"Seriously, Russia? A Historical Reality Check on the 1939 Invasion of Poland"
- Prof.Serban Gabriel
- Sep 20, 2024
- 13 min read
Introduction: The Tweet That Launched a Thousand Facepalms
On a quiet Friday in September 2024, the Russian Embassy in South Africa decided to stir the pot of historical revisionism with a tweet that left historians, diplomats, and anyone with a passing knowledge of World War II history collectively groaning.
The tweet, defending the Soviet Union's 1939 invasion of Poland, was met with swift and pointed criticism from various quarters.
However, it was the German Foreign Ministry's succinct "Seriously, @RussianEmbassy?" response that captured the world's attention and inspired this deep dive into one of history's most contentious moments.
As an academic exercise in both historical analysis and the art of diplomatic shade-throwing, this blog post aims to unpack the layers of misinformation, examine the historical record, and understand why such revisionist narratives persist in our modern geopolitical landscape. We'll journey through the complex web of alliances, secret protocols, and military maneuvers that characterized the onset of World War II, all while maintaining a critical eye on how these events are interpreted and reinterpreted for political gain in the 21st century.
But first, let's set the stage by examining the tweet that started it all and the immediate reactions it provoked.
On September 15, 2024, the Russian Embassy in South Africa tweeted:
"On September 17, 1939, the Soviet Union started its liberation campaign against Poland. The USSR sought to protect the Ukrainians and Belarusians residing in Poland, as the Polish government had abandoned the country and was no longer in control of the situation."
This 280-character missive managed to pack in several contentious claims, each deserving of careful scrutiny.
The use of the term "liberation campaign" immediately raised eyebrows, as it euphemistically described what is widely recognized as an invasion.
The justification of protecting ethnic minorities, while a common refrain in historical territorial disputes, glosses over the complex realities of interwar Eastern European demographics and politics.
The German Foreign Ministry's response, "Seriously, @RussianEmbassy?", while brief, spoke volumes. It highlighted the absurdity of Russia, as a successor state to the Soviet Union, attempting to justify actions that Germany itself has long since acknowledged as part of its darkest chapter.
This pithy retort also served as a reminder of how far German-Polish relations have come since 1939, with Germany now standing as one of Poland's strongest allies within the European Union.
As we delve deeper into this analysis, we'll explore:
The historical context leading up to September 1939
The secret protocols of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact
The actual events of the invasion and its immediate aftermath
Soviet and later Russian attempts to justify the invasion
The human cost of the dual occupation of Poland
International reactions, both in 1939 and in response to modern revisionism
The long-term consequences of the invasion on Cold War dynamics
Why this history remains relevant in current international relations
Through this exploration, we aim to not only fact-check the Russian Embassy's claims but also to understand the broader implications of historical revisionism in diplomatic discourse. As we navigate through mountains of archival evidence, eyewitness accounts, and scholarly analyses, we'll maintain a commitment to academic rigor while not losing sight of the very real human stories that lie at the heart of this historical moment.
So, let us embark on this journey through time, armed with facts, context, and a healthy dose of diplomatic wit.
After all, when it comes to understanding the complexities of history, sometimes the best response to revisionism is a well-researched "Seriously?"
2. Historical Context: Europe on the Brink
To truly understand the events of September 1939, we must first set the stage by examining the political and social landscape of Europe in the late 1930s.
This was a continent still reeling from the aftermath of the First World War, grappling with economic instability, and witnessing the rise of totalitarian regimes.
The Aftermath of World War I
The Treaty of Versailles, signed in 1919, had redrawn the map of Europe, creating new nations and imposing harsh reparations on Germany.
This punitive approach laid the groundwork for resentment and economic hardship that would fuel the rise of extremist ideologies.
Poland, which had regained its independence after 123 years of partition, found itself in a precarious position, sandwiched between two increasingly aggressive neighbors: Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.
The Rise of Totalitarianism
The 1930s saw the consolidation of power by totalitarian regimes across Europe.
In Germany, Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party had transformed the Weimar Republic into the Third Reich, systematically dismantling democratic institutions and embarking on a program of rapid militarization.
In the Soviet Union, Joseph Stalin had emerged victorious from the power struggles following Lenin's death, implementing a series of brutal five-year plans and purges that reshaped Soviet society and industry.
The Failure of Collective Security
The League of Nations, created after World War I to maintain world peace, proved ineffective in preventing aggression. Its failures became increasingly apparent throughout the 1930s:
1931: Japan invaded Manchuria
1935: Italy invaded Ethiopia
1936: Germany remilitarized the Rhineland
1938: Germany annexed Austria (Anschluss)
The policy of appeasement, most notably embodied in the Munich Agreement of 1938, which allowed Germany to annex the Sudetenland region of Czechoslovakia, demonstrated the reluctance of Western powers to confront Nazi expansionism directly.
