Wants western countries pushed Hitler to the east?

Nov 2015
I mean traditional drama

Then I just did not understand you. And I did not understand you because you used the word Rus instead of Russia - and at the same time opposed Rus to Ukraine. This is not true - since the chronicle Rus was localized not in Russia, but in Ukraine. And this conclusion was made not by Ukrainian, but by Russian historians by analyzing the texts of the Initial Chronicle and Chronicle of the 12th century.

You and the other guy aren't the first Russian/Ukraine nationalists to come to Historum to fight a war of words and non-stop nationalistic propaganda
- I see - but why did you decide to address this remark to me, and not to Maribrat? If you look again at my controversy with him, which you didn’t like so much, you will see that it’s not me, but he constantly leads different topics to such offtopic. And I even made him a remark for that. Address him - and I will try not to respond to his provocations next time.
Nov 2015
Richard Overly's Russia's War discusses the diplomatic attempts by the USSR to create a military alliance with British and French just after Czechoslovakia, to more effectively deter Germany with a giant ground force staged on their western and eastern borders, but UK and French representatives did not have any authority to make decisions, only talk, were uncommitted, so Stalin bailed and then took up German offer for economic talks which led to non aggression talks.
Surprisingly, neither Overley nor other Western historians have yet understood what Russia offered at these negotiations. In fact, she offered of England and France to sign a new version of the Munich Treaty - not with Germany, but with Russia. In the summer of 1939 Russia had no common border with Germany. And the major point of the Russian proposal was to send the Russian army into Poland.

By the way, before that, as far as I know, the Russians offered the same “protection” to Czechoslovakia in 1938

The Germans sent troops first to the Sudetenland, and then to Czechoslovakia. And the Czech part of the country became part of the Reich.

The Russians would have sent their troops to Czechoslovakia or Poland — and both Czechoslovakia and Poland would become part of Russia/of the USSR.

It is quite clear. The Russians carried out the same scenario in the Baltic States in 1940. But after their invasion of Finland and the expulsion of Russia from the League of Nations it was useless to wait from France or Britain an agreement for their troops in Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. All the world has understood bey the moment that in the WWII the Russia is the same aggressor as Germany .

Therefore, the Russians had no choice - and they used the banal military blackmailing against these countries which Russia was going to make her victims instead of an international treaty like the Munich one

In summer 1939 Russia was far from Germany, and France was next to it. And the French army was much weaker than the Russian. And the reason for a scenario in which that the Germans will strike France, and not Russia, was much higher if Britain and France would accept the Russian version in Moscow talks in August 1939.

In fact, the Germans did that in 1940. They attacked France, and only after a year and a half came to Russia

Written in 1997, so before Putin came to power, so not influenced by Russian national apologists.

The current unclassified letter gives more details but its already historical fact it occurred.

Knowledge of and acceptance of this information should completely change the framework of this discussion, and it should be interesting to see how it goes from here.
Nov 2015
Written in 1997, so before Putin came to power, so not influenced by Russian national apologists.
- Not influenced? I can say that Russian chauvinists were quite influential in Russia under Yeltsin. The war in Chechnya and the decisions of the Russian parliament on the Crimea in the 1990s illustrate this. Russian chauvinists were strong enough to bring their nominee Putin to power
Jun 2017
- 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.
Well there was no reason to really think he changed his mind, especially seeing his expansionist tendencies. Hitler had the same political ideology he did.

Per the whole "living space" thing of course that would come after military conquest and genocide, it's not like they were going to take a city and just start moving people in, but Russia is massive, even the much smaller more industrialized western part. Part of why Hitler lost was his eagerness to empty the Soviet Union of it's population(the population losses that the areas that sustained the most time under stable German occupation sustained was immense(Belarus is the best example of this) and forcing the Soviet people to fight to the death. The Russians were the same population that were willing to do anything for peace in 1917, but Hitler and his atrocities were so terrible that this just wasn't an option, they were either going to fight or they were going to die and Nazism and it's racist homicidal goals convinced more Soviets to resist than any Soviet propaganda ever could.
Nov 2015
You and every other Historum member wanting to debate this need to accept that Hitler wasn't the one who came up with lebensraum, the Nazis were far far far from the only ones promoting it.
I analyze the events and situation of 1939-1942 and study German documents, and I see that there were no signs of the movement of German settlers to Ukraine, the Baltic States and Poland. No sign. Maybe someone would find signs of this, then let him be voiced here. Old Ukrainians did not confirm this either, as they remember those years. I talked with many of them about the German and Russian occupation and they told a lot of things.

