As a bit of an aside, it is surprising how concise and to-the-point each of the articles (points) are. Compared to contracts written in modern legalese or your typical website TOS this looks almost "dumbed down" and yet it was one of the most important documents of 20th century. Perhaps we're overcomplicating things a bit today?
(ps: native Russian speaker here, but the German version looks similar.)
TOS are written for lawyers and courts. For bilateral contracts like this there's no overarching law and legal authority, so they're more like a protocol of a verbal contract.
The Munich agreement was very detailed and formal. That made no practical difference. Everybody and their dog rushed to take a bite out of Czechoslovakia.
The complications are about drawing a line about what breaks the agreement and what does not. This is important when both parties rely on a third party to decide who broke the agreement, and justify penalties: Nobody wants uncertainty in front of a judge. In this case, neither Nazi Germany or the USSR really care about those things. If one party went over the line in a non-accidental way, there'd be would be war. It's not as if, when Germany invaded the USSR, some faux argument about the USSR breaking the agreement first would have made a difference whatsoever to third parties.
Therefore, what is best for large, highly militarized sovereign countries that solved their disagreements by trying to utterly destroy the other's regime might not work so well in civil life, where making sure we know exactly how he judiciary will interpret the contract is so important we incorporate in Delaware not just because it's cheap, but because we know how the judge will interpret the legalese.
As others have said, these agreements are meaningless, they are more like timeouts to get ready to attack. Lots of agreements were broken, when one side felt they could away with it.
> The Soviet copy of the original document was declassified in 1992 and published in a scientific journal in early 1993.
> Despite publication of the recovered copy in western media, for decades, it was the official policy of the Soviet Union to deny the existence of the secret protocol
You can read it in English on Wikisource [1] among other places. The text itself is nothing new, it's been available for decades, it's just that few people have seen the Soviet-held original copies.
Most interesting part for me as a Pole, is "Die Deutsche Reichsreugierung" and "Union der Sozialistischen Sowjetrepubliken" and the same in russian script. So how they described themselves, and the rest is quite boring non agression treaty, so they skipped "we are going to meet in the middle of Poland and then we will see 'смех' 'Umfassungsgraben'".
As a Polish person who had Russian and German (English also :)) in school, so I can read those documents, I would say you Brits should get interested about it in 1939 not now.
Those French guys also should chip in earlier.
Don't take it personally it is a just historical joke!
Not sure. But from a rough translation if it, it is quite literally the bullet points that you've been taught in school.
"Neither party will attack the other for 10 years, with an automatic extention to this clause, if neither party denounces the other."
"In the Baltics, the northern border of Lithuania is the border of the interest of influence of both participants."
"Each party is interested in a chunk of Poland, divided by such and such river. If both parties are interested in an independent Poland, we can discuss this later."
"Any disagreements regarding this agreement should be resolved through a peaceful exchange of ideas."
It's chilling to see actual document which robbed so many people of freedom for 50 years, brought death and deportation to gulags and labor camps to more than 200k people in Baltics alone.
Looks like the pact was a smart move after the West’s failure to support the initiative to create an anti-fascist coalition (in the hope that Hitler would attack the Soviet Union); its announcement even caused a government crisis in Japan.
The West hoped that Hitler would attack the Soviet Union?
That would mean the West hoped that Hitler would attack Poland as that was the only possible way that Hitler could even get to the Soviet Union at the time the pact was negotiated.
The Soviet Union wanted to modernize and expand. Hitler gave them that opportunity. If anything, it was the Soviet Union that hoped that Hitler and Western Europe would duke it out thereby weakening all their enemies.
Not only a smart move but also quite typical for that time. Note that Pilsudski was a kind of dictator and the Polish government was rather aggressive with respect to all its neighbors. Therefore, the war between Germany and Poland was a collision of two dictators - Hitler and Pilsudski.
A digression: in effect of the secret protocol being signed, then-USSR attacked Poland on 17-th of September 1939 (co-starting the 2WW, together with Germany). Wikipedia articles describing this "event" are typically named "Soviet invasion of Poland" or "Soviet occupation of East Poland", or something similar: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Poland
The Russian version is titled: "Polish march/hike/walk of the Red Army (1939)", and Russian speaking Wikipedians don't like the idea of changing the title.
It's so convenient to ignore the Munich agreement and the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia by Germany, Poland and Hungary with the approval of the West and despite the USSR's objections.
Worth noting that the Allies who justified the protection of Poland to declare war on Germany, avoided declaring war on Soviet Russia which invaded Poland on the Eastern side (about 2 weeks after).
"USSR attacked Poland on 17-th of September 1939 (co-starting the 2WW, together with Germany)."
German army was to complete the occupation of the Sudetenland (part of Czechoslovakia) by October 10 (1938), and an international commission would decide the future of other disputed areas. Czechoslovakia was informed by Britain and France that it could either resist Germany alone or submit to the prescribed annexations. The Czechoslovak government chose to submit.
The Soviet Union also had a treaty with Czechoslovakia, and it indicated willingness to cooperate with France and Great Britain if they decided to come to Czechoslovakia’s defense, but the Soviet Union and its potential services were ignored throughout the crisis.
>Польский поход Красной армии (17—29 сентября 1939 года), в советской историографии освободительный поход РККА, в современной историографии также советское вторжение в Польшу
Polish march of the Red Army, liberating march of The Workers' and Peasants' Red Army in soviet historiography, also Soviet invasion of Poland in modern historiography.
Would you please not post flamebait to HN? Especially not nationalistic flamebait. It's pretty amazing that the commenters who replied stayed so level-headed, because normally a comment like this would lead straight to the inner circles of hell.
This, of course is a bit of exaggeration, but I see what you mean.
