Author Topic: thank you allies ;) (Read 968 times)

Asmodan · « **Reply #30 on:** January 14, 2004, 03:50:28 AM »

There is one more problem:

Every country have diferent point of view on the same story...

Just like people...

If we have two sides of conflict - we will have two itnerpretacions of the same incident... and i think we should get use to it...

Regards
Asmo

bikekil · « **Reply #31 on:** January 14, 2004, 04:47:22 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Dowding
Declaring war on Hitler?

But you have to admin that declaring war and doing nothing to help is... worthless? I mean it's a kind of "mental support" like "yes. we are on your side but you have to deal with it alone"

For me it's kinda ironic.

Compared to Sobieski who could "declare" support and stay in Poland instead of going to Vienna.

Of course we had a bit of British and French support with creating a Polsh units on the French and British territory after Hitler took our land, but i'd say that we expected support while Hitler attacked not a year later

Now it's only a speculation i can have after reading few books, but IF GB and France attacked Hitler right after he attacked Poland (Poland who was an Allie right?) they could stop him with no major problems.
Allied countries decided to do nothing and almost paid the price once attacked later.

Just my poit of view.

Also we hare remember Napoleon as a preson who did A LOT of good for Poland. He was our "hero" also.

straffo · « **Reply #32 on:** January 14, 2004, 04:59:16 AM »

I disagree BK, france should have attacked Hitler as soon as 1936.

But not invading in September/october 1939 was a pretty weak strategy ...
Strategy explained by the incompetence of Brit/French HQ ,the organisation of the army plus a complete lack of creativity.

Dowding · « **Reply #33 on:** January 14, 2004, 05:13:50 AM »

Neither the government in France or Britain could have survived if they had chosen to pre-emptively attack Germany. There was just too much anti-war sentiment after the horrors of WW1. Also, many believed Hitler was actually righting a few historical wrongs in reuniting German speaking peoples and reversing the injustice of Versailles. The truth behind Hitler and Nazism only started to become apparent (or important) in the late 30s.

Bike killa, your use of hindsight might make interesting speculation but sadly, the politicians did not share that ability at the time. The truth is Poland simply was not important enough to risk a full scale confrontation if at all possible. Even after Poland was invaded, it was hoped war could be avoided.

bikekil · « **Reply #34 on:** January 14, 2004, 05:13:55 AM »

i hear ya

but hitler was not prepared for the War also. He assumed he can attack Poland and still have no problems with oyur armies. and he was right. That gave him time to learn from the Polish campaign and to move forces to the West once got us beaten.

bikekil · « **Reply #35 on:** January 14, 2004, 05:23:12 AM »

"The truth is Poland simply was not important enough to risk a full scale confrontation if at all possible. Even after Poland was invaded, it was hoped war could be avoided."

Yes Dowding. That is the whole point and that is why i'm sad about the so called" Alliance" that Poland had. Our country was as you just said "not important enought"... so your goverments decided to sacrifice Poland and let Hitler killing our people in the concentration camps then help the Ally... because the Ally was not important enought. Of course i'm sure if that would please Hitler Poland would never been free and Polish Allies would been happy in their homes.... that is sad.

thankfully for Sobieski Vienna was important enought

Dowding · « **Reply #36 on:** January 14, 2004, 05:27:45 AM »

Politics is a nasty business. That will never change.

bikekil · « **Reply #37 on:** January 14, 2004, 05:52:45 AM »

Very true

That's why it's about the politic actions not about people.

I'd risk saying that in a houndreds of years ago "word" that was given meant more then anything else. Now it's only a business for politicians but i believe it's still more or less different with the people.

Dowding · « **Reply #38 on:** January 14, 2004, 06:14:45 AM »

I'd say hundreds of years ago someone's word is as good as it today - i.e. not very reliable.