Moreover, the fact that in 1939 the Reich essentially abandoned just a half of the Polish lands, although it had an excellent opportunity to seize them, and gave way to both them and the three Baltic countries in the sphere of influence of Russia, suggests that the real intentions of the Germans were significantly different from those that are now being declared by both historians and Russian propaganda. Maybe the nazi athorities decided that in 1939-1940 Reich has got sufficient territory around Germany for such migration - I am not sure to find the correct version for that.

Of course, there was Rosenberg plan and plan Ost. But what were these plans? Were there any signs that these plans were systematically put into action?

No, I do not see such signs. Moreover, I do not see a single resolution of the highest German authorities for the Ost plan. None. And by the date, the Ost plan that we see is only a project of a second-rate SS official who sent it to his superiors without any move after that. So it serves just for a loud noise about the intentions of Reich to exterminate all Slavs, etc., etc.

Ukrainians - residents of a country that has been under German occupation for 3 years and a country through which the main shaft of battles has walked twice - in the forward and reverse direction - will tell you more.

The Germans did not destroy the Slavic population in this territory systematically or in some similar way. Moreover, they did not carry out mass actions against the Slavic population here, at least a little commensurate with the Holodomor action that the Moscow authorities held in 1932-1933, or the Great Purge of 1937-1938.

I absolutely do not sympathize with the Nazis, but at a historical forum it is necessary to separate propaganda from truth and speculation from facts. Neither Rosenberg’s plan nor Ost’s plan was put into operation. And since I happened to live in a totalitarian country — not in the Third Reich, but in the USSR — I know perfectly well how many plans such a country creates, and how few chances most of them have become reality.

Therefore, I suggest that less attention be paid to different Nazi plans — and more — to what they did during the war. The extermination of Jews and Gypsies - yes, they did this consistently and diligently. And the extermination of the Slavs-leave it to the Moscow propaganda.

Those old Ukrainians who remembered well the days of the occupation and with whom I spoke - and among them was my mother - tell differently about the Germans in Ukraine. And I do not see in their stories a single case of mass extermination of the Slavic population in the format of such a goal. Moreover, over time, the German occupation regime — at least in Ukraine — became more loyal to the local population. Reich was extremely short of Germans to form the occupation regime in all countries it captured - and they widely attracted the local population to their administration and police. In any case, this forced the Reich to reckon with the local population.

And I would, in the place of professional historians, less refer to the rosenbergs and ost plans. There are no signs that they had a chance for a valuable realization even if the Germans won in the east.

In the end, Germany needed Slavic workers for their industry and for Slavic peasants to grow high-quality food in Ukraine and the Kuban. And it would be foolish to exterminate the peaceful Ukrainian peasants against this background and force the Germans themselves to work instead of them
Nov 2015
One more question. Where are the German documents where they really intend to conquer Russia up to the Urals? I have not found anything like that in the Barbarossa. Maybe they had another real plans to do that?
Jul 2016
- Not influenced? I can say that Russian chauvinists were quite influential in Russia under Yeltsin. The war in Chechnya and the decisions of the Russian parliament on the Crimea in the 1990s illustrate this. Russian chauvinists were strong enough to bring their nominee Putin to power
Oh give it a rest. You're seriously suggesting that Richard Overly was duped in his writings about Russia in WW2. Because of Yeltsin?
Nov 2015
Oh give it a rest. You're seriously suggesting that Richard Overly was duped in his writings about Russia in WW2. Because of Yeltsin?
I did not read the works of Overly and I can not judge whether he was duped by the Russians in his works or not. And why Yeltsin? Under Yeltsin, under Putin, and long before them the whole Russian team systematically duped the Russians and the whole world of the WWII and Russia in it.

For the misinformation about that war, Russia pays to that historians high officer and general salaries. Until 1987, this team was headed by Lieutenant-General Zhilin.

Its full name is the Research of the Order of the Red Star Institute (of military history) of the Military Academy of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation. At the moment he is headed by Colonel Basik.

We can speak in detail and for a long time about the misinformation its historians provide the Russian audience and some part of the Western one
Last edited: