Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
WorldWar2.ro Forum > WW2 in General > Why UK & France dont declared war to russians?


Posted by: Iamandi January 13, 2005 01:19 pm


What was the reaction of UK and France when russians entered in Poland?
Why dont declared war to Soviet Union to? Because .. not olnly germans attacked Poland...

Iama

Posted by: Victor January 13, 2005 02:34 pm
The French and British guarantees for Romania were only in case of a German attack. I suppose the situation was the same for Poland.

Posted by: Chandernagore January 13, 2005 11:42 pm
Oh it's more simple than that : nobody wants to commit suicide.

The rest was a job for lawayers to invent some excuse. Realpolitik, really.

Posted by: PanzerKing January 14, 2005 12:27 am
There was no way on earth that UK & France could take on Germany & France. It's that simple, they had to choose lesser of two evils really.

Posted by: Iamandi January 14, 2005 06:35 am
QUOTE (PanzerKing @ Jan 14 2005, 12:27 AM)
There was no way on earth that UK & France could take on Germany & France. It's that simple, they had to choose lesser of two evils really.


I think you want to say Germany & Rusia. biggrin.gif

Yes, it may be too hard. But... UK and France are two of the gib power, and UK, for example can attack in Yamamoto style at Vladivostock, Murmansk, etc. - big and important naval bases / ports. Just to give a lesson, and to force russians to back off.


Iama

Posted by: Florin January 15, 2005 11:46 pm
QUOTE (Iamandi @ Jan 14 2005, 01:35 AM)
.....UK and France are two of the gib power, and UK, for example can attack in Yamamoto style at Vladivostock, Murmansk, etc. - big and important naval bases / ports. Just to give a lesson, and to force russians to back off.

You cannot be serious. The Germans advanced as far as the Volga river and Stalingrad, and the Russians did not want to learn any lesson. On the contrary...

In the days when Finland was under the siege of the Red Army, some British and French generals and politicians asked to send an expeditionary force in Finland, against the Russians.
Some of them were simply idiots, assuming that they would be able to fight with Germany and U.S.S.R. in the same time. However, most of them were no idiots, but these latter guys were not so happy with the fact that the war with Germany was going on. Their point: We declared war to help Poland. As Poland does not exist any more, the reason of war does not exist any more. They assumed that once the French and the British will get involved in Finland against the Red Army, their governments will quickly sign peace with Germany. Some even expected that Germany will stand together with them, in a final Anti-Communist Crusade...

A big wake up call to these pin heads was the speed and efficiency shown by Germany when they invaded Norway, in spite of the fact that the sea was controlled by the British and the French fleets. It became obvious that if they would dare to send troops to Finland, Germany was able to stab them in the back!

One of the countries who pressed U.S.S.R. to back off from Finland was the United States. Also Germany. The main mineral resource of Finland was the nickel. The nickel mines were owned by the Americans and the British, and Stalin had to accept with great pain that the evil Capitalists will continue to own them! laugh.gif
For whoever is surprised how could The United States make their point with Stalin, in March 1940, this is not too hard. The United States was the biggest donor of technology and technologic know-how to the U.S.S.R., in the 30's.
Well, not quite a donor, because they were paid.

Posted by: Ruy Aballe January 16, 2005 12:22 pm
Yes, Florin, you are right. Most of the machine-tools used by the Russian military industries came from the United States. The equipment was paid, of course, and the commercial relations between the "evil capitalists" and the "red monsters" were flourishing. But the U.S. input was also an human one, because a sizeable number of specialized workers and engineers worked in the Soviet Union during the 30's. U.S. firms were involved in the design and development of weapon systems for the Russians, such as, for instance, aircraft carriers (actually huge hybrids between an aircraft carrier and a battleship) of unprecedented size and complexity. ph34r.gif
The Russians also got licences for the local production of two excellent U.S. aircraft, the DC-3, built both for the VVS and the Aeroflot, the PBY Catalina, built at Taganrog by what was then known as Central Design Bureau of Seaplanes, headed by Georgy Beriev. The transfer of technology from the U.S.A. to the Soviet Union was much more important, as industrial know-how is concerned, than any other similar contacts between the Russians and several European countries for the same period, i.e., the 1930's (France was important as an exporter of aircraft engines and their technology, both air cooled radials and in-line, water-cooled powerplants, though).

Posted by: Ruy Aballe January 16, 2005 09:44 pm
Oh, I forgot to add a comment on the rather close cooperation between Italian and Russian naval architects and experts... in the first half of the 1930's, just before Italians and Russians faced each other in Spanish soil...
The Russian cruisers built at the end of the decade, like the Maksim Gorkhi class, reflected Italian influence, mixing it with locally designed solutions and heavy weapons. The Russians, however, didn't copied one of main features of Italian vessels, though: lighter armour in exchange for higher speed. This proved to be a fatal mistake when the Regia Marina faced the Royal Navy in the Mediterreanean...

Posted by: PanzerKing January 17, 2005 12:14 am
QUOTE (Iamandi @ Jan 14 2005, 06:35 AM)
QUOTE (PanzerKing @ Jan 14 2005, 12:27 AM)
There was no way on earth that UK & France could take on Germany & France. It's that simple, they had to choose lesser of two evils really.


I think you want to say Germany & Rusia. biggrin.gif

Yes, it may be too hard. But... UK and France are two of the gib power, and UK, for example can attack in Yamamoto style at Vladivostock, Murmansk, etc. - big and important naval bases / ports. Just to give a lesson, and to force russians to back off.


Iama

Indeed! Sorry for the mixup, I'd been drinking. biggrin.gif

Posted by: Curioso January 19, 2005 09:55 am
The answer can be found in the topic titled "Who started WW2".

Posted by: Der Maresal January 19, 2005 07:23 pm
Why UK & France dont declared war to russians?

I'll tell you why.

Because countries of the same ideology don't fight eachother.
Paris, France is the birthplace of Liberalism and Democracy. (that screwed up revolution..)
Both France and England were the main centers of Freemasons and ocult societies, London in particlar is the headquarters of secret societis.
In Hitler's opinion Moscow was the center of world bolshevism and headquarters of the great conspiracy. (Communism's ultimate goal was to rule the world, was't it)
ph34r.gif
World war two was a war of ideologies.

...(Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité) (..yes.. "brotherhood"..I know exactly which brother hood that is..)..

hey, this communist symbol... it's amazing how much it resembles to the one of the UN today..
Oh ,yes.. (nations of the world..Unite!) ... the resemblance is frightening.

user posted image

Posted by: Curioso January 20, 2005 11:12 am
QUOTE (Der Maresal @ Jan 19 2005, 07:23 PM)
Why UK & France dont declared war to russians?

I'll tell you why.

Because countries of the same ideology don't fight eachother.

I'm sorry to tell you that your nice theory doesn't hold water in the real world.

Countries of the same ideology don't fight each other?
The Greek regime was a local form of fascism; same basic ideas, same formal arrangements (a king and a strongman), same anti-bolshevism, same authoritarian and freedom-killing policies. Why, Metaxás had explicitly copied some of Mussolini's fanciful ideas.
So how come that Italy attacked Greece?

Now let's look at the Polish regime. Formally a democracy, it was actually authoritarian, militaristic, fairly anti-Semitic and rabidly anti-bolshevist.
So how come that Germany attacked Poland?

Let's move closer to Romania. Do you believe that what divided it from Hungary was an ideological difference?

Let's move away from WWII. Care to explain the Balkan Wars in terms of ideological opposition, or (this is probably the best) the Chinese-Vietnamese War? How come that in WWI the Kaiser and the K.u.K. fought against the Czar, the Mikado and the British Emperor? Weren't them all emperors?

Maybe ideology isn't the end of the story. Think again.

Posted by: Kiwi January 07, 2009 11:36 pm
In January and February 1939 the British and French tried to form an alliance with Russia to guarantee the neutrality of Poland and Romania. Russia was offered valuable trade deals to help France and britain oppose Hitler.

Stalin was not interested as he was already planning to invade Poland himself.

During the rest of 1939 and even up to July 1941 Stalin ignored British offers.

After the Soviet invasion of Finland in November 1931, the British sent 30 Gloster Gladiator fighters to protect Finland. Britain's colony in South Africa also donated 88 Gloster Gauntlet fighters to Finland. Britain shipped mines and hand grenades to Finland.

The British also tried to form Norway and Sweeden into a millitary mutual self protection pact for the defence of Finland and arranged to send a private army of volunteers from the RAF along with a squadron of Blenheims and a squadron of hurricanes in March 1940.

When news of this got out Hitler decided he had to invade Norway to prevent the British alliance with Finland.

The British effort was called the Catherine Plan. The 500 strong volunteer force was to be made of RAF pilots and mechanics with private funding from Lord Nuffield and lord Beaverbrook. the force was to be led by the son of a former US President General Kermit Roosevelt.

Posted by: New Connaught Ranger January 08, 2009 02:17 pm
I suppose one hardly needs to mention the chances of Britain occupying Norway, Sweden & Finland would have been extremely slim to not implementable.

Not enough equipment or ways to get it there while having to dodge German ships and aircraft, who had a far larger range than the RAF could give from the UK.

Even the UK and French forces they managed to get on the ground were squandered with many problems of communication and poor intelligence as to German activity.

A French Mountain Corp which was sent, had ski's but a French quartermaster forgot to pack the bindings for fixing their ski's to their boots, so they were essentially handicapped and could only walk through deep snow.

Kevin in Deva biggrin.gif

Posted by: MMM January 13, 2009 02:09 pm
QUOTE
Because countries of the same ideology don't fight eachother.
Paris, France is the birthplace of Liberalism and Democracy. (that screwed up revolution..)
Both France and England were the main centers of Freemasons and ocult societies, London in particlar is the headquarters of secret societis.
In Hitler's opinion Moscow was the center of world bolshevism and headquarters of the great conspiracy. (Communism's ultimate goal was to rule the world, was't it)

This is at least hillarious. Either you wanted to say something different, or you are another fan of the "conspiracy theory". The "screwed up revolution" was a key event in world history. And Moscow WAS for the whole duration of USSR the center of world bolshevism. Have you ever heard/read about the Communist International (or Komintern)?

Posted by: Victor January 13, 2009 03:00 pm
MMM,

the post you are replying to belongs to a Banned member and he cannot reply your question.

Posted by: MMM January 19, 2009 05:03 pm
However, it is not right - banned or not - that definitely wrong and tendentious oppinions should remain unchallenged... smile.gif

Posted by: Victor January 19, 2009 05:15 pm
QUOTE (MMM @ January 19, 2009 07:03 pm)
However, it is not right - banned or not - that definitely wrong and tendentious oppinions should remain unchallenged... smile.gif


Just don't expect a reply from him.

Posted by: Imperialist January 19, 2009 06:45 pm
QUOTE (MMM @ January 13, 2009 02:09 pm)
The "screwed up revolution" was a key event in world history.

I agree with you, but I don't see why a key event in world history couldn't/shouldn't be called "screwed up" if that's how that person feels about it.

Posted by: MMM January 20, 2009 11:22 am
QUOTE
that's how that person feels about it

Really? I guess this is the reason for which "that person" was banned, right? I hope you posted that just for the sake of argument, not because you'd agree that France and USSR shared an ideology at that time... This would be screwed! rolleyes.gif rolleyes.gif rolleyes.gif

Posted by: Imperialist January 20, 2009 07:27 pm
QUOTE (MMM @ January 20, 2009 11:22 am)
QUOTE
that's how that person feels about it

Really? I guess this is the reason for which "that person" was banned, right? I hope you posted that just for the sake of argument, not because you'd agree that France and USSR shared an ideology at that time... This would be screwed! rolleyes.gif rolleyes.gif rolleyes.gif

?

The banned person called the French Revolution a "screwed up revolution" and you replied saying that the "screwed up revolution" is a key moment in history. Then I replied to your statement. I said nothing about the USSR.

Posted by: MMM February 25, 2009 05:07 pm
To conclude it, I guess the only correct answer would be that UK+France were already at war with Germany and didn't feel the need to declare it against the Soviets - plus the fact that Poland had been crushed so fast (Blietzkrieg, huh?) that they haven't had the time to react. One cannot suspect yet the idea of defeating Germany with SU help - not in September 1939, however. After the war, many things were either changed or put aside (never mentioned), as history had to be rewritten on all sides.

Posted by: New Connaught Ranger February 26, 2009 11:31 am
You have also to consider that in all reality there was very little chance for the U.K. and France to launch attacks on Soviet Russia, once Norway, Sweden* & Finland came under the German sphere of influence.

