Britain's plot was to let Germany go eastwards, let him attack Russia and let the Nazis and the Bolsheviks finish each other off.
This is completely 100% true.
But you won't find out about this fact by reading english history textbooks.
They cover up and censor everything on that part of history.
Make up cock and bull story.
Tell you fucking propaganda only.
Who can tell me that they learned in school that Britain's plot was to instigate war between Germany and Russia?
Who?
to clarify, when i said that people will roughly know whether there will be a war or not, i don't mean that they will know the exact date and time of invasion. if they can do that, they may as well replace the intelligence service.
having a well prepared reserve of armed personels is important, but having a large standing peace-time army is not.
look at the battle of Britain, when France fell, the Brits sure know that they are next on the list, without having to wait for official delcaration of war by the germans or by any government. it is common sense.
in the weeks before the israeli invasion of lebanon, the lebanites are already leaving lebanon for safer grounds, even before the war began.
in WWII, well-to-do europeana flee singapore to australia before the japanese even reaches malaysia.
to quote operation barbarossa, in the weeks before the invasion, the USSR do know that they will be attack, but ain't sure exactly when.
unlike singapore, the USSR back then was a full-time army, with not much well-trained reserve forces. they were even lacking in proper equipment, not to mention about their capability to mount a full scale mobilisation. the typical soviet army then was screwed, 20 men to 1 rifle. 19 men waiting behind their sole-weapon bearing comrade, ready to pick up that rifle when he falls.
they don't have the ability to mobilise to form even a half-decent army.
for the USA, so what if you have a great standing army? it is proven at pearl harbor that having a big standing army is not necessary. it is not a gurantee against surprise attacks. in fact, it left your standing forces to greater exposure by first strike attacks.
with the satellite technology today, one must be dumb (usually the chief of armed forces), to not notice hostile enemy buildup.
rmb, for the enemy to attack, they too have to mobilise and move their troops around, which will give us more than enough time for mobilisation if required.
Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:Britain's plot was to let Germany go eastwards, let him attack Russia and let the Nazis and the Bolsheviks finish each other off.
This is completely 100% true.
But you won't find out about this fact by reading english history textbooks.
They cover up and censor everything on that part of history.
Make up cock and bull story.
Tell you fucking propaganda only.
Who can tell me that they learned in school that Britain's plot was to instigate war between Germany and Russia?
Who?
wow.
so the english history is cock and bull story.
so what did you base your "completely 100% true" story on?
the nazi german's account?
or the communist russia's report?
so what did you base your "completely 100% true" story on?
It is based on primary sources, secondary sources, documentary sources, diplomatic records, monographs and other evidence.
An analysis of such information clearly shows the real story of what was going on, which was Britain trying to instigate a German-Russian war.
Historian Burnett Bolloten writes on the reasons for the british cover up:
...That the wells of appeasement lay in this fear of Russia, in the
conviction that Nazi Germany was a barrier against the spread of
Communism, and that a war in western europe could only benefit the
Soviet Union by extending her power and influence has been amply
demonstrated in this and other chapters. But these cardinal
elements in the policy of appeasement have been underrated or almost
totally ignored by the British historical establishment.
There are two reasons for this failure by British historians to come to terms with their country's diplomatic past. Firstly, there is the accepted tradition not to attribute to their government Machiavellian designs against a foreign power.
Hence, no matter how patriotic or realistic Chamberlain and his
supporters may have felt themselves to be in attempting to spare
Western Europe the ravages of war and revolution, they should not be accused of conspiring to pit one totalitarian power against the other. "Of course," writes Robert Skidelsky, the British neorevisonist
historian,"there were a number of groups in Britain who . . . advocated
the bargain that Hitler must always have hoped for — 'a German deal
with the British Empire at the expense of the Soviet Union.' But such
cynicism (or realism) was foreign to the British Establishment."
Secondly, because of the ideological divide between East and West, no establishment historian (despite Stalin's own Machiavellian aims) wishes to play into the hands of the
Soviet Union by ackowledging Britain's share of responsibility for the
rebirth of German militarism and the calamity of the Second World War.
