Romanian Military History Forum - Part of Romanian Army in the Second World War Website



Pages: (3) 1 [2] 3   ( Go to first unread post ) Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

> Why UK & France dont declared war to russians?, when they attacked Poland
Victor
Posted: January 13, 2009 03:00 pm
Quote Post


Admin
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 4336
Member No.: 3
Joined: February 11, 2003



MMM,

the post you are replying to belongs to a Banned member and he cannot reply your question.
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
MMM
Posted: January 19, 2009 05:03 pm
Quote Post


General de divizie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1463
Member No.: 2323
Joined: December 02, 2008



However, it is not right - banned or not - that definitely wrong and tendentious oppinions should remain unchallenged... :)

This post has been edited by MMM on January 19, 2009 05:03 pm
PMEmail PosterUsers WebsiteYahoo
Top
Victor
Posted: January 19, 2009 05:15 pm
Quote Post


Admin
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 4336
Member No.: 3
Joined: February 11, 2003



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... :)


Just don't expect a reply from him.
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Imperialist
Posted: January 19, 2009 06:45 pm
Quote Post


General de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2399
Member No.: 499
Joined: February 09, 2005



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.
PM
Top
MMM
Posted: January 20, 2009 11:22 am
Quote Post


General de divizie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1463
Member No.: 2323
Joined: December 02, 2008



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! :roll: :roll: :roll:
PMEmail PosterUsers WebsiteYahoo
Top
Imperialist
Posted: January 20, 2009 07:27 pm
Quote Post


General de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2399
Member No.: 499
Joined: February 09, 2005



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! :roll: :roll: :roll:

?

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.
PM
Top
MMM
Posted: February 25, 2009 05:07 pm
Quote Post


General de divizie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1463
Member No.: 2323
Joined: December 02, 2008



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.
PMEmail PosterUsers WebsiteYahoo
Top
New Connaught Ranger
Posted: February 26, 2009 11:31 am
Quote Post


Colonel
*

Group: Members
Posts: 941
Member No.: 770
Joined: January 03, 2006



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. :D
PMEmail Poster
Top
MMM
Posted: February 26, 2009 12:31 pm
Quote Post


General de divizie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1463
Member No.: 2323
Joined: December 02, 2008



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!
PMEmail PosterUsers WebsiteYahoo
Top
New Connaught Ranger
Posted: February 26, 2009 02:09 pm
Quote Post


Colonel
*

Group: Members
Posts: 941
Member No.: 770
Joined: January 03, 2006



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. . . " :roll:

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. :lol:

This post has been edited by New Connaught Ranger on February 26, 2009 02:10 pm
PMEmail Poster
Top
MMM
  Posted: February 26, 2009 02:35 pm
Quote Post


General de divizie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1463
Member No.: 2323
Joined: December 02, 2008



Do you mean I feel I owe something? You gotta be kidding (yourself :D )! 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. :roll:
PMEmail PosterUsers WebsiteYahoo
Top
New Connaught Ranger
Posted: February 26, 2009 02:38 pm
Quote Post


Colonel
*

Group: Members
Posts: 941
Member No.: 770
Joined: January 03, 2006



No MMM :o

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.
PMEmail Poster
Top
MMM
Posted: February 26, 2009 03:33 pm
Quote Post


General de divizie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1463
Member No.: 2323
Joined: December 02, 2008



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:
PMEmail PosterUsers WebsiteYahoo
Top
Victor
Posted: February 26, 2009 07:36 pm
Quote Post


Admin
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 4336
Member No.: 3
Joined: February 11, 2003



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.
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
MMM
Posted: February 27, 2009 09:16 am
Quote Post


General de divizie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1463
Member No.: 2323
Joined: December 02, 2008



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.
PMEmail PosterUsers WebsiteYahoo
Top
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

Topic Options Pages: (3) 1 [2] 3  Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

 






[ Script Execution time: 0.0258 ]   [ 14 queries used ]   [ GZIP Enabled ]