SDP’s policy paper on National Service
-
Russian Foreign Intelligence Service declassifies Munich Agreement papers
http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20080929/117271264.html
Munich secrets: declassified
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=4g
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.You see the mainstream version of outbreak of WWII propagated by english historians is complete horseshit.
Left wing groups and Russians and others propagate a completely different story.
This story is about how Britain plotted to turn Germany eastwards to finish off Russia.
This version is suppressed in english speaking countries.
This is the more truthful and accurate version.
If you go to mainstream english books and read up on WWII outbreak, they won't go and tell you that Britain plotted to instigate war between Germany and Russia.
They will come up with some excuse to explain away why Chamberlain appeased Hitler.
It is the same in all countries.
Japanese textbooks also suppress WWII history.
Singapore mainstream textbooks also won't go and tell you how Lee Kuan Yew and british connive to bring down Lim Chin Siong.
Lim Chin Siong vs Lee Kuan Yew: The true and shocking history
-
Munich agreement, yes english history books like to talk about munich, how Chamberlain appeased Hitler.
But did they mention that Chamberlain wanted Hitler to annex Sudetenland?
No. They did not mention.
You think why Chamberlain so easily let Hitler take Sudetenland?
It was his intent for Germany to annex Sudetenland.
...He alluded to a luncheon meeting of 10 May 1938 hosted by Lady Astor, where Chamberlain reportedly communicated to twelve American journalists his secret plans concerning a Four-Power Pact in Europe, with the exclusion of Russia.
The Premier also stated at that time that he was in favor of ceding the Sudeten region of Czechoslovakia to the Germans...http://books.google.com.sg/books?id=KWQc
...All these events showed very clearly the chief result of Munich: Germany was supreme in central Europe, and any possibility of curtailing that power either by a joint policy of the Western Powers with the Soviet Union and Italy or by finding any openly anti-German resistance in central Europe itself was ended. Since this was exactly what Chamberlain and his friends had wanted, they should have been satisfied...
-
You think british so fucking stupid?
You think british that naive?
So simple-minded, so naive, so stupid let Hitler expand eastwards, don't go and oppose him?
...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...
http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/cikkek/an
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/
Don't be naive.
Don't be hoodwinked.
Come to political affairs, don't be naive.
-
The Munich Agreeement was an act of appeasement. It was a logical approach for England to avoid an early confrontation with Germany when she knew her own strength was no match for Hitler's army.
Whatever the agenda was, if England could weaken Germany, then it would be an advantage to England. Why portray Chamberlain as the villain? Hitler and Stalin were no saints either. Each of them was planning to expand their territories of influence.
In the end, England lost much of her vast empire. Hitler's Third Reich collapsed and the plan to export communism to the west failed. The outcome of WW2 was a loss for Stalin.
-
It was a logical approach for England to avoid an early confrontation with Germany when she knew her own strength was no match for Hitler's army.
Actually that was also british propaganda.
...Two additional points, concerned with the degree of German armaments and the position of the anti-Hitler resistance within Germany, require further elucidation.
For years before June 1938, the government had insisted that British rearming was progressing in a satisfactory fashion. Churchill and others had questioned this and had produced figures on German rearmament to prove that Britain’s own progress in this field was inadequate. These figures were denied by the government, and their own accomplishments were defended.
In 1937 and in 1938, Churchill had clashed with Baldwin and Chamberlain on this issue. As late as March 1938, Chamberlain said that British armaments were such as to make her an “almost terrifying power ... on the opinion of the world.” But as the year went on, the government adopted a quite different attitude. In order to persuade public opinion that it was necessary to yield to Germany, the Government pretended that its armaments were quite inadequate in comparison with Germany.”
We now know, thanks to the captured papers of the German Ministry of War, that this was a gross exaggeration. These papers were studied by Major General C.F. Robinson of the United States Army, and analyzed in a report which he submitted to the Secretary of War in October 1947.
This document, entitled Foreign Logistical Organizations and Methods, shows that all of the accepted estimates of German rearmament in the period 1933-1939 were gross exaggerations.
From 1936 to the outbreak of war, German aircraft production was not raised, but averaged 425 planes a month. Her tank production was low and even in 1939 was less than Britain’s. In the first 9 months of 1939, Germany produced only 50 tanks a month; in the last 4 months of 1939, in wartime, Germany produced 247 “tanks and self-propelled guns,” compared to a British production of 314 tanks in the same period.
At the time of the Munich crisis, Germany had 35 infantry and 4 motorized divisions, none of them fully manned or equipped. This was no more than Czechoslovakia had alone. Moreover, the Czech Army was better trained, had far better equipment, and had better morale and better fortifications. As an example of this point, we might mention that the Czech tank was of 38 tons, while the Germans, before 1938, had no tank over 10 tons. During 1938 they brought into production the Mark III tank of less than 20 tons, and in 1939 brought into production the Mark IV of 23 tons. Up to September 1939, the German Army had obtained only 300 tanks of the Mark III and Mark IV types together.
Most of these were delivered during 1939. In comparison, the Germans captured in Czechoslovakia, in March 1939, 469 of the superior Czech tanks. At the same time they captured 1500 planes (of which 500 were first-line), 43,000 machineguns, and over 1 million rifles. These figures are comparable with what Germany had at Munich, and at that time, if the British government had desired, Germany would have been facing France, Britain, and Russia, as well as Czechoslovakia.
It should perhaps be mentioned that up to September 1939 the German Navy had acquired only 53 submarines during the Hitler regime. No economic mobilization for war had been made and no reserve stocks built up.
When the war began, in September 1939, Germany had ammunition for 6 weeks, and the air force had bombs for 3 months at the rate of expenditure experienced during the Polish campaign. At that time the Air Force consisted of 1000 bombers and 1050 fighters. In contrast, the British air program of May 1938 planned to provide Britain with a first-line force of 2370 planes; this program was stepped up in 1939. Under it, Britain produced almost 3000 military planes in 1938 and about 8000 in 1939.
The German figures for planes produced in these 2 years are 5235 and 8295, but these are figures for all planes produced in the country, including civil as well as military airplanes. As Hanson Baldwin put it, “Up until 1940, at least, Germany’s production did not markedly outstrip Britain’s.” It might also be mentioned that British combat planes were of better quality.
