# Why did England and France declare war on Germany?



## elvis (Dec 31, 2008)

I know, they made a war guarantee to Poland, but why?  Picture this.....

the US makes a war guarantee to Nicaragua should it be attacked by El Salvador.  El Salvador attacks Nicaragua, the US declares war on El Salvador, and in return, El Salvador bombards New York City (London) for days and days in a row.  That doesn't seem worth it to me.  Why was it worth it for England?


----------



## Diuretic (Dec 31, 2008)

You make a treaty, you stick to it.  Besides, they knew what Hitler was up to - _lebensraum_ - a Greater Europe under German control.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Dec 31, 2008)

Hitler broke many treaties and basically fought two wars prior to Poland. While Austria was not a shooting war, it was a war none the less. The Nazis managed with key assassinations and pressure politically to absorb Austria and then after forcing Britain and France to Cave on Czecheslovakia the two Nations stood by while the Nazis over ran that Country too.

Hitler broke the terms of the treaty that ended WW1, he rearmed and reequiped his Army, created an Air Force ( with the Soviets aid, they trained his pilots) He increased the military way past the terms of the treaty as well. Then to start the ball rolling he invade Alsac Lorriane and the French retreated, so no shooting there.

Unknown to the French, Hitler ordered his Military to retreat back to Germany if the French put up any resistance, he was not ready for a shooting war.

Poland was the final Straw. And then France and Britain fucked that up with the fake war from September 39 until April 40. Hitler had stripped the Western Armies to invade Poland. He had no real Divisions on the western front at all. They were reserves and  cadre of Divisions. All his armor and most of his Air Force was also on the Poland Campaign. His Navy was a joke compared to the British. And I believe he only had 39 Submarines in 1939. And most of those were old models.


----------



## elvis (Dec 31, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Hitler broke many treaties and basically fought two wars prior to Poland. While Austria was not a shooting war, it was a war none the less. The Nazis managed with key assassinations and pressure politically to absorb Austria and then after forcing Britain and France to Cave on Czecheslovakia the two Nations stood by while the Nazis over ran that Country too.
> 
> Hitler broke the terms of the treaty that ended WW1, he rearmed and reequiped his Army, created an Air Force ( with the Soviets aid, they trained his pilots) He increased the military way past the terms of the treaty as well. Then to start the ball rolling he invade Alsac Lorriane and the French retreated, so no shooting there.
> 
> ...



His navy was a joke because he didn't want a war with Britain.  What German agreed to the Versailles Treaty?  That was the worst treaty ever written, and was responsible for WW2, in my opinion.  I believe it was the Rheinland- Falz the Germans were supposed to stay out of  and the French did not send divisions into.  Alsace-Lorraine was taken back by France in 1918 (after Germany took it from France in 1871).  
Why did the Allies give Danzig to Poland?  didn't that give the Germans a reason to want to attack?


----------



## Epsilon Delta (Dec 31, 2008)

Well, first he took Austria. Then he took Czechoslovakia. Then he took Poland. 

I guess the British and the French started to think "Hmmm... well, he's getting awful close to running out of places to take".


----------



## tigerbob (Dec 31, 2008)

elvis3577 said:


> His navy was a joke because he didn't want a war with Britain.  What German agreed to the Versailles Treaty?  That was the worst treaty ever written, and was responsible for WW2, in my opinion.  I believe it was the Rheinland- Falz the Germans were supposed to stay out of  and the French did not send divisions into.  Alsace-Lorraine was taken back by France in 1918 (after Germany took it from France in 1871).
> Why did the Allies give Danzig to Poland?  didn't that give the Germans a reason to want to attack?



Britain didn't want war in 1938.  It wasn't ready for war.  If you have a mooch through Churchill's "The Wilderness Years" you will notice that, while Churchill had been warning for years about Hitler and the gathering pace of German rearmament, successive British Prime Ministers (Baldwin and Chamberlain) did all they could to ignore German rearmament and hope it went away.  Finally, when it was too big to ignore, they tried to cover it up.  When it was too big to be covered, they tried to appease it - anything in fact but take it on militarily.

Hitler for his part wanted an alliance with Britain. He believed that the British and German nations were kindred spirits and that Britain could be relied upon to stand by and let Germany do as it pleased, or even to be the Third Reich's military ally.  There were many Nazi sympathizers in Britain at that time, some of whom had huge influence politically - such as Unity and Diana Mitford, Oswald Mosley and Lord Rothermere (proprietor of the Daily Mail).

