The treaty, which ended 76 years ago (June 22, 1941), is still at the forefront of big politics. Each anniversary of its signing is traditionally celebrated by all "progressive humanity" as one of the most mournful dates in world history.
In the United States and Canada, August 23 is Black Ribbon Day. In the European Union - the European Day of Remembrance for the Victims of Stalinism and Nazism. The authorities of Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine on this day with special zeal tell the peoples under their jurisdiction about the innumerable troubles that they have endured because of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. In Russia, all the liberal media and public figures on the eve of August 23 rush to remind citizens of the "shameful" Pact and once again call the people to repentance.
Of the thousands and thousands of international treaties concluded over the centuries-old history of diplomacy, none of them has received such an "honor" in the modern world. The question quite naturally arises: what is the reason for such a special attitude towards the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact? The most common answer: The pact is exceptional in terms of criminality of content and catastrophic consequences. That is why "fighters for all good against all bad" consider it their duty to constantly remind people and countries of the sinister Treaty so that this could never happen again.
Of course, the propaganda machine of the West, post-Soviet ethnocracies and domestic liberals has been proving to us for decades that only the first answer is correct. But experience teaches us: to take the word of a liberal is an unforgivable frivolity. Therefore, let's try to understand and find out the reason for the hatred of the Pact among the states devoted to the ideals of freedom and democracy, as well as the Russian liberal society that has joined them. The accusations against the Pact are well known: it led to the outbreak of the Second World War ("the pact of war"), it grossly and cynically violated all the norms of morality and international law. Let's go point by point.
Pact of war
“On 23 August 1939, Nazi Germany under Hitler and the Soviet Union under Stalin signed a pact that changed history and launched the most ruthless war in human history” (European Commissioner for Justice Vivienne Reding).
"The Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact of August 23, 1939, concluded between two totalitarian regimes - the communist Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, led to the explosion on September 1 of World War II" (Joint Declaration of Remembrance and Solidarity of the Seimas of the Republic of Poland and the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine).
“If the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact had not existed, then there are great doubts that Hitler would have dared to attack Poland” (Nikolai Svanidze).
"This war, this terrible drama would not have happened if it had not been for the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact … if Stalin's decision had been different, Hitler would not have started the war at all" (Antoni Macherevich, Polish Defense Minister).
A lot of similar statements have accumulated in recent years.
Japanese samurai would have ended the war in China, and instead of hitting Pearl Harbor, they would have taken up rice farming. The Versailles system, with the world hegemony of the British Empire, would have remained intact to this day. Well, the Americans would sit in proud isolation across the seas and oceans, not even trying to benefit the whole world with themselves. This is the power of Comrade Stalin's words.
Speaking seriously, every normal person is well aware that the Second World War, the First World War, and the Napoleonic Wars were engendered by the struggle of Western countries for the redivision of the world, the struggle for domination over it. First, the struggle of France against Great Britain, then the Second, and then the Third Reich against the same British Empire. Churchill in 1936, explaining the inevitability of an imminent clash with Germany, very frankly formulated the main law of Anglo-Saxon policy: “For 400 years, England's foreign policy was to resist the strongest, most aggressive, most influential power on the continent. … The policy of England does not at all take into account which country is striving for domination in Europe. … We should not be afraid that we may be accused of a pro-French or anti-German position. If circumstances changed, we could just as well have taken a pro-German or anti-French position. This is the law of state policy that we are pursuing, and not just expediency dictated by chance circumstances, likes or dislikes, or some other feelings."
Cancel this centuries-old struggle within the civilization of the West, in which in the twentieth century. the whole world was already involved, the words of neither Alexander I, nor Nicholas II, nor Stalin were within the power of the word.
But he, in principle, could neither start nor stop the flywheel of the conflict between Great Britain and Germany. Just as the Tilsit and Erfurt treaties could not prevent the "thunderstorm of the twelfth year" and end the battle between France and Britain. And the agreement of Nicholas II with Wilhelm II in Bjork - to stop the sliding of the world to the First World War.
This is the reality. As for the statements about the "War Pact", their authors are not engaged in historical research, but in politics and propaganda. It is now quite obvious that our former allies and former opponents, together with the homegrown “fifth column”, have embarked on a course to revise the history of the Second World War. Their goal is to transfer Russia from the category of victorious states to the category of defeated aggressor states, with all the ensuing consequences. Hence the delusional statements about the "War Pact". The laws of propaganda say that a lie uttered thousands of times after a while begins to be perceived by society as a self-evident evidence. Yan Rachinsky, a member of the board of Memorial (a foreign agent), does not even conceal that their task is to turn the statement about equal responsibility of the USSR and Germany for the world massacre "into a banality." But these are "their" goals and objectives.
Conspiracy
“It is difficult to imagine an even more crude and criminal conspiracy against the peace and sovereignty of states” (Inesis Feldmanis, the chief semi-official historian of Latvia).
We must pay tribute to the external and internal enemies of Russia, the interpretation of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact as a criminal conspiracy of two totalitarian "empires of evil", in contrast to the interpretation of the "Pact of War", has already firmly entered the public consciousness and is really perceived by many as a commonplace. But accusations of a crime should not be based on emotional characteristics, but on the indication of specific norms of international law, which the Soviet-German treaty violated ("violated"). But no one has been able to find them in all the years of demonization of the Pact. None!