We have no way of knowing if the Chamberlain government knew these facts. It should have known them. At the least, it should not have deluged its own people with untrue stories about German arms. Surprisingly, the British have generally refused to modify these stories, and, in order to perpetuate the fable about the necessity for the Munich surrender, they have continued to repeat the untrue propaganda stories of 1937-1939 regarding German armaments.
This is as true of the critics of Munich as of its defenders. Both have adopted the version that Britain yielded to superior and overwhelming force at Munich. They have done this even though this story is untrue and they are in a position to know that it is untrue.
For example, Winston Churchill, in his war memoirs, repeats the old stories about German rearmament, although he has been writing two years or more after the Reichswehr archives were captured. For this he was criticized by Hanson Baldwin in The New York Times of 9 May 1948.
In his recent book, Munich : Prologue to Tragedy, J.W. Wheeler-Bennett, the British editor of the captured papers of the German Foreign Ministry, accepts the old propaganda tales of German rearmament as axiomatic, and accordingly does not even discuss the subject. He merely tells his readers: “By the close of 1937 Germany’s preparedness for war was complete. The preference for guns rather than for butter had brought forth results. Her rearmament had reached its apogee and could hold that peak level for a certain time. Her economy was geared to a strict regime of rationing and output on a war level.”
None of this was true, and Mr. Wheeler-Bennett should have examined the evidence. If he had, he would not have been so severe on what he calls Professor Frederick Schumann’s “fantastic theory of the 'Pre-Munich Plot.’
http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/cikkek/anglo_12b.html
See also House of Commons 7 March 1938, Chamberlain discusses british arms:
...A study of the White Paper, and perhaps much more, any observation of what is going on in the country to-day, will convince people of the enormous progress that we have made in the building up of our defensive forces. It has made a deep impression upon foreign nations. I remember that in 1935 the Leader of the Opposition said that our armaments programme was rattling us back to war. It has had exactly the opposite effect. The sight of this enormous, this almost terrifying, power which Britain is building up has a sobering effect, a steadying effect, on the opinion of the world. Everyone knows that these forces, great and powerful as they are, are not going to be used for aggression...
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/c
Later, Chamberlain needing pretext to concede to Hitler at Munich pretended that British arms were weaker, compared to Germany.
It was all a fraud.
Whatever the agenda was
British agenda was to turn Germany eastwards to destroy Russia.
Why portray Chamberlain as the villain?
But british history covered up his agenda and made up falsified history.
-
Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:
Stalin wanted to form alliance with Britain and France against Germany but Britain refused.
They wanted to continue to push Germany eastwards to attack Russia.
Since they refused, Stalin no choice, had to sign non-aggression pact with Germany.
You think Stalin stupid and allow Britain to push Germany eastwards to attack him?
Stalin 'planned to send a million troops to stop Hitler if Britain and France agreed pact'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/3223834/Sta
I am amazed by the ingenuity of your ability to find reference sources to back up your fantastic claim of a British conspiracy to push Hitler to attack Russia, when your references in one reply is contradicted by the references given in another reply.
If Stalin was able to conclude a pact with Britain and France to form a bulwark against Hitler's ambitions to expand Germany - whether eastward or westward - can Britain and France realistically fulfill their end of the agreement, when their military forces have been reduced after WW-1 due to the 1930s economic depresssion ?
Even taking an extract from your "Referenced site" confirmed that your "conspiracy cannot hold" - with the Soviet acknowledgement that Britain and France act of giving up the Sudentenland from Czechoslovakia to Germany was an Act of Appeasement, and that Britain and France was impotent to counter Hitler's moves to swallow the whole of Czechoslovakia. [see extract from your referenced site].
Again from your referenced site, the author - Prof Donald Cameron Watt - who was seen as giving the definitive account of the last 12 months before war begain - had also dismissed the views of Stalin's supposed offer to send the huge number of troops, tanks, artillery and planes in a pact with Britain and France. [See opening paragraphs in the extract taken from your referenced site].
Professor Donald Cameron Watt, author of How War Came - widely seen as the definitive account of the last 12 months before war began - said the details were new, but said he was sceptical about the claim that they were spelled out during the meetings.
"There was no mention of this in any of the three contemporaneous diaries, two British and one French - including that of Drax," he said. "I don't myself believe the Russians were serious."
The declassified archives - which cover the period from early 1938 until the outbreak of war in September 1939 - reveal that the Kremlin had known of the unprecedented pressure Britain and France put on Czechoslovakia to appease Hitler by surrendering the ethnic German Sudetenland region in 1938.
"At every stage of the appeasement process, from the earliest top secret meetings between the British and French, we understood exactly and in detail what was going on," Gen Sotskov said.
"It was clear that appeasement would not stop with Czechoslovakia's surrender of the Sudetenland and that neither the British nor the French would lift a finger when Hitler dismembered the rest of the country."
Stalin's sources, Gen Sotskov says, were Soviet foreign intelligence agents in Europe, but not London. "The documents do not reveal precisely who the agents were, but they were probably in Paris or Rome."
Shortly before the notorious Munich Agreement of 1938 - in which Neville Chamberlain, the British prime minister, effectively gave Hitler the go-ahead to annexe the Sudetenland - Czechoslovakia's President Eduard Benes was told in no uncertain terms not to invoke his country's military treaty with the Soviet Union in the face of further German aggression.
"Chamberlain knew that Czechoslovakia had been given up for lost the day he returned from Munich in September 1938 waving a piece of paper with Hitler's signature on it," Gen Sotksov said.
The top secret discussions between the Anglo-French military delegation and the Soviets in August 1939 - five months after the Nazis marched into Czechoslovakia - suggest both desperation and impotence of the western powers in the face of Nazi aggression.
Note that in this referenced article that you have offered, had also confirmed that Stalin had his foreign intelligence agents infiltrating the governments in Europe.
-
Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:
But the article does not quote a source for the info.
Make use of war in europe to start revolution was a common political program among communist and left wing groups in 1930s, there's no secret about that.
