You gotta be freakin kidding me....

[-tronski-]

Originally posted by bike killa

you kidding right? can you please tell me the exact day when Britain went to war? by that date i mean when Britain DID something, not TOLD THAT WILL DO.

Britain declared war Sunday, 3rd September 1939. Within hours of the announcement the first units of the BEF were shipping to France.
If your suggesting that the British sat  and procrastintated until forced into action, that is simply not true.

Poland's fate was sealed from the beginning. Perhaps if the Russians were part of a alliance with the French and British before September 1st then maybe Poland may have been saved, but they weren't and Poland fell after 4 weeks. The British could have never saved Poland, and infact as the campaigns in Norway, and Greece showed they would have never been able to supply, let alone provide the aircover needed for an expeditionary force in Poland.
The BEF, and French armies were wholey inadequate to force an early second front. On the 7th September 8 French divisions advanced into the region between the west wall, and the maginot line. The Saar offensive lasted until the end of September, the French suffering 27 causalties. Gamelin  commander of the French, then withdrew his forces back behind the Maginot line having no faith in the Polish army to keep the germans occupied and believing they were in fact facing 20 German divisions (instead of the 3 that were really there), prefering to keep his army behind the safety of the Maginot fortifications. Gamelin liked the idea of a "modern Somme" instead of the Blitzkreig that would follow in 1940.

 Tronsky

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by -tronski-
It is pretty safe to assume that even though the Dominion armies (Canada, New Zealand, Australia,and South Africa) were led by Dominion commanders that answered to their respective governments, that Dowdings statement of Britain was on her own also included these Dominion forces.

Tronsky

I disagree.  Regardless of the officer corp.  Canada, at least, wouldn't have been there if we chose not to be.  And the the only way that the Canadian force were Dominion force is in the sense that they came from the Dominion of Canada.  They were part of the Coomonwealth forces.  We went there out of choice, not because we owed fealty to Britain.

A comparison:  The CO of NATO is a position that rotates between officers of the member countries.  Lets hypothesise that the current CO is an officer from Germany.  Germany is attacked an NATO responds.  Can the Germans then say that they were alone, because the forces were commanded by a German?  Of course not.  

Britain was not alone.  Might be a nice image, but it simply wasn't the case.  Canada, as an indepenant country joined her.  Who had strategic over Canada's forces is a straw man.  The only reason those forces were there was because we CHOSE for them to be there.

[Soviet]

screw a world tax.   I don't care if it costs $0.01 I refuse to give up my money so some bastard in another country can have it.  I don't make money so someone else can have it.

Besides we already supply foreign aid to these countries when they need help.  Now the same people want to tax us? well screw them.

[mietla]

Originally posted by Soviet
screw a world tax.   I don't care if it costs $0.01 I refuse to give up my money so some bastard in another country can have it.  I don't make money so someone else can have it.

Besides we already supply foreign aid to these countries when they need help.  Now the same people want to tax us? well screw them.

Bingo, but...

When they rallied for the income tax in US they "assured" the public that it will never be paid by more than 1% of the population (like in "the rich guys only"), and thet it will never exceed 1% of the income (like in " insignificant and sure THEY can afford it)

And don't get me started on a so called "16-th  ammendment".

[-tronski-]

Originally posted by Thrawn


I disagree.  Regardless of the officer corp.  Canada, at least, wouldn't have been there if we chose not to be.  And the the only way that the Canadian force were Dominion force is in the sense that they came from the Dominion of Canada.  They were part of the Coomonwealth forces.  We went there out of choice, not because we owed fealty to Britain.

A comparison:  The CO of NATO is a position that rotates between officers of the member countries.  Lets hypothesise that the current CO is an officer from Germany.  Germany is attacked an NATO reGermans then say that they were sponds.  Can the Germans then say that they were alone, because the forces were commanded by a German?  Of course not.  

Britain was not alone.  Might be a nice image, but it simply wasn't the case.  Canada, as an indepenant country joined her.  Who had strategic over Canada's forces is a straw man.  The only reason those forces were there was because we CHOSE for them to be there.

You've missed my point entirely.

When the dominions declared war on Germany there was no formal treaty or agreement to do so. The South African parliment voted to commit to the war by a narrow margin, and only then as purely garrison troops.  So I am not debating at all the independance of the dominions. Only India was truly a member of the British Empre and was commited to the war by the then Viceroy.

My point was that given the independance to the Empire of the dominion troops, and that the Governments of those troops had given strict instructions that they were to be led by their own officers to maintain that independance as to insure that the reckless use of those soldiers would not be repeated in such slaughters as Passschendaele, Ypre, and Gallipoli. Dominion commanders could infact refer back to their own Prime ministers before committing to actions, Just as Blamey commander of the AIF wired his concerns over the commitment of Australian troops to the foolhardly Greek campaign, and waited for Prime Minister Menzies to consult with him before embarking.

That despite these differences, a generalisation such as "In 1941 Britain sttod alone"  it was quite obvious that Britain mean't Britain and her Dominions. Nato is a completely different situation compared to the British army in 1941.
e.g : The Eighth Army in the second battle of El-Alamein consisted units like: 4th Indian Division, 9th Australian Division, 2nd New Zealand Division, 1st South African Division, plus the 6-7 other English Divisions

But it is also correct to call it the British Eighth Army.

I am not debating the fact that Britain was alone, far from it. The middle east was Britain's primary theatre until 1944 and the ANZAC forces there were a primary component.
But it should be remembered that the term British is encompassing the whole  body of soldiery ,not excluding when used in context of that time period.