The Non-Aggression Pact itself is absolutely irreproachable from a legal point of view. Yes, the Soviet leadership, like the British, by the way, knew very well about the impending German attack on Poland. However, there was not a single norm of international law obliging the USSR in this case to renounce neutrality and enter the war on the Polish side. Moreover, Poland, firstly, was an enemy of the Soviet Union, and secondly, on the eve of the conclusion of the Pact, it officially refused to accept guarantees of its security from Russia.
Secret protocols to the Treaty, which have not frightened children over the past thirty years, have been standard practice in diplomacy from the earliest times to the present day.
While not illegal in form, the Secret Protocols were not so in content. Organized by Alexander Yakovlev (the chief architect of the collapse of the Soviet Union), the Resolution of the Congress of People's Deputies of the USSR, stigmatizing the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, stated that the Secret Protocols, delimiting the spheres of interests of the USSR and Germany, “were from a legal point of view in conflict with the sovereignty and independence of a number of third parties. countries . However, all this is an outright lie.
There did not exist, as it does not exist now, any norms of international law prohibiting states from delimiting the spheres of their interests. Moreover, a ban on such a distinction would actually mean the obligation of countries to oppose each other on the territory of third states, with corresponding consequences for international security. Of course, such a ban would be extremely beneficial for “small but proud” countries that have gotten used to catching fish in the murky waters of confrontation between the great powers, but their interests should not be confused with international law. Therefore, the very principle of delimiting "spheres of interest" applied in the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact is not illegal and, therefore, criminal.
In no way does the delimitation of "spheres of interest" contradict the principle of the sovereign equality of all states enshrined in international law. The pact did not contain any decisions binding on third countries. Otherwise, why keep them secret for future performers? The widespread accusation that under Secret Protocols Hitler handed over to Stalin the Baltics, Eastern Poland and Bessarabia is pure demagogy. Hitler, in principle, even with all his desire, could not give up what did not belong to him.
Yes, the Pact deprived Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Romania of the opportunity to use Germany against the USSR. Therefore, they scream heart-rendingly about the violation of their sovereign rights. But Germany is also a sovereign and independent country. It was not at all obliged to serve the interests of the limitrophe states. There was not a single norm of international law and not a single international treaty that would oblige Germany to oppose the restoration of the territorial integrity of our country. As there was no such norm prohibiting us from returning the territories that had been taken away from it. Otherwise, the return by France of Alsace and Lorraine, the restoration of the territorial integrity of Germany or Vietnam will have to be recognized as illegal, therefore criminal.
Actually, the Non-Aggression Pact in its open part contained the obligation of the USSR to maintain neutrality in relation to Germany, regardless of its clashes with third countries, while the Secret Protocols to the Treaty, in turn, formalized Germany's obligation not to interfere in the affairs of the USSR in the European part of the post-imperial space. Nothing more. Exaggerating, the agreement between the bank and the seed merchant at its entrance: the first undertakes not to trade in seeds, the second not to lend money to the bank's clients.
“Progressive humanity”, allegedly so concerned about the unlawfulness of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, can only be advised to call the United States and Great Britain to repentance, which in 1944 divided not “spheres of interests” in third countries, but divided among themselves the wealth of these third countries. “The Persian oil is yours. We will share the oil of Iraq and Kuwait. As for the oil of Saudi Arabia, it is ours”(Franklin Roosevelt to the British Ambassador to Lord Halifax, February 18, 1944). PACE, OSCE, US Congress and further down the list, which have adopted mountains of resolutions condemning the mythical crime of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, do not even remember this real criminal conspiracy.
Immoral Pact
The thesis about the immorality of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact is driven into the public consciousness even more firmly than the thesis about its criminality. Both politicians and historians speak almost unanimously about the immorality of the Pact, although, again, without burdening themselves with substantiating the reasons for such an assessment. Usually it all boils down to pathetic statements that only shameless people can not be ashamed of an agreement with Hitler. However, here too we are dealing with a conscious and cynical demagoguery.
Until June 22, 1941, for the USSR, Hitler was the legitimate head of one of the great European powers. Potential adversary and even probable? Undoubtedly. But potential adversaries and even very likely at that time for our country were France and Great Britain. Suffice it to recall how in 1940 they were preparing a strike against the USSR in order to give the outbreak of a world war the character of a pan-European "crusade against Bolshevism" in order to force the Third Reich to go to the East in this way and thereby save the war scenario developed by British strategists from collapse.
Nazi crimes had not yet been committed at the time of the signing of the Pact. Yes, by that time the Third Reich had produced the Anschluss of Austria and captured the Czech Republic. Almost bloodless. The American aggression in Iraq led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians. Hitler was about to attack Poland, but Trump is threatening North Korea with war. Does it follow that any treaty signed with the United States is, by definition, immoral?