Workers’ International News, June 1939:
...Chamberlain’s policy of “appeasement” has been the attempt to direct Germany’s attack towards the Soviet Ukraine, and the agreement concluded at Munich seemed to leave the door open to this outcome...
...One the eve of the Great War there was an atmosphere of war preparations, of frenzied diplomacy, of uncertain pacts and treaties such as obtains to-day. There was also the same deep apprehension and longing for peace on the part of the toiling masses. It is true that the first waves of patriotism on the outbreak of war swept away the instinctive distrust of the masses but it reasserted itself in the form of revolution before long. Similarly, the bourgeois politicians who babble so glibly of peace to-day are unwittingly preparing the masses for the day when they will find the road to peace – through revolution...
http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/
But if you say Stalin had a policy to instigate war between Britain/France and Germany, then I don't see good evidence to support such a claim.
If you had carefully read the reference pieces given in my last response, you will have note that the source was from the materials prepared by Professor Richard M Ebelling, with the accolades at the bottom of Reference 1 indicating him to be "the Ludwig von Mises Professor of Economics at Hillsdale College in Hillsdale, Michigan, and serve as vice-president of academic affairs for The Future of Freedom Foundation".
If you are unwilling to see what has been printed but insist on your purely speculative views of a conspiracy of Britain and France, can anyone help you otherwise ?
You still have not shown any concrete evidence that will prove your preferred conspiracy in any unshakeable ways, except to depend on materials that are dismissed by those who are more authoritative on these subjects than you and I.
Will you contradict these persons ?
-
Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:
Actually it is not controversial.
It is only that this point of view has been suppressed in english history books.
If you go to left wing propaganda outlets, it is the common view.
...The Soviet Union together with the communist parties around the world launched a campaign to warn that fascism meant war and that if Hitler was to be stopped a world-wide anti-fascist front had to be created. The Soviet Union called for a system of collective security against the rise of fascism.
Unfortunately the western powers, led at that time by the British and French Governments and a number of other European countries, encouraged the rearmament of Nazi Germany believing that its virulent anti-communism meant it could be used to attack and destroy the socialist Soviet Union. They rejected any collective security pact with the Soviet Union...http://www.cpa.org.au/garchve05/1225fascism.html
Snow: That seems a rather large order for Mr. Chamberlain. I wonder if you mean that, while fighting Germany, Chamberlain's real attention is centered upon the destruction of Russia? It appears to me that Chamberlain has got his hands full with Hitler for the present, without planning an even larger war against Russia. Would it not be logical for him to try to win Russia's friendship, if possible, in order to beat Hitler, even if he does have some designs on Stalin in the future? Do you mean that he formerly dreamed of diverting Hitler's attack toward the East, or that he is actively planning it now, or that he hopes to consummate such a front out of the present war?
Mao: He formerly dreamed of it, he actually plans it now, and he hopes to realize it later. Why? Because in front of Chamberlain there is not only the problem of Hitler, but also the problem of revolt in India, and among people in his own country, while the Soviet Union is the supporter of the colonial revolutions and the people's (revolutionary) movement in capaitalist countries themselves. Hence Roosevelt also sympathizes with Chamberlain.
http://books.google.com/books?id=IvXIwkDPJg4C&pg=...The purpose of Chamberlain's 1938 Munich agreement to give the Sudetenland to Germany was, in fact, to push the Germans to the east and into confrontation with the Soviet Union. One reason for this, of course, was the imperialists' fond dream of smashing the socialist Soviet Union...
http://rwor.org/a/076/ww2-en.html
...However, influential leaders of the capitalist powers believed that German fascism was the only bulwark against Bolshevism. They confidently expected that a re-armed Germany would sweep to the East and destroy the centre of the Red contagion — the USSR.
Western leaders consistently rejected calls for collective security — it was intended to restrain aggressors, and could only be aimed at Hitler’s Germany.
Instead, Germany was helped to rearm, to re-occupy the Rhineland, to force through an Anschluss with Austria (basically Germany was allowed to seize the country).
When Germany moved to occupy Czechoslovakia, which had a strong army and an advanced armament industry, the imperialists found themselves in a quandary.
The British and French public demanded that their governments support the independence of Czechoslovakia while the strategic aims of the British and French rulers called for Czechoslovakia to be given to Hitler.
A conference of the leaders of Britain, France, Germany and Italy held in Munich betrayed Czechoslovakia and handed that country to Nazi Germany. The Soviet Union was not invited to attend.
The Soviet Union offered to stand by Czechoslovakia without France if necessary. But while Czech Communist MPs demanded that President Beneš request Soviet assistance, he refused, apparently more fearful of communism than of Hitler...Again you bring up the recorded conversation between a Western Leader and China's Mao Tse-Tung in a latter day retrospective views of what transpired during WW-2; and insist on using such latter day personal views as proof to back-up your "Conspiracy Theory" perpetuated by Britain and France for Germany to attack Russia.
In my last post above, 25 Oct '08, 02.41a.m. - I had extracted paragraphs from your given referenced site that showed your present replies to be wrong - as Britain and France was in no way able to offer any equal partner to Russia's supposedly mighty military, given the situation that existed in the 1930s.
Both Britain and France had wanted to buy time for themselves to re-arm and had even gone to the extent of stating clearly that if Poland is to be attacked by Germany, it will mean War with Britain and France.
Could Britain and France trust Russia's ambitions when she is exporting Communist ideology across Europe, and helping the proletariat in preparing for revolt against the Capitalist Order ?
Even as much as Britain and France could not accept Russia's offer of a joint military pact against Germany, both were determined to avoid war with Germany, and stop Stalin's efforts to spread Communism in Europe.
As was shown previously, reading extracts from your given referenced site, the picture somehow do not support your "Conspiracy Theory".
As far as obvious political events are concerned, 1937 was the only quiet year after 1933. But the capture and release of various secret documents now make it clear that 1937 was a critical turning point because in that year the German government and the British government made secret decisions which sealed the fate of Austria and Czechoslovakia and dominated the history of the next three years.
The decision made by the German government (that is, by Hitler) was to prepare for open military aggression against Czechoslovakia and Austria and to carry this out before 1943-1945, probably in 1938.
