- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Why did France and Britian declare war on Germany and not the Soviet Union in WW2
Posted on 5/3/22 at 9:04 am to Dire Wolf
Posted on 5/3/22 at 9:04 am to Dire Wolf
quote:
Lots of Poles, Jews, eastern europeans and western Europeans died fighting Germany or in Russian Gulags during a period were Russia was friendly to Hitler
I didn’t say otherwise
Russia was a horrible “friend” in wwii. They did horrible things to their own people, to people that hated hitler and wanted to be saved, and they directly caused allied deaths due to their incompetence, mistrust, and antiquated methodology.
However, without the soviets on our side, we would have lost wwii. It really is as simple as that. Something like 80% of German deaths in wwii came from the soviets.
4
Posted on 5/3/22 at 9:05 am to SantaFe
I may not be remembering correctly (someone correct me if so), but I believe the Soviets didn't invade Poland until after it was clearly going to be lost. Thus the Soviets were able to play the card that they were creating their own buffer zone against the Nazis for a Poland which was ceasing to exist. Even though the Soviets/Nazis had a pact, the Nazis were clearly seen as the aggressor in the situation and region - the Soviets more opportunists.
Besides, England and France had their hands full with just Germany, there was no chance they could have taken on both.
Besides, England and France had their hands full with just Germany, there was no chance they could have taken on both.
Posted on 5/3/22 at 9:08 am to Champagne
quote:
dude . . .
You have your facts wrong.
The Soviets invaded or bombed the UK and France?
Posted on 5/3/22 at 9:08 am to bdavids09
without the russians we wouldn't have defeated the germans. the russians gave more lives than anyone.
it would have been impossible to muster forces to fight against our ally from the week before.
it would have been impossible to muster forces to fight against our ally from the week before.
Posted on 5/3/22 at 9:13 am to beerJeep
quote:
However, without the soviets on our side, we would have lost wwii.
I think the correct statement is without Hitler splitting his troops and fighting a two front war, we may (odds are would) have lost WWII.
In reality, Russian greatest warrior is most responsible. The same one who ultimately defeated Napoleon's eastern campaign. The Russian winter has been their greatest champion in traditional land warfare.
This post was edited on 5/3/22 at 2:09 pm
Posted on 5/3/22 at 9:17 am to mdomingue
quote:
The Soviets invaded or bombed the UK and France?
War was declared before anyone invaded or bombed the UK or France
Posted on 5/3/22 at 9:19 am to beerJeep
quote:
However, without the soviets on our side, we would have lost wwii. It really is as simple as that
neither russia or Germany would have the raw materials, notably Oil, to carry a war out with The USA. Russia army looks a hell of a lot different without lend-lease
Oddly enough, in timeline where Russia and Germany are allied together the USA would likely be along side with Japan against Russia.
I am not saying we win or even what a win looks like in that situation. It is just not as cut and dry.
This post was edited on 5/3/22 at 9:21 am
Posted on 5/3/22 at 9:21 am to saturday
quote:
War was declared before anyone invaded or bombed the UK or France
Ah yes, true. The declaration of war revolved around the the agreement with Poland to protect them against German aggression.
I forgot that, in my mind I associate Germany bombing England as the driver but that is wrong.
Posted on 5/3/22 at 9:23 am to Dire Wolf
quote:
neither russia or Germany would have the raw materials, notably Oil, to carry a war out with The USA. Russia army looks a hell of a lot different without lend-lease
The soviets killed a ton of Germans and sacrificed even more of their own, but I'm with you on this. The Soviets may not have ever stopped the blitz if it weren't for the lend-lease program.
Posted on 5/3/22 at 9:24 am to Emteein
quote:
IIRC Gen. Patton and Winston Churchill wanted to continue WWII taking on USSR after Germany's surrender. So they kind of were considered the enemy
Churchill drew up a plan to re-arm 100,000 German soldiers and wipe out the USSR but Truman didn't want to.
In retrospect, not ending the USSR (and communism) right then and there is one of the great mistakes in the last several hundred years of world history.
Posted on 5/3/22 at 9:25 am to bdavids09
It boils down to the legal details of the treaty they had with Poland. The treaty bound them to come to Poland’s side in case of a German invasion. It had nothing similar when it comes to the USSR. This detail is especially puzzling when consider the fact the Soviets had already invaded Poland in the early 1920s.
Posted on 5/3/22 at 9:25 am to beerJeep
quote:no, we wouldn’t have. This is bullshite that’s been drummed up in the past 40 years or so but it’s complete nonsense.
