Historian: the Soviet-Polish agreement of July 1941 was a diplomatic victory for Stalin

15
Historian: the Soviet-Polish agreement of July 1941 was a diplomatic victory for Stalin

The Second World War and its culmination - the Great Patriotic War for our country was not only a battle with the Nazi invaders. At the same time, an extremely tense confrontation took place on the diplomatic front. In particular, between the USSR and Great Britain.

Russian historian Igor Shishkin spoke about the diplomatic victory of Moscow over London, which, against the backdrop of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and Operation Unthinkable, our contemporaries, for some reason, remember extremely rarely and reluctantly.



We are talking about the Soviet-Polish agreement of July 30, 1941. According to the historian, Warsaw in this agreement, despite its name, acted only as an "extra". The struggle took place between Moscow and London.

The treaty was signed at a time when the Red Army was defeated by the Wehrmacht in a border battle and lost the Baltic states, Belarus and half of Ukraine. At the same time, the battle for Smolensk was in full swing.

As Shishkin put it, in such difficult conditions for the country, Stalin managed to hold five meetings with the British ambassador, during which such issues as the recognition by the Soviet Union of the government in exile in London, the problem of the post-war borders of Poland, and the problem of creating a Polish border in the USSR were discussed for a very long time. army.

In this case, the question arises why the Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU needed to deal with some seemingly not very important agreement with Poland at a time when his army was in such a difficult situation.

The thing is, as the expert noted, this agreement was London's condition regarding the allied agreement between Great Britain and the USSR on the fight against Nazi Germany.

Thus, by signing an agreement with the puppet Polish government based in London, Stalin secured much-needed arms supplies for the Red Army.

But why did Churchill need all this? As a Russian expert put it, it was not altruism and “friendship” with Poland that moved the British prime minister.

First, Churchill, by recognizing from the USSR the government of Poland controlled by London, tried to consolidate this country, and then others, in his sphere of influence. Secondly, in the event of the victory of the USSR over Nazi Germany, the British Prime Minister sought to weaken the Soviet Union as much as possible, depriving it of the borders established in 1939 and ensuring its security in the West. The agreement included a condition for the invalidation of agreements between the leadership of the Third Reich and the USSR.

Finally, thirdly, the agreement contained a clause on the creation of a Polish army on the territory of the USSR, which Churchill later planned to use to destabilize the Soviet Union and occupy Soviet Central Asia in the event of the defeat of the Red Army by the Wehrmacht.

Stalin, having signed the aforementioned treaty with Poland, satisfied all the demands of London. However, this can hardly be called a diplomatic defeat, as this event has been “christened” by some modern historians.

According to Shishkin, the recognition of the puppet government did not cause any damage to the USSR. At the same time, the rejection of the borders of the Soviet Union, specified in the agreements with Nazi Germany and invalidated on June 22, 1941, was a trick at all. The thing is that the borders of the USSR were legally established not by agreements with the Germans, but by the laws of the Soviet Union on the inclusion of Western Ukraine and Western Belarus in the USSR of November 1 and 2, 1939.

As for the so-called Anders army, as promised, they began to form it on the territory of the USSR. However, the leadership of the Soviet Union at that time already knew the plans of London. That is why the Polish army was constantly "under the hood".

Thus, as the Russian historian put it, the signing of the Soviet-Polish agreement was not a defeat, but Stalin's greatest diplomatic victory.

15 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +2
    26 August 2023 16: 18
    There has always been a diplomatic confrontation between the USSR and the government and the West!
    There were victories and not so much ... this is a story from which nothing can be thrown out, nothing can be forgotten!
  2. +5
    26 August 2023 16: 23
    the Soviet-Polish agreement of July 1941 was a diplomatic victory for Stalin

    Stalin could win, unlike the current ones.
    The current ones lost initially, bowing to the West, having real estate and money there.
    1. The comment was deleted.
  3. +2
    26 August 2023 16: 23
    Thus, by signing an agreement with the puppet Polish government based in London, Stalin secured much-needed arms supplies for the Red Army.
    Wait. That is, in 1941, the Poles signed an agreement with the USSR ... So what kind of cries can there be from Poland now about the responsibility of the USSR for "AChressia" ...?
    Poland dreams of returning to the 1939 border? Well, well ... then you have to return a bunch of German lands and give up Gdansk.
  4. +2
    26 August 2023 16: 25
    Anders' army in 1942 was needed near Stalingrad at a critical moment ... but the Poles chose not to help the USSR, but to go abroad ... the allies are fucking ... the British, as always, screwed up even in this matter.
    Then I had to create a second army of Poles ... more reliable and staffed with officers of the Red Army.
    1. +3
      26 August 2023 17: 00
      If there was a shooting (BEFORE 1942) a shooting in Katyn, where did SO MANY Poles come from for the Anders army and the Polish Army ???
      1. 0
        26 August 2023 18: 57
        If there was a shooting (BEFORE 1942) a shooting in Katyn, where did SO MANY Poles come from for the Anders army and the Polish Army ???