This decision was announced by Hitler to a secret meeting of seven persons on November 5, 1937. Among those present, besides Hitler and his aide, Colonel Hossback, were the minister of war (Werner von Blomberg), the commanders in chief of the army (Werner von Fritsch), the navy (Erich Raeder), and the air force (Hermann G๖ring), and the foreign minister (Konstantin von Neurath).
It is evident from some of Hitler's statements that he had already received certain information about the secret decisions being made by Chamberlain on the British side; for example, he said flatly that Britain wanted to satisfy the colonial ambitions of Germany by giving it non-British areas like Portuguese Angola, something which we now know was in Chamberlain's mind. Hitler further assured his listeners that ''almost certainly Britain, and probably France as well, had already tacitly written off the Czechs and were reconciled to the fact that this question would be cleared up in due course by Germany.... An attack by France without British support, and with the prospect of the offensive being brought to a standstill on our western fortifications, was hardly probable. Nor was a French march through Belgium and Holland without British support to be expected.".
Hitler thought that, by reducing German support for Franco in Spain, the war there could be extended, and, by encouraging Italy to stay in Spain, especially in the Balearic Islands, the French African troops could be kept from crossing the Mediterranean Sea for use in Europe, and in general that France and Britain would be so tied down in the Mediterranean by Italy that they would take no action against Germany over Czechoslovakia and Austria.
In fact, Hitler was so sure of an Anglo-French war against Italy in 1938 that he was confident Czechoslovakia and Austria could be conquered by Germany in that year..
These ideas were completely unacceptable to Blomberg, Fritsch, and Neurath.
They objected that German rearmament was so backward that they did not have a single motorized division capable of movement, that there was no reason to expect an Anglo-French-Italian war in 1938, that Italy, in such a war, could tie down only twenty French divisions, leaving more than enough to attack Germany, and that such an attack would be very dangerous because Germany's fortifications on her western frontier were "insignificant." Hitler brushed these objections aside. He "repeated his previous statements that he was convinced of Britain's non-participation, and, therefore, he did not believe in the probability of belligerent action by France against Germany."
As a result of the opposition from Blomberg, Fritsch, and Neurath in this conference of November 1937, Hitler replaced these three by more amenable subordinates in a sudden coup on February 4, 1938. Hitler himself took the posts of minister of war and commander in chief, with General Wilhelm Keitel as chief of staff for all the armed forces of the Reich. Neurath was replaced in the Foreign Ministry by the fanatical Ribbentrop. The very able Dirksen was sent to London as ambassador, but his ability was wasted, as Ribbentrop paid no attention to his reports and his well-founded warnings.
In the meantime the British government, especially the small group controlling foreign policy, had reached a seven-point decision regarding their attitude toward Germany:
1. Hitler Germany was the front-line bulwark against the spread of Communism in Europe.
2. A four-Power pact of Britain, France, Italy, and Germany to exclude all Russian influence from Europe was the ultimate aim; accordingly, Britain had no desire to weaken the Rome-Berlin Axis, but regarded it and the Anglo-French Entente as the foundation of a stable Europe.
3. Britain had no objection to German acquisition of Austria, Czechoslovakia, and Danzig.
4. Germany must not use force to achieve its aims in Europe, as this would precipitate a war in which Britain would have to intervene because of the pressure of public opinion in Britain and the French system of alliances; with patience, Germany could get its aims without using force.
5. Britain wanted an agreement with Germany restricting the numbers and the use of bombing planes.
6. Britain was prepared to give Germany colonial areas in south-central Africa, including the Belgian Congo and Portuguese Angola if Germany would renounce its desire to recover Tanganyika, which had been taken from Germany in 1919, and if Germany would sign an international agreement to govern these areas with due regard for the rights of the natives, an "open-door" commercial policy, and under some mechanism of international supervision like the mandates.
7. Britain would use pressure on Czechoslovakia and Poland to negotiate with Germany and to be conciliatory to Germany's desires.
To these seven points we should add an eighth: Britain must rearm in order to maintain its position in a "three-bloc world" and to deter Germany from using force in creating its bloc in Europe. This point was supported by Chamberlain, who built up the air force which saved Britain in 1940, and by the Round Table Group led by Lord Lothian, Edward Grigg, and Leopold Amery, who put on a campaign to establish compulsory military service.
The first seven points were reiterated to Germany by various spokesmen from 1937 onward. They are also to be found in many recently published documents, including the captured archives of the German Foreign Ministry, the documents of the British Foreign Office, and various extracts from diaries and other private papers, especially extracts from Neville Chamberlain's diary and his letters to his sister. Among numerous other occasions these points were covered in the following cases: (a) in a conversation between Lord Halifax and Hitler at Berchtesgaden on November 17, 1938; (b) in a letter from Neville Chamberlain to his sister on November 26, 1937; (c) in a conversation between Hitler, Ribbentrop, and the British Ambassador (Sir Nevile Henderson) in Berlin on March 3, 1938; (d) in a series of conversations involving Lord Halifax, Ribbentrop, Sir Thomas Inskip (British minister of defense), Erich Kordt (Ribbentrop's assistant), and Sir Horace Wilson (Chamberlain's personal representative) in London on March 10-11, 1938; and (e) in a conference of Neville Chamberlain with various North American journalists held at Lord Astor's house on May 10, 1938. In addition, portions of these seven points were mentioned or discussed in scores of conversations and documents which are now available.
Certain significant features of these should be pointed out. In the first place, in spite of persistent British efforts lasting for more than two years, Hitler rejected Angola or the Congo and insisted on the return of the German colonies which had been lost in 1919. During 1939 Germany steadily refused to negotiate on this issue and finally refused even to acknowledge the British efforts to discuss it. In the second place, the British throughout these discussions made a sharp distinction between Germany's aims and Germany's methods.
They had no objections to Germany's aims in Europe, but they insisted that Germany must not use force to achieve these aims because of the danger of war.
This distinction was accepted by the German professional diplomats and by the German professional soldiers, who were quite willing to obtain Germany's aims by peaceful means, but this distinction was not accepted by the leaders of the Nazi Party, especially Hitler, Ribbentrop, and Himmler, who were too impatient and who wanted to prove to themselves and the world that Germany was powerful enough to take what it wanted without waiting for anybody's permission.
