Wants western countries pushed Hitler to the east?

sparky

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
2,829
Sydney
#41
Each country had its own outlook on the situation
for British foreign office countering bolshevik expansion was a great concern , Germany was seen as the strongest bulwark , Poland as the most exposed one
the French were ever conscious facing alone a resurgent Germany was their prime problem , all other considerations were subsumed to this , there was little fear of a Russian alliance
for Poland the fear of Soviet revanchism drove them insane .the fear of Germany came a far second
For the Soviet , avoiding a general war of the capitalist West against them with the US and Japan joining in was the uppermost concern ,
recovering the lands of Western Ukraine and Bielorussia were seen as historically justified and a necessary safety belt .
Germany had the Polish problem , being stuck between two opponents , Poland was seen as a mere impediment ,
Hitler had good intention toward Britain utter contempt for France , Poland and some wariness toward the Soviets
certainly there is good reasons to believe going East was his ever present lodestone , he was convinced Britain wouldn't oppose this and would neutralize any French action

He was not "pushed" East but Britain certainly held the door wide open for him
 
Last edited:
Nov 2015
1,474
Kyiv
#42
recovering the lands of Western Ukraine and Bielorussia were seen as historically justified and a necessary safety belt
- What means - recovery? These lands never were ethnically Russian - they were captured by Russian Empire in late 18c. So you believe that the Soviet Russia
was the actual successor of the Russian Empire and non-officially considered itself in such a role? I think it did in that way

At the same time, Eastern Galicia - Galichina - was never part of the Russian Empire - it was part of the Commonwealth, and then of Austria (till 1918). This is a sign that Russian expansion in the 1930s went beyond the borders of the former Russian Empire.

And what does the safety belt mean? You probably know that the Russian Red Army suffered the most terrible defeat on the lands of this safety belt in 1941
 
Jun 2017
2,372
Connecticut
#43
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?
Hitler was always going to go east because that's where the most "living space" was, it was a central part of his ideology. It was only a matter of time, and there wasn't really anything anyone needed to do to convince him to do that, or anything they could do to convince him not to. This is why the non aggression pact or "alliance"(in the early days of the war, the Germans and the USSR were both seen as enemies to the Western allies, as both were expanding rapidly) was so dumb on the Soviet's part and especially the trust they put into it(the non aggression pact not the pact where Germany agreed to let the USSR have Poland and the Baltics, that honestly was a pretty fair deal for the Soviets and made it tougher for Hitler to conquer them during Barbarossa).

It's important to remember while the Germans did declare war on the US, the UK and the French declared war on Germany and they did it over territorial expansion in the East. It can be argued Germany was going to get to France at somepoint, there was still the personal WWI issue but unlike the Alsace-Lorraine grudge the French had had prior to WWI the Germans had already undone Versailles by the time WWI started, the French didn't have anything Hitler really wanted.
 
Nov 2015
1,474
Kyiv
#44
Stalin planned to send a million troops to Czechoslovakia and Poland in 1938 and 1939, so that in a few months three new names appeared on the map of the USSR:

- Polish SSR, Czech SSR and Slovak SSR.

Do not even hesitate - as exactly one year after that by the same method - after entering Russian troops in the Baltic countries, ostensibly to defend against German aggression - the Lithuanian SSR, Latvian SSR and Estonian SSR appeared on the USSR map.

Not only that - immediately after the failure of the attempt to seize and annex the whole of Finland, the Russians transformed their Karelian autonomous republic into a full-fledged Karelian-Finnish SSR (March 1940). Tell you what for? In the course of the planned “second onslaught” on Finland (and not only on it), they were going to join the whole of this country to the Karelo-Finnish SSR they already formed for this purpose. Alas - the German invasion to Russia in 1941 confused these plans, and in 1956 the Russian again made Karelian-Finnish SSR a secondary autonomous republic


It remains to add that in a month after unsuccessful negotiations with Britain and France, Stalin will send not a million, but half a million of his troops to Poland. And the population of his unfortunate USSR will soon increase by 13 million people, and its territory - by 196 thousand square kilometers.

You need to talk about the brutal terror against the civilian population, which the Moscow authorities staged in the territories they captured at the beginning of the WWII? In September 1939
 
Nov 2015
1,474
Kyiv
#45
I do not understand what all these discussions are i about, if it is obvious to everyone that Russia entered WWII on its own will and without any compulsion on September 17, 1939. Entered as an aggressor and invader. And she ended her participation in WWII in September 1945.

And as a result of its participation in the WWII, Russia increased her territory by approximately 400 thousand square kilometers, and the population - by almost 20 million

This is the answer to the question of whether someone pushed her to participate in that war, and whether she was in that war an innocent victim of an enemy invasion and the liberator of another countries and peoples from foreign domination.

Who else from the countries that were the winners in WWII got hold of alien territories and alien populations?
 
Nov 2015
1,474
Kyiv
#46
And I have one very important question.

