Why WWII is called the Great Patriotic War in Russia [part 2] (continuation) This brings us to this question: Can we approach the events at the outset of WWII in this fashion, in the face of all the devastation and plight that would happen later on? No, we can't. That would be immoral. So we don't. One could say that we keep the revered memory of our grandfathers clear of all questions that are hard to answer. Russian history scholars argue that Stalin resorted to striking the pact with Germany because he had come to think it futile to go on trying to talk allies into working out a collective plan to deter Hitler. To Stalin, they say, the pact served as a last-ditch effort to push back the start of a looming Germany-USSR war. The Soviet expansion in 1939-1940 is thus viewed to have been a series of unrelated events, which did a good job of making it harder for Germany to reach the Soviet Union's central regions. But, as I said, these pages of history are contentious. After all, you can't bring Stalin back and ask him like, hey Mr. Stalin, what was your game back then? Neither can we tell how things would have played out should Hitler have chosen, say, Great Britain as his next victim in 1941, not the Soviet Union. I've laid out the viewpoint as presented in our history classes, but you can see that the subject is open to speculation and even propaganda on part of any party involved. And some people do see these events in a different light. For instance, our media often tell us that Poland and the Baltic states have a way of trying to question the results of WWII, and also that Russian minority based in the Baltic states is locked out of the elections, etc. But here's the thing: Judging by what I said, they can see themselves as the Soviet Union's victims, as much as Germany's. And their case is strong, if you would ask me.