Poland's Precarious Position
Poland, re-established as an independent state in 1918, found itself in an unenviable geopolitical position.
With Germany to the west and the Soviet Union to the east, Poland attempted to maintain a policy of equilibrium, signing non-aggression pacts with both nations in the early 1930s. However, as Nazi Germany's territorial ambitions grew more apparent, Poland increasingly looked to Britain and France for support.
The Path to War
As 1939 dawned, tensions in Europe reached a fever pitch. Germany's demands for the Free City of Danzig and a corridor through Polish territory to East Prussia were met with firm resistance from Poland, backed by guarantees of support from Britain and France. Meanwhile, diplomatic efforts to create an anti-German alliance including the Western powers and the Soviet Union faltered.
It was in this climate of mistrust and strategic maneuvering that one of the most shocking diplomatic developments of the 20th century occurred: the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.
This non-aggression pact, signed on August 23, 1939, ostensibly guaranteed Soviet neutrality in the event of a German war with Poland and the Western powers.
However, as we will explore in the next section, the pact contained secret protocols that would have profound implications for the fate of Poland and the Baltic states.
As we delve deeper into the events of September 1939, it's crucial to keep this complex backdrop in mind.
The invasion of Poland was not an isolated incident but the culmination of years of diplomatic failures, ideological extremism, and strategic calculations by multiple actors on the European stage.
In our next section, we'll examine the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact in detail, uncovering the secret agreements that laid the groundwork for the joint invasion of Poland by Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.
This pact, more than any other single document, puts lie to the notion of a Soviet "liberation campaign" in Poland, revealing instead a coldly calculated division of Eastern Europe between two totalitarian powers.
3. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact: A Deal with the Devil
The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, signed on August 23, 1939, stands as one of the most controversial diplomatic agreements of the 20th century.
Named after the foreign ministers who negotiated it, Soviet Vyacheslav Molotov and German Joachim von Ribbentrop, this pact shocked the world and set the stage for the outbreak of World War II in Europe.
To understand why the Russian Embassy's tweet about "liberating" Poland is so problematic, we must first unpack the contents and implications of this infamous agreement.
The Public Face: A Non-Aggression Pact
On the surface, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was presented as a standard non-aggression treaty between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union
. The public aspects of the agreement included:
A commitment to neutrality if either nation went to war with a third party
A pledge not to join any grouping of powers that was directly or indirectly aimed at the other party
A promise to resolve disputes between the two countries through negotiation
These provisions alone were significant, as they represented a dramatic shift in the European balance of power.
The pact effectively isolated Poland, removing the possibility of Soviet support in the event of a German invasion.
The Hidden Agenda: Secret Protocols
However, the true nature of the pact was far more sinister than its public face suggested. Attached to the agreement were secret protocols that divided Eastern Europe into German and Soviet "spheres of influence."
These protocols included:
The partition of Poland between Germany and the USSR
Soviet claims to Finland, Estonia, and Latvia
German acquiescence to Soviet interest in Bessarabia (part of Romania)
The existence of these secret protocols was denied by the Soviet Union until 1989, when the original documents were finally made public under Mikhail Gorbachev's policy of glasnost.
Implications for Poland
For Poland, the secret protocols of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact were nothing short of a death sentence for its independence.
The country was to be divided along the Narew, Vistula, and San rivers, with Germany taking the western portion and the Soviet Union the east.
This arrangement effectively revived the 18th-century partitions of Poland that had erased the country from the map of Europe for 123 years.
Historical Debate and Interpretation
The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact has been the subject of intense historical debate:
Soviet/Russian Perspective: Traditionally, Soviet historians portrayed the pact as a necessary evil, buying time for the USSR to prepare for an inevitable conflict with Nazi Germany. Some modern Russian narratives continue this line of argument, suggesting that the pact was a strategic masterpiece by Stalin.
Western Interpretation: Most Western historians view the pact as a cynical power play by both totalitarian regimes, carving up Eastern Europe with no regard for the sovereignty or well-being of the affected nations.
Polish View: In Poland, the pact is seen as the ultimate betrayal, a secret deal between two aggressive powers that sealed the country's fate.
The Pact and the "Liberation" Narrative
The Russian Embassy's tweet claiming that the Soviet invasion of Poland was a "liberation campaign" is directly contradicted by the existence and content of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.
Far from being a spontaneous action to protect minorities, the Soviet move into Poland was a premeditated act of aggression, coordinated with Nazi Germany and aimed at territorial expansion.
Key points that refute the "liberation" narrative include:
Timing: The Soviet invasion began on September 17, 1939, precisely as agreed in the secret protocols, 16 days after Germany invaded from the west.
