Wants western countries pushed Hitler to the east?

Jun 2011
34
Slovakia
#1
Hi all,

we had anniversary of the Munich agreeement.

My question is: wants western countries pushed Hitler to the east? Was the politics of appeasment part of this plan? Have we some evidence for this? Or is it a construct (or propaganda) of oficial soviet historiography?
 

Larrey

Ad Honorem
Sep 2011
4,579
#2
It's the latter part of your post.

It helps to try to santize the slight problem of Soviet history of how the Soviet Union allied itself to Nazi Germany and proceeded to coerce or even attack and annex various neighbours, culminating with carving up one of the western Allied powers, Poland, jointly with Nazi Germany.
 
Likes: redcoat

sparky

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
2,874
Sydney
#3
Soviets NEVER allied themselves to Nazi Germany , that's pure propaganda
they refused to Allie themselves to a Franco-British alliance because , and with very good reasons ,they didn't trust them .
 

Larrey

Ad Honorem
Sep 2011
4,579
#4
Soviets NEVER allied themselves to Nazi Germany , that's pure propaganda
they refused to Allie themselves to a Franco-British alliance because , and with very good reasons ,they didn't trust them .
I suggest anyone thinking THAT might have been a useful contribution here, to just Google the "Molotov-Ribbetrop Pact"...
 
Jun 2011
34
Slovakia
#5
Concept, that the Soviets and Nazis were "allies" because of Molotov-Ribbetrop Pact, is simplyfied idea.

But I do not want to solve this problems and context of Molotov-Ribbetrop Pact, but the the reality of international politics (mainly Great Britain and France and specifically some conservative circles) and the thesis, if western countries want push Hitler to the east: because of fear of the communism or because they want to see communism and nazism in the mutual struggle.
 

redcoat

Ad Honorem
Nov 2010
7,449
Stockport Cheshire UK
#6
Soviets NEVER allied themselves to Nazi Germany , that's pure propaganda
they refused to Allie themselves to a Franco-British alliance because , and with very good reasons ,they didn't trust them .
They didn't trust them, but the major reason they didn't ally themselves with France and Britain but did so with Germany was because the German's could offer them territorial gains for an alliance, something the British and French couldn't do.
 

redcoat

Ad Honorem
Nov 2010
7,449
Stockport Cheshire UK
#7
Concept, that the Soviets and Nazis were "allies" because of Molotov-Ribbetrop Pact, is simplyfied idea.

But I do not want to solve this problems and context of Molotov-Ribbetrop Pact, but the the reality of international politics (mainly Great Britain and France and specifically some conservative circles) and the thesis, if western countries want push Hitler to the east: because of fear of the communism or because they want to see communism and nazism in the mutual struggle.
If they were trying to push Hitler to the east why did they restrict him to the Sudetenland at Munich when his aim was the destruction of the whole of Czechoslovakia, and when he broke that treaty why did they sign defence treaties with Poland in an attempt to stop any German aggression against this state, and why did they declare war on Germany after he attacked Poland if they wanted him to turn east.
 

sparky

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
2,874
Sydney
#8
.
I would think because of internal politics , the blatant breaking of the "peace in our time" treaty when the ink was barely dry was a severe blow to Chamberlain
he reacted like a weak man by setting a theoretical limit at a time when Hitler had as yet not made any ( serious) claim to Dantzig .
that was to be a grandiose empty gesture ,good for newspaper headlines .

as for the secret protocol , that was Hitler buying Soviet neutrality and goodwill not his alliance
always in their dealing with the soviets there was the thinking that they had no options and that the height of the bar could be set by them
their fury at finding that it was not so is reflected in the whole "We wuss betrayed " reaction
the Franco-British reaction was that of a courted lady pursued by a suitor who suddenly discover that the suitor is kissing her hated cousin
 
Jul 2012
723
Australia
#9
You can't really understand Hitler's attack on the USSR without considering Lebensraum - the policy of developing an "agrarian empire" in the east, on largely Ukrainian soil, to make Germany self-sufficient and strengthen it against attempts by other powers to contain and undermine it. There was no need for the West to "push" Hitler to look to the East. As we can safely assume that the Soviets were not going to hand over the territory to Hitler, we must accept there was going to be a war between the two.

