Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
deadkenny
General
Joined: 21-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 994
|
Quote Reply
Topic: Was it a good strategy to push Hitler eastwards? Posted: 11-Jun-2008 at 07:13 |
Originally posted by Bankotsu
…..while some continue to revise all commonly accepted, credible, and resourced reasons regarding Nazi foreign policy motivation, and seem convinced that Mr Hitler was ‘guided’ and encouraged by Britain to ‘go east’, |
'Britain pushed Germany eastwards to destroy Soviet Union' might not be that good a phrase to use to describe british policy of appeasement.
Britain turned and encouraged Germany to go eastwards to destroy Soviet Union' is probably a better term.
Hitler's ambitions to go eastwards is clear enough.
But it still needed encouragement. If Britain opposed Germany going eastwards, Hitler might had dropped his plans.
But Britain did not oppose Germany going east but encouraged Germany going east.
Britain used these ambitions of Hitler to turn the course of German expansion eastwards so as to close the gap between the frontiers of Germany and Russia, hoping that sooner or later, tensions between Germany and Russia will increase and result in a German-Soviet war.
Britain standing aloof from this conflict, can only benefit as the two states destroy each other.
|
Well, no, once again this is incorrect. Britain declared war on Germany when Germany invaded Poland and thereby forced Hitler to turn west - to finish off France before he was 'free' to attack the Soviet Union. Hitler was greatly assisted by the Soviets in this turn to the west, which was not Hitler's desire but was forced upon him by British policy. This theory simply falls apart with faced with undisputed historical fact. It was not Britain that 'stood aloof' while Germany sought to destroy the Soviet Union. It was in fact the Soviet Union that greatly assisted Germany as Germany sought to destroy France and Britain.
Originally posted by Bankotsu
So why did Chamberlain issue his famous guarantee of Poland on 31 March 1939?
Why did he suddenly decide to oppose Germany expansion eastwards?
Why did he declare war on Poland on 3 September 1939?
I will answer all of these questions.
Everything will become clear.
|
Chamberlain provided a guarantee to Poland, and several other small states potentially threatened by Germany in the wake of the German occupation of the remainder of Czecho-Slovakia. At that point Germany had broken the agreement that they had signed at Munich, and it was finally clear to Chamberlain that Hitler could not be trusted. Britain declared war on Germany (not Poland) on Sept. 3 after an ultimatum demanding that Germany stop their attack on Poland and withdraw had expired. What is clear is that you are trying to construct a 'conspiracy theory' of Britain's policy in the pre-war period that clearly contradicts historical facts. You motivation would appear to be the standard motivation of communists, who seek to absolve Stalin for his 'alliance' with Hitler by 'blaming' the west for 'forcing' Stalin to do so.
|
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana
|
|
Sarmat
Caliph
Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3113
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Jun-2008 at 07:24 |
It's a fact that Brittain and France pushed Germany to the East. The whole Nazi movement appeared and was supported as a counter weight to communism in the West.
USSR and communism was viewed as much greater and eminent evil than Hitler.
Was it a good policy? Well, judging from practical British and French interests it was a very good policy. But they made 2 big mistakes. They underestimated both Hitler's ambitions and the USSR capabilities. Small Estern European states were pawns in this game nobody took their interests seriously.
It started with quite support of right extremist in Italy and Eastern Europe. Then Hitler. Then Spain. All culmitates with the Western bertrayed of Czechoslovakia, then the bertrayal Poland by not providing any meaningful military aid against Germany.
All the Soviet attempts to conclude anti German pact were ignored.
The result was, however, shocking. USSR being convinced that any negotiations with the West are useless desided to sign the pact with the Nazi devil to buy at least some time before the inevitable conflict. While Hitler ignored all the "peaceful" attitudes and aggresivelly attacked the West.
The end of this was much worse that anybody in the West could imagine before the war. Communism stayed firmly now in the center of Europe, stronger than ever...
But was that result predictable?
Perhaps not, why would Hitler not satisfy just himself with Czechoslovakia, Austria and Reinland? Why would he attack France first instead of the USSR? Why would USSR sign the pact with Hitler?
