Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Was it a good strategy to push Hitler eastwards?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 1617181920>
Author
Bankotsu View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 27-Feb-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 511
  Quote Bankotsu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Was it a good strategy to push Hitler eastwards?
    Posted: 11-Jul-2008 at 12:30
Originally posted by deadkenny

You've simply made it up in order to avoid dealing with the glaring contradiction between your conspiracy theory and Britain's DoW on Germany when Germany invaded Poland.  Your theory states that Britain wanted to 'push' Germany eastward, and facilitate a German attack on the Soviet Union.  Yet Britain declared war on Germany when Germany invaded the one country, i.e. Poland, that was actually east of Germany and the occupation of which would have practically allowed an invasion of the Soviet Union by Germany.


I have addressed the above many times already.

If you fail to understand or refuse to understand the facts, there is nothing I can do.
Back to Top
deadkenny View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 994
  Quote deadkenny Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Jul-2008 at 12:50
Originally posted by Bankotsu

Originally posted by deadkenny

You've simply made it up in order to avoid dealing with the glaring contradiction between your conspiracy theory and Britain's DoW on Germany when Germany invaded Poland.  Your theory states that Britain wanted to 'push' Germany eastward, and facilitate a German attack on the Soviet Union.  Yet Britain declared war on Germany when Germany invaded the one country, i.e. Poland, that was actually east of Germany and the occupation of which would have practically allowed an invasion of the Soviet Union by Germany.


I have addressed the above many times already.

If you fail to understand or refuse to understand the facts, there is nothing I can do.
 
Lol, you've stated that Chamberlain didn't want to declare war and was trying to 'squirm' out of doing so but was forced to because otherwise his government would fall.  That is NOT addressing it from the perspective of what British policy was.  As I have stated many times, if Chamberlain had failed to carry out what was actual British policy (i.e. honouring the guarantee to Poland and declaring war on Germany) he would have been removed from office and someone else would have declared war.  You've consistently failed to address this fact.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana
Back to Top
deadkenny View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 994
  Quote deadkenny Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Jul-2008 at 12:55
Originally posted by Bankotsu

Originally posted by deadkenny

I have already quoted from your source previously, and it simply does not say what you claim it says.


???
 
Now you're just trolling again.  Three question marks does not constitute a proper response.  You claimed your source made a statement that British policy was to facilitate a war between Germany and the Soviet Union.  I quoted your source and what it actually said was that 'powerful political and social circles' wanted Germany to act a as a 'counterweight', to oppose the spread of communism.  Aside from the 3 sites that we are overly familiar with at this point, yamaguchy, quigley and maxists.org, the sources that you post, supposedly in support of your theory in fact consistently do not support what you're claiming.  I have actually read these sources and quoted what they actually say on numerous occasions.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana
Back to Top
Bankotsu View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 27-Feb-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 511
  Quote Bankotsu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Jul-2008 at 12:59
Originally posted by deadkenny

That is NOT addressing it from the perspective of what British policy was.


What to you mean by that?

What is the issue here?

Chamberlain declared war because he was forced to by public pressure to honor guarantee.

This is true.
Back to Top
deadkenny View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 994
  Quote deadkenny Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Jul-2008 at 13:05
Originally posted by Bankotsu

Originally posted by deadkenny

but that makes about as much sense as does your Baltic Invasion scheme (which is to say it makes no sense).


Which is the same scheme of army group north in the actual invasion of Russia.


...

http://marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-2/mswv2_17.htm


... For this reason, in the negotiations with Russia, Halifax refused any multilateral pact against aggression, any guarantee of the Baltic States, or any tripartite guarantee of Poland...

http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/cikkek/anglo_12b.html


Britain refused to issue guarantee of baltic states so as to leave a space for Germany to drive across into Russia.
 
Hmmm, yamaguchy and marxists.org again, what a shock.  No reputable source would support the contention that Britain actually 'wanted' or 'encouraged' Germany to occupy the Baltic States.  In fact, the reason that Britain did not want a multilateral guarantee of the Baltic States (i.e. one involving the Soviet Union) is because they were concerned that the Soviets would use such as an excuse to occupy the Baltic States themselves, something that the Baltic States were also very concerned with (and obviously with good reason, since the Soviet Union did in fact occupy the Baltic States, supposedly in order to 'protect' them, under the Nazi-Soviet Pact). 
 
