There was never a Germany-Soviet Union 'Pact' | Hakim | History Teacher Reacts

Hakim @YaBoiHakim discusses why the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact has been misunderstood. He disagrees with the idea that the Soviet Union agreed to it for the primary motive of taking over Poland. Hakim discusses other misconception along the way. Will Mr. Terry agree or disagree?

Join my channel to get early-access to new videos!

Links:

[Varun]

The problem with both Hakim and overly anti-Soviet figures are that they tend to moralize the USSR’s foreign policy a lot. It was neither malevolent nor benevolent, it was (at least in theory) just what would strategically benefit them. It’s ridiculous to say that the USSR loved Germany because of the pact, but it’s also ridiculous to act like they invaded Poland to save Polish people, and not to reverse the territorial losses during the Polish-Soviet War.

[Zineas]

One thing that is not often mentioned is, USSR was at war with Japan at that time. USSR dealt a great blow to Japan but still did not want to open another front. M-R pact shattered Japanese empire's dreams of getting help from nazis and forming a functioning alliance against USSR

[JKTCGMV]

Timed treaties make sense to me. Things change and I’d rather simply not renew a treaty rather than break/cancel it

[fumo]

19:25 the soviets performed poorly at the start of the german invasion because they were still preparing for a war with germany at this time. Soviet planners had planned a war with the nazis for some time in 1943.

[lljkgktudjlrsmygilug]

About the USSR invasion of Poland from roughly 21:30 in the video, Stephen Kotkin, an American conservative historian who is widely considered one of the most reputable historians on Stalin within America, has some important insights about this, among other things. Kotkin states that the USSR knew that Germany intentionally crossed east of the intended partition of Poland during the invasion, from witnessing the fact that they were eastward + getting to see German military maps. Not only that, but the territory Germany took was also rich in oil. When Big J confronted the Austrian Painter about this, the painter told the military to stand down and retreat from the territory, to which the German military actually deliberately fired on German positions independent of his orders while retreating.
Another thing of note is that Big J thought that the Austrian painter would first demand something like a lease on Ukraine for 99 years rather than invade. This was partially based on previous German acquisitions of territory, like taking the Sudetenland, and demanding territory from Poland (Which Poland refused). The Germans also succeeded in informational warfare by making many fake plans for the invasion that intentionally got leaked. None but the last turned out to be true, so Big J thought the final plan was, based on that and many other factors like thinking Germany wouldn't invade until peace with the UK was made, a fake.

[FinnishDragon]

One should remember that many nations, like Finland and the Baltic states did have non-aggression pacts with Soviet Union in 1930s. After signing Molotov-Ribbentrop - non-aggression pact the secret protocol of that pact included Finland and the Baltic states to the Soviet sphere of influence. Then Soviet Union in practice renounced these older non-aggression pacts forcing the Baltic states to submit to Soviet rule. Finland refused this and that ultimately led to the Winter War 1939-1940.

The consequences of these actions carry even today as many Finns and citizens of the Baltic states view modern day Russia in distrust because of Russian aggressive foreign policy and illegal war towards Ukraine.

[BantzFerdinand]

"What about the fact that that's what happened though?"

Have mercy

[russiandoomer]

34:00 He is not against ukranians, he is most likely not thrilled about ukranian right wingers since he is a socialist... but saying that he is against ukranians feels a bit iffy?

[thateggydude]

Comrade Terry going well on his radicalization

[samthebrownman]

Hakiems main issue is that he goes to hell and back to defend the USSR’s actions and attack America, but the ultimate truth is that the USSR was just as bad when it came to its imperialist mindset for foreign policy as the us. The diffence is that the ussr was worse with authoritarianism domestically and more outwardly awful with Eastern Europe, while the us did all of its atrocities in south America and Southeast Asia.

[blugaledoh]

The Non-Aggression pact was not a military alliance and didn’t in any way shape or form stipulate military assistance in any circumstance. Quite specifically the the secret protocol of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, stipulated that in the event of any political or border rearrangement, there would be a non-intervention. Whether Poland would exist at all, was not stipulated either, but it was agreed that the two powers would essentially negotiate this at a later point.

When the Germans invaded, they succeeded so swiftly that the Soviets primary concern was probably whether they would uphold their deal at all. If Germany occupied all of Poland in just a matter of weeks, while the Soviets sat back and then demanded eastern Poland be transferred to them… Well the Nazis would likely not have done it. There would likely have been foot dragging and excuses made to drag out that process, potentially until the Germans invaded the USSR anyway.

Bear in mind that in 1939, the Soviets were aware of the German invasion plans of the USSR, and they feared this very much, the decision to promptly also invade Poland was made likely because of Germany’s swift success and a desire to guarantee the agreed upon sphere of influence.

That is why they did not coordinate anything with Germany.

[meatharbor]

I think we spend far too much time trying to speculate on the "intentions" of various historical figures or groups and end up conflating the actions of potentially millions of people in incalculable different situations with the actions of a single person or ideology with little to no causative link between that ideology and the aforementioned actions. We can't know for certain what was in someone's mind and it's unproductive to speculate when all of our actions are dictated by the material conditions we've all existed in up to any given point. I think a more productive discussion would be to set out the desired goals in a given situation, consider the material and historical conditions in play, analyze whether or not the steps taken were more or less successful in achieving those goals and then determine which steps could be useful to repeat in the future for achieving similar goals and which ones should be avoided.

