Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
Bankotsu
Colonel
Joined: 27-Feb-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 511
|
Quote Reply
Topic: Was it a good strategy to push Hitler eastwards? 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 They had withdrawn all their forces back.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/
|
|
|
Peteratwar
Colonel
Joined: 17-Apr-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 591
|
Quote Reply
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.
|
|
Bankotsu
Colonel
Joined: 27-Feb-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 511
|
Quote Reply
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.
|
|
Bankotsu
Colonel
Joined: 27-Feb-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 511
|
Quote Reply
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?
|
|
deadkenny
General
Joined: 21-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 994
|
Quote Reply
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
|
|
deadkenny
General
Joined: 21-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 994
|
Quote Reply
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.
...
|
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
|
|
Bankotsu
Colonel
Joined: 27-Feb-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 511
|
Quote Reply
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.
|
|
deadkenny
General
Joined: 21-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 994
|
Quote Reply
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
|
|
deadkenny
General
Joined: 21-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 994
|
Quote Reply
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
|
|
Bankotsu
Colonel
Joined: 27-Feb-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 511
|
Quote Reply
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.
|
|
Bankotsu
Colonel
Joined: 27-Feb-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 511
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Jul-2008 at 12:28 |
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. ...Then they wanted to sacrifice the Soviet
Union. This plot was clearly revealed in the recent Anglo-French-Soviet talks.
They lasted for more than four months, from April 15 to August 23, during
which the Soviet Union exercised the utmost patience. But, from start to
finish, Britain and France rejected the principle of equality and reciprocity;
they demanded that the Soviet Union provide safeguards for their security,
but refused to do likewise for the Soviet Union and the small Baltic states,
so as to leave a gap through which Germany could attack, and they also refused
to allow the passage of Soviet troops through Poland to fight the aggressor.
That is why the talks broke down...
http://marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-2/mswv2_17.htm ...If, by means of another Munich, he could have obtained a German-Polish
settlement that would satisfy Germany and avoid war, he would have
taken it. It was the hope of such an agreement that prevented him from
making any real agreement with Russia, for it was, apparently, the
expectation of the British government that if the Germans could get the
Polish Corridor by negotiation, they could then drive into Russia
across the Baltic States. 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.
Edited by Bankotsu - 11-Jul-2008 at 12:43
|
|
Bankotsu
Colonel
Joined: 27-Feb-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 511
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Jul-2008 at 12:26 |
Originally posted by deadkenny
I have already quoted from your source previously, and it simply does not say what you claim it says. |
???
|
|
deadkenny
General
Joined: 21-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 994
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Jul-2008 at 12:24 |
Originally posted by Bankotsu
Germany annex Danzig and Polish corridor and then drive across baltic states into Russia seems prefectly sound to me.
I don't see a problem with that.
|
I know you don't, because you obviously don't know enough about military logistics. I already explained this previously, but naturally you just chose to ignore it. The Germans could also have invaded the Soviet Union by invading Denmark and Sweden, then going through Finland - but that makes about as much sense as does your Baltic Invasion scheme (which is to say it makes no sense). Furthermore, you've not provided a shred of evidence that this was British policy. 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.
|
"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-Jul-2008 at 12:18 |
Originally posted by Bankotsu
Why doesn't reflect government policy? Diplomacy and events in 1937-1939 shows that it was government policy.
Show me evidence that reflects government policy then.
Originally posted by Peteratwar
What would be needed would be first-hand evidence e.g. memoranda from official governmental sources stating this was the policy. |
For that see: http://books.google.com/books?id=-VarDLHA3
Further you still cannot explain how British guarantees to Poland fit in with the proposal to drive Hitler east |
Guarantee to Poland was to warn Hitler not to attack Poland but take Danzig and Polish corridor through negotiations. The british expected Germany to drive into Russia across baltic states after Hitler had taken Danizg and Polish corridor. |
Everytime you do this you diminish what little credibility you have. I have already quoted from your source previously, and it simply does not say what you claim it says.