Those things were very hard to predict before they actually happened.
So, from the tactical point of view British policy was wise at a given moment, strategically it turned to be a disaster.
Sometimes history opens Pandora box for those who want it to stay close...
|
Σαυρομάτης
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Jun-2008 at 07:24 |
deadlkenny, don't bother. He won't be convinced by such unreasonable things such as facts.
|
|
Sarmat
Caliph
Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3113
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Jun-2008 at 07:27 |
Originally posted by deadkenny
What is clear is that you are trying to construct a 'conspiracy theory' of Britain's policy in the pre-war period that clearly contradicts historical facts. You motivation would appear to be the standard motivation of communists, who seek to absolve Stalin for his 'alliance' with Hitler by 'blaming' the west for 'forcing' Stalin to do so. |
It was not a conspiracy it was just an unwise Western foreign policy. No need to search for communists here. Just read Churchill's book about WWII.
|
Σαυρομάτης
|
|
Sarmat
Caliph
Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3113
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Jun-2008 at 07:43 |
Sad, but true..
1930s-era Soviet poster showing Western powers giving Hitler Czechoslovakia on a dish. Inscription in the flag:"On towards the East!"
|
Σαυρομάτης
|
|
deadkenny
General
Joined: 21-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 994
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Jun-2008 at 07:43 |
Originally posted by Sarmat12
It was not a conspiracy it was just an unwise Western foreign policy. No need to search for communists here. Just read Churchill's book about WWII. |
We've had this debate before. I agree that western foreign policy was unwise. However, it was not based on 'forcing' Hitler east. Historical fact directly contradicts those claims. First, Britain was only involved in negotiating one round of 'appeasement' with Hitler, which was Munich. By giving Germany the Sudtenland, they hoped to peacefully settle a dispute and thereby avoid war. When only a few months later Germany violated the agreement by the occupation of the remainder of Czecho-Slovakia, the 'appeasement' policy was at an end. At that point Britain provided the guarantee to Poland (and a number of other small states) which in effect 'forced' Germany to fight the west. This is where Britain and France 'paid the price' for their earlier attempt to 'freeze out' the Soviet Union from the diplomacy taking place to avoid war. This is also where the true fraud of the 'pushing Hitler east' theory comes out, as the claim is that Stalin was 'forced' to ally himself with Hitler. The truth is that Stalin could still have opposed Hitler, or remained neutral. However, instead, Stalin decided to 'push' Hitler west and profit from the 'free hand' he would have in eastern Europe, by agreement with Hitler.
Edited by deadkenny - 11-Jun-2008 at 07:45
|
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana
|
|
deadkenny
General
Joined: 21-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 994
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Jun-2008 at 07:50 |
Originally posted by Sarmat12
Sad, but true..
1930s-era Soviet poster showing Western powers giving Hitler Czechoslovakia on a dish. Inscription in the flag:"On towards the East!" |
Typical clumsy communist propaganda. First, only the Sudetenland was 'handed' over to Hitler. The signatory powers were to have 'guaranteed' the remaining territory of Czecho-Slovakia. When Germany violated that agreement, 'appeasement' was over and the guarantees of small states against German aggression were issued. Secondly, even with the occupation of all of Czecho-Slovakia, Germany still had no common border with the Soviet Union. Further, Chamberlain's guarantee ensured that Hitler could not 'get at' the Soviet Union without triggering a war with Britain and France as well. The effect of British policy was exactly the opposite of what is being claimed - Hitler was 'forced' to fight the west and make an alliance with the Soviet Union as a result of British policy.
|
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana
|
|
Sarmat
Caliph
Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3113
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Jun-2008 at 07:57 |
Yes, Stalin could do it in theory. And I'm not trying to acquit him.
But why would he do it? He was a very cruel and practical person. Why would he think that Britain and France would support him in a potential conflict with Germany and not unite with it against the "Red threat"? Just before the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, British stance was so uncertain and vague that simply for practical reasons Stalin preferred Hitler. I'm not saying here that Stalin was a peace dove, he was a bloody monster.