Danzig was given to Poland to provide the Polish state with access to the sea.  That said, it was almost completely a German city, and remained an independent 'country within a country', supposedly under the auspices of the League of Nations (ROFL).  The Polish Corridor also separated Germany from Prussia (very pro German).  Most of Poland's imports and exports were seaborne and Poland had applied pressure for sea access - without it, Poland would have been trade-reliant on Germany.  It was first suggested in Woodrow Wilson's 14 points.  Bizarrely, the 14 points was a speech addressed to a purely American audience as a bit of PR, and ended up becoming allied policy at the end of WWI.  In answer to your question, I have no idea why the allies accepted it.  But then again, the idea of America dabbling in areas of foreign policy it does not understand is nothing new (although perhaps it was new 90 years ago).

Britain should have stood up to Hitler when Czechoslovakia was invaded, but Chamberlain returned from Munich with a handful of worthless guarantees which served only to allow Hitler to consolidate and negotiate a non aggression pact with Russia.  It might be fair to say, however, that if Britain had gone to war in 1938 it would have been beaten in double quick time, if judged on the 'success' of the British Expeditionary Force a year later.

Even then, if Hitler had launched Operation Sealion after Dunkirk, there are few in Britain who believe the result would have been anything but the over-running and defeat of Britain within a matter of months (the intention is believed to have been to cut off and besiege London), leaving Hitler free to concentrate fully on Barbarossa.  Had this happened, Germany would have had pretty much complete control of Western Europe 18 months before the US entered the war, in which case I doubt the US would have entered the war in Europe at all, as there would have been little or no Europe left to fight for.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Dec 31, 2008)

Sea Lion was a farce. Germany could not mount it or pull it off while Britain had a fleet or air Force. The troops would have been ferried to England aboard RIVER Barges. Towed by something. Slow, ponderous and easily sunk. Assuming they managed to reach England they did not have the means to supply the Invasion force either. Again the British would have simply cut the sea link and the German forces would have withered on the vine.

The Germans did not have an effective air presence that could engage naval forces and drive them out of the channel. They could not protect the invasion force from air attack either.

As for the US, You are aware we NEVER ratified the Peace Terms from WW1? Technically we remained at war with Germany until the end of WW2. Wilson did not agree with the treaty as it was written and warned that it would just cause problems in the future.


----------



## tigerbob (Dec 31, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Sea Lion was a farce. Germany could not mount it or pull it off while Britain had a fleet or air Force. The troops would have been ferried to England aboard RIVER Barges. Towed by something. Slow, ponderous and easily sunk. Assuming they managed to reach England they did not have the means to supply the Invasion force either. Again the British would have simply cut the sea link and the German forces would have withered on the vine.  Agree, but had Hitler not switched to bombing London rather than bombing Fighter Command's airbases that would have been the end of the RAF.  Without air cover, the Navy would have been hard pressed to keep the channel under control, as you indeed go on to say.
> 
> The Germans did not have an effective air presence that could engage naval forces and drive them out of the channel. They could not protect the invasion force from air attack either.
> 
> As for the US, You are aware we NEVER ratified the Peace Terms from WW1? Technically we remained at war with Germany until the end of WW2. Wilson did not agree with the treaty as it was written and warned that it would just cause problems in the future. Yes, I did know that, though to be honest I never really understood why.  I must look it up sometime.



Comments added in red.


----------



## del (Jan 1, 2009)

tigerbob said:


> Comments added in red.



i never understood why the luftwaffe didn't go after the radar installations in SW england. they gave the brits a huge advantage.


----------



## tigerbob (Jan 1, 2009)

del said:


> i never understood why the luftwaffe didn't go after the radar installations in SW england. they gave the brits a huge advantage.



So legend has it, a German bomber, somewhat lost on a cloudy night, dropped it's stack of bombs on London by mistake.  This gave Churchill the chance he was looking for - to bomb Berlin in retaliation.  This calculated risk paid off.  Hitler, not known for his calm demeanor, reacted by promising the German people that he would obliterate London.  Thereafter, much of German bombing targeted London, which meant the RAF had time to repair cratered airfields and damaged radar installations.  Effectively, Churchill traded the lives of Londoners for maintaining air supremacy.  Interestingly, this policy is also what led to my mother getting her ears pierced, but that's another story.