In the Third Reich, there was open, legislatively enshrined, discrimination against the Jewish population. But the same open and legislatively enshrined total discrimination of the Negro population was at that time in the United States. This was not and could not be an obstacle to Stalin's interaction with the president of the racist state, Roosevelt. The death camps and everything connected with the attempt to "finally solve the Jewish question", all this was in the future.
The misanthropic nature of the National Socialist ideology of the Third Reich also does not make the treaty with this country criminal and immoral. Liberal globalism is perfectly legitimate to consider as one of the varieties of misanthropic ideology. From which it does not at all follow that it is impossible to conclude agreements with François Macron or Angela Merkel. Stalin clearly formulated his attitude to this issue in an interview with Japanese Foreign Minister Yosuke Matsuoka: "Whatever the ideology in Japan or even in the USSR, this cannot prevent the practical rapprochement of the two states."
Moreover, it does not matter what interests - the world communist movement, the interests of the fight against Nazism or the interests of democracy.
As you can see, all the replicated accusations against the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact ("Pact of War", a criminal and immoral conspiracy with the Third Reich) are absolutely untenable in historical, legal and moral terms. Moreover, they are obviously untenable. But why, then, such a completely sincere, genuine hatred of the Pact in the West, in the post-Soviet ethnocracies and in the liberal community of Russia? Let's try to figure it out in order here too.
West
“The treaty changed the schedule of the inevitable war, and, consequently, the post-war configuration, making it impossible for the Anglo-Saxons to enter Eastern Europe both at the beginning of the war, since it was necessary to defend Western Europe, and after the victory - the USSR was already there. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of 1939 is the biggest failure of British strategy in the entire 20th century, which is why it is demonized”(Natalia Narochnitskaya).
And the Anglo-Saxons, as you know, have been determining the position of the West in general on all key problems for more than half a century.
To this it should be added that with the help of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, Soviet Russia regained Vyborg, the Baltic states, Western Belarus, Western Ukraine and Bessarabia, which had been torn away from our country during the collapse of the Russian Empire.
Post-Soviet ethnocracies
All limitrophic states both at the beginning of the twentieth century and at the end of it gained independence exclusively as a result of the crisis of Russian statehood (first the Russian Empire, then the Soviet Union). They still consider the role of the outpost of Western civilization in the confrontation with Russia to be the main guarantee of their existence. In August 1939, the sky fell to Earth, the world turned upside down. Still, there is no united front of the West against Russia. One of the great powers - Germany - recognized the post-imperial space as a zone of interests of the USSR, and then (the worst of it all) in Yalta, Great Britain and America were forced to do this too. For some time, the pillars of the West needed to interact with the Soviet Union, but they temporarily forgot about the “little but proud” ones. Therefore, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact for all limitrophes is still a symbol of all the worst that can happen to them, a symbol of the illusion of their existence. Hence their hysterics about the "new Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact" with any slightest sign of improvement in Russia's relations with Western countries, primarily with Germany.
Liberal public
The easiest way to explain the attitude of the liberal community of Russia to the Pact is the desire to please the West, the habit of "jacking at the embassies" and love for foreign grants. However, I believe that they would have written / said all this on a voluntary basis, although it is, of course, more convenient to do this for “greens” fees.
Only in the spiritually decayed society of "Ivanov who do not remember kinship" are they like a fish in water. Hence their sincere love for the 20s and 90s of the last century - the periods of the political and moral decay of the country, the periods of open mockery of the most heroic pages of Russian history. Hence, by the way, the sometimes seemingly inadequate reaction of the liberals to the return of Crimea. The conflict with the West and the disappearance of imported delicacies are all secondary. The main thing is different - "happiness was so close, so possible." Property was "privatized", patriotism was turned into a curse, the word "Russian" was used exclusively in combinations of "Russian fascism" and "Russian mafia". And here, here you are, the return of Crimea, and patriotism as a national idea.
Moreover, all this is already the second time in less than a hundred years. Only in the "blessed" 20s did the "fiery revolutionaries" ("demons" of that time) have the opportunity to write when sentencing: "to shoot as a patriot and counterrevolutionary." Only yesterday, when the Cathedral of Christ the Savior was blown up, they jumped joyfully and shouted: "Let's pull up the hem of Mother Russia." In a word, as soon as the hope for a bright future was established in the expropriated Arbat apartments and in the dachas of the liquidated "dissent" near Moscow, the world suddenly began to collapse. State interests and patriotism were declared the highest value. And the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact became for them one of the clearest and most visible evidence of the catastrophe. Vasily Grossman, proclaimed by the liberals a “great Russian writer”, had every reason to bitterly complain: “Could Lenin have thought that by founding the Communist International and proclaiming the slogan of world revolution, proclaiming“Proletarians of all countries, unite!” in the history of the growth of the principle of national sovereignty? … Russian slavery this time turned out to be invincible."
Summing up, we can conclude that the West, post-Soviet ethnocracies and Russian liberals have every reason to hate the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, to consider it the embodiment of evil. For them, he really is a symbol of strategic defeat. Their position is clear, logical, fully consistent with their interests and does not raise questions. The question raises another question: how long will we be guided by the attitude of Russia's external and internal enemies towards it in assessing the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact?