The idea of Lebensraum was outlined in Mein Kampf, although Hitler downplayed it once he got into power. A Lebensraum Plan" was never formally created (although there is the Hossbach Memorandum), but as Hitler had total control he only needed to have the intention, however vague, and issue firm orders at appropriate times. From the time of his ascension to power Hitler followed a distinct path towards his goal - consolidate his power in Germany, set the country off onto an economic growth path cum war-footing, build up the will of the people, reverse the clauses of the Versailles Treaty, recover many lost German lands, build a continental anti-communist coalition, consolidate influence on Soviet bordering states and then eventual attack of the Soviet Union.

The question was timing, gathering the required resources and the strategy of avoiding conflict with the west and avoiding the potential for a two-front war. Hitler believed the West was weak and would not commit to any firm action against him. However, he understood that it was possible and that he would have to manage that possibility. The economic times left much of Europe poor and looking for a way out, providing favourable grounds for Hitler to offer them (and himself) economic benefits for eventual political acceptance of his views against the Soviets. Hitler also understood that the Soviets could only be beaten when they were internally weak - and this placed a time constraint for when action could be taken; the longer an attack was delayed the greater the chance the Soviets had progressed down the path of rebuilding and renewal and withstanding an attack.

There was no time to lose for Hitler as once the Soviets moved past the purges of the 1930's they would quickly regain strength that would make an attack by Germany not feasible. The path to get Germany to the point where it could mount an attack was demanding - inevitably Hitler was forcing plans ahead of what his advisers believed was sustainable. But this was the impact of Hitler's understanding of timing. The purges were coming to an end and the Soviets would soon move to a rebuilding phase.

Once the Munich agreement was signed Hitler began moving to the eastern consolidation phase of his plan, and immediately he met resistance - firstly from the Poles who refused to consider his "rather reasonable requests", and then after taking Czechoslovakia, the British guarantee to Poland. The odds for a two fronted war had increased. An effective resistance to Hitler required a strong force in the East, and that could only be the Soviet Union. Given the British and French unpreparedness for war Stalin feared that the Soviets will be left doing most of the fighting for the West's benefit, perhaps even at the expense of the Soviet Union itself. Furthermore, nothing was being offered for his efforts. But there was a threat from Germany. The idea of treating with Hitler to buy time arose and the Molotov Ribbentrop Pact was born. The Soviets found the German much easier to deal with, making decisions in a timely manner and offer rewards for the effort. Germany could now attack Poland with the Soviet Union acquiescing, and if the West were to attack, deal with that without any worry from the East. When any conflict in the west was settled he could focus on the East again.
 
Nov 2015
1,474
Kyiv
#10
Concept, that the Soviets and Nazis were "allies" because of Molotov-Ribbetrop Pact, is simplyfied idea.

But I do not want to solve this problems and context of Molotov-Ribbetrop Pact, but the the reality of international politics (mainly Great Britain and France and specifically some conservative circles) and the thesis, if western countries want push Hitler to the east: because of fear of the communism or because they want to see communism and nazism in the mutual struggle.
I think you confuse the West with Russia. This Russia very much wanted the Nazis to grapple with Western democracies in a fight. And Moscow expected to warm up its hand in the conflict.

But England and France were so impressed by the hardest casualties in the WWI that they didn’t want to hear about any war at all in the European region. And their leadership could view the militarization of Germany as its shield against Russia, which since the beginning of the 1930s has become a leader in the world arms race and has never concealed that it wants to implant its Bolshevism for the whole world.

Let me remind you that Hitler came to power in Germany a few years after Russia started a frantic arms race.

Russia did not dream of any anti-Nazi alliance with Britain and France. An agreement with them in the summer of 1939 was necessary for her only for one thing - to get the go-ahead to bring her troops into Czechoslovakia and Poland, with their subsequent — and inevitable — annexation by Russia as it did with Baltic states in 1940

To remind you how Russia behaved in Czechoslovakia in a much calmer and more peaceful period for herself - in 1968? Without a backward glance, she introduced her tanks into your peaceful country and changed the government for you.
 

Similar History Discussions