Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ

Wars and ConflictsΜύ permalink

Partition of the world: 12 November 1940.

• Message 1.Μύ

  Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Tuesday, 21st October 2008

  Had never heard about the conference in which Hitler invited Stalin to become the fourth member of the "three powers pact" (translation from Dutch: Drie mogendheden pact) and to deliminate (? it has to be the translation of the Dutch "aflijnen" and although the word exists in the "official" list of the Dutch words I don't find it in any dictionary) the geographical limits of their zones of influence. In fact it was a proposition of Ribbentrop to Hitler and Hitler backed the plan.
  
  Stalin was not unsympathetic towards that plan. Proof: Molotov went to Berlin on the 12th of November 1940 to discuss the plan with Hitler with the backing of Stalin.
  
  My question: Has someone already heard about that plan and if so: what does he or she know about it?
  
  Warm regards,
  
  Paul.

  Link to this forum: Partition of the world: 12 November 1940.

  Report message1

• Message 2

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by LairigGhru (U5452625) on Wednesday, 22nd October 2008

  The Wikipedia entry for this starts as follows (so use any search engine and enter 'Tripartite Pact' to find out more):
  
  The Tripartite Pact, also called the Three-Power Pact, Axis Pact, Three-way Pact or Tripartite Treaty was a pact signed in Berlin, Germany on September 27, 1940 by Saburo Kurusu of Japan, Adolf Hitler of Germany, and Galeazzo Ciano (foreign minister) of Italy entering as a military alliance and officially founding the Axis Powers of World War II that opposed the Allied Powers.

  Link to this forum: Partition of the world: 12 November 1940.

  Report message2

• Message 3

  , in reply to message 2.

  Posted by Stoggler (U1647829) ** on Wednesday, 22nd October 2008

  LairigGhru
  
  I don't think Paul is asking about the Tripartite Plan in general, but about whether the Soviet Union nearly became part of the pact and thus making it a four-way agreement.
  
  It's not something I've heard before, but that doesn't mean it wasn't suggested by the Germans or considered by the Soviets: when you consider that the Soviets went into agreement with Germany over Poland then it seems plausible that they would consider it.
  
  Paul
  
  Wondering if the word translates as

  Link to this forum: Partition of the world: 12 November 1940.

  Report message3

• Message 4

  , in reply to message 3.

  Posted by Stoggler (U1647829) ** on Wednesday, 22nd October 2008

  Actually, this is what Wikipedia says about the Soviet involvement in the Pact:
  
  Just prior to the formation of Tripartite Pact, the Soviet Union was informed of its existence, and the potential of its joining. Vyacheslav Molotov was thus sent to Berlin to discuss the pact and the possibility of the Soviet Union joining it.
  
  For the Soviets, they considered joining the Tripartite Pact to be an update of existing agreements with Germany. On Molotov's visit, he agreed in principle to the Soviet Union joining the pact so long as some details, such as Soviet annexation of Finland, could be worked out. The Soviet government sent a revised version of the pact to Germany on November 25. To demonstrate the benefits of partnership, the Soviet Union made large economic offerings to Germany.
  
  Regardless of the talks however, the Germans had no intention of allowing the Soviets to join the pact. They were already in the preparation stages for their invasion of the Soviet Union and were committed to doing so regardless of any action the Soviets took.
  
  "Political conversations designed to clarify the attitude of Russia in the immediate future have been started. Regardless of the outcome of these conversations, all preparations for the East previously ordered orally are to be continued. [Written] directives on that will follow as soon as the basic elements of the army's plan for the operation have been submitted to me and approved by me." -- Adolf Hitler
  
  When they received the Soviet offer in November, they simply did not reply. They did, however, accept the new economic offerings, and signed an agreement for such on January 10, 1941.
  
  Μύ

  Link to this forum: Partition of the world: 12 November 1940.

  Report message4

• Message 5

  , in reply to message 4.

  Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Tuesday, 4th November 2008

  Re: message 3 and 4.
  
  Stoggler,
  
  thank you for your link of the Wikipedia. But it seems that according to the Broekmeyer book I recently read that Hitler was susceptible for the Ribbentrop plan. It seems that he was even planning to postpone his Slavic Untermenschen eradication if he could have some substantial gains. And if the Ribbentrop construction had been accepted it would have meant great gains for the four let's say the three, while Italy was only a small member and didn't work on the world stage. The three Japan, the Soviets and Germany.
  
  But the Soviets were too greedy as in the Finland, the Romania question, the Baltic. They wanted "boter bij de vis" (butter by the fish. for once I found in my dictionary the translation as "cash on the nail"). They wanted all the spoils of the war, even if they were honest (if you have to believe Victor Suvorov?). But it can be that they also changed their strategy after December 1940 as did Hitler after the failure of the German Ribbentrop offer. I read also about the event in the Lieven Soete book I mentioned but there it is taken from the left wing point of view. I say it all from the top of my head, while I have closed my research for the moment about the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact from 1939.
  