If the British was seen by the Germans as having "no objections to Germany's aims in Europe, but had only insisted that Germany must not use force to achieve these aims because of the danger of war" - I cannot see how you can reconcile this with your "Conspiracy Theory" of Britain and France attempts to push Germany to attack eastwards towards Russia.
-
Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:
...While all this was going on, the remorseless wheels of appeasement were grinding out of existence one country after another.
The fatal loss was Czechoslovakia.
This disaster was engineered by Chamberlain with the full co-operation of the Milner Group.
The details do not concern us here, but it should be mentioned that the dispute arose over the position of the Sudeten Germans within the Czechoslovak state, and as late as 15 September 1938 was still being expressed in those terms. Up to that day, Hitler had made no demand to annex the Sudeten area, although on 12 September he had for the first time asked for “self-determination” for the Sudetens.
Konrad Henlein, Hitler’s agent in Czechoslovakia and leader of the Sudeten Germans, expressed no desire “to go back to the Reich” until after 12 September.
Who, then, first demanded frontier rectification in favor of Germany?
Chamberlain did so...
http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/cikkek/anglo_12b.html
Yes, history has recorded this as fact, but nothing reinforces your claims that Britain and France had conspired with Germany to attack Eastward towards Russia.
-
Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:
...Within two weeks of Hitler's annexation of Austria, Britain was moving. It was decided to put pressure on the Czechs to make concessions to the Germans; to encourage France and eventually Germany to do the same; to insist that Germany must not use force to reach a decision, but to have patience enough to allow negotiations to achieve the same result; and to exclude Russia, although it was allied to Czechoslovakia, from the negotiations completely...
...The group which spread this version of the situation included Chamberlain, Lord Halifax, John Simon, Samuel Hoare, Horace Wilson, the Cliveden Set, the British ambassador in Berlin (Sir Nevile Henderson), and the British minister in Prague (Basil Newton)...
...As early as March 17, 1938, five days after the Anschluss, the Soviet government called for consultations looking toward collective actions to stop aggression and to eliminate the increased danger of a new world slaughter. This was summarily rejected by Lord Halifax. Instead, on March 24th, Chamberlain announced in the House of Commons Britain's refusal to pledge aid to the Czechs if they were attacked or to France if it came to their rescue. When the Soviet request was repeated in September 1938, it was ignored...
...In the meantime the British had been working out a plan of their own. It involved, as we have said, (1) separation of the Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia, probably through the use of a plebiscite or even by outright partition; (2) neutralization of the rest of Czechoslovakia by revising her treaties with Russia and France, and ( 3 ) guarantee of this rump of Czechoslovakia (but not by Britain). This plan was outlined to the Czech ambassador in London by Lord Halifax on May 25th, and was worked out in some detail by one of Lord Halifax's subordinates, William (now Lord) Strang, during a visit to Prague and to Berlin in the following week.
This was the plan which was picked up by Lord Runciman and presented as his recommendation in his report of September 21, 1938.
It is worthy of note that on September and Lord Runciman sent a personal message by Henlein to Hitler in which he said that he would have a settlement drawn up by September 15th.
What is, perhaps, surprising is that Lord Runciman made no use whatever of the Karlsbad Demands or the extensive concessions to meet them which the Czechs had made during these negotiations, but instead recommended to the British Cabinet on September 16th, and in his written report five days later, the same melange of partition, plebiscites, neutralization, and guarantee which had been in the mind of the British Foreign Office for weeks.
It was this plan which was imposed on the Czechs by the Four-Power Conference at Munich on September 30th...
Again, this reply from you has confirmed what has been historically documented as Neville's Chamberlain's acts of appeasement towards Hitler, and do not back up your theory that it was intended for Hitler to attack eastward towards Russia.
-
Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:
Russian Foreign Intelligence Service declassifies Munich Agreement papers
http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20080929/117271264.html
Munich secrets: declassified
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=4g
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.You see the mainstream version of outbreak of WWII propagated by english historians is complete horseshit.
Left wing groups and Russians and others propagate a completely different story.
This story is about how Britain plotted to turn Germany eastwards to finish off Russia.
This version is suppressed in english speaking countries.
This is the more truthful and accurate version.
If you go to mainstream english books and read up on WWII outbreak, they won't go and tell you that Britain plotted to instigate war between Germany and Russia.
They will come up with some excuse to explain away why Chamberlain appeased Hitler.
It is the same in all countries.
Japanese textbooks also suppress WWII history.
Singapore mainstream textbooks also won't go and tell you how Lee Kuan Yew and british connive to bring down Lim Chin Siong.
Lim Chin Siong vs Lee Kuan Yew: The true and shocking history
It is amazing that you will swallow the left wing views from Russian sources which even authoritative persons - well recognised in their views concerning European History - have all frowned upon with suspicions.If after more then 60 years since the end of WW-2 there are no other alternative views from authoritative researches in the Western Capitalists Societies in Europe, Britain and the USA - then surely something must be right.
Yes, Lee Kuan Yew will never allow History to be re-interpreted in any other ways except from His Version - yet we see the ability of someone able to produce the book that you have given "Lim Chin Siong vs Lee Kuan Yew : The true and shocking history" - which clearly shows that new facts have surfaced that allow this book to be written, compared to the 60 years since WW-2 ended.
Can the Leftist version as propagated by Communist Russia under Stalin be depended on for accuracy of facts that occurred during the period preceding the outbreak of WW-2 ?
It is amazing that you will gladly and undiscerning accept Russia's account as the Truth but will dismiss all other accounts as "horse-shit" propaganda from the West.
Are you a Leftist ?
A Communist mole that is being nurtured ?
-
Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:
Actually that was also british propaganda.
...Two additional points, concerned with the degree of German armaments and the position of the anti-Hitler resistance within Germany, require further elucidation.
For years before June 1938, the government had insisted that British rearming was progressing in a satisfactory fashion. Churchill and others had questioned this and had produced figures on German rearmament to prove that Britain’s own progress in this field was inadequate. These figures were denied by the government, and their own accomplishments were defended.
In 1937 and in 1938, Churchill had clashed with Baldwin and Chamberlain on this issue. As late as March 1938, Chamberlain said that British armaments were such as to make her an “almost terrifying power ... on the opinion of the world.” But as the year went on, the government adopted a quite different attitude. In order to persuade public opinion that it was necessary to yield to Germany, the Government pretended that its armaments were quite inadequate in comparison with Germany.”
We now know, thanks to the captured papers of the German Ministry of War, that this was a gross exaggeration. These papers were studied by Major General C.F. Robinson of the United States Army, and analyzed in a report which he submitted to the Secretary of War in October 1947.
This document, entitled Foreign Logistical Organizations and Methods, shows that all of the accepted estimates of German rearmament in the period 1933-1939 were gross exaggerations.
From 1936 to the outbreak of war, German aircraft production was not raised, but averaged 425 planes a month. Her tank production was low and even in 1939 was less than Britain’s. In the first 9 months of 1939, Germany produced only 50 tanks a month; in the last 4 months of 1939, in wartime, Germany produced 247 “tanks and self-propelled guns,” compared to a British production of 314 tanks in the same period.
At the time of the Munich crisis, Germany had 35 infantry and 4 motorized divisions, none of them fully manned or equipped. This was no more than Czechoslovakia had alone. Moreover, the Czech Army was better trained, had far better equipment, and had better morale and better fortifications. As an example of this point, we might mention that the Czech tank was of 38 tons, while the Germans, before 1938, had no tank over 10 tons. During 1938 they brought into production the Mark III tank of less than 20 tons, and in 1939 brought into production the Mark IV of 23 tons. Up to September 1939, the German Army had obtained only 300 tanks of the Mark III and Mark IV types together.
Most of these were delivered during 1939. In comparison, the Germans captured in Czechoslovakia, in March 1939, 469 of the superior Czech tanks. At the same time they captured 1500 planes (of which 500 were first-line), 43,000 machineguns, and over 1 million rifles. These figures are comparable with what Germany had at Munich, and at that time, if the British government had desired, Germany would have been facing France, Britain, and Russia, as well as Czechoslovakia.
It should perhaps be mentioned that up to September 1939 the German Navy had acquired only 53 submarines during the Hitler regime. No economic mobilization for war had been made and no reserve stocks built up.
When the war began, in September 1939, Germany had ammunition for 6 weeks, and the air force had bombs for 3 months at the rate of expenditure experienced during the Polish campaign. At that time the Air Force consisted of 1000 bombers and 1050 fighters. In contrast, the British air program of May 1938 planned to provide Britain with a first-line force of 2370 planes; this program was stepped up in 1939. Under it, Britain produced almost 3000 military planes in 1938 and about 8000 in 1939.
The German figures for planes produced in these 2 years are 5235 and 8295, but these are figures for all planes produced in the country, including civil as well as military airplanes. As Hanson Baldwin put it, “Up until 1940, at least, Germany’s production did not markedly outstrip Britain’s.” It might also be mentioned that British combat planes were of better quality.
We have no way of knowing if the Chamberlain government knew these facts. It should have known them. At the least, it should not have deluged its own people with untrue stories about German arms. Surprisingly, the British have generally refused to modify these stories, and, in order to perpetuate the fable about the necessity for the Munich surrender, they have continued to repeat the untrue propaganda stories of 1937-1939 regarding German armaments.
This is as true of the critics of Munich as of its defenders. Both have adopted the version that Britain yielded to superior and overwhelming force at Munich. They have done this even though this story is untrue and they are in a position to know that it is untrue.
For example, Winston Churchill, in his war memoirs, repeats the old stories about German rearmament, although he has been writing two years or more after the Reichswehr archives were captured. For this he was criticized by Hanson Baldwin in The New York Times of 9 May 1948.
In his recent book, Munich : Prologue to Tragedy, J.W. Wheeler-Bennett, the British editor of the captured papers of the German Foreign Ministry, accepts the old propaganda tales of German rearmament as axiomatic, and accordingly does not even discuss the subject. He merely tells his readers: “By the close of 1937 Germany’s preparedness for war was complete. The preference for guns rather than for butter had brought forth results. Her rearmament had reached its apogee and could hold that peak level for a certain time. Her economy was geared to a strict regime of rationing and output on a war level.”
None of this was true, and Mr. Wheeler-Bennett should have examined the evidence. If he had, he would not have been so severe on what he calls Professor Frederick Schumann’s “fantastic theory of the 'Pre-Munich Plot.’
http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/cikkek/anglo_12b.html
See also House of Commons 7 March 1938, Chamberlain discusses british arms:
...A study of the White Paper, and perhaps much more, any observation of what is going on in the country to-day, will convince people of the enormous progress that we have made in the building up of our defensive forces. It has made a deep impression upon foreign nations. I remember that in 1935 the Leader of the Opposition said that our armaments programme was rattling us back to war. It has had exactly the opposite effect. The sight of this enormous, this almost terrifying, power which Britain is building up has a sobering effect, a steadying effect, on the opinion of the world. Everyone knows that these forces, great and powerful as they are, are not going to be used for aggression...
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/c
Later, Chamberlain needing pretext to concede to Hitler at Munich pretended that British arms were weaker, compared to Germany.
It was all a fraud.
British agenda was to turn Germany eastwards to destroy Russia.
But british history covered up his agenda and made up falsified history.
Surely you must be aware that military numbers alone is not the whole story that determine the power of the military ?
Israel was outnumbered and outgunned by the Arab forces during the 6-Day War and yet Israel was able to turn the tide of war in her favor, and prevailed.
Similarly, while Britain had greater numbers of planes than the Germans, we know for a certainty that these British planes were of the Bi-plane types as opposed to the mono-winged German dive bombers such as the famed Stuka, Messerschmitt 109 fighters, and supplemented by JU-88 bombers.
It was not until the later part of WW-2 that the RAF had obtained its first mono-winged Hurrican fighter planes to match the Germans, and followed by the Spitfire - all just in time to win the Battle of Britain air war by a narrow margin.
Although the German tanks were lighter than those in Czechoslovakia, it suited the Blitzkrieg Doctrine of the Germany military, as oppposed to the Tank Doctrines of Czechoslovakia, Britain and France which used the Tanks as calvary instead of combined arms sweep to possess territories and encircle the enemy.
The fact that the combined military superiority of Britain, France, Belgium, Poland, Holland and Czechoslovakia could not deter the fast paced sweep of Germany military Blitzkrieg efficiency across Western Europe - has revealed the unbalanced superiority of German equipment despite its lesser numbers.
What is there to cover up when after 60 years since the end of WW-2, there has been no independent sustainable new facts that academicians can verify with the historical documented events that actually transpired ?
Your "conspiracy theory" is as bad as those whom you derided in the Illuminati publications.
-
That is a lot of stuff posted by you Atobe.
And franky speaking I am surprised that you are opposed to my point of view and instead go and believe in Henry Makow and Illuminati.
It would take a very long time to go through all the arguments, provide all the evidence and point out the errors of Henry Makow and his Illuminati crap.
Your "conspiracy theory" is as bad as those whom you derided in the Illuminati publications.
It's not conspiracy theory.
It is historical fact based on evidence.
But your illuminati theory, I am sad to say is complete and utter horseshit.
Actually there is some truth in Illuminati theory. Most people who write on illuminati mixes about 30% facts, truth with 70% bullshit.
So if you don't go and look at their writings critically, you will find some facts and truth.
But the confusion comes when these people invent things, make up stuff and link it to the 30% facts.
That is when the trouble starts.
But again, if I just say that it is horseshit, believers will not believe.
I will have to produce evidence and point out errors.
Actually even if I did that, believers also still won't believe.
-
Even as much as Britain and France could not accept Russia's offer of a joint military pact against Germany, both were determined to avoid war with Germany, and stop Stalin's efforts to spread Communism in Europe.
Here is a video report on that:
Stalin wanted to stop Hitler in 1939
-
Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:
That is a lot of stuff posted by you Atobe.
And franky speaking I am surprised that you are opposed to my point of view and instead go and believe in Henry Makow and Illuminati.
It would take a very long time to go through all the arguments, provide all the evidence and point out the errors of Henry Makow and his Illuminati crap.
It's not conspiracy theory.
It is historical fact based on evidence.
But your illuminati theory, I am sad to say is complete and utter horseshit.
Actually there is some truth in Illuminati theory. Most people who write on illuminati mixes about 30% facts, truth with 70% bullshit.
So if you don't go and look at their writings critically, you will find some facts and truth.
But the confusion comes when these people invent things, make up stuff and link it to the 30% facts.
That is when the trouble starts.
But again, if I just say that it is horseshit, believers will not believe.
I will have to produce evidence and point out errors.
Actually even if I did that, believers also still won't believe.
Seriously, all the stuff that I have posted were taken from the 'reference sites' that you had given in your previous posts on Page 16 through 17 of this thread.
Historical fact based on evidence ?
There has been no historical records or writings that can be used to substantiate your stand concerning the British and French "Conspiracy Theory" to push Hitler to attack Russia and save their own skins.
Instead, as I have written in my posts that you probably did not even bother to read the extracts from your own references, Britain and France was out to avoid any war with Germany in Europe - and that included any wars between Germany and Russia.
It is not that I accept Henry Makow or the Illuminati without questions asked, but I will give them the benefit of the doubt for what they have presented in their own persuasive ways.
In actual fact - this may surprise you - even as you have derided Henry Makow's reputation, his article on ‘The “Ugly Secret” of World War Two’ had in a certain way given some credible evidence to some part of your "Conspiracy Theory".
Henry Makow had written about the Churchill's government involvement in the assassination of a British Politician - Josslyn Victor Hay, the 22nd Earl of Errol, who was reputed to have known the real cause of WW-2 and had the stature to be heard.
He had written that it was "Churchill's backers - the privately-owned Bank of England - that set Hitler up as a means to menace Stalin, have a world war and destroy Germany once and for all. War enables them to concentrate power and wealth in their hands and slaughter national elites who might interfere with world government".
So it seems that this author that you have condemned is about the only person who has come up with a "Conspiracy Theory" that was attributed to Churchill - not Neville Chamberlain - to push Hitler to declare War on Russia.
If you were to discredit Henry Makow, should we then accept this "Conspiracy Theory" to be true" ?
Then Josslyn Victor Hay, the 22nd Earl of Errol, was found murdered in Rhodesia, for the dark secrets that he knew - read on if you decide to change your mind about Henry Makow, and give him the benefit of the doubt - as it seems that he is the only author that can possibly give some degree of credibility to your Conspiracy Theory.
-
"Churchill's backers - the privately-owned Bank of England - that set Hitler up as a means to menace Stalin, have a world war and destroy Germany once and for all. War enables them to concentrate power and wealth in their hands and slaughter national elites who might interfere with world government
Based on what evidence and source?
Churchill backed by Bank of England?
HItler set up by Bank of England or Churchill?
-
There has been no historical records or writings that can be used to substantiate your stand concerning the British and French "Conspiracy Theory" to push Hitler to attack Russia and save their own skins.
There is a lot of evidence.
What no evidence?
Date: 04 Aug 1936
Scope/content:
Letter from Major-General Sir Hugh Tudor, St John's Newfoundland, Canada to WSC, on the European situation. Commenting that Britain should make a strong western pact with France and Germany, and allow Germany to "settle" the Soviet Union and Bolshevism "in her own way". Stating that Germany would eventually be stronger after defeating Russia, and it would take years before her to be in a position to make war again. "Russia deserves what is coming to her as she will never stop undermining capitalistic governments in every way she can." Commenting that if left alone Russia would be the stongest power on earth in 10 years, and may be a more dangerous enemy than Germany. Praising WSC for "bradawling" the Government over re-armament.
http://www-archives.chu.cam.ac.uk/perl/node?search
Date: 16 Aug 1936
Scope/content:
Letter from WSC to Major-General Sir Hugh Tudor, thanks for letter on the European political situation. Commenting that a strong and growing section of Conservative opinion agreed with Tudor that Britain should form a strong Western Alliance with France and Germany, leaving Germany free to deal with the Soviet Union.
http://www-archives.chu.cam.ac.uk/perl/node?search_id=1178907
-
Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:
Here is a video report on that:
Stalin wanted to stop Hitler in 1939
Have you questioned Stalin's agenda in wanting to stop Hitler in 1939 ?You had previously mentioned that Stalin offered a pact to work with Britain and France to stop Germany's expansion, but that Britain and France had rejected it.
