Wants western countries pushed Hitler to the east?

Nov 2015
1,474
Kyiv
#31
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
- ended? Let me remind you that after 1924, Russia exported its communism to Mongolia, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, China, North Korea, East Germany, Romania, Bulgaria, Poland, Czechoslovakia, North Vietnam and Cuba.

And before 1924 - to Ukraine, Belarus, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Turkestan
 
Jul 2012
718
Australia
#32
On Lebensraum "There was no need for the West to "push" Hitler to look to the East. "
hughito: Yes, but thats the point. They know it, so yes, that "pushing" it did not have to be "so hard." But the little "guidance." No?

The West was only interested in containing Germany and not seeing it expand. Only when Hitler started sabre-rattling and the West felt threatened by war did some take the approach to let Hitler "expand" eastward rather than focus on the West. And then only to the limit of already accepted ideas of what was Germany's natural areas based on ethnic and historic grounds. A takeover of any other parts of central and eastern Europe was never on the agenda. In limiting both Nazism and Communism a war between both may have been fanticised but it would never have been encouraged.
 
Likes: Dir

redcoat

Ad Honorem
Nov 2010
7,365
Stockport Cheshire UK
#33
On Lebensraum "There was no need for the West to "push" Hitler to look to the East. "
hughito: Yes, but thats the point. They know it, so yes, that "pushing" it did not have to be "so hard." But the little "guidance." No?

The West was only interested in containing Germany and not seeing it expand. Only when Hitler started sabre-rattling and the West felt threatened by war did some take the approach to let Hitler "expand" eastward rather than focus on the West. And then only to the limit of already accepted ideas of what was Germany's natural areas based on ethnic and historic grounds. A takeover of any other parts of central and eastern Europe was never on the agenda. In limiting both Nazism and Communism a war between both may have been fanticised but it would never have been encouraged.
The only nation that can be accused of actively encouraging the military expansion of Germany eastwards is the SU with their signing of the laughably named 'non-aggression' pact which, while agreeing non-aggression between each other, gave them both the go ahead for aggression towards other Eastern European nations.
 
Likes: Dir
Jul 2016
7,151
USA
#34
The only nation that can be accused of actively encouraging the military expansion of Germany eastwards is the SU with their signing of the laughably named 'non-aggression' pact which, while agreeing non-aggression between each other, gave them both the go ahead for aggression towards other Eastern European nations.
Declassified papers show this now to be false.

"The new documents, copies of which have been seen by The Sunday Telegraph, show the vast numbers of infantry, artillery and airborne forces which Stalin's generals said could be dispatched, if Polish objections to the Red Army crossing its territory could first be overcome.

But the British and French side - briefed by their governments to talk, but not authorised to commit to binding deals - did not respond to the Soviet offer, made on August 15, 1939. Instead, Stalin turned to Germany, signing the notorious non-aggression treaty with Hitler barely a week later.

The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, named after the foreign secretaries of the two countries, came on August 23 - just a week before Nazi Germany attacked Poland, thereby sparking the outbreak of the war. But it would never have happened if Stalin's offer of a western alliance had been accepted, according to retired Russian foreign intelligence service Major General Lev Sotskov, who sorted the 700 pages of declassified documents."


Stalin 'planned to send a million troops to stop Hitler if Britain and France agreed pact'

The non-aggression pact was simply the result of Stalin's frustration with France and Great Britain being flaky on the idea to deter Hitler with direct military pressure. I'm not defending Stalin's decision or condemning the French or British, especially since neither were remotely prepared to go to war at the time, any pressure from them would have been a rather clear bluff, and there was no way that Poland would have allowed the Soviets to stage inside their country, nor UK especially allowed the Soviets into Poland.

However, the historical record is pretty clear that as soon as those diplomatic talks collapsed, Stalin took an out to prevent at least immediate German intervention to Soviet controlled territory at least for a few years.
 
Jul 2012
718
Australia
#35
If Hitler had been counting on Lebensraum in Russia - in 1939 he would not have given the Russians so easily half of the territory of Poland, including the fertile lands of Galicia and Volyn
The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was a tactical move by both Germany and the Soviet Union to resolve the difficult situation the West's guarantee to Poland caused both of them. Both parties accepted there was no love between them (the Germans were given time to get their ethnics out of the Soviet sphere of influence as ethnic Germans would be treated as undesirables in the new arrangements) and that each were pursuing, and would continue to pursue, their individual interest. Hitler did not intend to remain loyal to the Pact.
 

redcoat

Ad Honorem
Nov 2010
7,365
Stockport Cheshire UK
#36
Declassified papers show this now to be false.

.
In what way is it false ?
Did the non-aggression pact not involve the two nations carving up other Eastern European nations to their own benefit, therefore encouraging German aggression.
Why the Soviets agreed to the treaty is irrelevant to this point.
 
