• wewbull@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    18 hours ago

    Mmmmm. I think I disagree.

    Germany and the Soviets had agreed a boundary between the lands they both wanted to conquer. The deal was that the Soviets would take eastern Europe and Germany the west. Hence both countries invading Poland in 1939. Non-aggression is one way of putting it. Dividing Europe between them is another. Both aggressors against Europe.

    And then Finland. The Winter War was a defensive war against the USSR and didn’t involve Germany. They then exploited it when Operation Barbarossa commenced and continued pushing the soviets back. Finally, once that was done, they joined the fight against the Germans. To say they were allied with the Germany just because the both were engaged with fighting the USSR at the same time is wrong.

    • alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      17 hours ago

      Germany and the Soviets had agreed a boundary between the lands they both wanted to conquer

      And France and Britain agreed to boundaries in Czechoslovakia. You wouldn’t call the Munich Agreement an alliance though.

      They then exploited it when Operation Barbarossa commenced and continued pushing the soviets back. Finally, once that was done

      Except the USSR ended up with the territory they had demanded at the start of the winter war, in response to Finland aligning with Nazi Germany. Finland’s willingness to switch sides was due to them seeing the writing on the wall.