...On September 1, Hitler attacked Poland. Britain and France were caught in their own trap. These two countries assisted in all of Hitler's adventures, hoping to use him against the Soviet Union. Right from 1933, they never stopped speaking in praise of Hitler's battle against Communism. Now they were forced to declare war against Germany, although they had no intention of doing so in an effective manner.
Unable to see through their dream of seeing the Nazi army charge through Poland to attack the Soviet Union, France and Britain were forced to declare war on Germany...
At the same time, Stalin spoke with great insight to Zhukov:
`The French Government headed by Daladier and the Chamberlain Government in Britain have no intention of getting seriously involved in the war with Hitler. They still hope to incite Hitler to a war against the Soviet Union. By refusing in 1939 to form with us an anti-Hitler bloc, they did not want to hamper Hitler in his aggression against the Soviet Union. Nothing will come of it. They will have to pay through the nose for their short-sighted policy.'
yup, evidence is important. but there has to be a good reason why at least 50% of historians think something else.
Why Japan distort history textbooks regarding WWII history skythewood?
Why Japanese historians think something else?
What is the reason?
Japanese History Textbook Raises Concerns
is the japanese version mainstream? guess not. so let's believe mainstream.
It is mainstream in Japan.
So you believe in Japan mainstream history on WWII?
Or China mainstream?
Or Korean mainstream?
Or Singapore mainstream?
Or Taiwan mainstream?
Which mainstream you believe?
err... i am not in japan?
I don't even know what the japs are teaching? i also not in britain. So you are telling me british teaching diff stuff compared to the rest of the world?
People cover up parts of history that they feel is negative.
Japan mainstream cover up some parts.
Russian mainstream cover up some parts.
British mainstream also cover up some parts.
Britain turn Germany eastwards to destroy Russia is covered up in british mainstream.
...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...
so what you are saying is.... you can't be 100% sure as all countries cover up some parts, for their own agenda.
...A very important book, Hitler’s Spy Chief: The Wilhelm Canaris Mystety,
was published in November, 2005. It received very little attention but
it contained some very interesting new information about the
relationship between the British government and Nazi Germany.
The
author, Richard Bassett, found some very interesting documents that
helps to explain the peace negotiations that went on between the two
governments. Bassett shows that in July, 1938, a powerful group from
within Nazi Germany that included Canaris, were on the verge of
overthrowing Hitler because they feared war with Britain and France.
The British government became aware of this plot. However, they were
determined that Hitler should not be removed from power. The reason,
they were expecting Hitler to destroy communism in the Soviet Union....
so what you are saying is.... you can't be 100% sure as all countries cover up some parts, for their own agenda.
Britain's plot to turn Germany eastwards to destroy Russia is 100% true and clear.
If that's the case, Hitler was a moron. If I were him, I would annex the whole of Russia, build up strength, 10 years time it's global domination.
Hitler went up against 2 fronts, the Capitalist and Communist, in effect he bit off more than he can chew.
...The notion of "avoiding another Munich" means something wholly different when we understand that Chamberlain was not trying to prevent war at all costs but was, in fact, promoting a war against the hated Soviet Union...
http://www.h-net.org/~hns/articles/1998/090998a.html
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0853459991/qid=1150459458/sr=1-1/
is that based on mainstream theory, or the "japan mainstream" theory?
do everyone think like that, or only russia does?
I know for a fact that 99% of english history textbooks do not talk about Britain instigating German-Soviet war.
Russia textbooks talks about it. Polish foreign minister talks about it.
Mao Zedong talks about it.
Question: Some people do not realize yet that the Soviet-German non-aggression treaty is the result of the breakdown of the Anglo-French-Soviet talks, but think that the Soviet-German treaty caused the breakdown. Will you please explain why the Anglo-French-Soviet talks failed?
Answer: The talks failed purely because the British and French governments were insincere. In recent years the reactionary international bourgeoisie, and primarily that of Britain and France, have consistently pursued the reactionary policy of "non-intervention" towards aggression by fascist Germany, Italy and Japan.
Their purpose is to connive at wars of aggression and to profit by them. Thus Britain and France flatly rejected the Soviet Union's repeated proposals for a genuine front against aggression; standing on the side-lines, they took a "non-interventionist" position and connived at German, Italian and Japanese aggression.