Londoners had mixed feelings about this.  There is evidence that some resented being used as bait.  On the othr hand, there is a story about Churchill visiting the east end of London and being distraught at the destruction he saw, but had his resolve redoubled when a chirpy cockney voice shouted out "Don't worry Winston - we can take it!"

Then of course there is the other story about why the RAF always knew where German raids were headed.  Any British pilot shot down was supposed to tell interrogators that the RAF force fed it's pilots carrots, since they aided night vision.


----------



## Annie (Jan 1, 2009)

tigerbob said:


> Comments added in red.



Actually Wilson tried to get the Senate to ratify The Treaty of Versailles, they wouldn't, he wouldn't go along with their proposed reservations, thus no approval and no League of Nations.


----------



## mightypeon (Jan 1, 2009)

On a sidenote regarding Versailles, when Germany offered negotiations, they (mistakenly) thought that the "peace treaty" would have something to do with the 14 points of Wilson, obviously it did not. This added to the German outrage regarding Versailles.


----------



## mightypeon (Jan 1, 2009)

The Luftwaffe for some reason hugely underestimated the effects of the Radar, may have something to do with the Luftwaffes head, Goering was not really known for his military skills.


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 1, 2009)

tigerbob said:


> Comments added in red.


because it was too punitive and would not work
Wilson had his faults in the domestic issues, but he knew foriegn policy
the Senate was too isolationist at that time also


----------



## Xenophon (Jan 1, 2009)

Essentially because they allowed czechoslovakia to be destroyed without consulting the czechs.

BTW, it wasn't worth it for either, they lost their empires because of it.


----------



## tigerbob (Jan 1, 2009)

Xenophon said:


> Essentially because they allowed czechoslovakia to be destroyed without consulting the czechs.
> 
> BTW, it wasn't worth it for either, they lost their empires because of it.



Depends how you define not worth it.  Empires were becoming a thing of the past anyway.  If Britain had not belatedly stood up to Hitler simply to protect it's fast fading 'empire', it would have been a national disgrace.  As it turned out, it ended the empire and bankrupted Britain, but it was still the right thing to do.

In fact, Britain only finished paying back the US a couple years ago....

Britain pays 1945 war debt - Times Online


----------



## Orange_Juice (Jan 4, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Sea Lion was a farce. Germany could not mount it or pull it off while Britain had a fleet or air Force. The troops would have been ferried to England aboard RIVER Barges. Towed by something. Slow, ponderous and easily sunk. Assuming they managed to reach England they did not have the means to supply the Invasion force either. Again the British would have simply cut the sea link and the German forces would have withered on the vine.
> 
> The Germans did not have an effective air presence that could engage naval forces and drive them out of the channel. They could not protect the invasion force from air attack either.
> 
> As for the US, You are aware we NEVER ratified the Peace Terms from WW1? *Technically we remained at war with Germany until the end of WW2.* Wilson did not agree with the treaty as it was written and warned that it would just cause problems in the future.



No. We actually signed a seperate treaty with Germany and were not at war with them in the pre-war period


----------



## Orange_Juice (Jan 4, 2009)

England and France did not want war, but Germany was a bigger country than either of those two and was basically looking to repeat WW1. Germany had to be contained, they felt, so they made a treaty with Poland. What they should have done was make a treaty with the Soviet Union and Hitler would have been in a fix. But the Conservatives in England and France hated that idea so Stalin made a treaty with Hitler over Poland.


----------



## Munin (Jan 8, 2009)

Diuretic said:


> You make a treaty, you stick to it.  Besides, they knew what Hitler was up to - _lebensraum_ - a Greater Europe under German control.



No they didn't knew what he was up to (the official governments at the time), because otherwise they would have stopped him when he broke the first of the rules he had to abide by (debt of WWI) and he never would have gotten as far as he did (because his military wasn't up for the Job at that time). Only Churchill and a couple of other people who were not in power to prevent it knew he was up to no good. He played the French and the English until he attacked poland.


----------



## Munin (Jan 8, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> I know, they made a war guarantee to Poland, but why?  Picture this.....
> 
> the US makes a war guarantee to Nicaragua should it be attacked by El Salvador.  El Salvador attacks Nicaragua, the US declares war on El Salvador, and in return, El Salvador bombards New York City (London) for days and days in a row.  That doesn't seem worth it to me.  Why was it worth it for England?



