Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)
Was it a good strategy to push Hitler eastwards? |
Post Reply 
|
Page 123 20> |
| Author |
 Share Topic Printable Version Google Delicious Digg StumbleUpon Windows Live Yahoo Bookmarks reddit Facebook MySpace Newsvine Furl 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: 15-May-2008 at 10:28 |
|
British Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin wanted to push Nazi Germany eastwards to destroy the Soviet Union, was this a good strategy?
Two weeks after Munich Baldwin said in a conversation with Lord Hinchingbrooke: "Can't we turn Hitler East? Napoleon broke himself against the Russians. Hitler might do the same". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Baldwin#Later_life  Edited by Bankotsu - 15-May-2008 at 10:29 |
|
 |
|
|
Parnell
Suspended 
Suspended Joined: 04-Apr-2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 1409 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-May-2008 at 14:10 |
|
Watch out newcomer. Even suggesting the pre WWII narrative was any different around here will probably lead to accusations of supporting genocide and eating babies. Just watch out for some of the more medieval characters round here who will gang up on you pretty soon...
|
|
|
|
|
Parnell
Suspended
Suspended Joined: 04-Apr-2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 1409 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-May-2008 at 14:12 |
|
Also I'm skeptical that that was a plan from the British. I think it was more of a case of 'if theres going to be war, better be against the Soviets than against us', most likely working on the principle that a conflict would leave both weaker after it.
|
|
|
|
|
Bankotsu
Colonel
Joined: 27-Feb-2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 511 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-May-2008 at 14:43 |
Why should they gang up on me? Britain pushing Hitler eastwards to destroy Soviet Union is nothing new. Then in July 1936 the Spanish civil war began. Tory ideological dread was brought to a fine edge. The Spanish civil war could lead to a European conflict between ideological blocs; and war could provoke the spread of communist revolution or Soviet influence. It was better, a lot of Tories thought, to turn Germany eastward against the USSR. "Let gallant little Germany glut her fill of reds in the East...," suggested one Tory M.P. (Henry Channon, September 1936). Even the British prime minister, Stanley Baldwin was attracted by the idea. http://gozips.uakron.edu/%7Emcarley/COLDWAR.html If last week's news had no other effect, it certainly pepped up diplomatic
gossip. Around the embassies went the story about Yang Chieh, Chinese
Ambassador to Moscow: The day before the German-Russian pact was
announced, Yang Chieh called on Russian Premier Viacheslav Molotov and
asked what was up. Said he with Oriental suavity, he had heard rumors of a German-Russian plan to dismember Poland. . . . Thunderstruck, Premier Molotov gasped, drew back, while the veins of his forehead stood out in his apoplectic fury: this, he reminded his visitor, was the Soviet of Socialist Republics, the fatherland of the toiling masses, the vanguard of the antifascist struggle; that any ambassador could believe such a slander of the Socialist State made him, Molotov, wonder if he was the proper ambassador to be accredited to it. The Chinese Ambassador left, to read in Pravda the next day the laconic notice that the agreement had been made. Molotov hadn't been told. Premier Molotov, whose name in Russian means Hammer (Stalin means Steel), whose pretty wife Paulina is Commissar of Fisheries and is very close to Stalin, may well have been taken by surprise. If so, his astonishment last week must have mounted hourly. No sooner had the German-Russian pact been hailed as thwarting the foul design of British Tories to direct German expansion to the East than the German Army did what (in the Russian view) Tories had failed to accomplish—i.e., directed German expansion to the East... http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,761966-1,00.html The decision to push Germany east to attack USSR was made in 1936 by the British conservative government. These are all facts. Edited by Bankotsu - 15-May-2008 at 15:03 |
|
|
|
|
pekau
Caliph 
Atlantean Prophet Joined: 08-Oct-2006 Location: Korea, South Online Status: Offline Posts: 3335 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-May-2008 at 15:40 |
|
Nothing to worry about, Bankotsu. We had worse in many dark times... and this kind of question isn't offensive from my prospective... it's just pure military strategy questions. Was it good? I personally don't think it would have been a great choice in the long-term for Britain. British economy was devastated by the war, and they needed to restabilize their economy by making wrecked European economy stable again ASAP. And let's not also forget that Hitler lied to Britain straight in the face numerous times... so why would Britain dare to trust Hitler again? Public opinion against Hitler and his "evil" regime was so strong in Britain, especially after German barrages in London and other coastal regions of UK. Churchill will lose his support steadily gained from the momentum of war.And it's not just Britain. What would Holland, Belgium, France and other nations/resistance movement think if Germans are so easily forgiven against the "evil" USSR? I am pretty sure that France will never buy into truce with Hitler's Germany, and the moral of Allies will collapse.
Oh, and let's not forget that USA was heavily supporting USSR at that time. USA thought they need all the support they could get from USSR to defeat Germans and Japanese... so imagine the diplomatic disaster when Britain requests to switch side by supporting Hitler against USSR.
