Return PolishForums LIVE
  PolishForums Archive :
Archives - 2005-2009 / History  % width 290

WW2: Britain Declares War on Germany to Save Poland


Matyjasz 2 | 1,544  
11 Dec 2007 /  #271
isthatu,

I don't want to repeat myself so I will just quote little ol me and you will tell me what you think about it, ok?

Simply the politicians in England decided that nazism was more threatening than communism for GB's exsitence as a power in a free anglosaxon world.They could not tolerate the antisemitism and freedom limitation Hitler wanted them to accept.

I believe that at the beginning Russia was the main threat fro GB and France and Germany was allowed to get into strength to be the last line of defense fro the western world. Still it was expected that the Russians will start the war and not Germany.

I guess that we can say that USA, France and GB created a monster. ;)

-edit 2 -

Actually make that USA and GB. :)

You can comment on this as well:

Yes, just like english propganda is to blame for the whole "churchill was fighting for you guys in Potsdam/Yalta", or "we engaged in the war because of you" wchich of course aren't true.

southern 75 | 7,096  
12 Dec 2007 /  #272
I believe that at the beginning Russia was the main threat fro GB and France and Germany was allowed to get into strength to be the last line of defense fro the western world. Still it was expected that the Russians will start the war and not Germany.

Since the strike of coal workers in GB in 1928 and the defeat of communist party that followed,Stalin had ceased to be a major threat for England.On the contrary nazis gained ground all the time.They had even appeared in USA.It was a decision of now or never for the English.

The only major force which could cope up with nazis in equal terms was Soviet Union.So the thought was to turn Hitler to the east,when he would start a long term war with Soviet Union resulting to weakening and fall of both communist regime in Soviet Union and nazi regime in Germany.In this aspect they made the mistake(also made by Hitler) to underestimate the power and control of Stalin over Soviet Union.They thought he was seriously weakened by the opposition,the Moscow trials,the disappointment of people by the famine,the gulags,the nationalist movements in Caucasus,Ukraine,Baltics etc.Nobody thought Stalin so strong that he actually was.

First they underestimated Hitler,then they underestimated Stalin.
Michal - | 1,865  
31 Dec 2007 /  #273
er Hitler conquored France his aim turned towards Britian had he won the battle of the air he would have invaded us and who knows what would have happened after that. As it was our superior Navy power and air force forefronted by the Spitfire and Hurricane somewhat spolied his plans. As a result he then made up some story of the whole battle being a big disguise for the real battle which was operation barbarossa " the invasion of Russia ".

No, this is rubbish. Hitler hated communism and the Jew and his move eastwards was almost forefront in his mind. It was England that declared war on him, otherwise, he would have moved eastwards two years earlier. He would not have come in to France, Belgium and England at all. As far as I can see it, England's move, declaration of war, was totally negative. Hitler would have got rid of communism and freed Eastern Europe in one foul swoop. As Hitler himself said, 'once we have achieved our objectives, who will question our methods?'
freebird 3 | 532  
31 Dec 2007 /  #274
ultimatums are like farts

you're right about that
Seanus 15 | 19,706  
31 Dec 2007 /  #275
I'm proud of what the British forces did but, objectively, I don't think the British air force was superior in firepower terms than the Luftwaffe. We just fought better strategically!!
joepilsudski 26 | 1,389  
31 Dec 2007 /  #276
1.Aryans(Germans,English,Dutch.Skandinavians).The French were also Aryans but in decadence since they had mixed in some percent with negroes

The concept of an "Aryan' race developed with the popularity of Theosophy, an occult
'religious & philosophical' system popularized by Madame Helena Petrova Blavatsky, a
'Russian' of mixed ethnic heritage, in the late 19th Century...very popular in 'enlightened' circles in Britain & Germany...there is no such creature as an 'Aryan' race...the Jewish issue with the nazis is very, very peculiar, since many top nazis were

at least part-Jewish, including Hitler, Eichmann, Heydrich, Hess and many more...this is
one of the best kept 'secrets' of WWII, and was one of the reasons the Israelis went after Eichmann, who was Jewish, and who co-ordinated secret relations/deals between the nazis and zionists...the Slav angle is widely mentioned, but I need to investigate this more and see if there is more to it...after all, Hitler and Pilsudski had at least some

kind of understanding, and it wasn't until Beck and his boys got in that relations between Germany & Poland really went in the toilet...many people forget that there was a large massacre of Germans supposedly commited by Poles in the Danzig corridor right before the attack in September 1939...what was the background on this massacre?
isthatu 3 | 1,164  
31 Dec 2007 /  #277
Eichmann, who was Jewish, and who co-ordinated secret relations/deals between the nazis and zionists

These are hardly secret,it was and is well known that one of eichmens pre war responsobilities was to filch as much cash from the jewish community as possible,one way he did this was by "selling" the right of jews to get to palastine using zionist groups to smuggle them in. This is not a hidden conspiricy but well documented history.

many people forget that there was a large massacre of Germans supposedly commited by Poles in the Danzig corridor right before the attack in September 1939...what was the background on this massacre?