Their aim was to step forward and intervene when the belligerents had worn each other out. In pursuit of this reactionary policy they sacrificed half of China to Japan, and the whole of Abyssinia, Spain, Austria and Czechoslovakia to Italy and Germany. Then they wanted to sacrifice the Soviet Union.
This plot was clearly revealed in the recent Anglo-French-Soviet talks. They lasted for more than four months, from April 15 to August 23, during which the Soviet Union exercised the utmost patience.
But, from start to finish, Britain and France rejected the principle of equality and reciprocity; they demanded that the Soviet Union provide safeguards for their security, but refused to do likewise for the Soviet Union and the small Baltic states, so as to leave a gap through which Germany could attack, and they also refused to allow the passage of Soviet troops through Poland to fight the aggressor.
That is why the talks broke down. In the meantime, Germany indicated her willingness to stop her activities against the Soviet Union and abandon the so-called Agreement Against the Communist International and recognized the inviolability of the Soviet frontiers; hence the conclusion of the Soviet-German non-aggression treaty. The policy of "non-intervention" pursued by international and primarily Anglo-French reaction is a policy of "sitting on top of the mountain to watch the tigers fight", a downright imperialist policy of profiting at others' expense.
This policy was initiated when Chamberlain took office, reached its climax in the Munich agreement of September last year and finally collapsed in the recent Anglo-French-Soviet talks.
From now on the situation will inevitably develop into one of direct conflict between the two big imperialist blocs, the Anglo-French bloc and the German-Italian bloc.
As I said in October 1938 at the Sixth Plenary Session of the Sixth Central Committee of our Party, "The inevitable result of Chamberlain's policy will be like 'lifting a rock only to drop it on one's own toes'." Chamberlain started with the aim of injuring others only to end up by ruining himself. This is the law of development which governs all reactionary policies.
...The plan of Britain, the United States and France was to egg Germany on to attack the Soviet Union, so that they themselves, "sitting on top of the mountain to watch the tigers fight", could come down and take over after the Soviet Union and Germany had worn each other out.
The Soviet-German non-aggression treaty smashed this plot. In overlooking this plot and the schemes of the Anglo-French imperialists who connived at and instigated war and precipitated a world war, some of our fellow-countrymen have actually been taken in by the sugary propaganda of these schemers.
These crafty politicians were not the least bit interested in checking aggression against Spain, against China, or against Austria and Czechoslovakia, on the contrary, they connived at aggression and instigated war, playing the proverbial role of the fisherman who set the snipe and clam at each other and then took advantage of both. They euphemistically described their actions as "non-intervention", but what they actually did was to "sit on top of the mountain to watch the tigers fight".
Quite a number of people throughout the world have been fooled by the honeyed words of Chamberlain and his partners, failing to see the murderous intent behind their smiles, or to understand that the Soviet-German non-aggression treaty was concluded only after Chamberlain and Daladier had made up their minds to reject the Soviet Union and bring about the imperialist war. It is time for these people to wake up...
http://marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-2/mswv2_19.htm
so i should believe mao zedong? russia historian and english historian is 50-50 to me. not 100%. and shouldn't be, unless you fall for russia propaganda.
WWII sino-Japan war history you trust Japanese historians or chinese historians?
I will lean more towards the chinese accounts, and i won't be 100% sure. which side will you trust?
That's right you should trust the chinese account more.
Japanese historians would tend to cover up the negative parts, when it comes to Britain's policy towards Nazi Germany in 1937-1940, you can't go and trust the british version also.
They tend to cover up the negative parts.
Like their plot to turn Germany eastwards to destroy Russia.
In this case, you should trust the Russian account more.
same thing, not 100%.
You did not study the history and the diplomatic records, that is why you are doubtful.
If you go and examine the evidence, it will be 100% clear to you.
than you are welcomed to rebuke the army of english historians. They don't seem like idiots, so i guess they also have their reasons. if you study their reasons, which will include history and diplomatic records, than you will see it is not 100%
They don't seem like idiots, so i guess they also have their reasons.
They won't admit the facts. They will deny and 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...
so russians won't cover stuff up?