Started By
Message

re: Ww2 question: If France(+England) declared on Germany for invading Poland.

Posted on 11/20/18 at 1:00 pm to
Posted by doubleb
Baton Rouge
Member since Aug 2006
41713 posts
Posted on 11/20/18 at 1:00 pm to
quote:


At the time, Nazi Germany had conquered most of Europe. Even a staunch anti-communist as Churchill knew that the more immediate threat was Hitler.

Not correct.
August 23, 1939 Germ/Russia sign pact
Sept 1, 1939 Germany invaded Poland
Sept 3 Britain and Fr declare war on Geemany
Sept 17 Russia invaded Poland
May 10, 1940 Germany invaded France and Low Countries

The Nazis didn't conquer much of Western Europe until over seven months after invading Poland and Britain and France had ample time to declare war on Russia.

The fact was Stalin had sought to ally himself with the Brits and French against Hitler, but despite his attempts the Brits and French were to soft, they weren't going to stand up to Germany, and once Stalin knew that; he listened to German overtures and eventually agreed to the Poland deal to buy time.

Posted by TigersFan64
Baton Rouge, LA
Member since Oct 2014
4755 posts
Posted on 11/20/18 at 1:02 pm to
quote:

In the long run, it wouldn’t have mattered. The fall of Moscow wouldn’t have ended the war for the Russians. Outside of Stalin, the government was already operating from Kuybyshev, and most of the industrial facilities had been relocated to the Urals. Supplies were already thin for the Germans, and an extra month or two wouldn’t have enabled them to overcome all of those issues and reinforce enough for a winter occupation of a major city. Once winter set in, they would have been sitting ducks for a Red Army counter attack


I tend to agree with you on this point, however, Moscow was a very important railway hub. And another thing that rarely gets mentioned is that Stalin was in a state of desperation for two weeks after the surprise invasion by Germany. There was a secret overture made behind the scenes where the Soviets offered Hitler a settlement (which he probably should have taken in retrospect, but at the time the USSR looked finished). Would Stalin have been desperate enough to offer another settlement had Moscow fallen to the Nazis? And another question is would Stalin have survived the loss of Moscow, or would he have been overthrown?
This post was edited on 11/20/18 at 1:29 pm
Posted by TigersFan64
Baton Rouge, LA
Member since Oct 2014
4755 posts
Posted on 11/20/18 at 1:11 pm to
Point taken. But my overall general point stands: Great Britain knew the more immediate threat to Europe was Nazi Germany, which did have the most powerful army in Europe at the time and was intent on waging an aggressive war of conquest. Hitler's intentions were obvious to the western allies after he reneged on the Munich Agreement (in which he had promised that the Sudetenland would be his last territorial demand in Europe). Again, Nazi Germany was the more immediate and obvious threat. Even a staunch anti-communist as Churchill knew Hitler had to be defeated in the very near term. As horrible as Stalin was, he was not the immediate threat at the time, and Churchill well knew he needed the USSR if he had any hope of defeating Nazi Germany. The OP's original question was why the western allies didn't declare war on the Soviet Union for invading Poland.
This post was edited on 11/20/18 at 1:14 pm
Posted by zatetic
Member since Nov 2015
5677 posts
Posted on 11/20/18 at 2:09 pm to
quote:

Nazi Germany was clearly the more immediate threat at the time. It was waging aggressive war against its neighbors.


This is ridiculous. Germany offered peace and return of lands multiple times throughout WWII. Not only that they asked the Allies to join Germany in their war against the communists. The people who had already been genociding people since WWI. That would have gave access to all of the Eastern war front territory.

WWII was the war to annihilate Germany. Capitalist and Communist joined forces to fight the philosophy and morals of National Socialism.
Posted by TigersFan64
Baton Rouge, LA
Member since Oct 2014
4755 posts
Posted on 11/20/18 at 3:00 pm to
quote:

zatetic


You are simply very ill-informed about WWII and the causes of it. If anything is totally ridiculous in this thread, it's your post above. I can tell that you're one of those morons who think the U.S. should have allied itself with Nazi Germany, and as such you are not even worthy of debating.
This post was edited on 11/20/18 at 3:02 pm
Posted by doubleb
Baton Rouge
Member since Aug 2006
41713 posts
Posted on 11/20/18 at 3:08 pm to
Churchill wasn't named PM until May 20, 1940; thus he had little input until months after Russia invaded Poland.

