Homework help about Non-agression pact?

Question

ok, now i know that Nazi soviet pact is also known as Nazi-soviet Non-aggression Pact.

Can someone correct me if there's anything wrong. please and thank you (:

Who were involved in this pact? :
Germany and russia were involved in this pact.

What were the terms of the agreement? :
the terms of the agreemant is that the two countries agreed not to attack each other, either independently or in conjunction with other powers ; not to support any third power that might attack the other party to the pact ; to remain in consultation with each other upon questions touching their common interests ; not to join any group of powers directly or indirectly threatening one of the two parties ; to solve all differences between the two by negotiation or arbitration. The pact was to last for 10 years, with automatic extension for another 5 years unless either party gave notice to terminate it 1 year before its expiration.

Benefits of the pact on countries signing the treaty? :
is to serve the purposes of both countries well.

But what about the signing to the pact affect Europe?

Answer 1

Cassie,
part of Hitler's political campaign (early 1930's) was predicated on his despise (verbally) for the "two front war" that Germany waged during the First World War. The pact was a benefit for Germany in one sense in that they did not aniticipate the British or French would declare war on them, and it kept the Soviets at bay.

Think of this critically for a moment. You establish a peace with a neighbor who is NOT your friend, thereby knowing this neighbor will not cause you any harm. However, you don't anticipate that neighbors a couple of blocks away are going to be upset with you - but they are and then they take action against you. The Polish people put up a terrific resistance, though not as coordinated as it could have been. (There were political forces at play with Britain and France at the time as the Germans were massing their army along the border).

The only benefit of the Pact was to the Russians and the Germans - no other country benefited from this Pact. Stalin had at the time purged his army and civilian population of high ranking officers and others that he thought were his enemy. The Germans were really just getting a grasp, technically speaking, on the type of tank they thought they needed to enmass for a bigger war.

As late as May 1941 Hitler had ordered his tank factories to show "everything" to their Russian counterparts in terms of development. The Russians (Molotov and others) after reviewing these plants refused to believe the tanks they were shown were the best the Germans had at the time. So much disbelief did they display that they verbally stated "you must have something else, this cannot be all - you were told to show US everything." This suggests, at best, that the Russians had a tank in development that was better than what they had been shown by the Nazi factory leaders. In fact, the Russians did have a better tank and what they initially lacked were "experienced officers" that could train - all of these people had been "purged" 5 years earlier.

Hope this helps - you are gaining a terrific grasp. I am happy for you. Now, begin to consider the wider picture of the Pact - not merely the direct time frame that it was signed within. WW II started in September of 1939, Operation Barbarossa (attack on Russia) June 1941, and of course the conclusion in 1945. Six years, this Pact would cover 33% of that time frame.

Keep it up - stick with it!

Gerry :)

Answer 2

The Pact mean that Hitler would have a free hand to invade Poland or any of the Western European nations without interference from the USSR. Until the Pact, the rest of Europe assumed that Stalin would attack Germany if the Nazis invaded Poland. Instead, the Soviets and Germans shared the spoils. The Pact also meant that the Soviets could invade or bully their neighbors like Finland, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia without risking war with Germany.

Answer 3

i'm unlikely to get into the politics, yet will clarify my perspectives of Germany's WW II conflict technique. i think of invading Russia grow to be a substantial screw up. Hitler had a non aggression p.c.. with Stalin, and Stalin had each and every objective of honoring it. Stalin does not have declared conflict on Germany, and grow to be additionally observing the back door. To attack Russia as we talk grow to be an act of greed and stupidity. Britain and Germany have been already at conflict whilst the U. S. grow to be nevertheless impartial. i think of to win the conflict, Germany ought to have thrown each and every thing that they had at defeating England, and then regrouping for a pair years till now shifting any further East. If Germany could have taken England, they could have owned Europe. the U. S. could probably have not went to rescue England if Germany took it and held it. it could have been too annoying for the U. S. to invade Europe and ever attack Germany without piece of floor (like England) to point on. inspite of England to combat from, without Russia's help on the eastern front, the allied conflict in Germany could have lasted plenty longer if no longer had an completely diverse effect. the eastern attacked Pearl Harbor precise after Hitler committed Germany to taking up Russia. This replaced the entire game. As history explains Hitler wasn't awaiting Japan to try this. Being Japan's best pal, this delivered u . s . of america into the conflict against Germany. It appeared inevitable although that conflict could ultimately come between Germany and the U. S. with the aid of proxy conflict the U. S. grow to be already in with their best pal Japan, in scuffling with for China. it could have been a very diverse conflict although had purely some issues occurred in yet in a various way.

Answer 4

here is a great source for you:

http://history1900s.about.com/library/holocaust/aa072699.htm
it has everything about that pact, includes economic agreements, and impacts of the pact. hope this helps.