As a one who had to study history from Soviet textbooks, as far as I remember there was no such thing as Secret Protocols to that pact. Correct me if I am wrong, but the Soviet invasion of Poland did not happen (and Katyn massacre was work of Germans) and Baltic states asked to be "admitted" into Union (all of them, almost simultaneously). The winter war with Finland of course was Finnish provocation, for which they had to pay by giving up parts of Karelia.
I wouldn't be surprised that officially endorsed interpretation of history in modern Russia is not far from what it was back then.
I assume this comment was not intended to be taken seriously. Most of the population of what are now independent countries of Belarus and Ukraine, but used to be part of USSR, are pretty well aware of where the Polish border was in 1939. If you visit, it becomes apparent that this fact would be impossible to hide, and no serious efforts to hide it have been made in recent years or earlier. Most towns West of Minsk still bear polish-sounding names and are predominantly catholic while those East of Minsk are orthodox with Russian-sounding names. Many people in western parts of Ukraine and Belarus hold the equivalent of polish green cards issued to them as poles, and everyone is pretty well aware of the reasons, and so on. I don’t know what the modern school books say on the subject (it is true that 30 years ago they began the WWII history with the 1941 events) but there is abundance of information on the subject, including Russian resources, and none of it certainly “gets you killed”.
[+] [-] drglitch|6 years ago|reply
(ps: native Russian speaker here, but the German version looks similar.)
[+] [-] dao-|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gritzko|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stefan_|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hibikir|6 years ago|reply
Therefore, what is best for large, highly militarized sovereign countries that solved their disagreements by trying to utterly destroy the other's regime might not work so well in civil life, where making sure we know exactly how he judiciary will interpret the contract is so important we incorporate in Delaware not just because it's cheap, but because we know how the judge will interpret the legalese.
[+] [-] onetimemanytime|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unityByFreedom|6 years ago|reply
> Despite publication of the recovered copy in western media, for decades, it was the official policy of the Soviet Union to deny the existence of the secret protocol
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov–Ribbentrop_Pact
[+] [-] lalabert|6 years ago|reply
Agree on the comment re this being one of the most important documents of the 20th century.
[+] [-] ACS_Solver|6 years ago|reply
[1] https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Molotov–Ribbentrop_Pact
[+] [-] ozim|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ozim|6 years ago|reply
Those French guys also should chip in earlier.
Don't take it personally it is a just historical joke!
[+] [-] vkou|6 years ago|reply
"Neither party will attack the other for 10 years, with an automatic extention to this clause, if neither party denounces the other."
"In the Baltics, the northern border of Lithuania is the border of the interest of influence of both participants."
"Each party is interested in a chunk of Poland, divided by such and such river. If both parties are interested in an independent Poland, we can discuss this later."
"Any disagreements regarding this agreement should be resolved through a peaceful exchange of ideas."
[+] [-] laacz|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] HocusLocus|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] duxup|6 years ago|reply
There was a local case involving some harassing txt messages, the evidence was a series of photocopies of an iPhone on a copier....
[+] [-] Koshkin|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Aloisius|6 years ago|reply
That would mean the West hoped that Hitler would attack Poland as that was the only possible way that Hitler could even get to the Soviet Union at the time the pact was negotiated.
The Soviet Union wanted to modernize and expand. Hitler gave them that opportunity. If anything, it was the Soviet Union that hoped that Hitler and Western Europe would duke it out thereby weakening all their enemies.
[+] [-] aivisol|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] liberal_098|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jagger11|6 years ago|reply
The Russian version is titled: "Polish march/hike/walk of the Red Army (1939)", and Russian speaking Wikipedians don't like the idea of changing the title.
[+] [-] gdy|6 years ago|reply
It's so convenient to ignore the Munich agreement and the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia by Germany, Poland and Hungary with the approval of the West and despite the USSR's objections.
[+] [-] ekianjo|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] readhn|6 years ago|reply
German army was to complete the occupation of the Sudetenland (part of Czechoslovakia) by October 10 (1938), and an international commission would decide the future of other disputed areas. Czechoslovakia was informed by Britain and France that it could either resist Germany alone or submit to the prescribed annexations. The Czechoslovak government chose to submit.
The Soviet Union also had a treaty with Czechoslovakia, and it indicated willingness to cooperate with France and Great Britain if they decided to come to Czechoslovakia’s defense, but the Soviet Union and its potential services were ignored throughout the crisis.
https://www.britannica.com/event/Munich-Agreement
[+] [-] konart|6 years ago|reply
>Польский поход Красной армии (17—29 сентября 1939 года), в советской историографии освободительный поход РККА, в современной историографии также советское вторжение в Польшу
Polish march of the Red Army, liberating march of The Workers' and Peasants' Red Army in soviet historiography, also Soviet invasion of Poland in modern historiography.
[+] [-] samstave|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] baybal2|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] dang|6 years ago|reply
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
[+] [-] aivisol|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] raviolo|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] konart|6 years ago|reply
Can you please stop with this bullshit, really? We even have this is school textbooks: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6jSNt06CW1HQlM5ekpUWDVfdUU...
[+] [-] orthoxerox|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] emiliobumachar|6 years ago|reply
This surprised me. What's the officially sanctioned version of history?
[+] [-] SoylentOrange|6 years ago|reply
I would be curious what your sources are, if any.
Just because there is limited freedom of the press in Russia doesn’t mean it’s a Stalinist dystopia.
[+] [-] Footpost|6 years ago|reply
Russia isn't even the Soviet Union, and the leader at the time was Georgian.
[+] [-] jk27277|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] dang|6 years ago|reply
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
[+] [-] AnaniasAnanas|6 years ago|reply