History is full of broken alliances, double dealing and betrayal. In fact, that is history.

culero · « **Reply #39 on:** January 14, 2004, 07:19:26 AM »

Nice discussion, all, thanks.

culero

Batz · « **Reply #40 on:** January 14, 2004, 07:27:31 AM »

France suffered in World War I more than any other Western combatant. Most of the fighting on the Western Front took place on French soil, and France suffered millions of casualties.

In the 1920’s and 1930’s the French had the largest army in the world. Much of their equipment was good, and they had large resources in their colonies upon which to draw. France did not lack the tools, only the will. The French people dreaded the possibility of another war.

As Germany made noises over the "Polish Corridor" to Danzig, Britain and France made guarantees to the Polish government. In the event of an attack, the West would come to the defense of Poland.

Neither the British nor the French were in a position to back up their guarantees. Hitler correctly anticipated the poor response by the English and French and issued the armed forces to be deployed for Fall Weiß. With the rapid advance of the German attack the Brits and French could not have come to Poland’s aid. Then the Soviets invaded.

Most of the French military doctrine was based on World War 1 and wasn't prepared to start an offensive. The question is could the west have done anything that could have scared Hitler into a different course of action. I don't think so, especially after his non-aggression pact with the Soviets.

Unfortunately, Poland was left on her own. But this was a result of years of appeasement toward Germany. Hindsight being 20/20 there’s any number of arguments one could make that could have avoided the whole mess to begin with.

straffo · « **Reply #41 on:** January 14, 2004, 07:28:45 AM »

Pretty good resumé Batz

Cerceuilvolant · « **Reply #42 on:** January 14, 2004, 10:51:57 AM »

Everything was based on USSR. Had this country allied with Britain & France in 1939, then Germany would have faced an attack on the West. All what the Allies wanted, was to share the casualties with the russians (of course more for the russians...).

If the Allies had attacked in September 1939 (the Saar mini-offensive aside), it would have accelerated their fall. After 10 days, the fate of Poland was certain. The time that France set up an offensive, these 10 days were spent.

The incomplete Siegfried line would have been enough to hold the Allies for 3 or 4 weeks, enough to let the Germans move their troops to the West.

With a long conflict right by 1939, the Allies would have been in a bad shape, because their industry was not already fully mobilized. In 1939, France had 2000 tanks. In May 1940, it had 3500 of them. Keep this in mind.

Poland paid the price of being between two hegemonic powers, Germany and USSR. Unfortunately, it didn't choose the lesser of the two evils by that time, by dating with USSR. A french-british-polish-romanian-russian alliance would have certainly more profitable to Poland. The Allies would have given their warranty to the Polish integrity (as according to the secret negociations, they only planned to shut their mouth when Stalin would invade the baltic states), and it would have probably fixed the Dantzig problem once for all by annexing the german enclave.

Boroda · « **Reply #43 on:** January 14, 2004, 01:50:13 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Cerceuilvolant
Everything was based on USSR. Had this country allied with Britain & France in 1939, then Germany would have faced an attack on the West. All what the Allies wanted, was to share the casualties with the russians (of course more for the russians...).

The alliance with UK and France was the thing USSR wanted badly.

The whole story of the UK-France-USSR negotiations in August, 1939, shows that "allies" didn't plan to military assist Poland. They have sent a mission that didn't have any plans or rights to sign treaties, so Voroshilov couldn't hide his indignation about this foolish game.

After the planned faliure of negotiations with "allies" USSR had no other option then to sign a pact with Germans and take it's part of Poland.

BK, thanks for a nice post! It's almost exactly what I think.

I can agree to some extent ewen with the opinion that we supported an agression against Poland in 1939, but I prefer to think that it was a nessesary decision. It could be pretty stupid not to take some land to secure our borders for the future war. Soviets were no angels or saints.

Another thing: IIRC in the end of XVII century Russia and Poland were allies against Sweden and Turkey. European politics was very complicated that time, with one usual thing: Europeans used Russia and Poland in their own purposes letting them die for some vague "allied" interests