How long historians in different countries will retell each other the propaganda tenets of the Moscow authorities about Russia's role in WWII, presenting them as a true story of Russia's participation in that war?
 

Maribat

Ad Honorem
Mar 2012
4,896
#47
Who else from the countries that were the winners in WWII got hold of alien territories and alien populations?
Ukraine I guess. It got a Polish city Lvov for example plus some other territories which now are claimed by Poland, Hungary and Romania. Is Ukraine going to give back those "occupied" terrritories?
 
Nov 2015
1,474
Kyiv
#48
Ukraine I guess. It got a Polish city Lvov for example plus some other territories which now are claimed by Poland, Hungary and Romania. Is Ukraine going to give back those "occupied" terrritories?
"Polish" city of Lviv 20 years before 1939 was Austrian for a long time. In the 16th century, the majority of its population were Germans, and there also lived a mass of Jews, Ukrainians, and Armenians at that time. It was founded by the “Ukrainian” prince Danila Galitsky and was named after his son Lev (lion).

All the time before 1939 Lviv was located in the middle of the Ukrainian ethnic territory. The Curzon Line, which separated the Ukrainian ethnic lands from the Polish ones in 1919 ran west of Lviv

What did Ukraine win in 1939? I do not think she was a winner in the WWII. Since its occupation by Soviet Russia in 1918 the occupant brought to its territory two big wars - in 1918-1920 and in 1941-1944. Ukraine suffered in WWII incomparably stronger than Russia, and lost a much larger part of its civilian population than Russia. Both invaders - Russian and German - caused terrible damage to Ukraine during their occupation. Therefore, to say that Ukraine has won something in WWII is rather cynical.

In 1944 her choice was not very rich - between Auschwitz and Gulag

I do not think that Ukraine was a winner in 1939 since the Moscow authorities staged a real terror against the Ukrainian and Polish population on the lands they had seized in the year. And in Lviv during the hasty escape of the Russians at the end of June 1941 the Russians destroyed about 3 thousand prisoners in their prisons. Often they not even took out prisoners from their cells for this — they simply threw grenades there.
 
Last edited:
Nov 2015
1,474
Kyiv
#49
Hitler was always going to go east because that's where the most "living space" was, it was a central part of his ideology
- Hitler wrote about this in his Mine Kampf a quarter of a century before the start of the WWII. He wrote about this when he was imprisoned in a German prison and did not even guess that he would become the German chancellor and its führer.

I am not sure that he diligently put all his ideas of 1924 into life when he headed a large country. The role of the head of state for the one who occupied this post sets new priorities and goals. It's unavoidable.

As for the living space in Russia in 1941, no one explained to me why there is not a word about this both in the Barbarossa Plan and in the main document on the arrangement of the occupied territories of the Soviet Union - in the Rosenberg Plan. Its compilers did not find any benefit in Russian territories - if we talk about the territory of the RSFSR.

The Barbarossa Plan is essentially a plan to eliminate Russia as a major military threat to Germany. And nothing more.

And the Rosenberg plan is a plan for the arrangement of the hostile territories which Soviet Russia itself seized and annexed in 1918-1920 and in 1939. That is, it was about the redistribution of foreign lands between the two bandits.

Russia itself, as an area for the settlement of the German population according to by the Rosenberg plan was not interesting for the Germans.
 

Maribat

Ad Honorem
Mar 2012
4,896
#50
"Polish" city of Lviv 20 years before 1939 was Austrian for a long time. In the 16th century, the majority of its population were Germans, and there also lived a mass of Jews, Ukrainians, and Armenians at that time. It was founded by the “Ukrainian” prince Danila Galitsky and was named after his son Lev (lion).

All the time before 1939 Lviv was located in the middle of the Ukrainian ethnic territory. The Curzon Line, which separated the Ukrainian ethnic lands from the Polish ones in 1919 ran west of Lviv

What did Ukraine win in 1939? I do not think she was a winner in the WWII. Since its occupation by Soviet Russia in 1918 the occupant brought to its territory two big wars - in 1918-1920 and in 1941-1944. Ukraine suffered in WWII incomparably stronger than Russia, and lost a much larger part of its civilian population than Russia. Both invaders - Russian and German - caused terrible damage to Ukraine during their occupation. Therefore, to say that Ukraine has won something in WWII is rather cynical.

In 1944 her choice was not very rich - between Auschwitz and Gulag

I do not think that Ukraine was a winner in 1939 since the Moscow authorities staged a real terror against the Ukrainian and Polish population on the lands they had seized in the year. And in Lviv during the hasty escape of the Russians at the end of June 1941 the Russians destroyed about 3 thousand prisoners in their prisons. Often they not even took out prisoners from their cells for this — they simply threw grenades there.

You stated that the USSR "occupied" some territories in 1939. Now some of those territories are owned by Ukraine. The question is simple - are you going to return those "occupied" territories?
 

Similar History Discussions