The fact is Germany wasn't near as strong in late 1939 and there were opportunities to reel Hitler in, but the Chamberlain govt. and the French were way too soft.

They weren't about fighting Hitler even when he invaded Poland so no way were they going against Stalin.
Posted by OMLandshark
Member since Apr 2009
119977 posts
Posted on 11/20/18 at 3:09 pm to
quote:

Well considering the first unabridged English translations came out in 1939, after the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, the situation becomes complicated.


How is this even possible? This just seems so irresponsible for this to not have happened any time after 1933. Tens of millions of lives could have been saved if they bothered to read that book.
Posted by OMLandshark
Member since Apr 2009
119977 posts
Posted on 11/20/18 at 3:14 pm to
quote:

This is ridiculous. Germany offered peace and return of lands multiple times throughout WWII. Not only that they asked the Allies to join Germany in their war against the communists. The people who had already been genociding people since WWI. That would have gave access to all of the Eastern war front territory.

WWII was the war to annihilate Germany. Capitalist and Communist joined forces to fight the philosophy and morals of National Socialism.


I really hope that you’re a recently thawed 1942 German soldier to actually believe this.
Posted by crazy4lsu
Member since May 2005
39157 posts
Posted on 11/20/18 at 3:19 pm to
quote:

How is this even possible? This just seems so irresponsible for this to not have happened any time after 1933. Tens of millions of lives could have been saved if they bothered to read that book.



Well it was written in German, published in 1925, and only really became popular during Hitler's rise to power, especially after 1928. The first discussions about an English translation started in 1931, and an abridged version was published in 1933. The full unexpurgated version with both volumes included was commissioned in 1938, and released in 1939. A more authoritative addition was released in at the same time in 1939, an edition that had been previously seized by the Propaganda Ministry in 1937, and was only published because a secretary of the translator had a copy that wasn't sequestered.

That's not to say that the French and British didn't know or understand Hitler, or that they didn't understand the pan-German national feeling that created the conditions for Hitler. I'm skeptical that reading the book, let's say in 1932, would have stopped what was coming.
Posted by crazy4lsu
Member since May 2005
39157 posts
Posted on 11/20/18 at 3:20 pm to
quote:

I really hope that you’re a recently thawed 1942 German soldier to actually believe this.



He's pretty close to, if not an outright Nazi, if you read his other posts.
Posted by TigersFan64
Baton Rouge, LA
Member since Oct 2014
4755 posts
Posted on 11/20/18 at 3:24 pm to
quote:

there were opportunities to reel Hitler in, but the Chamberlain govt. and the French were way too soft.


I've said that in previous posts. France had a golden opportunity to rebuff Hitler when he ordered troops into the Rhineland in 1936. At that time, France did have a stronger army than Germany. By late 1939, this was no longer the case as Germany was armed to the teeth. France and Great Britain also had an opportunity to rebuff Hitler at Munich over the Sudetenland. The Czechs were ready to fight, had a good army and a very defensible mountainous frontier with Germany. After Hitler reneged on his promise that the Sudetenland was his last territorial claim in Europe, the western Allies finally woke up.

Again, by late 1939 and the Polish crisis over Danzig and the Corridor, the western allies knew that Hitler and Nazi Germany were the immediate threat in Europe. I don't think the question as to why France and Great Britain didn't declare war on the Soviet Union over its land grab in Poland is a particularly difficult one to answer.

This post was edited on 11/20/18 at 3:39 pm
Posted by TigersFan64
Baton Rouge, LA
Member since Oct 2014
4755 posts
Posted on 11/20/18 at 3:31 pm to
quote:

Churchill wasn't named PM until May 20, 1940; thus he had little input until months after Russia invaded Polan


As to Churchill, what I said in previous posts was that EVEN a staunch anti-communist as Churchill knew Nazi Germany was a greater threat in Europe than the USSR. He was obviously not the only one who felt that way in Great Britain by late 1939 and the advent of the Polish crisis, after Hitler reneged on the Munich agreement and started making territorial demands in Poland.
This post was edited on 11/20/18 at 3:33 pm
Posted by Ghost of Colby
Alberta, overlooking B.C.
Member since Jan 2009
14977 posts
Posted on 11/20/18 at 4:01 pm to
France and England really didn’t do anything after declaring war. It was a hollow declaration done more as a formality to honor the alliance they had with Poland.