As for your Army Group North comment, so the entire German 'invasion' of the Soviet Union which is being proposed is a drive up through the Baltic States which 'stalls' outside of Leningrad?  This no flank cover at all?  So none of the rest of the Red Army is engaged or destroyed as it was historically in Barbarossa, so it is free to counterattack across northeastern Poland, into Lithuania and cut off the entire German invasion force?  Brilliant suggestion, however, one which the Germans were never ever going to attempt.  Any realistic scheme for the invasion of the Soviet Union required the occupation of Poland first, a fact which the Germans were very well aware of themselves.


Edited by deadkenny - 11-Jul-2008 at 13:05
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana
Back to Top
deadkenny View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 994
  Quote deadkenny Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Jul-2008 at 13:12
Originally posted by Bankotsu

Originally posted by deadkenny

That is NOT addressing it from the perspective of what British policy was.


What to you mean by that?

What is the issue here?

Chamberlain declared war because he was forced to by public pressure to honor guarantee.

This is true.
 
First, I don't agree, but that is another debate.  The fact is that British policy was to declare war on Germany.  So you've not addressed the fact of the British declaration of war on Germany when Germany invaded Poland, the one country actually east of Germany and the one country that needed to be occupied in order to allow an invasion of the Soviet Union by Germany.  You falsely  claimed that you had addressed the issue of the British DoW, however, all you claimed was that Chamberlain didn't want to declare war but was 'forced' to.  That completely fails to address the issue from the perspective of what British policy was.  It is becoming increasingly clear that at this point you are just spamming and trolling.  You are contributing nothing new, just repeating the same quotes from the same few sources that actually support your conspiracy theory, and then misrepresenting what is said by a number of other sources.  Then you've taken this new tack of trying to put the onus of providing proof onto others, as you have consistently failed to do so yourself.  This 'habit' you have of posting a 'reply' consisting of nothing more than 3 question marks is also not legit.  If you're not willing to put more effort than that into a post, then please don't even bother to reply.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana
Back to Top
Bankotsu View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 27-Feb-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 511
  Quote Bankotsu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Jul-2008 at 13:16
Originally posted by deadkenny

You falsely  claimed that you had addressed the issue of the British DoW, however, all you claimed was that Chamberlain didn't want to declare war but was 'forced' to.  That completely fails to address the issue from the perspective of what British policy was.


What do you mean by that?

I have no clue.

Chamberlain was forced to declare war. This is correct.

And?

What "completely fails to address the issue from the perspective of what British policy was"?

What poppycock is that?

Back to Top
Bankotsu View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 27-Feb-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 511
  Quote Bankotsu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Jul-2008 at 13:17
Originally posted by deadkenny

In fact, the reason that Britain did not want a multilateral guarantee of the Baltic States (i.e. one involving the Soviet Union) is because they were concerned that the Soviets would use such as an excuse to occupy the Baltic States themselves, something that the Baltic States were also very concerned with (and obviously with good reason, since the Soviet Union did in fact occupy the Baltic States, supposedly in order to 'protect' them, under the Nazi-Soviet Pact).


Produce evidence.
Back to Top
Peteratwar View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 17-Apr-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 591
  Quote Peteratwar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Jul-2008 at 13:22
I would have thought the facts in 1939 and what the Soviet Union did was fairly obvious and is probably the best evidence of the lot. Taken them nearly 70 years to get free.
Back to Top
Bankotsu View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 27-Feb-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 511
  Quote Bankotsu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Jul-2008 at 13:22
Originally posted by deadkenny

As for your Army Group North comment, so the entire German 'invasion' of the Soviet Union which is being proposed is a drive up through the Baltic States which 'stalls' outside of Leningrad?


I don't see a problem with that.



Interesting note:


...Chairman Mao: But you are a German from Germany. But your Germany now has met with an ill fate, because in two wars it has been defeated.

Dr. Kissinger: It attempted too much, beyond its abilities and resources.

Chairman Mao: Yes, and it also scattered its forces in war. For example, in its attack against the Soviet Union. If it is going to attack, it should attack in one place, but they separated their troops into three routes. It began in June but then by the winter they couldn’t stand it because it was too cold. What is the reason for the Europeans fear of
the cold?