This failure to expose the main roots of appeasement is unfortunate not only for the historiography of this crucial period in world history, but for those seeking a true understanding of...
To put it in simple terms, british historians don't like to admit that Chamberlain's government was aiming at a war between Germany and Russia.
They won't go and write that in their history books.
They will try to invent something or come up with some excuse to hide the real agenda.
So what those guys says is "completely 100% true"
that means what ever other people say is 100% false, or "cock and bull story"
This is not just one of the theory some historians came up with, but 100% facts.
any other theory is 100% lies.
It's not theory, it is historical fact.
It is based on evidence.
Fact is fact.
Putin's remarks at interview:
...As for the people who want to or attempt to rewrite history, to disparage the importance of this event and the important of the Soviet Union and the Red Army, the Soviet Army, in the victory over Nazism, we understand the events that this is connected with. For example, the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact is often mentioned, which resulted in a pact between Soviet Russia, the Soviet Union and Hitler’s Germany, and the subsequent annexation of the Baltic States.
What can one say about this? Everything needs to be seen in the context of historic events. And I would ask you to return to the events of September 1938, when agreements were made between Nazi Germany and western European countries, which later went down in history as the “Munich pact”.
I would also remind you that these agreements were signed by the western allies: Daladier, I believe, from France and the Prime Minister of Great Britain, and on the other side by Mussolini and Hitler himself.
The Soviet-German document was signed on a much lower level – on the level of foreign ministers – one year later, in response to the treaty signed by the western countries, which is now called the “Munich pact”. I would also remind you – and for you as Slovaks, this is probably especially important: as a result of the Munich pact, Czechoslovakia was handed over to Nazi Germany, and the western partners, as it were, showed Hitler where he should go to fulfil his growing ambitions – to the East. To protect its interests and security on its western borders, the Soviet Union signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact with Germany.
If we look at the problem in this context, it looks quite different. And I would recommend new historians, or rather those who want to rewrite history, to learn to read books before they rewrite or write them...
http://www.kremlin.ru/eng/speeches/2005/02/22/2038
"What can I say on that score? We ought to regard it all in its historical context. I dare ask you to get back to the developments of September 1938, when notorious agreements were signed in Munich between nazi Germany and West European countries. They came down into history, later on, and are often referred to as 'the Munich plot'."
The agreements exposed Czechoslovakia to nazi Germany to be devoured. Western partners, in a way, showed Hitler where he ought to turn to satisfy his skyrocketing ambitions. That was the eastward direction, stressed the President.
Beijing, February 18, 1973, 2:43–7:15 p.m.
Talks between Chou
En-lai, Premier of China and Dr. Henry A. Kissinger, Assistant to the
President for National Security Affairs:
PM Chou: Originally Western Europe had hoped that Germany would go eastwards.
Dr. Kissinger: Western Europe.
PM Chou: At Munich.
Dr.
Kissinger: Yes, at Munich. Western Europe had very superficial leaders.
They didn’t have the courage to pursue any policy towards a conclusion.
Once they had done Munich it made no sense to fight for Poland. But
that is a different issue. And I don’t blame Stalin, because from his
point of view he gained himself the essential time.
PM Chou: But there was one weak point, that they were not sufficiently prepared.
Dr. Kissinger: That is right.
PM
Chou: They did make preparations but they were not entirely sufficient.
And in Zhukov’s memoirs he also touched upon this. Have you read this?
Dr. Kissinger: Yes. And they deployed their forces too far forward.
PM Chou: Also scattered in three directions.
Dr.
Kissinger: So, but the basic point that I want to make is not to debate
history but to say the lessons of both wars are that once a big war
starts its consequences are unpredictable, and a country which
encourages a big war in the hope that it can calculate its consequences
is likely to produce a disaster for itself. The Germans had made very
careful plans in World War I, and they had exercised them for 30 years,
but when the war . . .
