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 10:34 am to
Posted by troyt37
Member since Mar 2008
14358 posts
Posted on 5/3/22 at 10:34 am to
quote:

Not until later. Stalin invaded Finland, the Baltics, and eastern Poland while they still had the non-aggression pact with Germany. Hitler and Stalin had agreed to split Polish territory between them until Germany launched the surprise invasion against the USSR.


Russia invaded Poland from the east 16 days after Germany invaded Poland from the west. What does that tell you?

quote:

Following the invasion, defeat, and partitioning of Poland by Germany and the Soviets in 1939, the Soviet Union sought to push its border with Finland on the Karelian Isthmus westward in an attempt to buttress the security of Leningrad (St. Petersburg) from potential German attack. To that end, the Soviets also endeavoured to gain possession of several Finnish islands in the Gulf of Finland and to secure a 30-year lease for a naval base at Hanko (Hangö). The Soviet proposals for those acquisitions included an offer to exchange Soviet land. When Finland refused, the Soviet Union launched an attack on November 30, 1939, beginning the Russo-Finnish War.


Finland sounds like the second verse of the Poland song, does it not? Russia has always sucked, but they were actually doing something about Germany instead of pussyfooting around with them like Britain and France were doing.
Posted by Liberator
Revelation 20:10-12
Member since Jul 2020
9071 posts
Posted on 5/3/22 at 10:38 am to
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?


GREAT observation AND question.

The short answer (which most won't like):

Bankers and Industrialists (the actual govt-deciders & policy-makers) don't declare wars based on National or Ethical concerns.
Posted by Liberator
Revelation 20:10-12
Member since Jul 2020
9071 posts
Posted on 5/3/22 at 10:47 am to
quote:

They [the Soviets] were doing the same things the Nazis were doing. Shoot, they were doing Nazi type things, before the Nazis even really got started with the Holocaust.


Yes, they were. Murdering all opposition while starving tens of MILLIONS in Soviet territories (specially, ironically, in the Ukraine.)

But...but...why mention Stalin's allies like the New York Times, FDR's State Dept, certain Global Banking families, and the entrenched established pro-Commie USA? mentioning all this in passing while comparing their barbarity to Fascists would be impolite and historically un-PC.

Posted by Hawgnsincebirth55
Gods country
Member since Sep 2016
17260 posts
Posted on 5/3/22 at 10:50 am to
quote:

1 year is 1 year. The 2nd is far harder than the first. The 3rd harder still. Time wasn’t on the Brit’s side.
I think you’re missing the point. Germany had gained nothing. They had spent a year trying to bomb the British into oblivion and loosen the English Channel as well as establish air superiority and not only had they gained nothing on water. They had actually take a gigantic loss in the skies. The Brit’s had more air superiority than when they started.
quote:

Via Sicily up through Italy.
this only further proves my point. The US would have multiple venues of getting through to nazi Germany and in a 1v1 battle between the nazis and USA in the 1940s america wins
Posted by Liberator
Revelation 20:10-12
Member since Jul 2020
9071 posts
Posted on 5/3/22 at 10:50 am to
quote:

Maybe, but the real reason the USSR lost so many fighting Germany is that their generals and commanders were idiots and psychopaths, who didn't give a flying frick about the number of soldiers on their side who were killed.


Is it possible Stalin murdering most of his great, logical non-psychotic leadership during the 1920-1930s had anything to do with the insane military policy?
Posted by Minden tiger
Minden,Louisiana
Member since Apr 2006
3288 posts
Posted on 5/3/22 at 10:51 am to
quote:

Churchill likely sensed the animosity and knew they could make Germany fight on multiple fronts if they turned the USSR into a temporary ally on the basis of annihilating Germany


It was actually Stalin/Soviets who pushed the issue of a war on two fronts.
Posted by troyt37
Member since Mar 2008
14358 posts
Posted on 5/3/22 at 10:52 am to
quote:

But...but...why mention Stalin's allies like the New York Times, FDR's State Dept, certain Global Banking families, and the entrenched established pro-Commie USA? mentioning all this in passing while comparing their barbarity to Fascists would be impolite and historically un-PC.


Mostly true, but they were killing assloads of Germans, which at the time absolutely had to be done. Most of the Soviet atrocities were within the borders of the Soviet Union. Germany was going genocide on all of Europe.
Posted by beerJeep
Louisiana
Member since Nov 2016
36843 posts
Posted on 5/3/22 at 10:53 am to
quote:

I think you’re missing the point. Germany had gained nothing.