Some naval activities and blockades took place, but there was no attempt to defend Poland or attack Germany. I think British bombers were sent to Germany, but they only dropped flyers and propaganda material.

The Soviets invaded Poland a couple of weeks after Germany. This action was a minor footnote to the larger problem of German aggression. The Soviets were seen as taking advantage of the situation and picking up scraps the Germans didn’t want.

The Soviets also claimed they weren’t invaders, instead they were occupying land which had historically been under Russian control. Everyone knew Stalin’s claim of protecting Eastern Poland was BS, but it gave everyone an excuse to ignore their aggression.
This post was edited on 11/20/18 at 4:07 pm
Posted by foshizzle
Washington DC metro
Member since Mar 2008
40599 posts
Posted on 11/20/18 at 5:34 pm to
quote:

Germany was already "re-armed" by the time it invaded Poland in 1939.


That is true but both Britain and France underestimated German capability, they thought it wasn't too late yet.

Germany had already drawn up plans to fight such a war but Hitler also didn't think they were quite ready, preferring to wait 2-3 years.
Posted by ChewyDante
Member since Jan 2007
17104 posts
Posted on 11/20/18 at 6:12 pm to
Simple answer, because the British and French didn't give two flying fricks about Poland. They were playing power politics and Germany was the country they both knew possessed the inherent latent power to be the continental hegemonic presence ever since its coalescence into a single unified state following the Franco-Prussian War in 1870-1871.

Chamberlain made a public and irrevocable war guarantee to Poland at the end of March 1939 after Germany occupied the remainder of Czechoslovakia in an attempt to prevent any more territorial expansion from Germany which would inevitably lead to a loss of British control and influence over European continental affairs. It was a declaration to defend Poland ONLY in the case of German aggression. Hitler was too much of an international political novice to recognize that such a public declaration tied Britain's hands in the instance of a German invasion. And Stalin was politically savvy enough to wait just over two weeks before sending his forces into Poland and maintaining complete secrecy regarding the fact that he had agreed with Hitler prior to the German invasion on also taking part. Stalin was a chess player on the world stage matched by almost none when it came to manipulating and gaining territories for the USSR.
Posted by CelticDog
Member since Apr 2015
42867 posts
Posted on 11/20/18 at 6:25 pm to
quote:

like the fact the Soviet Union invaded Poland, plus the Baltic Countries and Finland, is just glossed over. 


you need to cite examples.

Show us the glossed over history.
In.my high school it was covered. Much was made of gallant Finland, hung out to dry for 6 months. Russians kept karelia too.
Posted by doubleb
Baton Rouge
Member since Aug 2006
41713 posts
Posted on 11/20/18 at 7:14 pm to
Yes and the western German border with France was lightly guarded because Hitler had concentrated his forces in the east to attack Poland. He rightly predicted France and Britain would do nothing as they had previously done when he took those other countries. He was surprised they declared war.
France and Britain merely engaged in a phony war until Hitler turned west months later.
Posted by OMLandshark
Member since Apr 2009
119977 posts
Posted on 11/20/18 at 8:11 pm to
quote:

He's pretty close to, if not an outright Nazi, if you read his other posts.


Yeah, there are a few on the Poliboard. Strannix is an open antisemite over there and said that the Jews being purged from Europe was entirely justified. But I guess that doesn’t count as racism per TD’s Commandments.
This post was edited on 11/20/18 at 8:13 pm
Posted by Wolfhound45
Member since Nov 2009
125815 posts
Posted on 11/20/18 at 9:22 pm to
quote:

That was the Polish view, but the British said the agreement was limited to Germany by virtue of the first secret protocol.
So Germany was on double secret probation?

f

It all makes sense now.
first pageprev pagePage 3 of 3Next pagelast page
refresh

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