It was not just a war guarantee, it was a military alliance (like NATO) that Poland joined in on. 

Why it was worth it for England: probably better relations with that Nation, leading to a higher trade and favorable trade agreements and not to forget: a stronger alliance (Poland fielded the third biggest army among the European Allies, after the Soviet Union and Great Britain, but before France). At that time Germany was believed to be defeated from WWI and not capable of ever waging war again (huge debt and economic problems: people were starving from hunger), so the British government initially never saw Germany as a threat to them.


----------



## tigerbob (Jan 8, 2009)

Munin said:


> No they didn't knew what he was up to (the official governments at the time), because otherwise they would have stopped him when he broke the first of the rules he had to abide by (debt of WWI) and he never would have gotten as far as he did (because his military wasn't up for the Job at that time). Only Churchill and a couple of other people who were not in power to prevent it knew he was up to no good. He played the French and the English until he attacked poland.





That is completely untrue.

The British Government knew that massive German rearmament was taking place as much as 4 or 5 years before the war started.


----------



## Diuretic (Jan 9, 2009)

I know this thread is about facts and not opinions, which is good.  I know also that I don't know a lot about the facts, which is bad.  But I'll try and keep my comments as objective as possible and not descend into opinioneering.

I seem to remember seeing a tv programme - many years ago now - which suggested that the Germans disguised their militarisation by - the example I'm thinking of relates to pilot training for the _Luftwaffe _- hiding it under civil cover, in my example men (yes I know the Germans used female test pilots for their rocket aircraft) being trained as pilots in gliders and in civil aircraft to prepare them for military service.


----------



## Munin (Jan 9, 2009)

tigerbob said:


> That is completely untrue.
> 
> The British Government knew that massive German rearmament was taking place as much as 4 or 5 years before the war started.



Yes but their diplomats were fooled by the Hitler and his intentions, normally Hitler would have been stopped if the British and the French would have sticked by the rules they ordered Germany to abide by after WWI. Germany was forbidden to have a big army, the Germans were forced to give away land and income. Hitler broke all those rules because he fooled the diplomats and allied governments (France and England) that were engaging him for peace talks. The fact that Hitler was able to break almost all those rules proves that the allied were fooled.


----------



## Xenophon (Jan 9, 2009)

Diuretic said:


> I know this thread is about facts and not opinions, which is good.  I know also that I don't know a lot about the facts, which is bad.  But I'll try and keep my comments as objective as possible and not descend into opinioneering.
> 
> I seem to remember seeing a tv programme - many years ago now - which suggested that the Germans disguised their militarisation by - the example I'm thinking of relates to pilot training for the _Luftwaffe _- hiding it under civil cover, in my example men (yes I know the Germans used female test pilots for their rocket aircraft) being trained as pilots in gliders and in civil aircraft to prepare them for military service.


By treaty Germany was not allowed Tanks or aircraft after WWI.

To train on such weapons Germany found ways around this, ironically by leasing areas in the Soviet Union to train with such weapons.

Another ruse was 'duel use' aircraft, transport and mail planes that could be converted into bombers (the Ju 52 and Do 17 are examples of this).

Hitler openly began arming in 1936 and these ruses ceased by that time.


----------



## mightypeon (Jan 9, 2009)

Especially Britain had a sentiment that the Versailles Treaty was unfair, apart from that, they were not that worried about Germany building Tanks. If the Germans would have built aircraft carriers...
Germany also argued that a weak Germany would become food for the Soviet Union, the only nation that actually tried to enforce German disarmament was France.


----------



## elvis (Jan 9, 2009)

mightypeon said:


> Especially Britain had a sentiment that the Versailles Treaty was unfair, apart from that, they were not that worried about Germany building Tanks. If the Germans would have built aircraft carriers...
> Germany also argued that a weak Germany would become food for the Soviet Union, the only nation that actually tried to enforce German disarmament was France.



Why didn't France send divisions into the Rheinland (which would have made Hitler withdraw) when Germany broke that part of the Versailles Treaty?


----------



## elvis (Jan 9, 2009)

Munin said:


> It was not just a war guarantee, it was a military alliance (like NATO) that Poland joined in on.
> 
> Why it was worth it for England: probably better relations with that Nation, leading to a higher trade and favorable trade agreements and not to forget: a stronger alliance (Poland fielded the third biggest army among the European Allies, after the Soviet Union and Great Britain, but before France). At that time Germany was believed to be defeated from WWI and not capable of ever waging war again (huge debt and economic problems: people were starving from hunger), so the British government initially never saw Germany as a threat to them.