Dr. Kissinger: The Germans were not prepared for a long war. Actually they did not mobilize their whole forces until 1943. I agree with the Chairman that if they had concentrated on one front they would almost certainly have won. They were only ten kilometers from Moscow even by dispersing their forces. (Chairman Mao relights his cigar.)

Chairman Mao: They shouldn’t have attacked Moscow or Kiev. They should have taken Leningrad as a first step. Another error in policy was they didn’t cross the sea after Dunkirk.

Dr. Kissinger: After Dunkirk.

Chairman Mao: They were entirely unprepared.

Dr. Kissinger: And Hitler was a romantic. He had a strange liking for England.

Chairman Mao: Oh? Then why didn’t they go there? Because the British at that time were completely without troops.

Dr. Kissinger: If they were able to cross the channel into Britain. . . I think they had only one division in all of England.

Prime Minister Chou: Is that so?

Dr. Kissinger: Yes.

Prime Minister Chou: Also Sir Anthony Eden told us in Germany at that time that a Minister in the Army of Churchill’s Government said at that time if Hitler had crossed the channel they would have had no forces. They had withdrawn all their forces back. When they were preparing for the German crossing, Churchill had no arms. He could only organize police to defend the coast. If they crossed they would not be able to defend.

Dr. Kissinger: It also shows what a courageous man can do because Churchill created by his personality much more strength than they possessed.

Chairman Mao: Actually by that time they couldn’t hold.

Prime Minister Chou: So Hitler carried some romantic feelings about Britain?

Dr. Kissinger: I think he was a maniac, but he did have some feelings about Britain.

Chairman Mao: I believe Hitler was from the Rhine area?

Dr. Kissinger: Austria.

Prime Minister Chou: He was a soldier in the First World War.

Dr. Kissinger: He was in the German Army, but he was a native of Austria.

Prime Minister Chou: From the Danube.

Dr. Kissinger: He conducted strategy artistically rather than strategically. He did it by intuition. He had no overall plan.

Chairman Mao: Then why did the German troops heed him so much?

Dr. Kissinger: Probably because the Germans are somewhat romantic people and because he must have had a very strong personality.

Chairman Mao: Mainly because during the First World War the German nation was humiliated.

Dr. Kissinger: Yes, that was a very important factor...


http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/100320.pdf
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/frus/nixon/xviii/

Back to Top
Peteratwar View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 17-Apr-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 591
  Quote Peteratwar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Jul-2008 at 13:24
None of that quote is at all relative and some totally incorrect
Back to Top
Bankotsu View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 27-Feb-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 511
  Quote Bankotsu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Jul-2008 at 13:25
Originally posted by Peteratwar

I would have thought the facts in 1939 and what the Soviet Union did was fairly obvious and is probably the best evidence of the lot.


That is not evidence of british intent in 1939.

That is quite shocking from you Peteratwar.

After all that effort to ask me to provide evidence.


Back to Top
Bankotsu View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 27-Feb-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 511
  Quote Bankotsu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Jul-2008 at 13:27
Originally posted by Peteratwar

None of that quote is at all relative and some totally incorrect


That is mainly to show that not everyone agrees with deadkenny military views.
Back to Top
deadkenny View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 994
  Quote deadkenny Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Jul-2008 at 13:39
Bankotsu, it is increasingly obvious to me that you have given up on any legitimate contribution, and are just spamming and trolling.  This should not be allowed.  However, fortunately for you, the mods are quite tolerant here.  I can easily see how / why you get banned on other forums.  You like to play the martyr and claim this is because of your dissemination of an 'unpopular truth'.  However, the reality is more likely that these other boards simply got tired of putting up with your trolling and spamming tactics.

Edited by deadkenny - 11-Jul-2008 at 13:39
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana
Back to Top
Bankotsu View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 27-Feb-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 511
  Quote Bankotsu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Jul-2008 at 13:55
It is also obvious to me that you refuse to accept the logic and facts that I have presented.

After I have explained the logic, you still refuse to accept and insist on repeating the same queries over and over and over again.

For example, Chamberlain declaration of war, a move which I have explained countless times, but you keep on repeating.


