Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Breaking non aggression pacts and the consequences

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
fr-rein said:
Why would Baltic states align with Allies and become hostile to Reich and Soviets?
Click to expand...

For their quest, trying to remain as independent states. Further adding, Germany had already shown signs of hostile attitude towards the Baltic, like delivering an ultimatum to Lithuania demanding the surrender of Klaipeda (Memel). Aligning with the Allies, at least it wouldn't had worsened the vortex.

If the Baltic would had been accepted to sign for the Allies, the Soviet aggression against them would had been much less-likely. Adding, that the Soviets already were hostile to the Baltic and should they annex the Allied Baltic States, there would also be hostilities between Britain&France against the USSR.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Jopa79 said:
the Soviet aggression against them would had been much less-likely
Click to expand...

Impossible. They were occupied because Soviets didn't fancy idea of Wehrmacht standing there. They would either collaborate with Nazis, like most smaller countries did, or get Red Army standing on their soil. In either case Soviets could annex them, just like they annexed Western Ukraine from Poland.


Jopa79 said:
Aligning with the Allies, at least it wouldn't had worsened the vortex.
Click to expand...

It would, for Allies. And Baltic states were expecting to be in German sphere of influence or neutral, they had no reason to stand with Allies when the only Allies country in Europe was UK after fall of France.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
fr-rein said:
It would, for Allies. And Baltic states were expecting to be in German sphere of influence or neutral, they had no reason to stand with Allies when the only Allies country in Europe was UK after fall of France.
Click to expand...

After the Fall of France there was no realistic chance for the Baltics to join the Allies - they were already annexed Soviet states. If the Baltics would had been Allied members in 1939 the WWII could had been very different kind of.
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
fr-rein said:
Yeah, they would be annexed along with Poland in 1939.
Click to expand...

And gives a superb Axis starting position for the Operation Barbarossa, particularly considering the move against Leningrad.
 
Any hope of the Allies assisting the Baltic states (Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia) blatantly ignores the fact that the Allies were already at war against Germany, and were not about to send any kind of shipping into the Baltic Sea in easy range of German land-based air power. After "Danzig or War", the only remaining options for the Baltic states appeared to be either occupation by Germany or by the Soviet Union, but Germany had already given Stalin their permission to do so in the M-R Pact. In actuality, there was no choice, their fate had already been decided.
 
Jopa79 said:
After the Fall of France there was no realistic chance for the Baltics to join the Allies - they were already annexed Soviet states. If the Baltics would had been Allied members in 1939 the WWII could had been very different kind of.
Click to expand...
That's an impossible "if" if there ever was one. The Baltic nations could have pondered during the 1930s which of their neighbors (not Poland) they found least distasteful and sought close relations with them... Lithuania could have sought rapprochement with Weimar Germany already and get a deal over Memel, that could have saved them a bit of trouble maybe. Maybe not though.

In any case, the whole idea of expecting Britain and France to uphold the post war order they created at Versailles was a grave miscalculation by not just these nations but also a lot others. I don't know any other instance in history where within ten years of the signing of a major peace treaty, the two enforcing powers already grew so tired of defending what they had created.
 
  • 4
Reactions:
JodelDiplom said:
That's an impossible "if" if there ever was one. The Baltic nations could have pondered during the 1930s which of their neighbors (not Poland) they found least distasteful and sought close relations with them... Lithuania could have sought rapprochement with Weimar Germany already and get a deal over Memel, that could have saved them a bit of trouble maybe. Maybe not though.

In any case, the whole idea of expecting Britain and France to uphold the post war order they created at Versailles was a grave miscalculation by not just these nations but also a lot others. I don't know any other instance in history where within ten years of the signing of a major peace treaty, the two enforcing powers already grew so tired of defending what they had created.
Click to expand...

I have to agree. Britain and France promised to protect Poland and did nothing. What could they do for the Baltic’s or Finland other than smile fondly and wave?
 