Poland thought they could repel the Germans.  After all, they defeated the Soviet Army in 1922 and took land from them (Is this what Stalin took back in 1939?)  I have heard different things regarding Chamberlain.  One is that after he was humiliated with the Munich situation, he said if Germany attacks Poland, we'll go to war with her.  But then I also heard that Goering said his intelligence told him Britain and France would do nothing if Germany invaded Poland.   I don't know which is correct.  I don't know how both could be correct.  
also, speaking of Poland, why does no one talk about Stalin taking the eastern section of Poland?  Could it be said Hitler AND Stalin started WW2.


----------



## tigerbob (Jan 9, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> Poland thought they could repel the Germans.  After all, they defeated the Soviet Army in 1922 and took land from them (Is this what Stalin took back in 1939?)  I have heard different things regarding Chamberlain.  One is that after he was humiliated with the Munich situation, he said if Germany attacks Poland, we'll go to war with her.  But then I also heard that Goering said his intelligence told him Britain and France would do nothing if Germany invaded Poland.   I don't know which is correct.  I don't know how both could be correct.
> also, speaking of Poland, why does no one talk about Stalin taking the eastern section of Poland?  Could it be said Hitler AND Stalin started WW2.



[youtube]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/XE-7wljw_50&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/XE-7wljw_50&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]

I suspect both are true.  Goering's intel was wrong.


----------



## Xenophon (Jan 9, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> Why didn't France send divisions into the Rheinland (which would have made Hitler withdraw) when Germany broke that part of the Versailles Treaty?


To understand that, you would have to understand how traumatic the first world war was for France in particular.

People in France didn't feel another such war was worth it simply to prevent the german from sending forces into the Rhineland.

France lacked the backbone, quite literally.


----------



## elvis (Jan 9, 2009)

Xenophon said:


> To understand that, you would have to understand how traumatic the first world war was for France in particular.
> 
> People in France didn't feel another such war was worth it simply to prevent the german from sending forces into the Rhineland.
> 
> France lacked the backbone, quite literally.



I wouldn't think it would be worth it for them to go to war over Poland.


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 9, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> Why didn't France send divisions into the Rheinland (which would have made Hitler withdraw) when Germany broke that part of the Versailles Treaty?


"the Maginot line will protect us"


thats not a direct quote, but that was the general opinion that they didn't need to because the Maginot line was impenetrable


----------



## tigerbob (Jan 9, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> "the Maginot line will protect us"
> 
> 
> thats not a direct quote, but that was the general opinion that they didn't need to because the Maginot line was impenetrable



Pride goes before a fall.


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 9, 2009)

tigerbob said:


> Pride goes before a fall.


it sure does


----------



## Xenophon (Jan 9, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> I wouldn't think it would be worth it for them to go to war over Poland.


France did not want to, the French premier begged Chamberlin for another alternative.

The problem was France felt if it renegged on it's pledge to poland nobody would ever trust it again, so they reluctantly agreed to war.

Also keep in mind the French did not expect to lose, they believed that a static defense line with mobile reserves could hold any attack, that is what they planned to do and what they tried to do.

Germany had other ideas.


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 9, 2009)

Xenophon said:


> France did not want to, the French premier begged Chamberlin for another alternative.
> 
> The problem was France felt if it renegged on it's pledge to poland nobody would ever trust it again, so they reluctantly agreed to war.
> 
> ...


they also never expected Germany to attack over the north of the line


----------



## Diuretic (Jan 9, 2009)

Xenophon said:


> By treaty Germany was not allowed Tanks or aircraft after WWI.
> 
> To train on such weapons Germany found ways around this, ironically by leasing areas in the Soviet Union to train with such weapons.
> 
> ...



Ah, thanks for the information, cunning buggers


----------



## Xenophon (Jan 9, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> they also never expected Germany to attack over the north of the line


In fact they did expect this, they had a counter plan, known as the 'Dyle plan' to advance into Belgium with the BEF and the motor reserves of the french army.

What was not expected was an attacked through the forrested Ardennes region, which they believed impassible _*if properly defended.*_

France sent a reserve Army to hold this area, not a regular formation (France had 2 kinds of forces, the Regular Army and the Reserves called up for war, these were older men with limited training who recieved old weapons and equipment from depots. Reserves were meant to hold quiet fronts and in static defenes while the regular army did the heavy work).

