The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact - ELTE BTK Történelem Szakos Portál

agreement” sound anachronistic.
Even so, even if the name Nazi-Soviet Pact wasn’t used at the time, this
agreement was studied ever since the new programs dated July 31 st 1947 were
drawn up. „This signature (which means of course the signature of the
agreement) is considered to be a desertion that will lead to a war” 2 . „This
agreement which stunned the world, could do nothing else than precipitate the
war” 3 . These two quotations put forward in the first place the unexpected
character of this signature and the amazement of the world seeing this as a
disruption in the possibility of a union between the different powers. In the
second place it shows the decisive character of the agreement which leads to a
war. To explain the agreement we can call in two elements: the element of
reason and the element of consequence. To understand the foundation of this
agreement, we attend to an explanation of the different advantages of this treaty
for the two signing parties. As well, the books present the realistic attitude that
was shown by Stalin; the agreement is therefore considered to be a political
manoeuvre that helped Russia to gain time before it started the war.
And to explain the direct consequences of the agreement, the French school
books in the years 1945 to 1950 emphasize the Russian neutrality as a factor
that permits Germany to attack Poland. „In September 1939 Germany invades
Poland. The democracies, in order to keep peace had made too many
concessions already (for example the Munich accords in 1938 when they had
agreed on Germany to have Bohemia). They declare war to the invader” 4 . This
quotation is interesting because it helps us to see the connection between the
Munich accords on the one hand and the German-Russian agreement on the
other hand. A connection that was very clear at the end of the war. From 1938
on and after the Munich accords, France and England try to keep the illusion of
peace, but the signature of Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement prevents Russia
from starting a war with Nazi Germany. „Stalin had made his decision, which
was to accept an understanding with Hitler, and although he thought the war
was imminent he preferred to stay apart from the conflict, anticipating
territorial profits and the adversary forces to wear out”. 5
In the sixties a much more direct version of this agreement shows up: the
counter nature of the union is put forward. It refers to the fundamental
opposition between the two powers in the ideological, political and economical
field. It is the secrecy around the agreement, signed between the two parties,
which justify this union. The way of telling History will transform French
2 GENET, Louis: L’Epoque contemporaine 1848-1939, classes préparatoires de philosophie
et de mathématique. A. Hatier, Paris, 1946. 830-831.
3 A. MALET, A., ISAAC, J.: Histoire contemporaine depuis le milieu du XIX ème , classes
préparatoires de philosophie et de mathématique. Hachette, Paris, 1930, réed 1951. 866.
4 BARON, Etienne: Histoire de la France, Cours Moyen et Supérieur. Nathan, Paris, 1956. 464.
5 A. MALET, A., ISAAC, J.: Histoire contemporaine depuis le milieu du XIX ème , classes
préparatoires de philosophie et de mathématique. Hachette, Paris, 1930, réed 1951. 866.
144