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
pithorr said:
With German remilitarization properly suppressed by the Allies, their gurantees for the Baltics wouldn't have been completly useless.
Click to expand...
Because the British and French would have rushed naval expeditionary forces into Riga and Latvia to defend the two from the Soviets? I think not.

But yeah Poland and Czechoslovakia would ofc have been saved by suppressing German remilitarization.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Sunforged General said:
Now historically, the two most famous instances of this happening is when Germany broke their non aggression pact with the USSR and invaded them in June 1941, and when the USSR invaded Manchuria and Japanese territory in 1945, breaking the non aggression pact they had with Japan. But what exactly are the consequences of breaking a non aggression pact? Germany and the USSR seemed to violate these pacts with no consequences.

What mechanisms were in place that made nations think a non aggression pact was binding, to the point of planning national security on the presumption of safety provided by said pact?
Click to expand...
Breaking a NAP, as with most international treaties is a matter of reputation and trust. When you break it, its understandable that no other country would want to sign a similar treaty with you for the short time. So if you break it, it better be worth it. The Brits were specially fond of this. They came, signed a NAP with the local ruler, and then violated it in a fast conquest.
 
Jopa79 said:
It would had been possible in 1939. The Anglo-Polish military alliance granted a military access for Britain and France in Poland and Lithuania shared a land border with Poland, so there was a clear rout to the whole Baltic States - if the Allies would actively shared an interest to prevent and discourage the aggressive Soviet expansion, it would had been possible to sign a military alliance also with the Baltic States. But the Allied pre- and early WWII-policy enabled the Soviet Union becoming a super power and their most dangerous enemy in the post-war years.
Click to expand...
RIDICULOUS.

How were the western powers, who were barely holding together an alliance betwixt France & the UK, supposed to have a military alliance to defend the Baltic states?

Pre-WW2 policy enabling the USSR to become a superpower? How? Wha?
 
Yakman said:
RIDICULOUS.

How were the western powers, who were barely holding together an alliance betwixt France & the UK, supposed to have a military alliance to defend the Baltic states?

Pre-WW2 policy enabling the USSR to become a superpower? How? Wha?
Click to expand...

Pehr Evind Svinhufvud II.jpg
Paavo Talvela III.jpg

Pehr Evind Svinhufvud (left) and Paavo Talvela (right)

Yes...you've been surprisingly quiet for while...guess, you've been holydaying for a moment...sure hope I, you had a nice one:)

But to your point...I absolutely agree, the Western Allies barely held themselves together, but still they made a promise for Poland for securing its independence and doing nothing.. So, why not to make a similar promise for the Baltic States?

The Allies weren't ready for the war. Britain and France were scared of the USSR and its predispositions. Waging war was left for the minor European states against the USSR and Germany.

I leave you two pictures, consider them as you like, but they are the people, whom tried to keep Finland as a neutral one, Svinhufvud as the President of Finland, making it clear for the global world, the Finnish neutrality and the further debt payments for the US while the other European nations rejected the debt due for the US, appealing the conflict in Europe - and the Nordic tendency, every other Nordic country was recognized suffering the Nazi regime, but Finland. Talvela - a General, who led the fight while Finland was considered as an enemy in the western view.

But now, you may like us, don't you...we just were "the bad ones" for a while?

And to the pre- and early politics during the WWII, like you said, the West nearly couldn't keep it's own lines. And not to resist the Soviet expansion in the Eastern Europe and in Scandinavia, it's a pretty clear sign for me, the Allies not acting efficiently against the Soviet Union made it only a worse enemy for the West.
 
Jopa79 said:
View attachment 611666View attachment 611665
Pehr Evind Svinhufvud (left) and Paavo Talvela (right)

Yes...you've been surprisingly quiet for while...guess, you've been holydaying for a moment...sure hope I, you had a nice one:)

But to your point...I absolutely agree, the Western Allies barely held themselves together, but still they made a promise for Poland for securing its independence and doing nothing.. So, why not to make a similar promise for the Baltic States?