  But studying now the Vichy France of WWII, you haven't to underestimate the Germans for their Bismarck "Real Politik". If they could gain a substantial benefit as for instance the stop of an hostile French North-Africa with its French fleet, they were prepared to give something up.
  
  Yes, but if you consider the pact Soviet-Germany-Japan, it wouldn't have hold that long I think given the different goals of the three protagonists. But it was nevertheless a "nice" idea of Ribbentrop. He had it all at hand in his coat and when Molotov left he handed it to him. The centre of Africa for Germany. Access to the Indian ocean for the Soviets, also access to the Mediterranean. For Japan the free hand in China and Indonesia (all if I remember it well). Britain could keep his colonies if it was quiet. The big question was what the US would do? And that was not mentioned. I think the conspirators supposed that as long the US interests were respected, the US would stay neutral?
  
  As for "aflijnen": "delineate" I found in my Collins 1991 for it: "1: to show by drawing, 2: to describe in words". For me the concept of the word is: "show the borders of, show the limits of" but I can be wrong as I don't find it in other Dutch dictionaries that I consulted too. It is only in the official! Dutch list of all Dutch words: "aflijnen, lijnde af, afgelijnd" And I have always used since my twelfe on and have read it in books and papers too.
  
  Warm regards,
  
  Paul.

  Link to this forum: Partition of the world: 12 November 1940.

  Report message5

• Message 6

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by Colquhoun (U3935535) ** on Tuesday, 4th November 2008

  Wasn't the big negative about a long term alliance with the Soviets for Hitler the fact that the Germans would eventually become the junior partners?
  
  Germany was heavily dependant for food, oil and raw materials on Russia before Barborossa, without the material support of the Soviets the attack on the West would have been too risky.

  Link to this forum: Partition of the world: 12 November 1940.

  Report message6

• Message 7

  , in reply to message 5.

  Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Tuesday, 4th November 2008

  Paul,
  
  But the Soviets were too greedy as in the Finland, the Romania question, the Baltic. They wanted "boter bij de vis" (butter by the fish. for once I found in my dictionary the translation as "cash on the nail"). They wanted all the spoils of the war, even if they were honest (if you have to believe Victor Suvorov?)Μύ
  
  If you have to believe Victor Suvorov - and I absolutely do - why on earth Stalin would want a 3-way or 4-way pact? He already had what he wanted: a world war brewing up in Europe with him pretty much on the side-line. What he needed was a pact with the Japanese to secure a one-front theater, and he did get that pact in the spring of 1941.
  
  

  Link to this forum: Partition of the world: 12 November 1940.

  Report message7

• Message 8

  , in reply to message 7.

  Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Monday, 10th November 2008

  Re: Message 7.
  
  Suvorovetz,
  
  excuse me for the late reply. From all what I recently read you can be right.
  
  Warm regards,
  
  Paul.

  Link to this forum: Partition of the world: 12 November 1940.

  Report message8

• Message 9

  , in reply to message 8.

  Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Monday, 10th November 2008

  Hi, Paul
  
  excuse me for the late reply. From all what I recently read you can be right Μύ
  
  always a pleasure. I am really interested in FDR's role in all this: he seems to be a huge enigma in this context, so there's probably a lot of reading to be done here.
  

  Link to this forum: Partition of the world: 12 November 1940.

  Report message9

• Message 10

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Monday, 29th June 2009

  Hi, Paul Stalin was not unsympathetic towards that plan. Proof: Molotov went to Berlin on the 12th of November 1940 to discuss the plan with Hitler with the backing of Stalin.Μύ Guess what I am laboring through? It's Yury Felshtinsky's compilation and/or publication "For Public Use: USSR-Germany; 1939-1941: Documents And Materials." Included is the lengthy letter by Ribbentrop as of October 13, 1940, inviting Molotov to Berlin. The whole collection is fascinating, to say the least, although it is very much a tedious reading, as Pilot calls it. I am far from done here, but, from what I've read this far, my impression is that what prompted Stalin to make a move on Bessarabia and especially Bukovina (the latter had not been part of the Ribbentrop-Molotov deal) was the speed of the French and British collapse in continental Europe, as well as Hitler's failed attempt to negotiate with the UK in mid-July of 1940. Hitler, in turn, appeared to become very nervous about Bessarabia and Bukovina due to their proximity to Romanian oil fields.

  Link to this forum: Partition of the world: 12 November 1940.

  Report message10

• Message 11

  , in reply to message 10.

  Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Monday, 29th June 2009

  Re: Message 10.
  
  Suvorovetz,
  
  thank you very much for this trouble. It can be a "tedious reading" as U-number calls it, but it is necessary for the "real historian" to do the painstaking work.
  
  If you find something new to what I learned from the Dutch author, who wrote a book about what Suvorov also pleaded for in his book, I will contact him, about your new "findings".
  
  Warm regards and with esteem,
  
  Paul.
  
