The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact: Eighty-Six Years Later
We need a wider recognition of the ideological similarities and historical collusions between fascism, Nazism, and communism, and a categorical condemnation of their atrocities.
In 1939, Hitler and Stalin concluded secret negotiations, which resulted in the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact on August 23 of that year, to bring about their desired division of Eastern Europe, beginning with Poland. This pact allowed Hitler to invade Poland with the Soviets’ blessing, which, as is well known, set into motion the Second World War.
What is much less well known is that the New York Times reported on the start of the War by repeating and reinforcing the Nazi propaganda. The renowned author and journalist Ashley Rindsberg elaborates on this fact in his recent bestseller The Gray Lady Winked: How the New York Times’s Misreporting, Distortions and Fabrications Radically Alter History (p. 27):
The New York Times bought the Nazi dupe without flinching. Underneath its famous banner, “All the News That’s Fit to Print,” the paper reported that, according to “Chancellor Hitler,” Germany had been attacked. Already in the second paragraph of the Times’s front-page article, the reporter … reprint[ed] verbatim Hitler’s infamous war speech to the Reichstag, which the Führer used to justify to the world, as much as to the German people, his invasion of Poland….
“At 8 P.M., according to the semi-official news agency,” the Times report stated, “a group of Polish insurrectionists forced an entrance into the Gleiwitz radio station [in Germany], overpowering the watchmen and beating and generally mishandling the attendants. The Gleiwitz station was relaying a Breslau station’s program, which was broken off by the Poles.”
Rindsberg describes this New York Times article as “what likely constitutes the single biggest, yet least recognized, journalistic failure on record.” (p. 26)
Eighty-six years later, American socialists and progressives, and even numerous liberals, still swear by the content and narrative promoted by the Times. They consider reading and trusting the paper a matter of intellectual refinement, social awareness, and moral superiority. Fortunately, younger generations are less influenced by the Times, as they prefer watching podcasts and reading the new online media, which often provide higher journalistic quality and diverse viewpoints.
But let us return to the anniversary of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Thanks to initiatives by Eastern European statesmen and communist refugees in Western countries, today, August 23, is commemorated as “Black Ribbon Day,” the European “Day of Remembrance for Victims of Stalinism and Nazism,” also referred to as the Europe-wide Day of Remembrance for the victims of all totalitarian and authoritarian regimes.
Remembering the Pact and heeding its lessons is essential if we wish to prevent a resurgence of totalitarian ideologies, evident in the pro-Hamas protests, the radicalization of Democrat Party supporters, and the replacement of traditional education with anti-American indoctrination that condones totalitarian crimes, both past and present. We need a wider recognition of the ideological similarities and historical collusions between fascism, Nazism, and communism, and a categorical condemnation of their atrocities. Otherwise, the pervasive propaganda of outfits such as “the Gray Lady” will continue its detrimental influence and threaten the preservation of the West.
[Featured image via YouTube and YouTube]
————————————–
Nora D. Clinton is a Research Scholar at the Legal Insurrection Foundation. She was born and raised in Sofia, Bulgaria. She holds a PhD in Classics and has published extensively on ancient documents on stone. In 2020, she authored the popular memoir Quarantine Reflections Across Two Worlds. Nora is a co-founder of two partner charities dedicated to academic cooperation and American values. She lives in Northern Virginia with her husband and son.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
“Fortunately, younger generations are less influenced by the Times,….”
Thankfully, the New York Times has lost all credibility with anyone not suffering from TDS.
Thanks for the post. Good info. Next up Gulf of Tonkin.
In 1939 Germany invaded Poland from the west, while the USSR invaded from the east. We get a lot of coverage about what happened to German occupied Poland, but very little on what the Russians did the the eastern Poland. The 2008 BBC production: “WWII Behind Closed Doors” both a book and a video, covers the latter. I highly recommend both versions. The video presents as a docudrama. Actors play Molotov and Ribbentrop as well as others. I also have the entire 26 episode 1973 BBC series, “The World at War.” This production presents the usual coverage of the German invasion, but gives the viewer less than about minute on the Soviet invasion. Western leftists were embarrassed by the Soviet invasion, so they pretty much skip it. WWII Behind Closed Doors (BCD) shows what happened to middle and upper class Poles. The eastern occupation was more complex than the German one. The Communists treated working class Jews way differently than the middle and upper class Jews, in stark contrast to the Nazis in western Poland.
So why did Britain declare war on Germany, but not Russia? They both violated the territorial integrity of Poland. The statements that came out of the British foreign office make no sense. The usual non-answer you get says something like Britain was not prepared to take on Russian too.
Another question: why did Hitler decide to attack the USSR at all? Viktor Suvorov answers that question in “Icebreaker” and in the better documented version, “The Chief Culprit: Stalin’s Grand Design to Start WWII.” Hitler’s attack was preemptive as Stalin was planning to attack first. American historians (like Victor Davis Hanson) don’t like Suvorov’s books. Although the recent book by Sean McMeekin, “Stalin’s War does cover the same, and he makes a terse referral to Suvorov. Surorov was was a member of the GRU (Soviet Military intelligence). See his own history of the GRU in his autobiography “Aquarium.” In my opinion, Suvorov is more credible than VDH, and others. Beware the vistor’s history.
Whoops. That’s beware the victor’s history. That goes for the American war between the states as well.
“Hitler’s attack was preemptive as Stalin was planning to attack first. ”
Rubbish. If Stalin was planning to attack Germany, the mass purges of Russian general sin 1937-38 are a mighty peculiar way to do it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge#Purge_of_the_army
The red Army was in bad enough shape after the purges that it took the Red Army three months to defeat Finland, a country a tenth the size of the USSR.
This makes Suvorov’s assertion, um, debatable.
I agree with your “rubbish” comment. The sorry state of Stalin’s army at the time of Hitler’s attack shows that Stalin’s army could hardly defend the city of Moscow (well inside Russia), let alone attack a well-organized and equipped army outside Russia.
Stalin, aside from being justifiably paranoid about staying in power and always doing everything needed to do so, also had the classic Communist/Bolshevik fear of Bonapartism – the seizure of power by a military leadership not truly aligned with the Party. Thus the General Staff purge. I believe that Abwehr intelligence provided some false evidence showing military connections with Germany. Because Russia and Germany were ideological and strategic adversaries, any real or perceived penetration of the Red Army had to be seen as a genuine threat.
Part of the reason for Soviet industrialization was to prepare an armed force capable of destroying Germany. Again, strategic, ideological and historical reasons dictated this.
I read somewhere that Stalin did plan to invade Germany in 1946. Whether this called for complete occupation of Poland before the invasion of Germany or mere acquiesce by the Polish government, I don’t know.
Some years ago I came across an older German who grew up in Berlin and had been inducted into the Hitler Youth at age 10 or so. He wrote a 3-series book desciribing his life before, during and after the armistice.
During the later stage of the war he was responsible for repatriating German youth that had been moved from Berlin to the countryside in Poland to avoid the allies bombing. After returning to Berlin and seeing the downfall he was conscripted by Russian military to help them find remaining German soldiers hiding in the subways (which he has roamed as a kid).
To your point of Russia’s desire to continuing pushing east through American/British occupied Europe, he noted that Russian military continued to build up in eastern Berlin and Germany after the cease fire was declared (May 7). He said the build up continued into early August and halted after the US used nuclear weapons on Japan. After that he noted the military men and material began to drawdown and head back east.
All good stuff until you got to your claim that Stalin was planning to invade first.
If that were true, the Russian army wouldn’t have been so pathetically weak and unprepared.
Stalin clearly thought his pact with his fellow Marxist Hitler to divide Poland had settled all serious differences. He was absolutely shocked, and completely unprepared, when Germany invaded.
‘Icebreaker’ is a book that deserves more review. I think Surorov was correct about Stalin’s intent but perhaps not about the timing.
The Soviets were evil to the Poles. Katyn Forest was just one event; there were many others.
The West not only ignores what Stalin did in ’39-’41, it pretty much ignores what Stalin and the Soviets did, period.
So, according to the NYT, Poland attacked Hitler.
Why am I not surprised.
Be fair Henry. You think the Germans would have allowed honest reporting of their shenanigans?
You’d do better to attack the TIMES for its soft pedaled coverage of the Holocaust, while it was happening.
The NYT was, and has always been, a solid supporter of the advancement of communism, socialism and anti-West. So, it was ready to accept and support Hitler’s Germany as long as he was on-board with Stalin. The NYT toned down its rosy coverage of Hitler and pro-Hitler fake news only after Hitler’s invasion of Russia.
the j e w hating mouthpiece for FDR>>>HITLER
you name it
they’re guilty of it
nothing has changed
If they were honest, Black Ribbon Day would be universally recognized as Victims of Socialism Day.
Support for the NAZI’s was near universal among US D’s from the earliest days of Hitler’s political career until well AFTER WWII started.
NAZI officials held rallies in NY, and some of the warm up speakers prior to Hitler at his big rallies in Nuremburg were prominent US D’s, including one of FDR’s Cabinet.
After the war started, FDR’s Ambassador to the UK, JFK’s father, lobbied hard for US intervention in the war – on the side of Germany.
So, to see that the NY Times simply regurgitated Hitler’s propaganda verbatim is no surprise at all. This was no mistake. They weren’t duped. They were fanboys of the NAZI regime much the way Thomas Friedman spent his entire career at the Times gushing with praise for the Chinese Communist Dictatorship. Its exactly the same as we see daily now with the NY Times eagerly publishing the transparently fictional propaganda from Hamas.
None of the above is ever mentioned in US history books that are taught in schools as to why the US maintained neutrality for so long after the war started.
Those who stand to make the most $$$$ will always be the cheerleaders for the cause. They get rich while others die.
Democrats and their money brokers (hereafter referred to as Democrats) saw $$$$ in providing materiel to the warring nations of Europe.
Democrats saw money in keeping the drugs flowing from Afghanistan.
Democrats see money in their relationship with China, proving large amounts of cheap goods paid for by even cheaper slave labor.
Democrats see money in the support of Ukraine, as a piece of the “never ending” wars around the world.
Democrats. Meddling into world affairs to get rich.
Eh, no. A lot of D’s were against Hitler precisely because they were for Stalin and Russia. FDR certainly soft-pedaled the Soviets while standing up to Hitler. Now yes, some D’s did take up for National Socialism, but they weren’t the majority.
Who did the D’s really like? Mussolini. Now there was a love-feast. Mussolini made the trains run on time, you know (spoiler: he didn’t), and Fascism was an economic and political model that the D’s thought highly of in the mid to late ’30s.
Excellent post !
Almost nobody acknowledges that Stalin was equally responsible for starting WW2 in Europe with Hitler.
If the Soviets had not conspired with Hitler to divide up Eastern Europe, it is doubtful that the invasion of Poland would ever have occurred .
So is the parallel now that
trump ( innocently??) and putin ( knowingly) are doing the same??
And speaking of lies the Grey Lady told, one has to remember Walter Duranty and his Pulitzer.