Display:
[Historical information. Didn't know quite where to post it].

The ostensible kickoff for WWII was British / European leaders' perceived need to crush a deliberately re-armed Germany, while the US and other major Western European powers conspired to pit Germany against the Soviet Union.

From WW II To WW III: Global NATO And Remilitarized Germany

In commenting on the rising tide of WWII revisionism in the West, reaching its nadir - to date - on this July 3rd with the passage of a resolution called Reunification of Divided Europe by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) which in effect makes the former Soviet Union (and by implication current Russia) co-responsible for provoking WWII, veteran Russian journalist Valentin Zorin reminded his readers of several events usually swept under the carpet by leading Western circles and their compliant media and scholars:

"The infamously failed Munich conspiracy of the western politicians and the Nazi Fuehrer sought to make the German Army march against the Soviet Union. In those days Moscow was pressing for forming an anti-Hitler coalition and invited a British and French delegation to that end. The talks proved long and fruitless. London and Paris actually sabotaged the talks while urging the Fuehrer to attack the USSR.

"Even after the war had broken out, top-echelon leaders in London and Paris would not give up their attempts to make Hitler's divisions turn about and attack the Soviet Union. A several-month-long period of strange developments came to be known as a Phoney War. While deliberately inactive at the front, the British and French rulers engaged themselves in secret bargaining with Hitler.

Fascinating article, which I'd encourage all to read. Over 70 years later, we're only now beginning to understand the forces that were in play during WWII, much less WWI, which was equally conspiratorial in nature.

See also: Operation Unthinkable

Unthinkable, indeed.

What might this tell us about the wars that have been fought since the late 1940s, and those that are being waged today?

There's a pattern, here. What is its common denominator?

by Loefing on Sun Jul 19th, 2009 at 04:37:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Talking of revisionism...

The ostensible kickoff for WWII was British / European leaders' perceived need to crush a deliberately re-armed Germany, while the US and other major Western European powers conspired to pit Germany against the Soviet Union.

This sentence is self-contradictory. How could the British and European leaders (which ones?) at the same time want to crush Germany and pit it against Soviet Union?

By the way, the kick-off of WWII was the German invasion of Poland...

IMHO Globalresearch is not a very reliable source. This article claims that the presence of German troops in the Balkans equates the occupation of Rhineland in 1936, but doesn't explain what they have in common.

It is well known that Churchill was obsessed (not without reasons...) by the advance of Soviet armies in central and eastern Europe and that some people (like Patton) wanted to fight the USSR and that some Nazi leaders tried to reverse alliances. But the US government opposed such projects and, as far as I know, they were never seriously considered.

Furthermore, this article makes many claims (i.e. alleged secret meetings between Stewart Menzies and Canaris) without quoting any source other than Novosti...

"Dieu se rit des hommes qui se plaignent des conséquences alors qu'ils en chérissent les causes" Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet

by Melanchthon on Sun Jul 19th, 2009 at 05:26:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]
How could the British and European leaders (which ones?) at the same time want to crush Germany and pit it against Soviet Union?

Didn't Hitler crush himself by breaking the Ribbentrop-Molotov non-aggression pact and starting Operation Barbarrossa?

Clearly the easiest way to crush both Germany and the Soviet Union is to provoke a war between the two?

The peak-to-trough part of the business cycle is an outlier. Carnot would have died laughing.

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Jul 19th, 2009 at 05:28:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]
And that would have been classic brittish empire style.

Though as far as I know no concrete such plans existed. One should note that Poland and Roumainia blocked the way and that both these states were probably considered important assets in eastern europe.

A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!

by A swedish kind of death on Sun Jul 19th, 2009 at 06:18:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Had Hitler maintained peace with the Soviets for at least another two or three years, pursued resource acquisition through alliances with Romania, Bulgaria and Turkey, he might have been able to reach into Iranian or Iraqi oil fields.  That could have been far less demanding on the Wehrmacht and the Luftwaffe than the course he chose.  Stalin would always have been waiting for the other shoe to drop and would have been arming the Soviet Union as fast as possible, so it might have made sense for the two to stand still.  Half of the force required to invade the Soviet Union would have been sufficient to pursue a Mid-East resource play and the other half would have made an invasion of Europe by the allies much more difficult.  We are probably fortunate that he wasn't more calculating and patient.

As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Sun Jul 19th, 2009 at 09:27:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]
But the US and other Western European countries did not provoke Germany into war with Soviet Union. It was planned long ago: in 1925, in "Mein Kampf", Hitler made it clear that he would invade Russia in order to conquer Lebensraum.  

"Dieu se rit des hommes qui se plaignent des conséquences alors qu'ils en chérissent les causes" Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet
by Melanchthon on Mon Jul 20th, 2009 at 08:40:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It is no secret that there were senior British figures, Lord Halifax is the most well-known but there were several others including media owners, who were either very sympathetic to fascism or highly fearful of Communism, who regarded a war against Hitler instead of an alliance as a grave error.
Hess probably parachuted into Scotland in order to meet with and bolster their case. What neither he nor they quite understood was how marginalised they were. Good standing in the House of Lords and at Court was no longer significant in British democracy, and the country was against Hitler.

There had been a groundswell in the country at large that hitler was someone who had to be stopped. MacMillan had his Munich moment and Hitler had ignored him. Britain was still too proud of its heft in the world not to see that as a the worst possible insult, to ignore that and ally ourselves with him would have been impossible to sell politically. Once Britain had been humiliated at munich, war was unavoidable.

Even the Daily mail could see that.

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Mon Jul 20th, 2009 at 12:07:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series