Note: My arguement can be proven wrong. I didn't even think straight (Easily observed by my disorganized arguments)
|
|
Join us. |
|
|
|
|
pekau
Caliph
Atlantean Prophet Joined: 08-Oct-2006 Location: Korea, South Online Status: Offline Posts: 3335 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-May-2008 at 15:43 |
|
Just like to add that Britain had little reason to support the losing side. USSR had huge advantage over Hitler's collapsing nation with their numerical advantage. Their troops and armour units were getting better equipment thanks to improvement of mass production, and their soldiers were much more experienced in contrast of freshly recruited soldiers. (Much of experienced officers and soldiers were not in service or killed) |
|
|
Join us. |
|
|
|
|
Peteratwar
Colonel
Joined: 17-Apr-2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 591 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-May-2008 at 16:00 |
No such facts but has been theorised before without any real evidence
|
|
|
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-May-2008 at 16:09 |
|
The British considered war between the two likely and not disadvantagous to UK's interests.
|
|
|
|
|
deadkenny
General 
Joined: 21-Aug-2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 994 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-May-2008 at 19:11 |
|
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.
Edited by deadkenny - 15-May-2008 at 19:12 |
|
|
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana
|
|
|
|
|
pekau
Caliph
Atlantean Prophet Joined: 08-Oct-2006 Location: Korea, South Online Status: Offline Posts: 3335 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-May-2008 at 19:29 |
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...
|
|
|
Join us. |
|
|
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-May-2008 at 21:24 |
|
It was England's, then Great Britain's than the United Kingdom's policy since Henry VIII that there could be no one power on the continent. It coloured the foreign policy against Charles V, against Phillip II, against old Louis XIV, against Napoleon, against the Russians, against the Germans. Not always successful, but always pursued. So the idea is not out of here. |
|
|
|
|
Bankotsu
Colonel
Joined: 27-Feb-2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 511 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 08-Jun-2008 at 17:14 |
|
Started this topic at Armchairgeneral forum and got banned after they couldn't win the argument with me:
http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=63840 Really pathetic behaviour of the moderators there. |
|
|
|
|
Bankotsu
Colonel
Joined: 27-Feb-2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 511 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 10-Jun-2008 at 05:01 |
|
Can anyone tell me why most british people despise this interpretation of history?
The view that Britain turned Nazi Germany eastwards to destroy Soviet Union? ...And by this date, certain members of the Milner Group and of the British Conservative government had reached the fantastic idea that they could kill two birds with one stone by setting Germany and Russia against one another in Eastern Europe. In this way they felt that the two enemies would stalemate one another, or that Germany would become satisfied with the oil of Rumania and the wheat of the Ukraine. It never occurred to anyone in a responsible position that Germany and Russia might make common cause, even temporarily, against the West. Even less did it occur to them that Russia might beat Germany and thus open all Central Europe to Bolshevism. In order to carry out this plan of allowing Germany to drive eastward against Russia, it was necessary to do three things: (1) to liquidate all the countries standing between Germany and Russia; (2) to prevent France from honoring her alliances with these countries; and (3) to hoodwink the English people into accepting this as a necessary, indeed, the only solution to the international problem. The Chamberlain group were so successful in all three of these things that they came within an ace of succeeding, and failed only because of the obstinacy of the Poles, the unseemly haste of Hitler, and the fact that at the eleventh hour the Milner Group realized the implications of their policy and tried to reverse it... http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/cikkek/anglo_12b.html When I presented this view at http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forums/ , the moderators and a clique of forum posters despised it so much that they banned me without even a warning whatsoever. This is how much they hate and despise this view. Why is this so? Why some british people hate the view of Britain turned Nazi Germany eastwards to destroy Soviet Union? |
|
|
|
|
snowybeagle
Baron 
Joined: 02-Aug-2004 Location: Singapore Online Status: Offline Posts: 474 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 10-Jun-2008 at 08:18 |
|
Could it be that many British today descended from refugees from the countries used as sacrificial lambs, and found the notion abhorrent?
|
|
|
|
|
Peteratwar
Colonel
Joined: 17-Apr-2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 591 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 10-Jun-2008 at 08:29 |
|
This is a strange theorey which gets promulgated on many forums and has yet to provide any proof that any such strategy ever existed.
No doubt there might have been many at the time who thought 'wouldn't it be nice if.....'
However that is quite another thing.
Pushing Germany Eastward to destroy Russia would have destroyed the basis of British Foreign Policy for centuries. Do not allow one country to become predominant in Europe. There should always be a balance. Allowing Germany to destroy Russia would negate that policy.
|
|
|
|
|
Bankotsu
Colonel
Joined: 27-Feb-2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 511 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 10-Jun-2008 at 08:32 |
|
I think we should respect historical truth.