  PS: With two excellent French messageboards added to my research: one about general history and one specific about WWII I am a bit "ΓΌberfragt" (overasked?) as the Germans say. (so many questions, that I quite understand, but not the time to do research for them to answer them in depth)
  
  Second PS: When I have ever time enough, but I doubt it, I will start your thread from these boards about the Soviet invasion plans of 22 June 1941 on those two French boards to look for the reactions.

  Link to this forum: Partition of the world: 12 November 1940.

  Report message11

• Message 12

  , in reply to message 5.

  Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Wednesday, 1st July 2009

  Hi again, Paul But the Soviets were too greedy as in the Finland, the Romania question, the Baltic. They wanted "boter bij de vis" (butter by the fish. for once I found in my dictionary the translation as "cash on the nail"). They wanted all the spoils of the war, even if they were honest (if you have to believe Victor Suvorov?). But it can be that they also changed their strategy after December 1940 as did Hitler after the failure of the German Ribbentrop offer.Μύ As I am progressing through the maze of Felshtinsky's compilation, your assessment above looks certainly on the mark. Regarding the perceived failure of Ribbentrop's offer, there did not appear to be any line drawn in the sand that did it. It's just that Molotov in the signature Bolshevik style constantly shifted the goal posts - using a football analogy. There is couple of anecdotal notes that I found interesting. For example, according to the minutes taken by Schmidt on November 12, 1940, at some point, "Hitler described current military operations against England in detail and emphasized the influence of the weather conditions on these operations. England's response is laughable. The Russians can see with their own eyes that claims about ruins in Berlin are made up. As soon as the weather improves, Germany will be able to inflict strong and final blow upon England..." Then it says "In lieu of a possible air raid alarm, the negotiations were interrupted at this point and postponed until the next day." And then, at the conclusion of the talks on November 13, Molotov made the following snide remark, "...Germans consider the war with England already won. So, if - as it has been said about some other matter - Germany is in the fight of life and death against England, he [Molotov] can only suppose that Germany fights for "life" and England fights for "death."

  Link to this forum: Partition of the world: 12 November 1940.

  Report message12

• Message 13

  , in reply to message 5.

  Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Saturday, 4th July 2009

  Paul if you consider the pact Soviet-Germany-Japan, it wouldn't have hold that long I think given the different goals of the three protagonistsΜύ Here's what the time-line of the published materials looks like: after Molotov had left Berlin on November 13, two weeks later German Embassador in Moscow Schulenburg was called in by Molotov and Dekanozov and described the conditions, upon which Stalin would accept the deal. Among them was Wehrmacht clearing out Finland completely; USSR gets a pact with Bolgaria and military bases at the Bosfor and Dardanelles; all territories South of Georgia and Azerbaijan will be considered Stalin's sphere of influence; Japan gives up the rights to coal and oil concessions of Sakhalin island.
  
  Three weeks after that Hitler issued the Directive #21 for preparations to execute Plan Barbarossa.
  
  As we discussed earlier, days after Hitler's issuing this Directive, Stalin brings in the Red Army brass to Moscow and conducts the infamous war games, exclusively against Germany, not at all against Japan.
  
  On April 9, 1941, Japanese Foreign Minister Matsuoka came to Moscow for negotiations with Molotov. Schulenburg reported to Ribbentrop, "In my opinion, Matsuoka went into the details too much, and so the Soviet government effectively dictates whether or not there will be written agreements. Matsuoka promised to keep me informed. He also told me that...American Ambassador Steinhardt had tried to find out from Matsuoka whether Japan made a decision to attack America - probably on Rusevelt's behalf, according to Matsuoka. Of course, Matsuoka insisted that this was out of the question."
  
  And now, this is a bit of a nice Stalin's touch: on April 13, 1941, Schulenburg reported, "Matsuoka's departure was delayed by an hour...suddenly, Stalin and Molotov appeared [at the station] and greeted the Japanese...Then Stalin loudly asked about me and ... hugged me and said, "We must remain friends, and you must do everything for it!"
  

  Link to this forum: Partition of the world: 12 November 1940.

  Report message13

• Message 14

  , in reply to message 13.

  Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Thursday, 9th July 2009

  Re: Message 12 and 13;
  
  Suvorovetz,
  
  excuse me for not replying to you earlier. I read it all the very time you published it on this board. In the meantime about the same subject of the offensive plans of Stalin had a conversation with a Spaniard on a French messageboard, who said that he also had studied some Russian. I mentioned your two threads from the Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ overthere and did some further research for it. He replied but since no message back. I will let you know of any further evolution in the discussion. As some quick reply to these two messages: it is essentially the same as Marius Broekmeyer wrote in his Dutch history book.
  
  Till I have some more time.
  
  Warm regards,
  
  Paul.

  Link to this forum: Partition of the world: 12 November 1940.

  Report message14

• Message 15

  , in reply to message 14.

  Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Friday, 10th July 2009

  Hi, Paul As some quick reply to these two messages: it is essentially the same as Marius Broekmeyer wrote in his Dutch history book.Μύ Kudos to Mr. Broekmeyer. We need people who know where top look for clues, that's for damn sure.

  Link to this forum: Partition of the world: 12 November 1940.

  Report message15

Back to top