Moralizing and speculating on intentions just leads to oversimplified quibbling about who is the "bad guy" and has to take the blame and who gets to feel smug and self-important while distracting from the actual productive process of determining how to reproduce and improve positive outcomes and avoid negative ones. There is no ontological evil to hunt down and defeat.

“Be kind to people, be ruthless to systems.”
- Michael Brooks

[natanielkruger]

He seems to forget that germany before talking to the ussr literaly wanted to reach the agreement with poland to split the ussr(issue of danzig proposed by poland later became the german ultimatum and poland was suposed to gain ukraine after the ussr was dealt with) poland didn't agree with the propostition yet the non-agression pact was the same(like even if they settled on spliting the ussr it wouldn't be written it would be an understanding). Signing a deal with the ussr is as absurd not bc the ideoliegies differ so much bc it was the second propostiton. German economy would collapse without war(MEFO bills) so it was a now or never situation. If poland ceded danzig in 39 it would mean that they agreed to the unwritten proposal if they disagreed germany had a backup(the ussr). They needed a big country in the east(at the time poland or the ussr) to guarante that in case of invasion of france they wouldn't be stabbed in the back(again eather poland is on your side or ussr and you deal with poland so that they won't invade). If you are intrested on the topic i recomend reading "the beck-ribbentrop pact" some poles now are mad at the sanation government for not agreeing bc eather we defeat the ussr the allies defeat germany poland betrays germany poland gets what it wants or poland and germany lose wich literaly wouldn't change anything(stalin still would give all the land to poland bc he didn't know he would get germany for himself so he wanted to push the border as much west as possible poland wouldn't be annexed eather bc as stalin said they would be pain in the ass)

[MalikF]

I’m all for having nuance conversations, particularly about how the Soviet union was the last power to make a deal with Germany in the build up. but I feel like he’s ignoring the fact that a lot of countries in Eastern Europe particularly those in Poland and Baltic states really didn’t like being under Russian control

[lljkgktudjlrsmygilug]

About what Mr Terry said with regard to the Pact and its effectiveness + the motivation behind it for the USSR. If the USSR, whose military was in pretty poor shape, was to invade Germany, particularly with British and French approval, it would likely be invaded shortly after by the British and French, probably with the economic support of America. It could also be that the aforementioned powers join Germany in its defence. Big J also thought, which may not be a correct assessment but still informs his reasoning, that the UK was more likely than not to support Germany if they invaded the USSR. The weak USSR could not possibly face all of these powers at once. He needed the other powers to fight each other to weaken each other, while giving the USSR time to prepare, preferably to around 1943-44. While the pact was still a success, it was nowhere near a success as most people, in the USSR and outside of it, thought it was going to be.

Next to nobody expected France to fall so quickly to German invasion. I think German command expected the invasion to surrender to take around a year, to which the French expected that they would never fall due to their prior defensive preparations. Relating to this, Blitzkrieg was far more effective than the USSR could predict. I'm pretty sure the doctrines of Tukhachevsky with him around, despite being made on the presumption of mobile warfare, could not have succeeded to a greater degree than OTL, especially considering that his more modern doctrines informed much of pre-1941 USSR military doctrines.

[David-slxf]

One big problem with Hakim is how he ignores the historical context of the Russian Empire in how Eastern European states viewed the Soviet Union. Is it really a big shock that Poland didn't trust Stalin or the USSR? Was it because of some antisemitic conspiracy that Hakim implies, or was it 100s of years of Russian imperialism and attempts to subjugate Poland?

[Justin]

Sir I have not finished the video yet, but I take issue with something you say around the 30 minute mark. You say that hindsight is what allows us to see the truth behind the Nazis early rise to power, when in fact that’s not the case. Hitler stated his goals plainly in mein kempf, the west just had more in common with the Nazis than the ussr.

[ltmund]

Geography is key to the Russian psyche. The flat open plains on the west offer no defensive advantage.

[jtilton]

I'm not sure if when he mentioned the US and demoracy, then showed the painting Manifest Destiny by John Gast if he did so to be ironic, or he just didn't know what the painting was about.
Also "The Soviets made many mistakes...." Yeah, like THE KATYN MASSACRE!

[TribuneAquila]

My favorite take on what distincts the soviet union from n germany comes from zizek suprisingly.
If the soviets were going to execute one of their citizens they would go through the motions of a trial, even though they were show trials, as if the Soviet government was still subordinate to law. The germans didnt bother, the will of the government was the law. This is why, for all of its flaws, the soviet union was an inheretor of the enlightenment where germany wasnt.
Zizeks favorite anecdote of this is if you watch the speeches, whenever stalin gives a speech and the crowd claps he too claps as he is merely a citizen too. How absurd would it be to see adolf also clap for his own speeches, for he was above the government.
Ultimately the point being that conflating the two governments blinds us to why the soviet union was flawed, those flaws are worth studying as they were a government based on enlightenment values just as our governments are.