So British textbooks should change to reflect this truth. Japan also don't like to discuss about WWII history. North Korean textbooks also say South Korea attacked first and was the aggressor in korean war. Britain turn Germany eastwards to destroy Soviet Union also missing in english textbooks. Very sad for historical truth. |
|
|
|
|
Bankotsu
Colonel
Joined: 27-Feb-2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 511 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 10-Jun-2008 at 08:37 |
|
Britain's anti-bolshevik view which was executed as policy under Chamberlain regime:
Date: 04 Aug 1936 Scope/content: Letter from Major-General Sir Hugh Tudor, St John's Newfoundland, Canada to WSC, on the European situation. Commenting that Britain should make a strong western pact with France and Germany, and allow Germany to "settle" the Soviet Union and Bolshevism "in her own way". Stating that Germany would eventually be stronger after defeating Russia, and it would take years before her to be in a position to make war again. "Russia deserves what is coming to her as she will never stop undermining capitalistic governments in every way she can." Commenting that if left alone Russia would be the stongest power on earth in 10 years, and may be a more dangerous enemy than Germany. Praising WSC for "bradawling" the Government over re-armament. http://www-archives.chu.cam.ac.uk/perl/node?search_id=1169093;sort_by=Dscore;index=4 Date: 16 Aug 1936 Scope/content: Letter from WSC to Major-General Sir Hugh Tudor, thanks for letter on the European political situation. Commenting that a strong and growing section of Conservative opinion agreed with Tudor that Britain should form a strong Western Alliance with France and Germany, leaving Germany free to deal with the Soviet Union. http://www-archives.chu.cam.ac.uk/perl/node?search_id=1169095;sort_by=Dscore;index=105 |
|
|
|
|
Bankotsu
Colonel
Joined: 27-Feb-2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 511 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 10-Jun-2008 at 08:42 |
|
...Eden noted in his diary after talks with Hitler:"Only thing Hitler wants is Air Pact without limitation. Simon much inclined to bite at this....I had to protest and he gave up the idea.... Simon toys with the idea of letting Germany expand eastwards. I am strongly against. Apart from dishonesty it would be out turn next"(cited in Dutton 1994, 50)...
http://books.google.com.sg/books?id=UyMXon0JmBsC&pg=PA107&lpg=PA107&dq=eden's+diary+1935+hitler+simon+&source=web&ots=A58iIH7xr6&sig=IChZUDHy4vJ-mJ8C112mq56Mfks&hl=en |
|
|
|
|
deadkenny
General
Joined: 21-Aug-2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 994 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 10-Jun-2008 at 08:43 |
This part is simply wrong. Chamberlain offered a guarantee to Poland and honoured it when Germany attacked. Britain also insisted that France honour their treaty to Poland. Those claims were only true with respect to Czechoslovakia. Even then, Germany was only supposed to occupy the largely German areas in the Sudetenland. But even with the rest of Czechoslovakia, Germany was still not in a position to 'get at' the Soviet Union. So the historical fact is that, contray to the claim being made, Britian stood in the way of Germany attacking the Soviet Union, by their agreement with Poland. Thus Hitler was forced to make a deal with the Soviet Union himself in order to 'deal with' the western powers before he could turn east. The fact is that the theory is flawed because Hitler himself was interested in conquering territory in the east, it did not require Britain to 'direct', 'push' or 'force' him in that direction. Further, Britain stood in the way of Hitler's plans to move east by the guarantee to 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: 10-Jun-2008 at 08:49 |
|
Then in July 1936 the Spanish civil war began. Tory ideological dread was brought to a fine edge. The Spanish civil war could lead to a European conflict between ideological blocs; and war could provoke the spread of communist revolution or Soviet influence.
It was better, a lot of Tories thought, to turn Germany eastward against the USSR. "Let gallant little Germany glut her fill of reds in the East...," suggested one Tory M.P. (Henry Channon, September 1936). Even the British prime minister, Stanley Baldwin was attracted by the idea... http://gozips.uakron.edu/%7Emcarley/COLDWAR.html ...There is one danger, of course, which has probably been in all your minds - supposing the Russians and Germans got fighting and the French went in as allies of Russia owing to that appalling pact they made, you would not feel you were obligated to go and help France, would you? If there is any fighting in Europe to be done, I should like to see the Bolshies and the Nazis doing it... - Stanlery Baldwin http://books.google.com/books?id=qVMXHWtCeAUC&pg=PA183&dq=There+is+one+danger,+of+course,+which+has+probably+been+in+all+your+minds+-+supposing+the+Russians+and+Germans+got+fighting+and+the+French+went+in+as+allies+of+Russia+owing+to+that+appalling+pact+they+made,+you+would+not+feel+you+were+obligated+to+go+and&sig=-Tbur7sRqO_wXGxBVXtKo1b3QkU Two weeks after Munich Baldwin said in a conversation with Lord Hinchingbrooke: "Can't we turn Hitler East? Napoleon broke himself against the Russians. Hitler might do the same"... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Baldwin#Later_life |
|
|
|
|
Post Reply
|
Page 123 20> |
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz
This page was generated in 0.125 seconds.
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz
This page was generated in 0.125 seconds.