The Allies weren't ready for the war. Britain and France were scared of the USSR and its predispositions. Waging war was left for the minor European states against the USSR and Germany.

I leave you two pictures, consider them as you like, but they are the people, whom tried to keep Finland as a neutral one, Svinhufvud as the President of Finland, making it clear for the global world, the Finnish neutrality and the further debt payments for the US while the other European nations rejected the debt due for the US, appealing the conflict in Europe - and the Nordic tendency, every other Nordic country was recognized suffering the Nazi regime, but Finland. Talvela - a General, who led the fight while Finland was considered as an enemy in the western view.

But now, you may like us, don't you...we just were "the bad ones" for a while?

And to the pre- and early politics during the WWII, like you said, the West nearly couldn't keep it's own lines. And not to resist the Soviet expansion in the Eastern Europe and in Scandinavia, it's a pretty clear sign for me, the Allies not acting efficiently against the Soviet Union made it only a worse enemy for the West.
Click to expand...
Umm... Germany is in the way?
 
Yakman said:
Umm... Germany is in the way?
Click to expand...

Not sure what you mean.

Only thing Finland and the Baltic States wants is freedom. Despite and without an interference of the majors, to build a nation and a sovereign state.
 
Jopa79 said:
Not sure what you mean.

Only thing Finland and the Baltic States wants is freedom. Despite and without an interference of the majors, to build a nation and a sovereign state.
Click to expand...
How were France and the UK, who could barely keep their own alliance together, guarantee the freedom of the Baltics and Finland against the USSR?
 
Yakman said:
How were France and the UK, who could barely keep their own alliance together, guarantee the freedom of the Baltics and Finland against the USSR?
Click to expand...

Why they ever made a promise for Poland at the first place, if they already knew not keeping it. This is very much affiliated to the Allied pre-war activity, to not to dare take a step against the USSR. The Allied guarantee of the Polish independence was a joke. For the same price, the Allies could have guaranteed the Baltics and doing nothing.

The Finnish case in this Allied betryal is even more ridicilous. The Allies chased between yes and no so much - finally Finland already lost the war. Sweden flavored the soup, finally accepting the Marshall aid being a neutral. Finland finally got nothing, but the wrath of the Allies.
 
Jopa79 said:
Why they ever made a promise for Poland at the first place, if they already knew not keeping it. This is very much affiliated to the Allied pre-war activity, to not to dare take a step against the USSR. The Allied guarantee of the Polish independence was a joke. For the same price, the Allies could have guaranteed the Baltics and doing nothing.

The Finnish case in this Allied betryal is even more ridicilous. The Allies chased between yes and no so much - finally Finland already lost the war. Sweden flavored the soup, finally accepting the Marshall aid being a neutral. Finland finally got nothing, but the wrath of the Allies.
Click to expand...
Great.

And?

France and the UK could do nothing to support their promises. Poland and the Baltics ended up being wrecked by Great Power duplicity. Nothing new or unique there.
 
Jopa79 said:
Why they ever made a promise for Poland at the first place, if they already knew not keeping it. This is very much affiliated to the Allied pre-war activity, to not to dare take a step against the USSR. The Allied guarantee of the Polish independence was a joke. For the same price, the Allies could have guaranteed the Baltics and doing nothing.

The Finnish case in this Allied betryal is even more ridicilous. The Allies chased between yes and no so much - finally Finland already lost the war. Sweden flavored the soup, finally accepting the Marshall aid being a neutral. Finland finally got nothing, but the wrath of the Allies.
Click to expand...
"Why didn't the Allies guarantee the Baltic nations?"

"Well they guaranteed Poland. Allied policy was a mess."

Jopa you're not answering the question. There were specific reasons why the Baltics were a lot less important to the Allies than Poland. Why do you constantly evade that point. Even if Allied policy and preparations had not been a mess, there would have been very pressing reasons for the Allies to still guarantee Poland, but not guarantee the Baltics
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back