I just received the 30th anniversary edtion of the series World at War as a gift.I am really enjoying it.I remember watching the original series with my father on PBS in the seventies.
It bought to mind a question,Great Britian and
France went to war with Germany over the given reason of Polish sovereignty,to protect and guarentee her borders,and they did so rather promptly.But why did they not declare war on the Soviet Union when they to violated Polish borders with their invasion of the eastern part of the country ? They might have felt they didn't want to get in a war with the Soviet Union and Germany,but what at least was the official reason they gave the world at the time for their inaction againts the Soviet Union.
History Club
Military history and past events only. Rants or inflamitory comments will be removed.
Military history and past events only. Rants or inflamitory comments will be removed.
Hosted by Frank Amato
World War II Beginnings
Tojo72
Member Since: June 06, 2006
entire network: 4,691 Posts
KitMaker Network: 668 Posts
Posted: Thursday, June 07, 2007 - 10:42 AM UTC
Halfyank
Member Since: February 01, 2003
entire network: 5,221 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,983 Posts
Posted: Thursday, June 07, 2007 - 01:08 PM UTC
I've seen this question asked before, on other history related sites, and I've yet to see a good answer other than, because they didn't want to get their butts kicked. I don't know if anybody at the time ever really questioned it, I certainly have never seen any contemporary reports from the news items of the time.
I suppose one could make the case that the real reason Britain and France went to war against Germany was that Poland was just the last straw. Germany had been flexing their mussels for years and finally Britain and France had had enough. That wasn't the case with the Soviet Union, at least not to the same degree.
Realistically it really came down to national survival. Britain and France had enough on their plates dealing with Germany, and later Italy, let alone the Soviets as well.
I suppose one could make the case that the real reason Britain and France went to war against Germany was that Poland was just the last straw. Germany had been flexing their mussels for years and finally Britain and France had had enough. That wasn't the case with the Soviet Union, at least not to the same degree.
Realistically it really came down to national survival. Britain and France had enough on their plates dealing with Germany, and later Italy, let alone the Soviets as well.
jointhepit
Member Since: May 14, 2006
entire network: 3,829 Posts
KitMaker Network: 48 Posts
Posted: Sunday, June 10, 2007 - 01:14 AM UTC
the "allies " chickened out in the beginning of WW2,
first the Russian didn't have a border with France/England
second there was an "un"willingness on the part of the politicians at that time for making war,
we can clearly see that in the way the Us ,England, France made up their army's.
only the French had some chance of winning against the Germans, but due to bad management, and outdated radio communications, they fell quickly to the well trained German Army
The English ,did as if they were gonna save Europe with their "expeditionary" force,( to few, badly trained, badly underarmed)
just to run back to their save Island once the fichting began.
I'm not blaming to individual soldier, because a LOT of German Ubersoldaten died in Mai/june '40, just the whole system was build to prevent war , as so only the war happy country's were ready to go in 39/40
Ps ; wasn't it Patton who said that we( allies) should take Berlin.
we could, but we didn't
Ps2 ; the concentrationcamps, known to the allies, only once , (prob by mistake) did they bomb the "slave"factory's
they ACTIVELY did nothing to save millions!
Ps3 The uprise of Warchau, the allied Soviets waited untill there was no more Polish resistance anymore(so they could dominate the country easier)
So it's all down to politics , not what is best for the people , but what's best for the politicians.
well I guess you guys gonna have to be quick to read this, cause I guess they're gonna ban this reply pretty quick (I'm not that pro allied)
Tha Pit
first the Russian didn't have a border with France/England
second there was an "un"willingness on the part of the politicians at that time for making war,
we can clearly see that in the way the Us ,England, France made up their army's.
only the French had some chance of winning against the Germans, but due to bad management, and outdated radio communications, they fell quickly to the well trained German Army
The English ,did as if they were gonna save Europe with their "expeditionary" force,( to few, badly trained, badly underarmed)
just to run back to their save Island once the fichting began.