PM Chou: You mean after the Pact of Berlin?
Dr. Kissinger: World War I—1914—the Schlieffen Plan.
PM Chou: You mean after the Treaty of Berlin.
Dr.
Kissinger: Oh, after 1878, yes, that’s right. But they had exercised
the Schlieffen Plan every year after 1893, for 21 years, and they had
calculated everything except the psychological strain on a commander
under battle conditions. So they thought they were starting a 6-months
war and they wound up with a 4-year war. Not one European leader in
1914, if he had known what the world would look like in 1918, would
have gone to war. And nor would Hitler in 1939. Let us apply it to the
current situation, these observations. If one analyzes the problem of
pushing the Soviet Union toward the East, or maybe you trying to push
it towards the West . . .
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beijing, February 17–18, 1973, 11:30 p.m.–1:20 a.m.
Talks between Mao Zedong and Dr. Henry A. Kissinger, Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs:
...Chairman
Mao: (Pointing at Dr. Kissinger) They are uniting and the Soviet Union
wants the Communist Party to get into office. I don’t like their
Communist party, just like I don’t like your Communist party. I like
you, but not your Communist party. (Laughter)
In the West
you always historically had a policy, for example, in both World Wars
you always began by pushing Germany to fight against Russia.
Dr.
Kissinger: But it is not our policy to push Russia to fight against
China, because the danger to us of a war in China is as great as a war
in Europe.
Chairman Mao: (Before Dr. Kissinger’s remarks are
translated, he makes remarks in Chinese and counts on his fingers. Miss
Tang then translates Dr. Kissinger’s remarks and after that Chairman
Mao’s remarks.)
What I wanted to say is whether or not you are
now pushing West Germany to make peace with Russia and then push Russia
eastward. I suspect the whole of the West has such an idea, that is to
push Russia eastward, mainly against us and also Japan. Also probably
towards you, in the Pacific Ocean and the Indian Ocean.
Dr.
Kissinger: We did not favor this policy. We preferred the German
opposition party which did not pursue this policy. (Chairman Mao,
smoking a cigar, offers cigars to Dr. Kissinger and Mr. Lord who
decline.)...
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/100320.pdf
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/frus/nixon/xviii/
Mao Zedong's talk with British ex-prime minister Edward Heath:
Heath: I think the Soviet Union has a lot of troubles. They are facing domestic economic difficulties and agricultural predicament, and there are also differences within the leadership, over questions of tactics and timing, not over long-term strategy.
Mao: I think the Soviet Union is busy with its own affairs and unable to deal with Europe, the Middle East, South Asia, China and the Pacific. I think it will lose.
Heath: However, its military strength is continually augmented. Although the Soviet Union has encountered troubles at many places in the world, its strength is continuing to grow. Therefore, we deem this to be the principal threat. Does the Chairman think the Soviet Union constitutes a menace to China?
Mao: We are prepared for it to come, but it will collapse if it comes. It has only a handful of troops, and you Europeans are so frightened of it! Some people in the West are always trying to direct this calamity toward China. Your senior, Chamberlain, and also Daladier of France were the ones who pushed Germany eastward.
Heath: I opposed Mr. Chamberlain then.
http://english.pladaily.com.cn/special/mao/
Statement by His Excellency Mr. Adam Daniel ROTFELD, Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Poland. Fifty-ninth session of the General Assembly of the United Nations. Commemoration of the sixtieth anniversary of the end of the Second World War:
...We are told sometimes that the criminal plot of the two dictatorships – Stalin’s and Hitler’s – was legitimate under the international law of the time.
What’s more, it constituted a justified or even essential defense in view of the Munich Agreement concluded in September 1938 among Nazi Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom and France. That treaty was designed to channel German aggression eastward...
http://www.polandun.org/templates/statementRotfeld09may.html
history is written by historians who find evidence to support their theory, and ignore or try to reason evidence that suggest otherwise away.
there is no 100%. especially non main stream historians. you can only say historians argue for their point. If this guy is 100% true, than it WILL definitely be written in the books. cause the opposite WILL be 100% false.
the reason that is not so is because can not be confirmed that IT IS NOT 100%
you are posting alot of stuff, but i am err... not reading it. good luck researching both sides of the story before coming to a conclusion than.
you are posting alot of stuff, but i am err... not reading it.