Originally posted by Bankotsu's source
...there were powerful currents in high level political and social circles that hoped Germany would at least serve as a counterweight to Russia against the spread of communism. |
'Power current' in political and social 'circles' does not equal government policy. Serving as a 'counterweight' to Russia against the spread of communism does not equal an invasion of the Soviet Union by Germany. This source simply does not support your claim that British policy was to 'encourage' German expansion eastward or to faciliate a German attack upon the Soviet Union. The only sites that support that claim are the 3 we are all very familiar with, yamaguchy, quigley and marxists.org.
|
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana
|
|
Bankotsu
Colonel
Joined: 27-Feb-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 511
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Jul-2008 at 12:17 |
Germany annex Danzig and Polish corridor and then drive across baltic states into Russia seems prefectly sound to me.
I don't see a problem with that.
In fact that was the invasion route of army group north during the invasion of USSR.
Edited by Bankotsu - 11-Jul-2008 at 12:23
|
|
deadkenny
General
Joined: 21-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 994
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Jul-2008 at 12:10 |
Originally posted by Bankotsu
The british expected Germany to drive into Russia across baltic states after Hitler had taken Danizg and Polish corridor.
|
Again, you've provided not a shred of evidence to support your claim that the British 'expected' Germany to invade the Soviet Union through the Baltic States only, without having occupied Poland (except for Danzig and a land corridor to East Prussia). Furthermore, as clearly stated previously, such a scheme (i.e. an invasion of the Soviet Union without occupying Poland) was not feasible logistically. Britain was consistent in being willing to allow Germany to occupy areas with predominantly German populations, but equally consistent in opposing German occupation of other (non-German) territories. Why should anyone believe that Britain would have accepted a German occupation of the Baltic States anymore than they did Poland?
|
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana
|
|
Bankotsu
Colonel
Joined: 27-Feb-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 511
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Jul-2008 at 11:02 |
Originally posted by Peteratwar
Your last paragraph has no supporting evidence at all. |
Reason for Polish Guarantee on 31 March 1939: ...He had no intention of ever fulfilling the guarantee if it could
possibly be evaded and, for this reason, refused the Polish requests
for a small rearmament loan and to open immediate staff discussions to
implement the guarantee.
The Milner Group, less susceptible to public
opinion, did not want the guarantee to Poland at all. As a result, the
guarantee was worded to cover Polish “independence” and not her
“territorial integrity.”
This was interpreted by the leading article
of The Times for 1 April to leave the way open to territorial
revision without revoking the guarantee.
This interpretation was
accepted by Chamberlain in Commons on 3 April.
Apparently the
government believed that it was making no real commitment because, if
war broke out in eastern Europe, British public opinion would force the
government to declare war on Germany, no matter what the government
itself wanted, and regardless whether the guarantee existed or not.
On
the other hand, a guarantee to Poland might deter Hitler from
precipitating a war and give the government time to persuade the Polish
government to yield the Corridor to Germany.
If the Poles could not be
persuaded, or if Germany marched, the fat was in the fire anyway; if
the Poles could be persuaded to yield, the guarantee was so worded that
Britain could not act under it to prevent such yielding.
This was to
block any possibility that British public opinion might refuse to
accept a Polish Munich.
That this line of thought was not far distant
from British government circles is indicated by a Reuters news dispatch
released on the same day that Chamberlain gave the guarantee to
Poland.
This dispatch indicated that, under cover of the guarantee,
Britian would put pressure on Poland to make substantial concessions to
Hitler through negotiations. According to Hugh Dalton, Labour M.P.,
speaking in Commons on 3 April, this dispatch was inspired by the
government and was issued through either the Foreign Office, Sir Horace
Wilson, John Simon, or Samuel Hoare. Three of these four were of the
Milner Group, the fourth being the personal agent of Chamberlain.
Dalton’s charge was not denied by any government spokesman, Hoare
contenting himself with a request to Dalton “to justify that
statement.” Another M.P. of Churchill’s group suggested that Geoffrey
Dawson was the source, but Dalton rejected this...http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/cikkek/anglo_12b.html
...The British Cabinet considered what should be done, and the Cabinet Foreign Policy Committee discussed the problem on March 27.Chamberlain said Poland’s attitude was uncertain as to helping Britain and France defend Romania if she were attacked, but Poland was absolutely necessary to create a "second front" against Germany in the East.