Most people know this took place right AFTER the german invasion and involved fifth column germans being rounded up and executed by Polish militia with one or two dozen out and out murders thrown in,in light of the situation to be expected.
Seanus 15 | 19,706  
31 Dec 2007 /  #278
Eichmann just chose the wrong country to escape to under his pseudonym. Argentina, hmm...Afghanistan has proven to be an effective hiding place, LOL
isthatu 3 | 1,164  
31 Dec 2007 /  #279
He chose exactly the right country,1946,Argentina finaly turns totaly fascist under Peron and his w h ore Evita,the morel of the story is,dont screw with Mossad :)
Seanus 15 | 19,706  
31 Dec 2007 /  #280
Back to the thread, it's almost like the poster is trying to get the Poles to acknowledge that we did them a favour. British sees imperialist agendas clearly, we didn't enter to save Poland.
isthatu 3 | 1,164  
31 Dec 2007 /  #281
The argument being that most Poles seem to think "we" owe them something and cant acknowladge the simple fact that Britain got dragged into a war "we" could have easily avoided and in the process lost pretty much everything "we" had built up over 300 years only because we had a treaty with Poland to declare war on Germany if it invaded.

It goes round and round but the obviuos points such as the red army being in occupation at the time seem to elude some.And frankly, there is now way to tell these people otherwise,deny as they might the stories are those they or their parents were weened on by the commies.
janekb - | 57  
11 Mar 2008 /  #282
Throughout the history treaties were broken let and right, after all: "Countries do not have honor, people do". Some of this obligations are fulfilled, but only when there is mutual benefit. I think that France and Britain showed XIX century chivalry by declaring war against Germany as they were unprepared. Germans will invade France regardless of France declaration of war. They will attempt to talk with Britain, it is possible that under pressure UK will form some kind of fascist government and negotiate some kind of an agreement. US will not enter European war. Germans will attack USSR and consequently we will have united Russian speaking Europe.

The tragedy was that Polish London government did not realized that the world changed. Now the two victorious powers USSR and USA, were making new rules. France and UK presence at the table was only a gesture. The new rule was pragmatism, no friends only interests. Poland had nothing to offer and presented no threat. Brits were quite nice to the Poles and let them stay in the UK (it was impoverished country then, it was a real burden and they could send them back to Poland). It was silliness of Polish gov. to insist sending Poles to fight instead of preserving lives. They were hoping that cannon fodder will give them some bargaining power (in some way it did as they carved quite comfortable lives for themselves in the UK).
celinski 31 | 1,258  
11 Mar 2008 /  #283
Ya right a thumb war.
Kilkline 1 | 689  
11 Mar 2008 /  #284
Sometimes this whole argument seems to highlight the differing mentalities of Poles and others, or at least Brits.
I think that Poles have a mentality of accepting 'glorious failure' as a permissable outcome to a conflict. Its in some ways admirable as it shows a strong moral code however Britain has always been a bit more 'flexible' in its morality when it comes to victory. Its like our football team- not pretty to watch, often second best, but can often scrape a win against the run of play.
tornado2007 11 | 2,274  
11 Mar 2008 /  #285
I hope the poster was trying to be positive about the UK and its motives etc for declaring war on Germany to help Poland.

What a lot of people say 'ow the brits didn't help the poles out in ww2' is wrong, it wasn't that at all, the fact is the Brits couldn't help the Polish, political stuff was useless against the German war machine. My main point however is that we could not Physically get ourselves there to help the Poles without getting through Germany first. The main problem would have been placement of troops, where the hell were we going to land them, drop them so that they could assist the good poles in defending their nation.

Secondly we didn't have any bombers or airoplanes at that time that could fly from Britain, to Poland, do what ever they needed to do and get back, the fuel tanks just were not big enough in the 193/40's. THis dosen't even inlcude the fact that the planes would have had to fly through countless amounts of flack and air defencese just to reach the Polish border in the first place. 3/4 members of RAF Bomber command were killed during the war and most of them between Britain and Holland not even counting Germnay itself.