They were also preparing to invade the largest country in the world.

quote:

They had spent a year trying to bomb the British into oblivion and loosen the English Channel as well as establish air superiority and not only had they gained nothing on water. They had actually take a gigantic loss in the skies. The Brit’s had more air superiority than when they started.


Again…. Against a force that was preparing to invade the largest country in the world.

quote:

The US would have multiple venues of getting through to nazi Germany and in a 1v1 battle between the nazis and USA in the 1940s america wins


Mnhmm.

If the US uses the atomic bomb. Otherwise fortress Europe holds and a sued peace happens.
Posted by NOLAVOL16
Member since Jan 2022
898 posts
Posted on 5/3/22 at 11:02 am to
Simple answer is they saw, correctly, that Germany was the greater immediate threat and figured the Soviets would be a good distraction for Hitler if nothing else.

I won’t debate whether we would have won or lost the war without the Eastern Front, but it is undeniable that the second front made things much easier for us.

That said, from a strictly military perspective, the Allies could have pretty easily marched to Moscow after taking Germany. Russia was depleted and we were at our absolute industrial peak. We were cranking out planes, tanks, ships, etc so fast that the Soviets couldn’t have destroyed them fast enough. Plus add the nuke leverage.
But the reality was that it would have been politically impossible to extend the war another year or two. The people wouldn’t have gone for it. And then say you take Moscow. Then what?
Posted by Liberator
Revelation 20:10-12
Member since Jul 2020
9071 posts
Posted on 5/3/22 at 11:03 am to
quote:

Mostly true, but they were killing assloads of Germans, which at the time absolutely had to be done.


Hear ya, but Soviets taking out Germans was purely out of self-defense.

quote:

Most of the Soviet atrocities were within the borders of the Soviet Union. Germany was going genocide on all of Europe.


Unfortunately true to a substantial degree -- but more so the closer the Germans got to Soviet territories. (The Krauts did focus harder on Jews, Gypsies, and "the impure"), didn't the Germans also go relatively easy on France and the low countries?)

OTOH, Stalin's mass murder and wanton slaughter was relegated to domestic enemies and citizenry, purging the USSR of its best and finest (in all ways.)

Odd dynamic (Who-was-worse?) all the way around that few are still willing to scrutinize and discuss.
Posted by tigahbruh
Louisiana
Member since Jun 2014
2858 posts
Posted on 5/3/22 at 11:03 am to
A fight between Hitler and Stalin was inevitable if you left well enough alone.
The Soviets gave holy hell to the Germans on the Ostfront.

Germany was the most pressing enemy at the time. I guess the philosophy was: Deal with Hitler first and then Stalin later if necessary.

From an American perspective, FDR kind of kissed the Soviets' asses until Churchill eventually convinced him they actually were bad guys. I bet Neville Chamberlain was of the same philosophy as FDR.
Posted by troyt37
Member since Mar 2008
14358 posts
Posted on 5/3/22 at 11:04 am to
quote:

Is it possible Stalin murdering most of his great, logical non-psychotic leadership during the 1920-1930s had anything to do with the insane military policy?


Well, sure. But what does that have to do with the price of beans? Stalin was brutalizing and murdering his own people, in the wake of The Great War. Any country in the world could have done the same, and nobody would have said boo about it, because nobody in the world wanted to crank up another world war. Then Nazi Germany rearms in defiance and violation of the Versailles treaty, and proceeds to start invading and killing their neighbors and genociding jews and any other people they considered sub-human.
Posted by Antonio Moss
The South
Member since Mar 2006
48721 posts
Posted on 5/3/22 at 11:06 am to
Since 1937, Hitler had expanded consistently due to Neville Chamberlain’s policy of appeasement - The Rhineland, Austria, portions of Czechoslovakia (“Peace in our Time Speech”). By 1939, Hitler made is publicly known that he wanted Poland. France and Britain drew a line in the sand and told Hitler they would declare war if he tried. Hitler invaded on September 1st and they declared war in September 3rd. The secret agreement between Hitler and the USSR to invade Poland together was reportedly unknown to the allies.
Posted by Liberator
Revelation 20:10-12
Member since Jul 2020
9071 posts
Posted on 5/3/22 at 11:06 am to
quote:

It was actually Stalin/Soviets who pushed the issue of a war on two fronts.


Yeah. (but only non-coincidentally when the Soviets suddenly found themselves betrayed & under siege by the German "ally".)