Coordination: There was clear military coordination between German and Soviet forces, including a joint victory parade in Brest-Litovsk.
Treatment of Polish Citizens: The Soviet occupation was marked by mass deportations, executions (including the Katyn massacre), and the suppression of Polish national identity – actions inconsistent with "liberation."
Long-term Occupation: The Soviets did not withdraw after supposedly "protecting" minorities but instead incorporated eastern Poland into the Ukrainian and Belarusian Soviet Socialist Republics.
Scholarly Consensus
The academic community is virtually unanimous in its condemnation of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and its consequences. Noted historians have weighed in:
Timothy Snyder, in "Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin," describes the pact as "the alliance that began the Second World War."
Richard Overy, in "The Road to War," characterizes it as "one of the most cynical diplomatic deals of the century."
Anne Applebaum, in "Iron Curtain: The Crushing of Eastern Europe," details how the pact laid the groundwork for post-war Soviet domination of Eastern Europe.
Conclusion
The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact stands as incontrovertible evidence against any claim of Soviet "liberation" of Poland in 1939.
It was, in reality, a calculated agreement between two totalitarian powers to divide and conquer their weaker neighbors.
The pact's legacy continues to influence debates about historical responsibility and the nature of World War II's outbreak.
As we move forward in our analysis, we'll examine how this diplomatic deal translated into military action on September 1, 1939, and the devastating consequences for Poland and its people.
The stark contrast between the historical record and the Russian Embassy's revisionist tweet will become even more apparent as we delve into the actual events of the invasion and its aftermath.
4. September 1, 1939: The Day That Changed Everything
The dawn of September 1, 1939, marked the beginning of one of the darkest chapters in human history.
As German forces crossed the Polish border, the world watched in horror as the sparks of conflict ignited into the inferno of World War II.
This section will provide a detailed account of the events that unfolded, laying bare the stark reality that contradicts any notion of a Soviet "liberation campaign."
The German Invasion Begins
At 4:45 AM, the German battleship Schleswig-Holstein opened fire on the Polish military transit depot at Westerplatte, Danzig (now Gdańsk). Simultaneously, German land forces poured across the border, implementing the blitzkrieg tactics that would come to define the early years of the war.
Key aspects of the German invasion included:
Air Superiority: The Luftwaffe targeted Polish airfields, quickly gaining control of the skies.
Panzer Divisions: Highly mobile armored units broke through Polish defenses, encircling and isolating pockets of resistance.
Propaganda: The invasion was preceded by false flag operations, including the Gleiwitz incident, used to justify the attack.
Polish Resistance
Despite being outgunned and outmanned, Polish forces mounted a determined resistance:
Mobilization Challenges: Poland's mobilization was incomplete when the invasion began, leaving many units understrength.
Tactical Withdrawals: Polish forces implemented a strategic retreat, hoping to regroup along natural defensive lines.
Isolated Heroism: Pockets of Polish resistance, such as the defense of Westerplatte, became symbols of national defiance.
International Reactions
The outbreak of war prompted varied responses from the international community:
Britain and France: On September 3, both countries declared war on Germany, honoring their guarantees to Poland. However, military assistance was limited.
United States: Officially neutral, but increasingly supportive of the Allied cause.
Soviet Union: Maintained neutrality, as per the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, while preparing for its own invasion.
The Soviet "Stab in the Back"
On September 17, as agreed in the secret protocols of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, Soviet forces invaded Poland from the east. This action, far from being a "liberation campaign," was a coordinated effort with Nazi Germany to partition Poland.
Key aspects of the Soviet invasion included:
Timing: The invasion began when it became clear that Germany had gained the upper hand, minimizing potential Soviet casualties.
Pretext: Soviet propaganda claimed the invasion was to protect Ukrainian and Belarusian minorities, a justification eerily similar to the
Academic Analysis: Debunking Russia's Defense of the 1939 Invasion of Poland
Pretext: Soviet propaganda claimed the invasion was to protect Ukrainian and Belarusian minorities, a justification eerily similar to the one used in the 2022 invasion of Ukraine.
Lack of Resistance: With Polish forces concentrated in the west, the Soviets faced minimal opposition.
Coordination with Germany: The two invading powers coordinated their actions, even holding a joint victory parade in Brest-Litovsk.
The Fall of Poland
By early October, Poland had been effectively conquered:
Warsaw's Surrender: The capital fell on September 28 after a brutal siege.
Government in Exile: Polish leaders fled to Romania and then to London, establishing a government-in-exile.
Partition: As per the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, Poland was divided between Germany and the Soviet Union.
5. Soviet Justifications: A Study in Revisionist History
The Soviet Union, and later Russia, have offered various justifications for the invasion of Poland.