Do you also know that Britain and France had wanted Russia's participation to guarantee the protection of Poland, and block Hitler's expansion design to takeover Poland ?
What happened ?
Stalin rejected a pact with Britain and France to protect Poland, but went on to sign a Treaty with Hitler that practically divided Poland between Russia and Germany - and with Poland's freedom guaranteed by Britain and France, this can only result in War being declared against Germany.
This fulfilled ‘Stalin’s Secret War Plan – - and explain - Why Hitler Invaded the Soviet Union’ - for further reading, you may wish to refer to the following referenced material entitled : ‘History: The Communist Threat’
-
Instead, as I have written in my posts that you probably did not even bother to read the extracts from your own references, Britain and France was out to avoid any war with Germany in Europe - and that included any wars between Germany and Russia.
Yes, Britain and France wanted to avoid war with Germany and that did not include a German-Russia war or as British Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin put it:
There is one danger, of course, which has probably been in all your minds - supposing the Russians and Germans got fighting and the French went in as allies of Russia owing to that appalling pact they made, you would not feel you were obligated to go and help France, would you? If there is any fighting in Europe to be done, I should like to see the Bolshies and the Nazis doing it.
- Stanley Baldwin, July 1936
http://books.google.com/books?id=qVMXHWtCeAUC...Then in July 1936 the Spanish civil war began. Tory ideological dread was brought to a fine edge. The Spanish civil war could lead to a European conflict between ideological blocs; and war could provoke the spread of communist revolution or Soviet influence. It was better, a lot of Tories thought, to turn Germany eastward against the USSR."Let gallant little Germany glut her fill of reds in the East..., " suggested one Tory M.P. (Henry Channon, September 1936).
Even the British prime minister, Stanley Baldwin was attracted by the idea...
http://gozips.uakron.edu/%7Emcarley/COLDWAR.html
Two weeks after Munich Baldwin said in a conversation with Lord Hinchingbrooke: "Can't we turn Hitler East? Napoleon broke himself against the Russians. Hitler might do the same"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Baldwin#Later_life
-
Do you also know that Britain and France had wanted Russia's participation to guarantee the protection of Poland, and block Hitler's expansion design to takeover Poland ?
Then why Britain and France reject Stalin's offer of alliance?
-
Stalin rejected a pact with Britain and France to protect Poland, but went on to sign a Treaty with Hitler that practically divided Poland between Russia and Germany
Mao Zedong spoke on this issue:
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.
-
See also:
...If, by means of another Munich, he could have obtained a German-Polish settlement that would satisfy Germany and avoid war, he would have taken it.
It was the hope of such an agreement that prevented him from making any real agreement with Russia, for it was, apparently, the expectation of the British government that if the Germans could get the Polish Corridor by negotiation, they could then drive into Russia across the Baltic States.
For this reason, in the negotiations with Russia, Halifax refused any multilateral pact against aggression, any guarantee of the Baltic States, or any tripartite guarantee of Poland. Instead, he sought to get nothing more than a unilateral Russian guarantee to Poland to match the British guarantee to the same country.
This was much too dangerous for Russia to swallow, since it would leave her with a commitment which could lead to war and with no promise of British aid to her if she were attacked directly, after a Polish settlement, or indirectly across the Baltic States...
-
-
Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:
Based on what evidence and source?
Churchill backed by Bank of England?
HItler set up by Bank of England or Churchill?
You must have a better understanding about the entire socio-economic-politics that influence the national geo-politics that affects world affairs.
Firstly, do you know that the history of the Bank of England began as a private institution that secretly rivalled the powers of the King's government, and could even undermine the national interests ? [See referenced site below]
When WW-2 broke out, the Bank of England remained as a Private Bank, and continued its role in bankrolling the war machines.
It will surprise you to know that prior and during WW-2, most banks in Europe were in private ownership and all worked through a Bank of International Settlement - where despite all nations engaging in Wars with each other, will conduct business in a world of peace and sanity.
I am not sure how you have read the blue printed piece that you have so diligently extracted, and I am surprised that you could have read it as "Hitler or Churchill setting up the Bank of England" !!!
The sentence indicated that "the Bank of England had set up Hitler" - nothing else.
Regarding the source used by Henry Makow, perhaps you should address it to him, as I have said - read for information sake, and if you are interested to dig deeper, then you should direct your interests to the right party.
‘Brief History of the Bank of England’
‘Secrets of the Bank of England Revealed’
-
Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:
Then why Britain and France reject Stalin's offer of alliance?
Stalin's offer of alliance required a direct confrontation to fence up Hitler's ambitions - this went against the grain of Britain and France, who had declared that they were all out to avoid war in Europe - even to the extent of letting Hitler have parts of Czechoslovakia with a high German speaking population in the Studetenland Province.According to other reports, Britain and France had even attempted to persuade Poland to give up parts of Polish provinces that Poland had taken from Germany after the end of WW-1, and which Hitler is demanding for its return.
The line drawn by Britain and France was that War will only be declared if Germany invaded the whole of Poland, and Britain and France needed Russia's endorsement to give added strength to convince Hitler not to invade Poland.
Unfortunately, Stalin had his own "Secret War Plans" and he went ahead to sign a Treaty with Hitler that allowed Hitler to enter Poland, and divided Poland between Germany and Russia.
This forced Britain and France to declare war on Germany - and achieved Stalin's plans to weaken all his strongest European rivals by instigating a war amongst Germany, Britain and France, and hoping that this will allow Russia to sweep into Europe when all these countries have exhausted themselves.
These were the events that led to the breakout of War in Europe.
If you had read the reference piece that I have repeatedly brought up, you would have been more discerning in asking more appropriate questions that would have revealed some progress in your continued search for facts.
‘Stalin’s Secret War Plan – Why Hitler Invaded the Soviet Union’