The speed of the German advance stunned the French, who expected the germans to at least bring up artillery to cross the Meuse, a major river obsticle, but Germany used dive bombers instead of artlierry and wreaked havoc on the untrained and poorly led reserve troops.


----------



## tigerbob (Jan 9, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> they also never expected Germany to attack over the north of the line



Actually, they did.  One of the key goals of Maginot was to make a frontal assault so costly as to convince the attacker to focus elsewhere - specifically, to attack Belgium instead!

In addition, the line began construction before the idea of airborne assault was recognized as a viable military option.

Essentially, the Germans went around and over the Maginot Line, rather than through it.


----------



## Munin (Jan 10, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> also, speaking of Poland, why does no one talk about Stalin taking the eastern section of Poland?  Could it be said Hitler AND Stalin started WW2.



Yeah, but nobody declared war on the Soviet Union. In the agreement between the Soviets and the Nazis Eastern Poland was as a gift from the Germans towards the Russians, so Stalin would not declare a war in the near future (When Hitler needed its troops to attack the Netherlands, Belgium and France).

The French had good relations with the Russians, wich is why the Alliance didn't declare War on the Soviets (probably the best because they seemed to have had more then their hands full at fighting only with the Germans).


----------



## Tech_Esq (Jan 12, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> I know, they made a war guarantee to Poland, but why?  Picture this.....
> 
> the US makes a war guarantee to Nicaragua should it be attacked by El Salvador.  El Salvador attacks Nicaragua, the US declares war on El Salvador, and in return, El Salvador bombards New York City (London) for days and days in a row.  That doesn't seem worth it to me.  Why was it worth it for England?



It's complex, so don't look for an easy answer here. There isn't one reason to point to. 

Militarily, a complex series of treaties were entered into by the Western Powers (England and France) and the countries in the East the Czechs and Poles especially. These countries were weaker and did not have the armies, or ability to raise one, that the French and British did. Therefore, defense of the east was a combined affair with much depending on pre-built fortifications and all countries being in the fight. Several things happened to upset this theory. First, France and Britain failed to sign up the Soviets to the their defense alliance. The Soviets feared that the Allies would trade Russian blood for time. Instead, the Soviets signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact with Germany which lasted until June 1941. Second, the territorial manoeuvrings of Hitler prior to the war outflanked the shaky eastern defense system. By taking Austria, Hitler outflanked Czechoslovakia.  By taking the Sudetenland, Germany bypassed all of the pre-built Czech defenses. The remainder of Czechoslovakia was laid open and defenseless. This basically put Poland in the position that it was surrounded on 3 sides. Germany on one side, East Prussia on another and Czechoslovakia on the third.

Politically, there were both internal and external politics at work. Neither the British or the French had the stomach to face down Germany over remilitarizing the Rhineland in 1936. This may have been a late facing up to the unfairness of the Treaty of Versailles, but in any case there was no appetite to have a military confrontation even with a weak Germany. With foreign policy choices of Chamberlain and Daladier definitely focused on avoidance of war at all costs. Shamefully, they sold out the Czechs when they weren't even invited to the meeting. 

Having said all that, it was a very near thing that the Poles did not get sold out as well. If the Polish colonels were of a less intransigent nature, the Brits and French would have imposed on them to cave as well. (Hitler's greatest fear at that point).


----------



## Tech_Esq (Jan 12, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> they also never expected Germany to attack over the north of the line



I wouldn't say that. That's exactly what von Schliffen did in the first world war so it was hardly unexpected. What was unexpected was to launch a tank army from out of the Ardennes .


----------



## editec (Jan 12, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> I know, they made a war guarantee to Poland, but why? Picture this.....
> 
> the US makes a war guarantee to Nicaragua should it be attacked by El Salvador. El Salvador attacks Nicaragua, the US declares war on El Salvador, and in return, El Salvador bombards New York City (London) for days and days in a row. That doesn't seem worth it to me. Why was it worth it for England?


 
The question shouldn't be why did they declare war on Germany, the real question should be why did they wait so long?


The answer is mostly because they couldn't afford (or didn't want to spend the money at that time) defending the rest of Europe from the Hun.


----------



## tigerbob (Jan 12, 2009)

editec said:


> The question shouldn't be why did they declare war on Germany, the real question should be why did they wait so long?
> 
> 
> The answer is mostly because they couldn't afford (or didn't want to spend the money at that time) defending the rest of Europe from the Hun.



That's what it all came down to.  Britain was well aware that taking on Germany, which by 1937 was militarily (certainly in land and air forces, if not naval) much stronger than Britain, would be a catastrophe militarily, economically and in terms of Britain's influence in the world.

And so it proved.  

Britain ended World War 2 in ruins, and was only saved from bankruptcy by a multi billion dollar loan, the last installment of which was repaid a couple of years ago (I posted a link on this a few days ago, but can't find it at present).  As a trading nation, Britain imported the vast majority of its foodstuffs.  Since Britain had nearly been starved into submission in WW1, rationing during WW2 began early in 1940, to ensure that supplies would not become critically low during wartime.  When the war ended, Britain also had to feed those parts of continental Europe that fell under its control, meaning that rations in the UK were even stricter after 1945.  Rationing in the UK finally ended about 10 years after the war did.

The British Empire remained, but in name only.  After WW2, Britain began the process of acquiescing to the slow break up of the Empire, which by that time was an anachronism anyway.  This breakup wounded British pride enormously, but in the long term was arguably less costly than attempting to keep the empire together by means of force (France is a good representation of the other side of the coin).  At the beginning of WW2, there were 700 million people under British rule.  By the time I was born in the mid sixties, I believe only Hong Kong remained and that, of course, was repatriated to China 10 years ago.

In terms of influence, Britain had been regarded as a global power for around 400 years and from 1700 to 1900 was arguably the pre-eminent global power.  Today, Britain is one of 5 nations with a permanent seat on the UN Security Council (the others being the USA, Russia, China and France), but while Britain still has a degree of influence, it can no longer be said to be in the first tier.

That is why Britain let the invasion of Czechoslovakia slide.  That is why Chamberlain placated Hitler at Munich.  And that is why it was only with the greatest reluctance that Britain finally decided that Poland was a case of "this far, but no further".  

It was clearly understood that war with Germany would mean the end of the Britain that had existed for several hundred years.  And despite all the arguments he had made for rearmament from the mid 1930s onwards, nobody understood this better than Churchill.  As early as 1901, in his first term as an MP and at the age of just 26, he had made a speech in the House of Commons in which he attacked the expansion of the army as unneccesary to fight savages yet insufficient to fight Europeans:

_"A European war cannot be anything but a cruel, heartrending struggle, which, if we are ever to enjoy the bitter fruits of victory, must demand, perhaps for several years, the whole manhood of the nation, the entire suspension of peaceful industries, and the concentrating to one end of every vital energy in the community....a European war can only end in the ruin of the vanquished and the scarcely less fatal commercial dislocation and the exhaustion of the conquerors"._

Only 26 when he said that.  Quite a man.


----------



## Baruch Menachem (Jan 13, 2009)

Czechoslovakia was a real eye opener.  As was the Aunshlus.  (?)  Chamberlain came back with the Munich agreement and began re arming as fast as he could.  Which wasn't very fast as they had fallen so very far behind.

And France was even more unprepared.  And there was a huge 5th column in France in the form of the Communist party there.  Nazi-Soviet pact effectively meant that the Germans were already in the French rear.

Also, the French High Command was old and tired and no longer up to the necessity of feeding the youth of France into the sausage machine.  Petain, the goat of the last world war was the hero of the first one, at a huge cost.  He was the one who stopped the Germans at Verdun.  At a cost of 250,000 lives lost.

The Germans learned a lot from the last war.  Not the really important lesson, but lessons in tactics.  Plus they learned a lot from the Spanish Civil war.

Anyway, Poland was the several straws after the last one.   Something had to be done to stop Hitler.  It was already too late.


----------



## elvis (Jan 13, 2009)

Baruch Menachem said:


> Czechoslovakia was a real eye opener.  As was the Aunshlus.  (?)  Chamberlain came back with the Munich agreement and began re arming as fast as he could.  Which wasn't very fast as they had fallen so very far behind.
> 
> And France was even more unprepared.  And there was a huge 5th column in France in the form of the Communist party there.  Nazi-Soviet pact effectively meant that the Germans were already in the French rear.
> 
> ...



Anschluss.

Good stuff. appreciated.


----------

