Was it a good strategy to push Hitler eastwards?

Message Share Topic Printable Version Google Delicious Digg StumbleUpon Windows Live Yahoo Bookmarks reddit Facebook MySpace Newsvine Furl Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic

Originally posted by deadkenny

Without getting too far into the debate over the extent to which 'pushing' Hitler east was acutally British foreign policy under Baldwin, the fact is that there is a problem which is quite evident in the map you've posted.  That is, prior to the war, Germany and the Soviet Union did not share a common border.  Practically speaking, Germany would have needed to go through Poland.  Needless to say, the Poles were rather sensitive about this prospective, even being as anti-Soviet as they were.  In fact, when it came down to it, British foreign policy was actually to try to avoid a war at all.  After Germany violated the Munich agreement by occupying 'the rest' of Czechoslovakia in March 1939, Chamberlain offered 'guarantees' to various small states, including Poland.  So that policy itself tended to negate the possibility of 'pushing' Germany east.  At least not without involving Britain herself in a war against Germany.  In spite of later Soviet attempts to 'blame' the west for the pact the Soviets signed with Nazi Germany ('blame' which took the form, in part, of accusing the west of planning to do what the Soviets themselve in fact did do, which was to 'turn' Germany in the 'other' direction) the fact is that 'pushing' the Germans east was not British policy under Chamberlain.  In fact Chamberlain's policy was to try to avoid war entirely by addressing specific issues with direct negotiation with and concessions to Germany (i.e. appeasement), while 'freezing' the Soviets out of the negotiations.  I'm not suggesting that it was the best strategy, or an effective strategy (self-defeating to some extent in fact).  However, the later guarantee to Poland makes it clear that British policy was certainly not to 'push' Hitler east.  If anything, it was Hitler who wanted to go east, but he first had to deal with that fact that Britain and France refused to allow him a 'free hand' in central and eastern Europe. 

Indeed, Britain desparately tried to make "balance of power" concept intact in European continent. And it is also true that Hitler was more leaning into Eastern expansion rather than to west. (Hitler tried to forge alliance with Britain, and he himself admired British Empire.) Hitler didn't really hate French (Except French resistance... but that's different topic here). Lebensraum was his grand and detail plan of how to takeover Eastern Europe. (Maybe his Austrian blood has some connection to this? Anyone know the answer?) Hitler's armies occupied Western Europe, but no huge Nazi influence affected Western Europe. Other than hunting down non-Aryan race and collecting supplies for war effort, the governments in Western Europe remained intact. (ex. Hitler didn't really care whether Spain was part of his regime or not, as long as he was his ally) Generalplan Ost was part of Hitler's meticulous planning of what to do once these regions are conquered. 

Clearly, it should be agreed that Hitler prioritized East. Why, I can't really say... 

Lebensraum.