Hi!

In our last history-lesson , we had the upcoming of WW2 and Hitlers foreign politics. To begin , some historical facts: on the 23.8.1939 Russia and Germany signed the Hitler-Stalin-Pakt , officially a declaration of neutrality in the case of war with a third nation and in itself a renewall of the Berliner-Vertrag from 1926, but with some secret add-ons , which handled the divide of poland , finland and the baltic nations into german and russian spheres of interest. On 25.8.1939 , Britain signed a protection pact with Poland. France guaranteed polish freedom since WW1. On 01.09.1939 Hitler attacked Poland. On 17.09.1939 , Russia attacked Poland. So why did France and Britain only declare war on Germany ?
:confused:

Russia attacked Poland too??? I had no Idea! This is quite the conundrum we have here...

I beleive there was a secret clause in the British-Polish treaty aimed only at Germany. And the Russians made it look as thoughthey were only protecting their interests in White Russia. As for the French, well they can't be trusted- look what they did to the Czechs!

On 25.8.1939 , Britain signed a protection pact with Poland. France guaranteed polish freedom since WW1. On 01.09.1939 Hitler attacked Poland. On 17.09.1939 , Russia attacked Poland. So why did France and Britain only declare war on Germany ?
:confused:

It's a bit misleading to say Russia 'attacked' Poland - the fighting was mostly over by then IIRC, certainly the Russians didn't have to fight hard for the part they occupied.
As for why Britain and France didn't declare war on Russia as well - IIRC, they weren't specifically required to as the treaties were aimed at Germany only. Also, Germany was viewed as an immediate threat, being on the border of France after all, Russia was on the other side of Germany and showed no immediate tendencies to attack the West. The Allies would have been very stupid indeed to attack Russia as well (let sleeping bears lie :D ), they had enough on their hands with Germany!

That's realpolitik for you, France and Britain didn't only attack because of some treaty - they allowed Czechoslovakia to be swallowed before that, after all - but because they finally perceived themselves as threatened.

Hi!
On 17.09.1939 , Russia attacked Poland. So why did France and Britain only declare war on Germany ?
:confused:

Britain and France may have closer to getting into a war with Russia over Finland. They were sympathetic towards the Finns. But since no way could be found of sending an expeditionary force to Finland before the Winter War of 39-40 had ended nothing came of it. And in the final analysis they might have abstained from doing anything anyway. Small nations usually have to fend for themselves.

Britain did provide some planes and tanks to the Finns though for that conflict :)

As to the question, it makes no sense to fight Germany AND Russia. Though I would add that Poland wasn't just about being threatened, Chamberlin and co, though ridicuously committed to appeasement felt that Germany was already a threat by 1938, but also felt unable to stop her given the unprepared state of Britain at the time and the notorious lack of will in France to do anything to attack Germany.

Here's one earlier thread on same topic, incl some good replies. It's good to have search. :smug:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=75733

Easy enough.

Look at the whole phoney war aspect. With German, facing off Britain and france.
part of the problem was lack of enthusiam for the coming war. The unprepared nature of the allies.

Diplomaticly the west want Hitler to turn hes direction towards Russia. (Churchill was prominent here) Thinking they could play Germany off into fighting Russia.
After all Communism posied a greater threat to nazi germany then the western powers every did. if Germany could be directed to fight a costly and stalemate war against russia where they would bleed each other strength. Leaving France, Britian benefiting from avoiding a war.

Hi !

Thx for the comments & particularly the link. So if i understand it correctly , Stalin did not declare the invasion on poland as such , but declared it as a securing of borders and the west ignored the occupation of east-poland for nearly 2 years , because they did not want to drive Stalin further on Hitlers side . Yup that i really call Realpolitik.

This question is based on the misunderstanding that Poland was actually the reason,
rather than the pretext, for war. It wasn't. The Germans had a good case with Poland. If the allies wanted to stand up to Germany for moral reasons, they could have protected democratic Czechoslovakia.

The reason is that after Munich the government of England got worried and felt guilty, and even more so after occupation of Bohemia. They made the guarantee on Poland hoping to show Hitler that the two western powers would make a stand. Hitler called their bluff, and England had to declare war to save face. Or, from another perspective, Chamberlain's policy of appeasement was undermined by Munich and the German takeover of Bohemia, and he had to make a stand to preserve his political position. When the bluff was called, Chamberlain had no choice but to stand by it.

Poland itself, whose nationalistic dictatorship was disapproved of in London, was pretty irrelevant. The British actually thought that Germany's grievances were justified. However, England's rulers couldn't allow Germany to continue to pursue her interests so aggressively. Germany's ambition and methods freaked them out. It was German power and aggression that made the allies declare war. Although such issues did exist with the Soviet Union, Germany was perceived as the bigger threat to British national interests. After the allies started the war with Germany, war with the Soviet Union was impossible. Declaring war on the Soviet Union would have been suicidal in the context.

... The reason is that after Munich the government of England got worried and felt guilty, and even more so after occupation of Bohemia. They made the guarantee on Poland hoping to show Hitler that the two western powers would make a stand. Hitler called their bluff, and England had to declare war to save face. Or, from another perspective, Chamberlain's policy of appeasement was undermined by Munich and the German takeover of Bohemia, and he had to make a stand to preserve his political position. When the bluff was called, Chamberlain had no choice but to stand by it.


Hi!
that also explains to me the fact of having the BlitzKrieg in Poland and the SitzKrieg in the west in 1939 because France and Britain had declared war on Germany , but were reluctant to attack. Could it be said that the call for the bluff was Chamberlains fall and Churchills rise ?

Chamberlain was always the wrong Prime Minister for that period of time. Although being a peace loving man is not a bad thing, when faced with someone like Hitler, who can read his foes and manipulate them I think actions speak louder than words.

I don't think Churchill would have sat there and had Hitler yell at him the way Chamberlain did in 1938. I feel sorry for Chamberlain, he had the best intentions at heart and wore the failure at Munich to his grave, which was a very short time after the Wehrmacht victory in the west.

Not really, Chamberlain was a man of half measures, he could have fought for the holy grail but instead settles for the sippy cup (the "peace in our time/all time" thing)

I do wish people would stop blaming Neville Chamberlain.

The general view was that pre WW2 Germany was very strong and that it was quite uncertain after 1938 that France and Britain could contain Germany particularly since the Italians (also fascists) were no longer allies (as in WW1) and had lined up with the Germans, the Spanish (also fascists) might side with them and if Germany, Italy (and possibly Spain) could freely trade with the USSR and the USA.

The strategy adopted was that war with Germany should be avoided unless absolutely forced and either or both of the two other strong players (USA and USSR) would join with Britain and France to contain Germany. However neither the USA nor the USSR was going to go to war to support the integrity of the only 20 year old composite Czeckoslovakian Republic, so it made no sense to fight then.

If the Germans had limited their activities to taking over the German speaking part of Czeckoslovakia, then likely Britain and France would have successfully lent on Poland to be reasonable. However the Germans took over non German speaking parts of Czecksolsovakia and therefore stepped outside of their moral argument of reuniting Germans and were clearly seen as on a land grab.

The invasion of Poland was blatant military agrression against a nation state that had existed for centuries, which was one step up from intimidation of Czeckoslovakia in the halls of moral infamy; and therefore there was no time to dither. It became morally imperative to demonstrate resolve by declaring war, with the hope that assistance would ultimately arrive from the USA or the USSR. This indeed occurred, although to the dismay of the allies not until after the fall of France which they had not expected.

Easy enough.

Look at the whole phoney war aspect. With German, facing off Britain and france.
part of the problem was lack of enthusiam for the coming war. The unprepared nature of the allies.

Diplomaticly the west want Hitler to turn hes direction towards Russia. (Churchill was prominent here) Thinking they could play Germany off into fighting Russia.
After all Communism posied a greater threat to nazi germany then the western powers every did. if Germany could be directed to fight a costly and stalemate war against russia where they would bleed each other strength. Leaving France, Britian benefiting from avoiding a war.

Ah yes, just like the Iran-Iraq War, brilliant!

Not really, Chamberlain was a man of half measures, he could have fought for the holy grail but instead settles for the sippy cup (the "peace in our time/all time" thing)


Which is exactly my point as to why he was the wrong man.

Churchill was a voice in the wilderness when it came to opposing Hitler. He knew what kind of man he was.

Edward, I blame more France than Britian for the failure at Munich. They had the agreement with the Czechs and if they declared war on Germany Stalin promised the Soviet union would do the same. Germany would have gone down big time and when facing Europe's 2 largest armies.

I do however blame Chamberlain for not putting any effort in to getting Russia on side until it was far too late. The Brits had written them off militarily.

The Russians may not have declared war after the Germans attacked Poland but it would have made the situation in eastern Europe very tense, and would have made the battle of France a lot more difficult for the Wehrmacht.

We ought to differentiate between 'Russians' and 'Soviets' in this discussion. It reminds me of the Dresden thread, where people would talk about 'Germans' and 'Nazis' as though these were interchangeable.