Mate, there was entire diplomatic agreement in Yalta conference where the zone of post-war unflunces had been structly determined and agreed. Churchill and Rosewelt pretty admitted the will of Stalin in his demands over Poland - becouse both wanted to see Red Army , fighting with Japane later( yet there were another reasons as well). No one really cared about Poland in England- they more though about coming breakup of British Empire.
My point, exactly.
Realpolitik, rather than fair or reasonable or honourable treatment of the Poles by the Western Allies, who repaid the substantial Polish contribution from 1939 to 1945 to Allied victory by betraying them in the end because selfish Western interests outweighed any honour or duty to the poor bloody Poles who were the only nation outside Britain and its Commonwealth to fight the Nazis from the start to the end of WWII.
The Poles actually fought a longer war than Britain and its Commonwealth as they were in action from the start or, strictly, just before the start of WWII as Britain and its Commonwealth reacted to the Nazi invasion of Poland. Then the Phoney War saw no action by Britain even remotely equivalent to the Poles’ major action in September 1939 until about eight months later. So Poland was the only Allied nation which fought the European War from the first day, and was rewarded by being abandoned by its Western Allies at the end.
Compare Churchill’s agreement at Yalta which abandoned the Poles to Stalin to Churchill’s high minded speech in the House of Commons on 22 February 1944: “I took occasion to raise personally with Marshal Stalin the question of the future of Poland. I pointed out that it was in fulfillment of our guarantee to Poland that Great Britain declared war upon Nazi Germany; that we had never weakened in our resolve, even in the period when we were all alone; and that the fate of the Polish nation holds a prime place in the thoughts and policies of His Majesty’s Government and of the British Parliament. It was with great pleasure that I heard from Marshal Stalin that he, too, was resolved upon the creation and maintenance of a strong integral independent Poland as one of the leading Powers in Europe.”.
Churchill and His Majesty’s Government clearly weakened in that resolve between that speech and Yalta a year later.
This is all true , but if put away the pathetic - what could really do in 1939 the Churchill for Poland if the Chamberlian previously had made everything to share the nazists further the east, right to the polish borders? GErmany had a strongest army in 1939 ( OK , not that strong like in 1941 but it was still much more effectieve that all the british had in Europe).I believe the France could do something essential , if they start to fight the heer on the west- but they just siited behind borders. I believe the Paris is more responsible for that desperate situation, the which poles had faces in september 1939.
So far as Poland is concerned, the main problem is that Britain and France didn’t and couldn’t do anything significant to assist Poland militarily with Germany between them and Poland.
If Britain had shown the same realpolitik towards Poland in 1939 that it did in 1945, it wouldn’t have gone to war with Germany over Poland.
If France had shown the same realpolitik towards Poland in 1939 that the Vichy Government showed towards Germany after France’s defeat, it wouldn’t have gone to war with Germany over Poland either.
Or maybe Britain and France would have gone to war with Germany anyway, having finally realised that they needed to contain its aggression and saw this as their realpolitik?
I think they better should think not about Poland but about itself- protecting the Poland they realised its own security! Only finished idiot might to think in mid 1939 that Hitler will have stoped in Poland. Amazingly, Stalin activelly searched political alliance with both France and Britain agains Germany till the most august ( the kind of Antanta ). But western delegations passively screwed up the negorations in Moscow. Sadly , i believe if we showed more determination to stop the Hitler- and signed the triple anti-nazis agreement - we migh save the Europe from new war and probably even Poland. In fact, till the end of 1930-yy Stalin has already refused and abandoned the kommintern’s general idea of “world proletarian revolution”( i.e. total extremism and civil war). Instead he well adopted the same “realpolitik” principles that both France and Britain used. We might to form the new anti-German Antanta, having USA as a potential ally - only finished fool could begin the war against that force. But Hitler seems was that case;)
The French Army had no realistic plan to react to the speedy German victory,especially since the the Germans were ability assisted by the Soviet Union’s stab in the back…
The French Army had no real offensive plan to go into Germany before 1941 since they wanted to strangle Germany first and complete their modernization of their armed forces…
Were the French,whose birthrate of males was exactly half that of Germany, supposed to take on the USSR too?
Oh, poor french military stuff had no “realistic plans” in a case of war with most danger and possible their close european enemy- Germay. They seems totally relied on the “fantsatic plans” - as promised Hitler- to strike first the Soviet Union;))))They trusted him literally?!! The bunch of idiots!!!
The French Army had no real offensive plan to go into Germany before 1941 since they wanted to strangle Germany first and complete their modernization of their armed forces…
Only idiot might to wait 1941 , having nazis germany rapidly re-armed since 1934!!.
To stop Hitler they should wait for 1941 - we have triple Soviet-French-Chechoslovak military agreement of 1935 against Hitler. But France not just ignored it - they force the chechs to take all Hitler’s territorial demands. Without any shot and bomb- nazis got the second one high-tech military indastry in Europe. The double idiots and trators!!