It was hard for British and French to calculate who was more dangerous Hitler who appeared just talked a lot or Stalin that already killed millions. It was a hard decision indeed, who was more dangerous?
Churchill wrote that Hitler was more dangerous and that the British foreign office should have been persistent and reliable in the negotiations with the Soviets. Churchill also says that Czechoslovakia was a disaster. And I agree with Churchill. He hated communism BTW.
|
Σαυρομάτης
|
|
Bankotsu
Colonel
Joined: 27-Feb-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 511
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Jun-2008 at 08:04 |
It's a fact that Brittain and France pushed Germany to the East. |
That is true. Britain's strategy of turning Germany eastwards to destroy Soviet Union is historical fact. Very true. deadkenny's interpretation of history is mostly the british propagandist version, which is not accurate. It takes time to unlearn the british propagandist version and learn the more factual and accurate interpretation of history. Hope the moderators can at least give me a warning before they ban me. deadkenny and others who opposes and despises my view, all I ask is give me more time to explain the facts. Britain turn Germany east is true, british propagandist version is false. That is completely true. For example, when you want a history of the 1937 Nanjing Massacre, which history textbook do you trust more, the chinese version or the japanese version? Which version tends to play down, ignore, dismiss or cover up facts? Which version tends to protray it in more detail? When you want the truth about Britain's appeasement of Germany, you CANNOT trust british history books. That is also true. Russian cartoon about Munich:
Chamberlain and Daladier act as traffic policemen; the sign-post reads 'Left -
Western Europe, Right - USSR'
Edited by Bankotsu - 11-Jun-2008 at 08:06
|
|
Sarmat
Caliph
Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3113
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Jun-2008 at 08:06 |
Originally posted by deadkenny
Typical clumsy communist propaganda. First, only the Sudetenland was 'handed' over to Hitler. The signatory powers were to have 'guaranteed' the remaining territory of Czecho-Slovakia. When Germany violated that agreement, 'appeasement' was over and the guarantees of small states against German aggression were issued. Secondly, even with the occupation of all of Czecho-Slovakia, Germany still had no common border with the Soviet Union. Further, Chamberlain's guarantee ensured that Hitler could not 'get at' the Soviet Union without triggering a war with Britain and France as well. The effect of British policy was exactly the opposite of what is being claimed - Hitler was 'forced' to fight the west and make an alliance with the Soviet Union as a result of British policy. |
It's just a poster. Not a scientific research on exact European foreign policy before WWII.
But it's funny, however, when one tries to argue how good and wise was the "Munich treason," in fact, the same animal with the "Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact."
|
Σαυρομάτης
|
|
Bankotsu
Colonel
Joined: 27-Feb-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 511
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Jun-2008 at 08:09 |
Typical clumsy communist propaganda. |
'Britain turn Germany eastwards to destroy Soviet Union' is communist propaganda is quite true. But that doesn't mean that the propaganda is false. In this case the propaganda is completely true.
|
|
Bankotsu
Colonel
Joined: 27-Feb-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 511
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Jun-2008 at 08:11 |
Sarmat12 , why you support the view of 'Britain turn Germany eastwards to destroy Soviet Union'? Most english moderators upon hearing of this view, the first thing they want to do is to ban me. For example, I was banned from Armchairgeneral for propagating this view.
|
|
Bankotsu
Colonel
Joined: 27-Feb-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 511
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Jun-2008 at 08:22 |
Imagine that the only source of information that you recevied on the 1937 Najing massacre is from Japanese sources.
Japanese history books barely mention about this event. Some extremists even say that it never happened. It is an event Japanese are not proud of.
You have to go to non-Japanese sources to learn the more factual and accurate and detailed versions of this event.
The same is true of Britain's appeasement of Hitler. British history books seldom give the factual and real reasons for that policy. It is a policy that britons are not proud of. They tend to dismiss, ignore, cover up or give propaganda.
You have to go to non-british sources to find out the truth.