Churchill Inc were right to make Stalin wait until the Brits were good & ready.
Posted by troyt37
Member since Mar 2008
14358 posts
Posted on 5/3/22 at 11:13 am to
quote:

didn't the Germans also go relatively easy on France and the low countries


France surrendered so fricking fast, they didn't have time to kill many of them. In my eyes, the French don't deserve much more respect than the Nazis, Japanese, or Italians.
Posted by Liberator
Revelation 20:10-12
Member since Jul 2020
9071 posts
Posted on 5/3/22 at 11:17 am to
quote:

But what does that have to do with the price of beans? Stalin was brutalizing and murdering his own people, in the wake of The Great War.



Well, your premise and reason the USSR lost so many fighting Germany was based on "generals and commanders were idiots and psychopaths, who didn't give a flying frick..."

I'm suggesting those leaders murdered by Stalin BEFORE the war vs Germany, replaced by incompetents and psychopaths could well have prevented much unnecessary blood shed of millions (while also helping prevent deep incursion into the outskirts of Moscow and Stalingrad.)

quote:

Then Nazi Germany rearms in defiance and violation of the Versailles treaty, and proceeds to start invading and killing their neighbors and genociding jews and any other people they considered sub-human.



Though I concur, it's a different context.

Last tangent regarding the Treaty of Versailles -- NOT defending Hitler or the German people, but its terms were patently unfair and absurd to begin with. It was designed to corner a rat into eventual action.
Posted by Hawgnsincebirth55
Gods country
Member since Sep 2016
17260 posts
Posted on 5/3/22 at 11:22 am to
I’d like to take this moment to remind you where we started
quote:

However, without the soviets on our side, we would have lost wwii. It really is as simple as that
to where we are now
quote:

if the US uses the atomic bomb. Otherwise fortress Europe holds and a sued peace happens.
so at first it’s that we lose without the ussr as simple as that to now it would have been a stalemate in Europe. No the Germans did not have the Man power or the resources to defeat the us unless they somehow conquered all of Russia first
Posted by Liberator
Revelation 20:10-12
Member since Jul 2020
9071 posts
Posted on 5/3/22 at 11:23 am to
quote:

France surrendered so fricking fast, they didn't have time to kill many of them.

This guy: "TWO WEEK?!? What took us so dayum long??")




Strategy worked out for them then?

And anyway -- somebody had to cook for the occupiers and man all those Parisian cafes and caberets.




Posted by beerJeep
Louisiana
Member since Nov 2016
36843 posts
Posted on 5/3/22 at 11:31 am to
quote:

However, without the soviets on our side, we would have lost wwii. It really is as simple as that


Yep.

quote:

so at first it’s that we lose without the ussr as simple as that to now it would have been a stalemate in Europe


You realize my position didn’t change, right?

Do you think I was saying I believe that Germany would be able to fight the US (meaning they would have to invade the US) and win?

No. We would “lose” in that we would be unable to penetrate fortress Europe. We would sue for peace.

I don’t think the Germans would be able to beat the US. I think they would be able to prevent them from gaining a tangible beachhead and would end either with the bomb or peace with the Cold War being between the US and the Germans, not the US and Russia.
Posted by troyt37
Member since Mar 2008
14358 posts
Posted on 5/3/22 at 11:38 am to
quote:

Well, your premise and reason the USSR lost so many fighting Germany was based on "generals and commanders were idiots and psychopaths, who didn't give a flying frick..."

I'm suggesting those leaders murdered by Stalin BEFORE the war vs Germany, replaced by incompetents and psychopaths could well have prevented much unnecessary blood shed of millions (while also helping prevent deep incursion into the outskirts of Moscow and Stalingrad.)


The inference was that the Soviets had done such a great thing, sacrificing so many to defeat the Germans. I was saying that the reason they sacrificed so many is that their leadership sucked. We agree with each other, but you seem to want to disagree or debate the point.

quote:

Last tangent regarding the Treaty of Versailles -- NOT defending Hitler or the German people, but its terms were patently unfair and absurd to begin with. It was designed to corner a rat into eventual action.



I guess we should start another thread for that. You see that thrown around a lot, with very few specifics. I'd like for someone to explain to me what was so egregious about Versailles, considering the 9 million or so military and civilian deaths caused by Germany in WW1. They had the option to keep on fighting and be annihilated, and probably lose their country altogether, or sign the treaty and save their country. So whatever the terms were, they were a favor to Germany, but people want to act like WW2 was almost justified because Germany was done so wrong by Versailles.
first pageprev pagePage 4 of 7Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram