Re: UK treatment of China in WW2
- From: Stephen Graham <graham1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2007 13:01:01 -0400
Andrew Clark wrote:
"Rich Rostrom" <rrostrom.21stcentury@xxxxxxx> wrote
Eisenhower withdrew to the exact occupation
lines agreed to at Yalta by the US and
British governments, as per his orders
from those governments.
Actually, that isn't accurate. Yalta agreed the principle that there would be occupation zones of Germany and the general configuration of them (Soviet in the east, British in the NW, US in the centre and south), but did not agree the precise boundaries between them. In fact, at Churchill's insistence, the matter of the zones was left open until the war was over, so that they could take account of the actual position of troops on the ground. Churchill, in other words, ensured that the West could hold what it grabbed.
As we discussed in August 2005, your interpretation of this is incorrect. I've seen nothing since that time to change this. Please feel free to provide citations.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Occupation Zones in Germany (was Re: UK treatment of China in WW2)
- From: Andrew Clark
- Occupation Zones in Germany (was Re: UK treatment of China in WW2)
- References:
- UK treatment of China in WW2
- From: Doug
- Re: UK treatment of China in WW2
- From: Andrew Clark
- Re: UK treatment of China in WW2
- From: David Thornley
- Re: UK treatment of China in WW2
- From: Andrew Clark
- Re: UK treatment of China in WW2
- From: David Thornley
- Re: UK treatment of China in WW2
- From: Andrew Clark
- Re: UK treatment of China in WW2
- From: Rich Rostrom
- Re: UK treatment of China in WW2
- From: Andrew Clark
- UK treatment of China in WW2
- Prev by Date: Re: Best history of WWII
- Next by Date: Re: Commanders (Gound Forces)
- Previous by thread: Re: UK treatment of China in WW2
- Next by thread: Occupation Zones in Germany (was Re: UK treatment of China in WW2)
- Index(es):