I am giving you those sources.
|
|
Bankotsu
Colonel
Joined: 27-Feb-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 511
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Jun-2008 at 08:27 |
When a Japanese comes across a chinese historical version of the nanjing massacre, his first reaction is communist propaganda! Anti-japanese propaganda! The reason is because that he was taught a different interpretation of history in school. The same reaction can be expected from british people when they first come across: Falsifiers Of Historyhttp://www.agitprop.org.au/lefthistory/1948_falsifiers_of_history.phpThis is only a natural reaction.
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Jun-2008 at 09:02 |
The Japanese did punish people (before the surender) for the Nanking affair. So its not like a Japanese would be unaware of it.
|
|
Peteratwar
Colonel
Joined: 17-Apr-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 591
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Jun-2008 at 09:30 |
Originally posted by Bankotsu
When a Japanese comes across a chinese historical version of the nanjing massacre, his first reaction is communist propaganda! Anti-japanese propaganda!
The reason is because that he was taught a different interpretation of history in school.
The same reaction can be expected from british people when they first come across:
Falsifiers Of Historyhttp://www.agitprop.org.au/lefthistory/1948_falsifiers_of_history.php
This is only a natural reaction.
|
The above is hardly the most unbiased of links.
However, I still await any EVIDENCE other than comments, alleged conversations etc. None of these are evidence of what British policy was.
Have you any governmental sources (i.e. official minutes and the like) which we can look at ?
|
|
Bankotsu
Colonel
Joined: 27-Feb-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 511
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Jun-2008 at 10:08 |
The above is hardly the most unbiased of links. |
It is completely biased in favour of USSR, as it is after all published by a soviet propaganda agency. Below source by American historian Carroll Quigley would be more neutral: http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/cikkek/anglo_12b.html
However, I still await any EVIDENCE other than comments, alleged
conversations etc. None of these are evidence of what British policy
was. |
Before we touch on the issue of evidence, I hope that there could be some agreement on the basic facts.
(1) The Chamberlain government in 1937 made the decision to reach a general anglo-german settlement and to resolve differences between Germany and Britain.
(2) This policy was executed by Chamberlain government in the years 1937-1939 and eventually failed. The first diplomatic act to carry out this plan for anglo-german settlement was carried by Halifax by his visit to Hitler in November 1937.
Anyone is in disagreement with the above two points?
|
|
Bankotsu
Colonel
Joined: 27-Feb-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 511
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Jun-2008 at 10:17 |
According to the analysis by Carroll Quigley: In the meantime the British government, especially
the small group controlling foreign policy, had reached a seven-point
decision regarding their attitude toward Germany:1. Hitler Germany was the front-line bulwark against the spread of Communism in Europe. 2. A four-Power pact of Britain, France, Italy,
and Germany to exclude all Russian influence from Europe was the
ultimate aim; accordingly, Britain had no desire to weaken the
Rome-Berlin Axis, but regarded it and the Anglo-French Entente as the
foundation of a stable Europe. 3. Britain had no objection to German acquisition of Austria, Czechoslovakia, and Danzig. 4. Germany must not use force to achieve its aims
in Europe, as this would precipitate a war in which Britain would have
to intervene because of the pressure of public opinion in Britain and
the French system of alliances; with patience, Germany could get its
aims without using force. 5. Britain wanted an agreement with Germany restricting the numbers and the use of bombing planes. 6. Britain was prepared to give Germany colonial
areas in south-central Africa, including the Belgian Congo and
Portuguese Angola if Germany would renounce its desire to recover
Tanganyika, which had been taken from Germany in 1919, and if Germany
would sign an international agreement to govern these areas with due
regard for the rights of the natives, an "open-door" commercial policy,
and under some mechanism of international supervision like the mandates. 7. Britain would use pressure on Czechoslovakia
and Poland to negotiate with Germany and to be conciliatory to
Germany's desires. To these seven points we should add an eighth:
Britain must rearm in order to maintain its position in a "three-bloc
world" and to deter Germany from using force in creating its bloc in