I'm not blaming to individual soldier, because a LOT of German Ubersoldaten died in Mai/june '40, just the whole system was build to prevent war , as so only the war happy country's were ready to go in 39/40
Ps ; wasn't it Patton who said that we( allies) should take Berlin.
we could, but we didn't
Ps2 ; the concentrationcamps, known to the allies, only once , (prob by mistake) did they bomb the "slave"factory's
they ACTIVELY did nothing to save millions!
Ps3 The uprise of Warchau, the allied Soviets waited untill there was no more Polish resistance anymore(so they could dominate the country easier)
So it's all down to politics , not what is best for the people , but what's best for the politicians.
well I guess you guys gonna have to be quick to read this, cause I guess they're gonna ban this reply pretty quick (I'm not that pro allied)
Tha Pit
Halfyank
Member Since: February 01, 2003
entire network: 5,221 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,983 Posts
Posted: Sunday, June 10, 2007 - 03:55 AM UTC
Quoted Text
well I guess you guys gonna have to be quick to read this, cause I guess they're gonna ban this reply pretty quick (I'm not that pro allied)
I guess as the History Forum moderator I'm one of they "they" you refer to that will be banning this reply? I see no reason to ban it at all. I may not agree with all of it personally, for example I don't much like the crack "just to run back to their save Island once the fichting began," but it breaks no forum rules. You haven't brought up current events, you haven't used profanity, or applied personal attacks against another poster. You've stated your opinion, just as every other poster is free to do. As long as you continue to follow the rules you can post all the anti-allied posts and threads that you want. You may get a lost of people arguing with you, but that is what historic debate is all about.
In response to one point you made, Quoted Text
I personally think that Eisenhower made the right decision, not wanting to pay the heavy price in casualties only for a political objective that, due to earlier political agreements would probably have been given over to the Soviets late any way. I'm very biased in this opinion as my Dad may very well have been one of the casualties lost taking Berlin.wasn't it Patton who said that we( allies) should take Berlin.
we could, but we didn't
blaster76
Member Since: September 15, 2002
entire network: 8,985 Posts
KitMaker Network: 2,270 Posts
Posted: Sunday, June 10, 2007 - 06:39 AM UTC
I have to agree with most everythng I read. I think the allies were really ticked at Germany for what they had been doing...the Sudatenland, Austrian Anschluss, the particitoning of Czeckoslavakia. I think they also were afraid of the bear, and they thought they could take out Germany. I know that the main reason we (US) didn't go after BERLin is that it was in the prearranged Russian zone and Ike didn't want a lot of our guys killed and then have to surrender what we spilled our blood for back to the Russian.
jointhepit
Member Since: May 14, 2006
entire network: 3,829 Posts
KitMaker Network: 48 Posts
Posted: Sunday, June 10, 2007 - 10:02 AM UTC
Quoted Text
I guess as the History Forum moderator I'm one of they "they" you refer to that will be banning this reply?
your answer made me verry happy
in the past , my "comments "where often mis understood,as a result I've been having some posts "removed", censored sometimes by the auto censor, angry reply's ect
Also happy to see more and more people, even from allied nations, come to see through the vail of mystery surrounding certain "strange" events in and around WW2.
History has always been writen by the victorious party.
Greetz
Tha Pit
no-neck
Member Since: August 26, 2005
entire network: 87 Posts
KitMaker Network: 67 Posts
Posted: Sunday, June 10, 2007 - 10:05 PM UTC
A truisim/cliche is, politics make strange bedfellows. The Brits&France were allies even after the Brit fleet sank the French ships at Mers el Kebir. We were allies to the soviets after Kaytin wood. As for the BEF, you can't fault people for wanting war to happen in the other guys backyard. They did eventually liberate the French who immediately set about securing thier own national goals. Russia was convinced that its allies were delaying opening the second front to avoid casualties for them while bleeding the Russians. Same stuff today. America has some pretty unbelievable 'allies'. 