* Sweden was very pro-German, despite their so called Neutral stance.

France and Britain were also very badly equipped, manpower & military wise to have been in any position to take on Russia and Germany at the same time. Any attempt to go against Russia would have been a valuable waste of resources.

Despite whatever treaty's were signed pre-WW2, in all practicality they were to prove untenable in the course of events.

Kevin in Deva. biggrin.gif

Posted by: MMM February 26, 2009 12:31 pm
QUOTE (New Connaught Ranger @ February 26, 2009 11:31 am)

treaty's were signed pre-WW2, in all practicality they were to prove untenable in the course of events.

Now, that WAS the "special touch" of both Soviet and German diplomacies (?) - the disregard towards all the treaties, so one shouldn't worry too much about all this diplomatic aspect!

Posted by: New Connaught Ranger February 26, 2009 02:09 pm
QUOTE (MMM @ February 26, 2009 12:31 pm)
QUOTE (New Connaught Ranger @ February 26, 2009 11:31 am)

treaty's were signed pre-WW2, in all practicality they were to prove untenable in the course of events.

Now, that WAS the "special touch" of both Soviet and German diplomacies (?) - the disregard towards all the treaties, so one shouldn't worry too much about all this diplomatic aspect!



The disregard for treaty's signed by the British & French to aid countries like Czechoslovakia and Poland, is quite often thrown up in modern day arguments by people who have no idea of the true situation back in the 1930's and 1940's.
Their mentality is like children in a school playground "but, you promised to help me. . . " rolleyes.gif

The same mentality can be said to infest of people who have been raised in countries that were penalized for their part in WW1 or WW2, and today feel like they are owed something.

Kevin in Deva. laugh.gif

Posted by: MMM February 26, 2009 02:35 pm
Do you mean I feel I owe something? You gotta be kidding (yourself biggrin.gif )! I was just stating the fact that both Germany and USSR made a point from actively disrespecting the treaties which they signed at their own will. This has nothing to do with my nationality - or do you know something I don't? I don't feel infested yet. rolleyes.gif

Posted by: New Connaught Ranger February 26, 2009 02:38 pm
No MMM ohmy.gif

I was making no personal reference to you, just too some arguments that have been put online, as for example:- " Polands fate being the fault of the British & French for not coming to save them from the Germans".

Kevin in Deva.

Posted by: MMM February 26, 2009 03:33 pm
Definitely NOT! Poland's fault (if any other fault than geography...) was to trust Hitler, then to bite from Czechoslovakia as well. The really interesting thing is the result of ww2 for Poland: after4 it supposedly started over it, Poland was all but erased, with almost 10 million deaths, then translated to west, then made Popular Republic. The only "gain" was the access to the Baltic Sea. ph34r.gif

Posted by: Victor February 26, 2009 07:36 pm
MMM,

From memory, the British and French guarantees were directed only towards a German aggression. This is why the Romanian officials weren't too exalted about them since their main concern in 1938-39 was a Soviet aggression.

Posted by: MMM February 27, 2009 09:16 am
Not really - the guarantees were TERITORIAL. But it's much more complicated. Gh. Buzatu, in his last book, has unveiled some new documents on that: "Romania sub imperiul haosului", 2007.

Posted by: cipiamon March 08, 2009 10:29 pm
QUOTE (Curioso @ January 20, 2005 11:12 am)
QUOTE (Der Maresal @ Jan 19 2005, 07:23 PM)
Why UK & France dont declared war to russians?

I'll tell you why.

Because countries of the same ideology don't fight eachother.

I'm sorry to tell you that your nice theory doesn't hold water in the real world.

Countries of the same ideology don't fight each other?
....
Now let's look at the Polish regime. Formally a democracy, it was actually authoritarian, militaristic, fairly anti-Semitic and rabidly anti-bolshevist.

A regime that invests in militaria doesn't charge with horses rolleyes.gif

Ideology was far more important back then, remember the clashes between the party adepts, so is possible that ideology had to play a bigger part at that time then we imagine today.

Posted by: MMM March 09, 2009 07:02 am
However, ideology or not, ww2 started over territorial and world domination issues. The label of "ideologic war" was made up at a later time - of course, not taking into account Goebbels's ramblings (or Soviet ones, as well)ohmy.gif

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)