Jul 2016
7,151
USA
#37
In what way is it false ?
Did the non-aggression pact not involve the two nations carving up other Eastern European nations to their own benefit, therefore encouraging German aggression.
Why the Soviets agreed to the treaty is irrelevant to this point.
Your previous post implied the Soviet Union actively encouraged the Germans to expand East. That isn't correct. They too were trying to contain Germany's eastward expansion but when it became apparent that would fail because France and the UK were not committed they went with their next option. The land they got in non-aggression pact with Germany was bribery, but the point was that Stalin wanted it to at least buy some time since he had no other options at the time. When Poland was invaded Stalin was briefed at the last moment and then, again, essentially bribed into inactivity by giving Eastern Poland to them. But nobody took that pact seriously as Hitler's Gemany and Stalin's USSR being allies.

To answer the OP's question, no one in Europe encouraged Germany to expand east besides Germany itself.
 

Larrey

Ad Honorem
Sep 2011
4,457
#38
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."
At the 1928 Komintern 6th World Congress, at the instigation of Stalin and the USSR, Reform Socialism, i.e. the western style Social Democratic parties, was declared to be "Social Fascism" and Enemy Nr One of the Marxist-Leninist system of the USSR – i.e. enemies ahead of the actual Fascists in Italy or Nazis in Germany.

Democracy and Liberalism were always more antithetical to the Soviet system than either Fascism or Nazism.
 

redcoat

Ad Honorem
Nov 2010
7,365
Stockport Cheshire UK
#39
Your previous post implied the Soviet Union actively encouraged the Germans to expand East. That isn't correct. They too were trying to contain Germany's eastward expansion but when it became apparent that would fail because France and the UK were not committed they went with their next option. The land they got in non-aggression pact with Germany was bribery, but the point was that Stalin wanted it to at least buy some time since he had no other options at the time. When Poland was invaded Stalin was briefed at the last moment and then, again, essentially bribed into inactivity by giving Eastern Poland to them. But nobody took that pact seriously as Hitler's Gemany and Stalin's USSR being allies.

To answer the OP's question, no one in Europe encouraged Germany to expand east besides Germany itself.
This is the line now being peddled by the present Russia government, we all know how trustworthy they are.
As for actively encouraging German aggression, the only reason Hitler went to the Soviets with this deal was because he was fearful of the recent promises the French and British had made to Poland, he needed to ensure that he didn't face a two front war against Britain and France on one side and the Soviets on the other, his agreement with the SU removed this risk, encouraging him to attack Poland, and the Soviets were fully aware of this fact.
If they had not agreed to this pact and just remained non-committal there was a chance that Hitler might have held off from his attack, but that would not have suited the Soviets who had never forgiven the Poles for taking what they considered Soviet territory in the Polish-Soviet War of 1920.
 
Jul 2016
7,151
USA
#40
This is the line now being peddled by the present Russia government, we all know how trustworthy they are.
As for actively encouraging German aggression, the only reason Hitler went to the Soviets with this deal was because he was fearful of the recent promises the French and British had made to Poland, he needed to ensure that he didn't face a two front war against Britain and France on one side and the Soviets on the other, his agreement with the SU removed this risk, encouraging him to attack Poland, and the Soviets were fully aware of this fact.
If they had not agreed to this pact and just remained non-committal there was a chance that Hitler might have held off from his attack, but that would not have suited the Soviets who had never forgiven the Poles for taking what they considered Soviet territory in the Polish-Soviet War of 1920.
There is more to it than just that. One of my books I read in the last 3-4 months mentions it in detail, but I can't remember which one. There is more info on the Wikipedia page with sources, but I'll try to figure out which book of mine detailed it.

Bottom of Munich Agreement section

UK especially, and some degree France but nothing like the Briitsh, were attempting to use Poland to curtail not only German expansion East but Soviet expansion West.

The non-aggression pact wasn't designed to allow Hitler to invade Poland, there was zero about them at the time, it was to buy some time where Germany and Soviets didn't need to worry about one another. Poland came later when Hitler quickly had the General Staff draw up plans for Case White only months before the invasion occurred, with only short notification (a few weeks, maybe a month, if memory serves) that the Soviet Union was aware, who gave their blessing only because Hitler bribed them with Eastern Poland.

When Germany invaded Poland Hitler was not trying to start a one front war, let alone a two front. It was supposed to be quick and without lasting repercussions, Hitler sure wasn't trying to start WW2. The invasion of Poland wasn't cooked up until after the Soviets made their non-aggression pact. By that point the only risk factors in the short term for Hitler were the British and French, both of which had acted weak earlier (because Chamberlain correctly chose appeasement because the British military, specifically the RAF, were not war ready in 1938, and the French went along with the British), so Hitler gambled that neither would do anything upon invading Poland, boasting to all his generals and Nazi high command before so, and was proven wrong.
 

Similar History Discussions