Why?
good luck researching both sides of the story before coming to a conclusion than.
I have researched this for years already.
The conclusion had already been made a long time ago.
It is completely clear that Britain plot was to turn Germany eastwards to destroy Russia.
100% clear.
100% true.
there is no 100%. especially non main stream historians. you can only say historians argue for their point. If this guy is 100% true, than it WILL definitely be written in the books. cause the opposite WILL be 100% false.
You know why not in mainstream?
Because the fucking british historians will never admit that they were the ones who wanted to instigate war!
That's why not fucking mainstream.
Like Lee Kuan Yew connive with British to bring down Lim Chin Siong, will it be mainstream?
Of course not.
Letter from WSC (Chateau de L'Horizon, Cannes) to CSC, reporting on visit to Paris, where he had meetings with Paul Reynaud, Sir Eric Phipps, Leon Blum, discussing French relations with Italy and Germany, also discussing fear in London that Hitler would turn against Britain, instead of going to the East...
I am not that interested in history, but i do understand history is written by historians, who has a higher probability of being true than others. If there is 100 history professor, and 90 of them agree to one stuff, and 10 think it is something else, than hey, i think this stuff is "questionable", not 100%. if 99 agree, and 1 disagree, i would say this stuff is "100%".
believing in the 10 guys every time is just... not practical. so do your own research. british historians may not be trustworthy, but that doesn't make the russians more trustworthy.
there is no 100%.
Yes, I think for you you still find it hard to accept that Britain can come up with such a thing as to instigate German-Russian war.
You are still under influence of british propaganda, so there is a mental block in accepting certain facts and truth.
there is no 100%.
There is 100% if evidence shows.
...In order to carry out this plan of allowing Germany to drive eastward against Russia, it was necessary to do three things:
(1) to liquidate all the countries standing between Germany and Russia;
(2) to prevent France from honoring her alliances with these countries; and
(3) to hoodwink the English people into accepting this as a necessary, indeed, the only solution to the international problem.
The Chamberlain group were so successful in all three of these things that they came within an ace of succeeding, and failed only because of the obstinacy of the Poles, the unseemly haste of Hitler, and the fact that at the eleventh hour the Milner Group realized the implications of their policy and tried to reverse it...
so..... how many percent of historians support your theory?
heard of the OJ simpson trial? I seriously think he is guilty. evidence says he is guilty. can you say 100% he is guilty?
so..... how many percent of historians support your theory?
What is important is evidence, not how many historians support.
...Any analysis of the motivations of Britain in 1938-1939 is bound to be difficult because different people had different motives, motives changed in the course of time, the motives of the government were clearly not the same as the motives of the people, and in no country has secrecy and anonymity been carried so far or been so well preserved as in Britain.
In general, motives become vaguer and less secret as we move our attention from the innermost circles of the government outward. As if we were looking at the layers of an onion, we may discern four points of view:
(1) the anti-Bolsheviks at the center,
(2) the "three-bloc-world" supporters close to the center,
(3) the supporters of "appeasement," and
(4) the "peace at any price" group in a peripheral position.
The "anti-Bolsheviks," who were also anti-French, were extremely important from 1919 to 1926, but then decreased to little more than a lunatic fringe, rising again in numbers and influence after 1934 to dominate the real policy of the government in 1939. In the earlier period the chief figures in this group were Lord Curzon, Lord D'Abernon, and General Smuts. They did what they could to destroy reparations, permit German rearmament, and tear down what they called "French militarism."
