you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -10 points 1 year ago (18 children)

They let Nazi Germany have parts of Poland and Lithuania in the agreement.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (17 children)

    They weren't in a position to stop them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [+] -9 points 1 year ago (16 children)

    We don't know how it would've played out if both Western Allies and the USSR committed publicly to declaring war in case Poland is attacked.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (15 children)

    You're expecting the USSR to have imperilled tens of millions of lives and risk wholesale extermination by deliberately undermining their own position based solely on "well, you know for sure!"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [+] -7 points 1 year ago* (14 children)

    France and UK committed to it. I don't expect the USSR to have done it, but I would've preferred to see that sort of larger deterrent.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago (11 children)

    Ok.

    The USSR isn't obligated to sabotage it's own existence because some random unborn Finish person "would've preferred to see it"

    Not to mention the UK and Frances commitment turned out to be extremely token, a fact that came as zero suprise to the USSR

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [+] -7 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    What's this about being obligated

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    So what even is your position anymore? You've stayed completely from where you started

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [+] -8 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    I haven't had any position on some obligations. I don't know where you got that

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    You have a real issue actually answering questions, don't you?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [+] -7 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    Hard to answer when you've refused to tell me what obligations you're talking about

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Why does that make it hard to answer?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Because I don't know what you are referring to

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    You don't know what your own positions are?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] -6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I haven't had any position on obligations, that's why I'm confused by your question

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    The UK and France didn't commit to jack shit. They had a long history of enabling the Nazis at that point, planning to use them as their attack dog in the east. Not only that, the USSR had been pleading for an anti-nazi alliance for a long time and got ignored.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -3 points 1 year ago

    Um, they very much did make promises to that effect. Neither were in good position to actually help the Poles when push came to shove, hence the Phony War. Brittain did some good with their navy, but neither could get enough troops to where it mattered to help, so they buckled down on ramping up their own war efforts at home to better mobilize. Did they fo it out of cowardice and throw the Poles to the wolves, or out of necessity because they would have been overrun had they over commited? That's a question that has been the subject of much study. But they both very publicly and loudly commit to their defense, they simply failed to meaningfully uphold that commitment.

  • source
  • parent