Edited by Bankotsu - 11-Jul-2008 at 13:56
Back to Top
deadkenny View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 994
  Quote deadkenny Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Jul-2008 at 14:02

You've presented false information from the same 3 sites over and over again.  Then you've misrepresented what is stated in other sources (as I've pointed out numerous times) and posted completely irrelevant 'conversations' between Kissinger and Chinese communists officials in the 70's. 

You claim yet again to have 'addressed' the fact of Britain's DoW on Germany when Germany invaded Poland.  Yet all you've claimed is that Chamberlain didn't personally want to declare war, but was forced to in order to remain PM.  That does NOT address the point from the perspective of British policy.  British policy was to declare war on Germany, and that is what was going to happen whether Chamberlain liked it or not.  So according to your theory, Britain caused their own policy to fail by declaring war on Germany when Germany did exactly what you claim Britain wanted, which was to go east.  The historical fact is that Britain allowed Germany to go every direction except east (i.e. Rhineland - west, Austria, Sudetenland - south).


Edited by deadkenny - 11-Jul-2008 at 14:03
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana
Back to Top
Bankotsu View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 27-Feb-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 511
  Quote Bankotsu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Jul-2008 at 14:10
Originally posted by deadkenny

So according to your theory, Britain caused their own policy to fail by declaring war on Germany when Germany did exactly what you claim Britain wanted, which was to go east.


Yes that is true.

Chamberlain was forced to go against his own plans and declare war.

Otherwise his government might collapse.


...As a more realistic candidate for the turn-around, we shall see that Quigley rather points to the impression which this and the other scare propaganda made on the public, making it necessary for the politicians to follow the popular mood in order to become re-elected.


The politicians therefore indirectly fell victim to their own scare propaganda, and democracy ironically revenged itself on the politicians by sacrificing their electorate, the people, on the plate of war. If there is a lesson in this, it may be that politicians should be careful in manipulating and stirring popular emotions, since these may turn out to take over and run the show rather than remaining controllable puppets...


http://www.krigshistorie.net/appeasement.html




Edited by Bankotsu - 11-Jul-2008 at 14:11
Back to Top
deadkenny View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 994
  Quote deadkenny Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Jul-2008 at 14:14
Originally posted by Bankotsu

Originally posted by deadkenny

So according to your theory, Britain caused their own policy to fail by declaring war on Germany when Germany did exactly what you claim Britain wanted, which was to go east.


Yes that is true.

Chamberlain was forced to go against his own plans and declare war.

Otherwise his government might collapse.
 
The fact that you are unable to recognize the glaring logical contradiction in your own theory really makes further debate on this topic pointless.  This just points to the fact that British policy was something other than what you're claiming it was.  Your claim is that Chamberlain was 'forced' to implement a policy other than what he 'wanted' to.  So that doesn't make what you claim Chamberlain wanted British policy. In fact British policy was the opposite of what you're claiming. 
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana
Back to Top
Bankotsu View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 27-Feb-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 511
  Quote Bankotsu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Jul-2008 at 14:26
Originally posted by deadkenny

Your claim is that Chamberlain was 'forced' to implement a policy other than what he 'wanted' to.


That's why Chamberlain was reluctant to fight Germany.

He was only forced to declare war.

It didn't mean that he would really fight Germany.


...They did not see that the British Government might have to declare war to stay in office if public opinion in Britain were sufficiently aroused.  The British Government saw this difficulty and as a last resort were prepared to declare war but not to wage war on Germany.


This distinction was not clear to the Germans and was not accepted by the inner core of the Milner Group.  It was, however, accepted by the other elements in the government, like Chamberlain himself, and by much of the second circle of the Milner Group, including Simon, Hoare, and probably Halifax. 

It was this which resulted in the “phony war” from September 1939 to April 1940...

http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/cikkek/anglo_12b.html
Back to Top
Peteratwar View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 17-Apr-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 591
  Quote Peteratwar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Jul-2008 at 14:32
The phoney war was there because strangely enough it takes time to get troops and supplies concentrated. It takes time to train troops to the required standard. It takes time to formulate a military strategy with allies. Added to the winter months you have a time gap.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 1617181920>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.063 seconds.