Europe. This point was supported by Chamberlain, who built up the air
force which saved Britain in 1940, and by the Round Table Group led by
Lord Lothian, Edward Grigg, and Leopold Amery, who put on a campaign to
establish compulsory military service. The first seven points were reiterated to Germany
by various spokesmen from 1937 onward. They are also to be found in
many recently published documents, including the captured archives of
the German Foreign Ministry, the documents of the British Foreign
Office, and various extracts from diaries and other private papers,
especially extracts from Neville Chamberlain's diary and his letters to
his sister. Among numerous other occasions these points were covered in
the following cases: (a) in a conversation between Lord Halifax and Hitler at Berchtesgaden on November 17, 1937;
(b) in a letter from Neville Chamberlain to his sister on November 26, 1937; (c) in a conversation between Hitler, Ribbentrop, and the British Ambassador (Sir Nevile Henderson) in Berlin on March 3, 1938;
(d)
in a series of conversations involving Lord Halifax, Ribbentrop, Sir
Thomas Inskip (British minister of defense), Erich Kordt (Ribbentrop's
assistant), and Sir Horace Wilson (Chamberlain's personal
representative) in London on March 10-11, 1938; and
(e) in a
conference of Neville Chamberlain with various North American
journalists held at Lord Astor's house on May 10, 1938. In addition,
portions of these seven points were mentioned or discussed in scores of
conversations and documents which are now available. Certain significant features of these should be
pointed out. In the first place, in spite of persistent British efforts
lasting for more than two years, Hitler rejected Angola or the Congo
and insisted on the return of the German colonies which had been lost
in 1919. During 1939 Germany steadily refused to negotiate on this
issue and finally refused even to acknowledge the British efforts to
discuss it.
In the second place, the British throughout these
discussions made a sharp distinction between Germany's aims and
Germany's methods. They had no objections to Germany's aims in Europe,
but they insisted that Germany must not use force to achieve these aims
because of the danger of war.
This distinction was accepted by the
German professional diplomats and by the German professional soldiers,
who were quite willing to obtain Germany's aims by peaceful means, but
this distinction was not accepted by the leaders of the Nazi Party,
especially Hitler, Ribbentrop, and Himmler, who were too impatient and
who wanted to prove to themselves and the world that Germany was
powerful enough to take what it wanted without waiting for anybody's
permission... http://real-world-news.org/bk-quigley/13.html#44
|
|
Peteratwar
Colonel
Joined: 17-Apr-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 591
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Jun-2008 at 11:45 |
Originally posted by Bankotsu
The above is hardly the most unbiased of links. |
It is completely biased in favour of USSR, as it is after all published by a soviet propaganda agency.
Below source by American historian Carroll Quigley would be more neutral:
http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/cikkek/anglo_12b.html
However, I still await any EVIDENCE other than comments, alleged conversations etc. None of these are evidence of what British policy was. |
Before we touch on the issue of evidence, I hope that there could be some agreement on the basic facts.
(1) The Chamberlain government in 1937 made the decision to reach a general anglo-german settlement and to resolve differences between Germany and Britain.
(2) This policy was executed by Chamberlain government in the years 1937-1939 and eventually failed. The first diplomatic act to carry out this plan for anglo-german settlement was carried by Halifax by his visit to Hitler in November 1937.
Anyone is in disagreement with the above two points?
|
Quigley is by no means reliable.
I will agree that Chamberlain Government wanted peace in Europe (and worldwide) and that any differences should be resolved by peaceful means having just experienced all the horrors of war
|
|
Peteratwar
Colonel
Joined: 17-Apr-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 591
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Jun-2008 at 11:55 |
Looking at you next post and rather than quoting the whole thing:
1. Not particularly, but they would be useful Poland was the front line (see battle of Warsaw)
2. Stability and peace was to be desired
3. Certainly not
4. Peaceful means essential
5. As part of general disarmament agreements
6. No - Britain had no authority over these
7. Within reason and involving coniliation and compromise on all sides
8. Good precaution
Right we now look at the above and not one of them shows any inclination of Britain 'pushing' Germany towards Russia. Quite the reverse and with the laudable aim of establishing a universal peace at least in Europe
|
|