goldenpony
Member Since: July 03, 2007
entire network: 3,529 Posts
KitMaker Network: 422 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 - 08:53 AM UTC
Quoted Text
I could not have said it better myself. Then throw in this what if. Had the top brass listened to Patton we could have turned our enemy, Germany, into an ally and then turned on Russia.
blaster76
Member Since: September 15, 2002
entire network: 8,985 Posts
KitMaker Network: 2,270 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 - 09:43 AM UTC
Ahh the old let Patton loose debate. I thnk we chose the far superior tactic. In just a tad over 40 years, the Soviet Union self destructed without the US having to spend another 100,000 lives in the process and probably being involved in a major war and civil war for at least a dozen more years past the end of the German collapse.
Sorry guys in my book Georgie was another meglamaniac on the same scale as Dougie. and mind you Patton went to VMI for a year before transferring to the Point. me --- VMI '76
Sorry guys in my book Georgie was another meglamaniac on the same scale as Dougie. and mind you Patton went to VMI for a year before transferring to the Point. me --- VMI '76
prawdziwy-sok
Member Since: February 09, 2007
entire network: 9 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 - 10:34 AM UTC
as far as i can remember from my history classes, the treaty between poland, france and englad was specially against germany, it was this way, because france and england didnt want to fight russia.
Halfyank
Member Since: February 01, 2003
entire network: 5,221 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,983 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 - 02:32 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Ahh the old let Patton loose debate. I thnk we chose the far superior tactic. In just a tad over 40 years, the Soviet Union self destructed without the US having to spend another 100,000 lives in the process and probably being involved in a major war and civil war for at least a dozen more years past the end of the German collapse.
Sorry guys in my book Georgie was another meglamaniac on the same scale as Dougie. and mind you Patton went to VMI for a year before transferring to the Point. me --- VMI '76
Only a 100000 Steve? Don't you think you'd have to add at least 1 zero to that? Even assuming the Brits go along, which isn't a sure thing, and the Germans, again assuming former enemies can go from killing each other one day, to fighting alongside each other the next, it seems to me the Red Army would take out a whole lot of troops.
Patton and Dougie, can you imagine those two egos trying to co-exist?
grom
Member Since: July 28, 2005
entire network: 214 Posts
KitMaker Network: 35 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 - 05:03 AM UTC
Hi Tha pit,
got to go along with the sentiments that you cant fight everyone at once, discrection being the better part of valour .The British Isles being the last line of defence for the British forces. Logic would dictate that you move your forces to defend that is defendable.I have a great respect for all our allies in Europe who joined us in the fight against nazi oppression even those poorly trained soldiers that left Europe soaked in their blood through two world wars.
Phil H
got to go along with the sentiments that you cant fight everyone at once, discrection being the better part of valour .The British Isles being the last line of defence for the British forces. Logic would dictate that you move your forces to defend that is defendable.I have a great respect for all our allies in Europe who joined us in the fight against nazi oppression even those poorly trained soldiers that left Europe soaked in their blood through two world wars.
Phil H
rotATOR
Member Since: November 16, 2006
entire network: 223 Posts
KitMaker Network: 53 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 - 08:39 AM UTC
England and France went to war over Poland and then the Russians have it after Germany capitulated... 
Politics aside,it was the correct thing to declare war on Germany,at least from a moral standpoint...and those poor Poles: Two traditional enemies..Germans to the left and Russians to the right...I think the poet summed it up in 1944 " We are waiting for thee,O Red pest,to deliver us from Black death"..
Politics aside,it was the correct thing to declare war on Germany,at least from a moral standpoint...and those poor Poles: Two traditional enemies..Germans to the left and Russians to the right...I think the poet summed it up in 1944 " We are waiting for thee,O Red pest,to deliver us from Black death"..