However, without the soviets on our side, we would have lost wwii. It really is as simple as that
Yes, the Russians killed way more Germans than we did, yes the Russians lost way more lives than we did, but they lost so many lives because of incompetence at the higher levels of soviet leadership, unsound military doctrine, lack of supplies, and most importantly in my opinion, their overall view on how precious life is, or lack thereof.
The higher ups in the Soviet army saw the every day soldier who were mostly conscripts as nothing more than cannon fodder.
Where as without the soviets there’s no doubt our death toll would be much higher, we still had a vast reserve of man power that was untapped during the war, we had much better logistics, better equipment and technology and the main reason we would’ve won the war regardless and the same reason we would have won the war against the soviets if we had listened to patton and continued the fight, is that we had unmatched power air superiority.
By the end of the war neither the Germans nor the Japanese had any aircraft that could match ours, and the only ones that the soviets got were ones that were acquired either directly from the other Allie’s or from parts we gave them, and no other nation on earth had the level of pilots that america did because instead of continuously throwing our best pilots into the sky until they were shot down we would rotate them back home to teach new pilots how to fight and fly. This may seem like common sense today but was a brand new concept in the 40s. The Japanese German and Russian always wanted their best men in the battle.
This post was edited on 5/3/22 at 9:28 am
Posted on 5/3/22 at 9:32 am to Hawgnsincebirth55
quote:
no, we wouldn’t have
Yes. Yes we would have. Had the full might of the SS have been on the cliffs of Normandy rather than old men and kids, we would have never made it past the beaches
Hell, we lucked out as it was with Rommel being away and not able to commit his reserves in time
quote:
we still had a vast reserve of man power that was untapped during the war, we had much better logistics, better equipment and technology and the main reason we would’ve won the war regardless and the same reason we would have won the war against the soviets if we had listened to patron and continued the fight, is that we had unmatched power air superiority.
None of that matters when you can’t get a beachhead. Also throw in the fact that Britain would have been invaded with operation sea lion without the eastern front.
quote:
By the end of the war neither the Germans nor the Japanese had any aircraft that could match ours, and the only ones that the soviets got were ones that were acquired either directly from the other Allie’s or from parts we gave them, and no other nation on earth had the level of pilots that america did because instead of continuously throwing our best pilots into the sky until they were shot down we would rotate them back home to teach new pilots how to fight and fly. This may seem like common sense today but was a brand new concept in the 40s. The Japanese German and Russian always wanted their best men in the battle.
Again, none of that matters when Germany invades Britain and the full might of the SS is on the cliffs overlooking the beaches.
An invasion of Europe would have been flat out impossible.
This post was edited on 5/3/22 at 9:34 am
Posted on 5/3/22 at 9:34 am to bdavids09
Because the area of contention was Central Europe. All three of Germany, France and the UK had been competing for power in the region since German unification. The USSR was on the periphery of that, and was always a land power. That was distinctly different from the possibility of a Germany-Italy axis controlling the seas around Europe and caused far more concern.
Posted on 5/3/22 at 9:35 am to mdomingue
quote:Hitler hadn't invaded or bombed the UK or France yet either when they declared war on Germany.
The Soviets invaded or bombed the UK and France?
Germany had marched troops into and annexed Austria, and then Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia. They finally drew a line in the sand when Hitler wanted to take over Poland and started mobilizing troops on their border. The declaration of war against Germany by UK and France was in response to the German invasion of Poland.
Posted on 5/3/22 at 9:37 am to Champagne
quote:
You have your facts wrong.
Facts can not be wrong.
Posted on 5/3/22 at 9:38 am to bdavids09
quote:
Why did France and Britian declare war on Germany and not the Soviet Union in WW2
Because the Soviets had an alliance with Germany before Germany decided to invade Russia.
Posted on 5/3/22 at 9:42 am to bdavids09
My enemy's enemy is my friend
Posted on 5/3/22 at 9:45 am to beerJeep
quote:if the SS is on the beaches of Normandy the only thing that changes is we bombard them longer, harder, and send in more men. By 1944 the US military was the greatest fighting force ever assembled on this planet.
Again, none of that matters when Germany invades Britain and the full might of the SS is on the cliffs overlooking the beaches
Posted on 5/3/22 at 9:45 am to bdavids09
What had the Soviet Union done that warranted a declaration of war?
Pretty sure they were fighting the Germans, baw.
The Soviets were killing their own people. Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake. And the Soviet Union was considered an enemy pretty much the moment after VE day.
quote:
The Soviet Union also invaded Poland and also Finland.
Pretty sure they were fighting the Germans, baw.
quote:
The soviets like Germany also had labor camps and committed mass murder. Why was the Soviet Union not considered an enemy at that time?
The Soviets were killing their own people. Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake. And the Soviet Union was considered an enemy pretty much the moment after VE day.
Page 2 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News