Wants western countries pushed Hitler to the east?

Nov 2015
1,474
Kyiv
#21
Why not, it gives him half of Poland without the danger of a two front war.
What did Stalin get from Hitler to the beginning of WWII? Stalin received the Secret Protocol signed by the Reich, which the Russians offered the Germans in response to the non-aggression pact, which they brought to Moscow.

Germany has become a accomplice of Russia in the seizure of foreign countries and the occupation of their territories.

What did Germany get from Russians in August 1939? About this, Hitler wrote to his friend Mussolini:

I may tell you, Duce, that through these arrangements the favorable attitude of Russia in case of any conflict is assured... I believe I may say to you, Duce, that through the negotiations with Soviet Russia a completely new situation in world politics has been produced which must be regarded as the greatest possible gain for the Axis.

- Do you need to explain what Hitler received and what he writes about here? He received a solid rear for his Reich in the upcoming war - and an ideological ally in the seizure of foreign countries. He received a huge and extremely militarized country, which turned out to be on the side of the Third Reich after it unleashed the WWII. And on September 17 he's got Russia that became the ONLY combat ally of the Reich in conducting the first military campaign in the WWII

In fact, after Hitler realized that Russia was ready to enter into an ideological and political alliance with Germany and begin to cut the map of Europe within an agreement with Germany, he had a feeling that wings grew behind his back. And after that he rushed into a big war without any fear of failure

I can only add that Hitler was able to begin the invasion of France and other countries in 1940 only because in the rear he felt the active support of Russia. Without such a benevolent and pro-German rear, the Reich would not have ventured into a big campaign in the West in 1940.

Have no doubt.

The Kremlin will publicly stigmatize France and England for not agreeing to end the war against Nazism, and then Russia congratulated the Third Reich on its victory over France

And I must say that in Western historiography the aggressive role of Russia in WWII in 1939-1940 and its active support for Nazism are almost ignored.
 

sparky

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
2,567
Sydney
#22
on the Munich agreement , the British government being asked what measures they would consider taking to respond to the breaking of the treaty
coyly replied that since it wasn't passed by parliament yet , it had no effect ??
chamberlain persisted in his "appeasement policy" and was widely condemned for it
he had wrecked the French "little entente" alliance ,delivered Czechoslovakia hand bound to the Nazis and made it plain to Stalin that the Franco-British were above all concerned with fighting communism

even his "guaranty" to Poland was far from watertight , Hitler had every reason to believe Chamberlain would negotiate
https://www.johndclare.net/RoadtoWWII7_Czech.htm
 

Larrey

Ad Honorem
Sep 2011
4,473
#23
The only REAL historiographical problem we are dealing with here is that Russia, as the willing successor-state to the Soviet Union, has done bugger all to come to terms with that destructive aspects of the USSR, opting for white-washing it, which in the process has come to mean actively fabricating slurs on other countries.
 

sparky

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
2,567
Sydney
#24
House of commons Hansard record 17 March 1939
Czechoslovakia - Hansard

A damp squid would have more sting
but when money was involved , the reaction was stronger

Czecho-Slovakia - Hansard

From Mr Gallagher , house of commons 15 March 1939

" In May there was a crisis in connection with Czecho-Slovakia and a threat of marching by Germany, but France declared that she would stand by her Treaty with Czecho-Slovakia and defend her if attacked. When France made that declaration Russia made an open declaration that if France went to the assistance of Czecho-Slovakia she would go to the assistance of France. And did Hitler march? No, he did not. "
 
Last edited:
Jun 2011
34
Slovakia
#25
Agressive Soviet policy? But they did not dream about world communist revolution since 1924 and doctrine of socialism in one country.

And I add one more context. Civil war after bolshevik revolution. Western countries wants to crush revolution wtihout no doubt. There were many official and und unofficial steps in order to achieve this objective. So, some conservative circles may have still this "dreams."
 
Jan 2010
3,920
Atlanta, Georgia USA
#26
Hitler always intended to invade the Soviet Union to get rid of the Bolsheviks and get land, food and energy for Germany. He said as much in Mein Kampf. He intended first to invade France, to reverse the Treaty of Versailles, then to turn east. See John Keegan's discussion of this in The Second World War under the heading "Hitler's Strategic Dilemma." I don't think the attitude of the western European powers had any role in this at all.
 
Jul 2016
7,183
USA
#27
Hitler always intended to invade the Soviet Union to get rid of the Bolsheviks and get land, food and energy for Germany. He said as much in Mein Kampf. He intended first to invade France, to reverse the Treaty of Versailles, then to turn east. See John Keegan's discussion of this in The Second World War under the heading "Hitler's Strategic Dilemma." I don't think the attitude of the western European powers had any role in this at all.
It predated Hitler and the Nazis. The desire to conquer and occupy the East was a major political philosophical goal of ethnic Germans from the 1890s onwards. It was a corruption of the American "Manifest Destiny" concept, but instead of heading West to take land from Native Americans, it was to head East and to conquer the Slavics, who ethnic Germans, and again before Hitler and the Nazis, believed were an inferior race. Hitler was popular not for creating racial divides, but by exploiting those that had always existed and were only growing greater.
 
Jan 2010
3,920
Atlanta, Georgia USA
#28
Agressive Soviet policy? But they did not dream about world communist revolution since 1924 and doctrine of socialism in one country.

And I add one more context. Civil war after bolshevik revolution. Western countries wants to crush revolution wtihout no doubt. There were many official and und unofficial steps in order to achieve this objective. So, some conservative circles may have still this "dreams."
Please give some sources for this. It seems to me that the continued existence of the Comintern refutes the idea that the idea of world communism ended in 1924. Communist International - Wikipedia
 

redcoat

Ad Honorem
Nov 2010
7,368
Stockport Cheshire UK
#29
on the Munich agreement , the British government being asked what measures they would consider taking to respond to the breaking of the treaty
coyly replied that since it wasn't passed by parliament yet , it had no effect ??
chamberlain persisted in his "appeasement policy" and was widely condemned for it
he had wrecked the French "little entente" alliance ,delivered Czechoslovakia hand bound to the Nazis and made it plain to Stalin that the Franco-British were above all concerned with fighting communism

even his "guaranty" to Poland was far from watertight , Hitler had every reason to believe Chamberlain would negotiate
https://www.johndclare.net/RoadtoWWII7_Czech.htm
While Britain’s and France’s response to German threats to the smaller Eastern European nations in 38-39 could be regarded as weak and ineffectual, there is zero evidence that they ‘pushed’, which means actively encouraged, the German’s eastwards.
 
Last edited:

Similar History Discussions