Brigandine
Member Since: July 12, 2006
entire network: 553 Posts
KitMaker Network: 148 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 - 01:33 PM UTC
One thing people are forgetting is that Britain and France had gone through the horrors of WW 1, which left both countries exhausted and effectively bankrupt, with most of their best manpower dead or crippled. Living in the 21st century, over 90 years later, it's hard to remember the devastating effects of such a war on countries whose populations were far smaller than they are now.
After WW 1 there was no way for Britain to keep a large army, airforce and navy running. The League of Nations [set up through the powerful representations of the U.S president Woodrow Wilson] seemed to be the hope for avoiding such destructive wars in future, so there was no reason to keep large-scale armed forces running. France built the Maginot Line in the forlorn hope that a line of modern fortresses would halt any invasion at the border. [Nobody thought that a revitalised Germany would, once again, invade the neutral countries of Holland and Belgium...]
Fast forward to 1939: Hitler had broken every cynical promise he'd made, had torn up every treaty he'd signed and, on the eve of invading Poland, had signed a pact with the Soviet Union, his former worst enemy.
Could Britain, with it's small army and France, which still preferred to fight protected by the Maginot Line (and which was in the middle of political turmoil) really be expected to declare war on the Soviets as well?
It's easy, from the comforts of a 21st C computer to be critical - I wonder how well any of us, without the benefits of 20/20 hindsight, would have behaved had we been leaders faced with the same choices?
After WW 1 there was no way for Britain to keep a large army, airforce and navy running. The League of Nations [set up through the powerful representations of the U.S president Woodrow Wilson] seemed to be the hope for avoiding such destructive wars in future, so there was no reason to keep large-scale armed forces running. France built the Maginot Line in the forlorn hope that a line of modern fortresses would halt any invasion at the border. [Nobody thought that a revitalised Germany would, once again, invade the neutral countries of Holland and Belgium...]
Fast forward to 1939: Hitler had broken every cynical promise he'd made, had torn up every treaty he'd signed and, on the eve of invading Poland, had signed a pact with the Soviet Union, his former worst enemy.
Could Britain, with it's small army and France, which still preferred to fight protected by the Maginot Line (and which was in the middle of political turmoil) really be expected to declare war on the Soviets as well?
It's easy, from the comforts of a 21st C computer to be critical - I wonder how well any of us, without the benefits of 20/20 hindsight, would have behaved had we been leaders faced with the same choices?
CaptainCanary
Member Since: May 11, 2007
entire network: 31 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 - 10:09 PM UTC
Quoted Text
One thing people are forgetting is that Britain and France had gone through the horrors of WW 1, which left both countries exhausted and effectively bankrupt, with most of their best manpower dead or crippled. Living in the 21st century, over 90 years later, it's hard to remember the devastating effects of such a war on countries whose populations were far smaller than they are now.
Good point about the horrors of WWI. My hometown of King's Lynn had been aerially bombed by a Zepplin in Jan 1915 along with Great Yarmouth (in fact my great-grandfather lived in one of the streets in Lynn that was hit!) so it has to be remembered that the horrors of being in the firing line so to speak were not limited to those on the front line but also felt by the civilian population of England during WWI.
Murdo
Member Since: May 25, 2005
entire network: 2,218 Posts
KitMaker Network: 760 Posts
Posted: Thursday, July 26, 2007 - 08:10 AM UTC
From what I've seen on the history channels, the Zeppelin and Gotha raids on the UK were a helluva shock!
hellbent11
Member Since: August 17, 2005
entire network: 725 Posts
KitMaker Network: 320 Posts
Posted: Sunday, July 29, 2007 - 05:41 PM UTC
IMHO I think it was because Russia wasn't viewed as the most immediate threat and the lesser of two evils. 
 |
WEB HOSTING BY
Copyright ©2021 KitMaker Network and Kitmaker Network, a subsidiary of Silver Star Enterprises
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.