If somebody said to me 'the british were useless when it came to helping the poles' firstly i would think they were stupid and secondly i would tell them it was physically and military impossible to do so.

just my 10 pence worth :)

T
JuliePotocka 5 | 188  
11 Mar 2008 /  #286
I feel that England meant to save Poland, as did America and others...but in the end, we all failed her, when we allowed Russia to invade and possess Poland. All that fighting, death, for what? The war was won, but the FIGHT WAS LOST!
EbonyandBathory 5 | 249  
11 Mar 2008 /  #287
i would tell them it was physically and military impossible to do so.

Well, Poles didn't seem to have much trouble fighting for Britian all during World War II. There were many Polish squadrons that fought for Britain and in Britain, as well as Polish troops that fought for other countries. Listen, I'm not knocking England but to say that the UK did Poland a big favor by declaring war on Germany is a bit much. It's arguments like this that tear me up:

The argument being that most Poles seem to think "we" owe them something and cant acknowladge the simple fact that Britain got dragged into a war "we" could have easily avoided and in the process lost pretty much everything "we" had built up over 300 years only because we had a treaty with Poland to declare war on Germany if it invaded.

Oh, I'm so sorry to inconveinance you while Poland was getting systemically destroyed from both East and West. How terrible for us to have "dragged" Britain into this war that saw one out of every 5 Poles killed. How selfish of us. Look, I'm American and the USA did just as bad a job of letting an ally fight for herself against two superpowers, and tornado, all those points you mentioned are valid. I don't blame England for not wanting to take on Germany, Poland didn't want to either. I mean, in the end, we were all fighting on the same side, but I don't want to be told that the great Western liberators kept Poland afloat when they didn't. All those paper leaflets during the Warsaw Rising did us a heap of good, thanks.
celinski 31 | 1,258  
11 Mar 2008 /  #288
Why say there was an aggreement if Brits never intended to keep their word. The guns fell silent. Why so they could hear Poland being slautered. Britian never so much as tried or had any intention to,this was just there way IMO of assuring Poland did not join Germany and head toward them together. Mind you that just MO
Piorun - | 658  
11 Mar 2008 /  #289
Declaring a war to save Poland as you put it is not an honest representation of the events that have transpired at that time. Many arguments represented here are valid but they just defend the position taken by British government at that time. The simple truth is that for the Germany, (Poland as the weakest country in Europe at that time, in existence for only twenty years with outdated army and already weaken by military conflict between Soviet Russia and Poland) was just a proving ground for the capability of their army, tactics and testing of political waters sort of speak. All the powers of Europe at that time were reluctant to be involved in any major war including the Germany itself.

Emboldened by the weak politics of the western powers (read Czechoslovakia) the next logical step for the expansion was Poland. Not sure what the reaction would be on the part of the western powers they have obtained security in the east by signing Ribbentrop –Molotov pact. The decisive factor in all of this mass was on 12th of September 1939 in Abbeville, a conference in which France and the United Kingdom decided not to help Poland in its fight against Germany. (This is what we mean by saying that Poland was betrayed by France and United Kingdom). This is what have convinced Stalin to move on Poland a week later, not the “Ribbentrop –Molotov pact” and showed the Germany that west is weak and divided. Only a strong political pressure combined with some sort of military action could have changed the course of history as we know it.

Be it as it may, Germany drew a correct assessment of the political situation and the state of western powers (hence the war in the west) and the rest is history.
janekb - | 57  
6 May 2008 /  #290
Would you read "Mein Kampf" Hitler did not plan to attack GB. He was sure that example of power and ability of his Fascist organization will convince British to elect their own Fascist government. Consequently US will became Fascist as well, and after conquering Soviets the whole world will be united. One can say the Europe had a chance to be truly integrated 60 years sooner (common language will be German, I probably will be working in some coal mine if lucky). The problem was Churchill and his ego.

Britain won the war, but it was devastated country with huge debts, disintegrating empire, social unrest, and demobilized millions who expected big social changes. At that time Britain had no abilities to help anyone. It was a great sacrifice on their part to treat decently demobilized Poles.

We should not forget that Poland annexed part of Czechoslovakia when Germans attacked it in 1938.

Archives - 2005-2009 / History / WW2: Britain Declares War on Germany to Save PolandArchived