Disinfo: If Poland realised a rational policy in 1939, Moscow would have had a different approach towards it

Summary

The refusal of Poland to allow Soviet troops to pass through its territory in 1939 was a mistake by the Polish authorities. The USSR could not wait until the German troops appeared on the Soviet borders and started a war against the Soviet Union from the surroundings of Minsk. Thus, if Poland realised a rational policy (based on its national interests), it would have been treated differently by the Soviet Union.

Disproof

This message is part of the Kremlin’s policy of historical revisionism and an attempt to portray Russia's role in World War II as not aggressive - see other examples referring to Ribbentrop-Molotov pact here, here and here. The accusation that the Polish authorities provoked the Soviet army's intervention in Poland in September 1939 by their refusal to allow Soviet troops to enter their territory is a clear historical manipulation. In terms of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, it is a proven historical fact that it contained the Secret Supplementary Protocol, which assumed the division of Poland and other Eastern European countries between the USSR and Germany. Thus, the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact directly caused the German and Soviet military aggression against Poland in September 1939, which resulted in its complete occupation by Germany and the USSR. See similar examples of the Russian historical revisionism concerning Poland here and here.

publication/media

  • Reported in: Issue 161
  • DATE OF PUBLICATION: 23/08/2019
  • Outlet language(s) Polish
  • Countries and/or Regions discussed in the disinformation: USSR, Poland, Germany
  • Keywords: Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, Historical revisionism
see more

Signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact thwarted the UK's expansionist plans in Europe

In 1939, the “ideal scenario” assumed by the UK authorities at the beginning of the war between Germany and the USSR was the partition of Poland, which was sacrificed by the UK to inspire a conflict between Stalin and Hitler. In this situation, the UK would have been able to present itself as a peace-making force, increasing its influence in Europe. Although, this “UK schedule of war” was thwarted by Hitler, who forced Stalin to sign the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and attacked France instead of the USSR.

Disproof

This message is part of the Kremlin’s policy of historical revisionism and an attempt to portray Russia's role in the World War II as not aggressive - see other examples referring to Ribbentrop-Molotov pact here, here and here. The accusations that the UK had “expansionist plans” in Europe and attempted to provoke a war between Germany and the USSR is clear historical manipulation and these events are not confirmed by historical documents and historians. In terms of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, it is a proven historical fact that it contained the Secret Supplementary Protocol, which assumed the division of Poland and other Eastern European countries between the USSR and Germany. Thus, the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact directly caused the German and Soviet military aggression against Poland in September 1939, which resulted in complete occupation of this country by Germany and USSR. See similar examples of Russian historical revisionism concerning Poland here and here.

Russia's membership is necessary for an organization to have a European or global status

At present, it is as hard for the West to “sell” G8 membership to Russia as it was impossible to “sell” Ukraine to Russia after the 2014 coup. This does not mean Russia did not really want to get it. Russia just asked for concrete terms of the deal whereas the West wanted to have its hands free.For Moscow, it was inconceivable a decade ago to put in question the need to take part in the G8, whereas today, this is reality. Back in the 1990s, Moscow had to seek the West’s favour. At present, the West needs Russia as it has turned into a global leader. Without Russia’s membership, any organisation including the Council of Europe cannot pretend to have European or global status.

Disproof

This message is consistent with a number of recurring pro-Kremlin manipulative narratives about the West's decline and imminent collapse, Western disregard for Ukraine, and about the coup in Ukraine in 2014. It is a conspiracy that the West attempted to "sell" Ukraine to Russia under unclear terms. Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity are respected by Western countries but were violated by Russia in 2014. There was no coup d’état in Ukraine in 2014 either. The spontaneous onset of the Euromaidan protests was a reaction by numerous segments of the Ukrainian population to former President Yanukovych’s violent dispersal of peaceful student protests against Yanukovych's sudden decision to withdraw from the Association Agreement with the European Union in November 2013. See the full debunk here. See earlier disinformation cases on Russia's relationship with international organisations alleging that the Council of Europe will die without Russia's membership, and that the Council of Europe is Russophobic and that the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights are anti-Russian.

The EU is built on anti-European values, Russia is real Europe

Following the meeting with Vladimir Putin, Emmanuel Macron published a post in Facebook calling Russia “a deeply European country” and hoping to see Europe “extending from Lisbon to Vladivostok.” However Macron’s acceptance of Russia into Europe is not a reason for joy. In fact, present-time Russia is more European than France. It is Moscow who defends European traditions and a high level of European culture, not Paris. The EU replaced ancient European fundamental traditions with a cocktail of liberalism, feminism, LGBT-activism and anti-European leftist rhetoric.The present-time EU values are not European values but their negation. The doctrines of tolerance and multiculturalism are also an attack against European heritage. The less valuable aspects of Western culture such as scientific achievements, comfort, and liberalism are triumphing, whereas its core values, that is Christianity, European individualism, the rule of law, intellectual freedom, and high culture are undermined. Traditionalists and Eurosceptics look at Russia with hope and take Vladimir Putin as Messiah. Therefore, who has to accept whom into Europe is an open question.

Disproof

This message is in line with a recurring pro-Kremlin narrative about the West's moral decay aimed at portraying Russia as superior to the West in terms of values and morals. 'Threatened values' is one of the most common narratives used by pro-Kremlin outlets. See earlier cases alleging that in contrast to Russia, western Europe is abandoning Christian roots and that unlike Russia, the West is not about fairness or solidarity and it degrades traditional values and endangers societies. Furthermore, all-Russian history is highly moral as opposed to the Western one, which is full of violence and evil, and all high-ranking politicians in the Baltic states are likely implicated in paedophilia.