Also, Poland might buckle and accept Hitler’s demands, thus lining up with Germany... For these reasons, he favored giving Poland a unilateral guarantee. Halifax said that France and Britain could not prevent Poland and Romania from being overrun, but Chamberlain responded by saying that the Western Powers could divert some German forces by holding the Maginot Line. Finally, it was agreed to give a unilateral guarantee to Poland in order to deter Hitler from further aggression, but without setting a date when it should be given.
Two days later, on March 29, Ian Colvin, the Berlin correspondent of the News Chronicle arrived in London with the "news" that Hitler was about to attack Poland at any moment.
In fact, Hitler had not yet set a date for attacking Poland and the "proof" of attack that Colvin brought -- that is supplies sent to the German troops stationed near the Polish border -- was not at all new for the British War Office had known of it for some time. Nevertheless, with rumors flying around London, that evening, Chamberlain "agreed to the idea of an immediate declaration of support of Poland, to counter a quick putsch by Hitler."
Thus it was that on March 30, Halifax asked Ambassador Raczynski whether Poland would accept a British guarantee of her independence, and Ambassador Kennard transmitted the same question to Beck in Warsaw. The Polish Foreign Minister accepted the proposal at once. It should be noted that he had rejected the German demands on March 25, five days before he was offered the British guarantee.
What Beck did not know was that the British Cabinet decided the guarantee of Polish independence was conditional on Poland not being "stupidly obstinate" over Danzig and relations with Germany in general, also on Poland actually fighting to defend her independence. Furthermore, at noon on March 31, Chamberlain told the British Cabinet that Britain would decide if and when Polish independence was threatened.
On the afternoon of March 31, Chamberlain read a long statement in the House of Commons. He first said, at great length, that the British government believed every dispute could be negotiated. In the meanwhile, if Polish independence were threatened and Poland resisted with all her forces, Britain would do all in her power to help Poland, and France would do likewise.
However, this was not the end of appeasement. The British guarantee of Polish independence was meant to deter Hitler from further aggression and persuade him to obtain what he wanted from Poland by negotiation. On April 1, (All Fools' Day),Geoffrey Dawson (1874-1944), the editor of the London Times, published an editorial saying the guarantee did not apply to Polish frontiers, but to Polish independence. In his diary, he noted that Halifax and Chamberlain agreed "this was about right." ... http://web.ku.edu/~eceurope/hist557/lect16.htm
Edited by Bankotsu - 11-Jul-2008 at 11:07
|
|
Bankotsu
Colonel
Joined: 27-Feb-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 511
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Jul-2008 at 10:53 |
Originally posted by Peteratwar
Your link above doesn't seem to work. | http://books.google.com/books?id=-VarDLHA3_YC&pg=PA17
This thread is your proposal, you have to prove it and evidence so far is non-existent |
I have provided evidence. It is whether you want to accept it as proof or not. You, on the other hand have not provide any evidence that supports your claim that Britain's policy " was to have all round peace and not war anywhere".
|
|
Peteratwar
Colonel
Joined: 17-Apr-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 591
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Jul-2008 at 10:41 |
Your link above doesn't seem to work.
Your last paragraph has no supporting evidence at all.
This thread is your proposal, you have to prove it and evidence so far is non-existent
|
|
Bankotsu
Colonel
Joined: 27-Feb-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 511
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Jul-2008 at 09:23 |
Originally posted by Peteratwar
The above is not evidence at all. At best it expresses the thinking of some people which did not reflect Governmental Policy. |
Why doesn't reflect government policy? Diplomacy and events in 1937-1939 shows that it was government policy. Show me evidence that reflects government policy then.
What would be needed would be first-hand evidence e.g. memoranda from official governmental sources stating this was the policy. |
For that see: http://books.google.com/books?id=-VarDLHA3
Further you still cannot explain how British guarantees to Poland fit in with the proposal to drive Hitler east |
Guarantee to Poland was to warn Hitler not to attack Poland but take Danzig and Polish corridor through negotiations. The british expected Germany to drive into Russia across baltic states after Hitler had taken Danizg and Polish corridor.
|
|