Tronsky

[Thrawn]

Gotcha tronski, I understand what you are saying now.  I can narrow down where I disagree now.  I don't believe Britain means her and her dominions.  I believe it referred to England, Scotland, Wales, Irland and India, at that time, because the other countries were independant states.

"reckless use of those soldiers would not be repeated in such slaughters as Passschendaele, Ypre, and Gallipoli. "

To bad it didn't work out that way, as Dieppe was the same crap all over again.

[bikekil]

i'm not saying that Poland had a chance to survive a strike from both sides (German and Russian). Our neighbours made a trade and shared us into 2 pieces, fortunatelly this deal didn't worked out for long. what i'm saying is - IF Hitler wouldn't attack France in '40 i don't believe that ANY of our allies would help us there... just like after the war... who slod us into Stalin slavery?
maybe nothing is strange in it, cuz we were poor and weak country (no surprise while we were fighting with Sovieta and Germans all the time) and it was worthless to save us from commies? no matter now.
sorry, i just don't believe with "declaring war" without any military actions... what's worth the ALIGNMENT when one of sides thinking "it's too dangerous to save you now buddy... maybe in a year or so" and drinking his tea in peace

[koala]

The Americans "sold out" the Czechs as much as the British did, and more so Poland because America didn't try to help. Why not accuse them of a sell out?

The American's weren't kissing Hitler's bellybutton at Munich.  They weren't part of Europe.  They weren't even in the hemisphere for crissake.  Yes in today's globalpolitik it's easy to question why the USA wasn't involved earlier, considering how today we get ourselves involved in every little skirmish throughout the world it seems.  But in 1938 Germany was in GB and France's back yard, not ours.  They could have stopped WWII and all of its horrors, but they didn't.  The appeasers "won", and the world lost.

Now if some country was threatening to invade Canada in 1938, I'm almost certain we wouldn't have stabbed her in the back.

But feel free to somehow make this an American issue.  It's the vogue thing to do today.

[Dowding]

Thrawn - Just for clarification, when I said Britain I did mean commonwealth forces, and was not speaking geographically. It really is as simple as that.

Mietla - if my comments were 'whiny', I believe you should re-read some of your own posts. By your own admittance you were talking bollocks just to make a point. Furthermore, I didn't sell anyone out. It seems strange to have to point this out to you, but I wasn't to be born until 40 years after Czechoslovakia was invaded. Fancy that!

koala - your comments merely state the obvious, as seen through the benefit of hindsight. But back in the late 1930's, with the horrors of WW1 still fresh in the minds of both French and British people you're damned right they'd do anything to avoid war - or at least buy time to prepare. Also, you'll find that America is in the same hemisphere as Europe. You do also realise that the Czechoslovakian land ceded to Germany in 1938 (the Sudetenland) was ethnically German and was part of the territory taken from Germany at Versailles? A treaty seen as unfair by many in Britain by 1938 - there was a definite feeling of 'rightful ownership' being finally restored. Perhaps they were naive to think Hitler would stop with the Sudetenland - but it wasn't a 'stab in the back', more a 'head in the sand'.

[Thrawn]

Me slow, me understand, when you say "Britain stood alone".  You mean Britain and the Commonwealth stood alone.  Me apologise.  Now I can turn off my brain cell.  

Seriously though, thanks for the clarification.

[koala]

Also, you'll find that America is in the same hemisphere as Europe.

Oops.  Okay, that point I'll concede

You do also realise that the Czechoslovakian land ceded to Germany in 1938 (the Sudetenland) was ethnically German and was part of the territory taken from Germany at Versailles?

Yes, and I suppose you realize that the Sudetenland provided the bulk of Chekoslovakia's natural land defenses?  And that having that occupied made the collapse of the rest of the country pretty much a foregone conclusion?

Perhaps they were naive to think Hitler would stop with the Sudetenland - but it wasn't a 'stab in the back', more a 'head in the sand'.

I think Chamberlain and company knew very well that they were pretty much sacrificing the Checs in the hopes that Hitler would be satisfied with that.  I call that a stab in the back.

[-tronski-]

Originally posted by Thrawn
"reckless use of those soldiers would not be repeated in such slaughters as Passschendaele, Ypre, and Gallipoli. "

To bad it didn't work out that way, as Dieppe was the same crap all over again.

 Well it is a sad fact that British High Command had a tendancy to use Aussie,Kiwi, and Canuck soldiers as "storm troops" rushing them all over theatre. Especially in the middle east, but I think perhaps its an indication of how generally superior the commonwealth soldier could be. Dominion formations suffered  proportionately higher casualties because they contained more front line soldiers, and less support troops.

The Americans "sold out" the Czechs as much as the British did

Following Dowdings line of thinking, I think it is completely unfair to pass any real blame to America when it comes to the appeasement of Hitler in the late  '30s. The US was truly concerned with her own affairs, and considered events in Europe ,an european affair. Polls in 1939, even after the invasion of Poland, were overwhelmingly in support of staying out of the war. Those opinions only really changed towards the middle of 1941 - but then only slowly.

It should be remembered how important context is, and how post war  American foriegn policy was light years in difference than pre-war.

I think Chamberlain and company knew very well that they were pretty much sacrificing the Checs in the hopes that Hitler would be satisfied with that. I call that a stab in the back.

Imo that is a true statement, Chamberlain probably did think , as Dowding previously posted, that to concede ethnic German parts of the Sudetenland was a resonable thing to do to satisfy Hitler, and more importantly stave off a war. At the time Britain was desperate not to fight WW1 again, and considering the price she paid it is not an unreasonable thing to try to do. But it was hardly a stab in the back.

Tronsky