This point of view was supported by the second group, which was known in those days as the Round Table Group, and came later to be called, somewhat inaccurately, the Cliveden Set, after the country estate of Lord and Lady Astor. It included Lord Milner, Leopold Amery, and Edward Grigg (Lord Altrincham), as well as Lord Lothian, Smuts, Lord Astor, Lord Brand (brother-in-law of Lady Astor and managing director of Lazard Brothers, the international bankers), Lionel Curtis, Geoffrey Dawson (editor of The Times), and their associates.
This group wielded great influence because it controlled the Rhodes Trust, the Beit Trust, The Times of London, The Observer, the influential and highly anonymous quarterly review known as The Round Table (founded in 1910 with money supplied by Sir Abe Bailey and the Rhodes Trust, and with Lothian as editor), and it dominated the Royal Institute of International Affairs, called "Chatham House" (of which Sir Abe Bailey and the Astors were the chief financial supporters, while Lionel Curtis was the actual founder), the Carnegie United Kingdom Trust, and All Souls College, Oxford.
This Round Table Group formed the core of the three-bloc-world supporters, and differed from the anti-Bolsheviks like D'Abernon in that they sought to contain the Soviet Union between a German-dominated Europe and an English-speaking bloc rather than to destroy it as the anti-Bolsheviks wanted. Relationships between the two groups were very close and friendly, and some people, like Smuts, were in both.
The anti-Bolsheviks, including D'Abernon, Smuts, Sir John Simon, and H. A. L. Fisher (Warden of All Souls College), were willing to go to any extreme to tear down France and build up Germany. Their point of view can be found in many places, and most emphatically in a letter of August I l, 1920, from D'Abernon to Sir Maurice (later Lord) Hankey, a prot้g้ of Lord Esher who wielded great influence in the inter-war period as secretary to the Cabinet and secretary to almost every international conference on reparations from Genoa (1922) to Lausanne (1932). D'Abernon advocated a secret alliance of Britain "with the German military leaders in cooperating against the Soviet." As ambassador of Great Britain in Berlin in 1920-1926, D'Abernon carried on this policy and blocked all efforts by the Disarmament Commission to disarm, or even inspect, Germany (according to Brigadier J. H. Morgan of the commission)...
...Through all this, the British stubbornly persisted with their vision of an Anglo-German rapprochement.
When the Panzers rolled into Prague the Federation of British Industry sent a delegation to Dusseldorf to negotiate with its German counterpart. Throughout that last summer of peace, talks took place on a many trade and bilateral questions.
The guarantees given by Britain and France to Poland fit into this picture of burgeoning Anglo-German relations. Chamberlain stiffened the Poles, in effect giving them the right to declare war on Germany on behalf of Britain and France. But war was the last thing he expected. The British guarantees to Poland were made with the purpose of encouraging Polish intransigence and giving Hitler reasons to swallow Poland whole. Poland was a sacrificial pawn. British policy was to direct Germany against Soviet Russia. It had been for more than twenty years.
The unilateral guarantees were an alternative to a political-military understanding with the USSR which was the only country actually in a position to help Poland. Chamberlain was trying to canalise German aggression away from the Western Powers. Hitler had once again been given the green light for aggression in the East. This was how Hitler himself understood the matter: when Britain and Germany did find themselves at war a few weeks later, no-one was more surprised than the 'strategic genius' in Berlin, unless it was Neville Chamberlain.
British policy had only one aim: to cajole, wheedle, guide and direct Germany against Soviet Russia...
...The truth is that even in the fateful period of the spring and summer of 1939, on the threshold of war, Britain and France, supported by United States ruling circles, continued their former line of policy.
This was a policy of maliciously inciting Hitler Germany against the Soviet Union camouflaged by pharisaical avowals of readiness to cooperate with the Soviet Union, as well as by certain simple diplomatic manoeuvres designed to conceal the real character of their policy from the world...
http://web.archive.org/web/20071016145820/agitprop.org.au/lefth
yup, evidence is important. but there has to be a good reason why at least 50% of historians think something else. my guess is, they have evidence supporting their view too. evidence which you reject for your reasons.