foreign policy → racial policy → political styling