        The Poles complained that the "color of the nation" was shot in Katyn - representatives of the authorities, hereditary officers, etc. In short - "bearers of the idea." Who shot figs knows him. Neither the fascists nor our authorities needed these ideological ideas and were even harmful. And the ordinary Polish staff is simple - if only the stew was given on time. There was no need to take it out into the grove. So much for the Polish armies with the Soviet commanding staff. Anders viper is a separate issue.
    2. +1
      27 August 2023 21: 46
      Anders' "army" obeyed orders from London. And in 1942, at the height of the Battle of Stalingrad, the British surrendered the PQ-17 convoy to the Germans, so what to expect from such an "ally"? How it all ended and how they loved everything that was paid for with the blood and sweat of the peoples of the USSR, we all know. So what can be positive? The answer is obvious. I don't understand optimists. Those who are on TV get loot for this, but they keep the money in the West, this is an indicator of how they "believe" in the victory of the Russian Federation.
  5. +3
    26 August 2023 16: 35
    But why did Churchill need all this?


    Churchill would then agree to much. He would be happy that Hitler moved east and did not land in Britain.
  6. -6
    27 August 2023 03: 57
    This cannot be called a diplomatic "victory". The division of Poland with the destruction of its statehood, carried out in 1939, was a crime against the Polish people (from the point of view of Polish historians). And in 1939, Stalin had no objections to the capture of Poznan, Warsaw and Krakow (the three main centers of statehood of the Polish people) Germany.
    But from the point of view of the Belarusian people - the return of the territories that went to the Poles under the Riga Treaty of the historical Belarusian lands up to the "Curzon Line" was an ACT of historical justice.
    as for the agreement with the Polish government in exile, it was a HISTORICAL DEFEAT. The Poles, under the wing of the British, gnawed out with their teeth the right to the "Bialystok ledge" - after the victory over Germany. And Stalin kept this promise (under the threat of a nuclear strike in 1945. And this led to the transformation of Kaliningrad into an ENCLAV.
    VICTORY?
    LEARN history, dear!
    Moreover, the Anders Army, out of stupidity (there was also a German proposal to hand over sections of the Soviet-German LBS, where "Andersovtsy" and cowardice (?) would be used, DID NOT MAKE ANY CONTRIBUTION TO THE VICTORY.
    (A song about Monte Cassino is like a story about a "platoon near the village of Kryukov").
    Although, you can, of course, fantasize about "who fucked whom ... l." But the money and material resources that the USSR spent on creating the "Anders Army" at a time when things were worse at the front...
    The British, too, by the way, were at that moment in complete ASS. AND THEY WAS COMPLETELY READY TO MAKE PEACE WITH GERMANY ON THE TERMS THAT Rudi Hess had arrived with.
    So, if you want to engage in leavened cheers-patriotism, then - GO! at the same time, just do not forget that on July 30, 1941, the USSR, led by Stalin, was in full Jo. And, here is England? - the queen of the fields did not trample its territory - INFANTRY. NOT ENGLAND, But Stalin, he asked, begged the Anglo-Saxons for help, and was ready to do anything, even to negotiate with a NON-EXISTENT STATE, without an army and territory.
    1. 0
      27 August 2023 06: 48
      And what, the British and Americans helped the USSR to get out of this very "complete Jo" out of pity for Stalin, who was lying at his feet on July 30, 1941?

      But then why didn’t they give anything until the end of the year in 1941? The main amount of assistance falls on the period from the second half of 1943, when no one seems to have "begged" anyone .... ....
      1. +1
        27 August 2023 11: 28
        And what, the British and Americans helped the USSR out of pity for Stalin, who was lying at his feet on July 30, 1941?


        As you know, there is no concept of "pity" in diplomacy. There is only "benefit".
      2. -2
        27 August 2023 11: 41
        Quote: ivan2022
        But then why didn’t they give anything until the end of the year in 1941? The main amount of assistance falls on the period from the second half of 1943, when no one seems to have "begged" anyone .... ....

        Because they were not sure that Stalin's army could win. They were afraid that the USSR would surrender like France. Only Stalingrad convinced them of the opposite, and then the Lend-Lease locks opened completely.
      3. 0
        30 September 2023 16: 55
        what could they give?
        or do we blame the bastard capitalists for not having foreseen this?
    2. 0
      2 September 2023 08: 41
      Part of the point of view from that side, on part of the questions.
      4 section. And Australia is yours
  7. 0
    3 September 2023 16: 20
    I will digress a little, because I am proud of several thousand Czechoslovaks who prepared the 1st Czechoslovak field battalion in Buzuluk and already on March 8, 1943, in the Ukrainian village of Sokolovo, began the fight against Nazi Germany. The losses of the unit were heavy, but the 1st company of Captain Yarosh (Hero of the Soviet Union) completed its task and moved away from Sokolov only on the orders of the battalion commander, Colonel Ludwik Svoboda (Hero of the Soviet Union). side by side with the Red Army. A terrible memory of the hospital in Kharkov, disgraced by the Nazis after the capture of the city, shot by Soviet soldiers and Czechoslovak soldiers right on the hospital beds. We were firm allies back then. Today we are just cowards. Nevertheless, we, the old people in the Czech Republic, remember the common struggle and do not betray even today. am