These arguments form the basis of the revisionist history exemplified by the Russian Embassy's tweet. Let's examine these claims and their historical validity.
Claim 1: Protecting Minorities
The Soviet argument that the invasion was necessary to protect Ukrainian and Belarusian minorities in eastern Poland is problematic on several levels:
Demographic Reality: While these minorities did exist in eastern Poland, they were not uniformly oppressed or seeking Soviet "liberation."
Soviet Treatment: The subsequent Soviet occupation saw the persecution of all ethnic groups, including Ukrainians and Belarusians.
International Law: The protection of minorities did not legally justify military invasion under international norms of the time.
Claim 2: Poland as a "Fascist State"
Soviet propaganda often portrayed pre-war Poland as a fascist dictatorship:
Political Reality: While Poland's interwar government was authoritarian, it was not fascist in the mold of Nazi Germany or Mussolini's Italy.
Ideological Inconsistency: The Soviet Union was willing to ally with Nazi Germany, undermining this ideological justification.
Claim 3: Strategic Necessity
The argument that the invasion was necessary to create a buffer against Nazi Germany:
Timing: This claim is undermined by the fact that the USSR invaded in coordination with Germany, not in opposition to it.
Post-War Narrative: This justification gained prominence after World War II but is not supported by contemporary Soviet actions or statements.
6. The Human Cost: Poland's Suffering Under Dual Occupation
The invasion and subsequent occupation of Poland resulted in immense human suffering:
Under German Occupation
Holocaust: Approximately 3 million Polish Jews were murdered as part of the Nazi genocide.
Forced Labor: Millions of Poles were deported to Germany as forced laborers.
Cultural Destruction: Systematic attempts to eradicate Polish culture and intelligentsia.
Under Soviet Occupation
Katyn Massacre: The execution of around 22,000 Polish military officers and intelligentsia.
Deportations: Hundreds of thousands of Poles were deported to Siberia and Central Asia.
Sovietization: Forcible imposition of Soviet political and economic systems.
7. International Reactions: Then and Now
Contemporary Reactions (1939)
Western Allies: Condemned both German and Soviet actions but were militarily unprepared to intervene effectively.
League of Nations: Expelled the Soviet Union but proved powerless to stop the aggression.
Modern Interpretations
European Union: Strongly condemns both Nazi and Soviet actions in Poland as illegal acts of aggression.
Russian Federation: Has oscillated between acknowledging the illegality of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and attempting to justify Soviet actions.
Poland: Consistently views 1939 as a dual invasion and rejects any notion of Soviet "liberation."
8. The Long Shadow: How the Invasion Shaped the Cold War
The events of 1939 had far-reaching consequences:
Yalta Conference: The division of Poland in 1939 influenced post-war border negotiations.
Soviet Bloc: The occupation of eastern Poland became a model for Soviet domination of Eastern Europe.
Polish-Russian Relations: The invasion remains a point of tension in modern Polish-Russian diplomacy.
9. Modern Implications: Why This History Matters Today
The Russian Embassy's tweet is not an isolated incident but part of a broader pattern of historical revisionism:
Information Warfare: Attempts to reframe historical events are often part of larger geopolitical strategies.
European Unity: Disagreements over historical narratives can strain relationships within the EU and NATO.
Democratic Resilience: Understanding historical truths is crucial for maintaining democratic values and resisting authoritarian narratives.
10. Conclusion: The Importance of Historical Accuracy in International Relations
As we reflect on the events of September 1939 and the subsequent attempts to reframe them, several key points emerge:
Factual Integrity: The historical record clearly shows that the Soviet invasion of Poland was an act of aggression, not liberation.
Diplomatic Responsibility: Nations must confront their historical misdeeds honestly to build trust and cooperation.
Critical Thinking: In an era of information warfare, critical evaluation of historical claims is more important than ever.
Remembrance and Reconciliation: Acknowledging past wrongs is essential for genuine reconciliation between nations.
The German Foreign Ministry's succinct "Seriously?" response to the Russian Embassy's tweet encapsulates a broader frustration with attempts to distort history.
It serves as a reminder that in the realm of international relations, words matter, history matters, and truth matters.
As we navigate the complex landscape of 21st-century geopolitics, let us heed the lessons of September 1939.
Let us remember that peace is fragile, that agreements between nations must be based on mutual respect and honesty, and that the twisting of historical narratives for political gain is a dangerous game that can have far-reaching consequences.
In the end, the best response to historical revisionism is not just a witty tweet, but a commitment to rigorous scholarship, open dialogue, and an unwavering dedication to truth.
For it is only by honestly confronting our past that we can hope to build a more just and peaceful future.
Comments