Why do you so care about french?
They had no idea that the Germans were specifically planning Operation Barbarossa as they weren’t yet. The Germans didn’t even have any sort of standing war plan against France other than the defensive Frau Blau (Case Blue). The Soviets (i.e. Stalin) didn’t seem to realize the Germans were planning Barbarossa, even as they were pouring over the Polish Frontier.
The French did have an agreement with Poland to begin an offensive in the West and they did, very half-heartedly, begin the Saar Offensive and it would have one of history’s “what ifs” to see if the French could have gone through the under-defended Siegfried Line before Germany could have redeployed from Poland… But the French had a bizarre, cumbersome mobilization system and their army, while large on paper, was a “peoples army” mainly of conscript reservists bolstering a garrison of the Maginot Line and a cadre force. By the time the French were even near ready the Battle for Poland was lost and the USSR was already invading the east completely destroying the already compromised Polish war plans that were beset mobilization problems of their own. At that point the Allies mutually agreed that they would pursue a long war of attrition focusing on peripheral theatres of operation (i.e. the ill fated Norway Campaign)…
Only idiot might to wait 1941 , having nazis germany rapidly re-armed since 1934!!.
Of course the French were pissed over German rearmament, but the problem was that The Versailles Treaty had been unrealistically restrictive to begin with in punishing Germany and yes many in France were weary of an under-manned, under-defended Germany as vulnerable to Soviet/Polish exploitation and even internal strife. Many were fine with a limited rearmament. But again, you can’t just blame the French for this. There were any many other nations that would do nothing. The problem is that both the French and British needed to rearm and there was no mandate to go into Germany as both gov’ts were democracies and war was sort of made unpopular by the slaughters of WWI. In short, it was reasonable to allow Germany to rearm to an extent, but only questions is if the Allies should have stop him before 1938…
To stop Hitler they should wait for 1941 - we have triple against Hitler. But France not just ignored it - they force the chechs to take all Hitler’s territorial demands. Without any shot and bomb- nazis got the second one high-tech military indastry in Europe. The double idiots and trators!!
Why do you so care about french?
I don’t care about the French, it’s history I care about. Again, at this point the Appeasement was vile, but they thought war was worse and there is speculations that I have read that while Munich made the war much worse, it also prevented a more gradual power building by a more patient Nazi regime that could have flourished if they faced a minor defeat in 1938, and built themselves into a more global superpower. And again, many saw Stalin as as bad as Hitler was and quite capable of waging aggressive wars when it suited him…
It wasn’t barbarossa yet, Nick. The Hitler from most beginning positioned himself like “only the truly European defender” from bolshevism. In his Main Kampf he franky told that he comes to conclusion -Germany shold abandone the plans of fight for western colonies( the main reason of WW1 endeed) - from now it sholld look at the East. The “Eastern Lebensraum” - was that unconflictable solution, conwenient for all western powers in Europe. Smart man!
But french were, still, idiots, becouse even if Hitler , currently,turn entire military mashine to the east- as westerners planned- he, never should forgive the himulation for ww1 and after the victory over soviets- he inevitable should realise it’s own vendetta against previous offenders.
The French did have an agreement with Poland to begin an offensive in the West and they did, very half-heartedly, begin the Saar Offensive and it would have one of history’s “what ifs” to see if the French could have gone through the under-defended Siegfried Line before Germany could have redeployed from Poland… But the French had a bizarre, cumbersome mobilization system and their army, while large on paper, was a “peoples army” mainly of conscript reservists bolstering a garrison of the Maginot Line and a cadre force. By the time the French were even near ready the Battle for Poland was lost and the USSR was already invading the east completely destroying the already compromised Polish war plans that were beset mobilization problems of their own. At that point the Allies mutually agreed that they would pursue a long war of attrition focusing on peripheral theatres of operation (i.e. the ill fated Norway Campaign)…
I’m sure their major problem was not a beurocratic or mobilisation problems ( the Germany had the same conscript army) - the reason was a lack of will to fight. They missunderstood the safety. In fact they had no realised the danger. It was their pure failure. And note- the soviet invaded Poland 17 september- why? Becouse the France and Britain were obliged the start the active military operation within first two weeks of war- i.e. till the 14 september. But since they done nothing- and soviets had realised this - it was de-facto legitime operation. The polish govenment has become in doomed situation.
… But again, you can’t just blame the French for this. There were any many other nations that would do nothing. The problem is that both the French and British needed to rearm and there was no mandate to go into Germany as both gov’ts were democracies and war was sort of made unpopular by the slaughters of WWI. In short, it was reasonable to allow Germany to rearm to an extent, but only questions is if the Allies should have stop him before 1938…
So if they both just “feared of battle” and were “not ready for a war”- why then they give the such an feckless phony guaranties for Poland, unless they were not idiots? I may understand the Brits- their guile might be explaned by the protection of La-Mansh ( and having the greatest fleet on the world- they might to have a hope) but France behaved like their gov were a buch of medical imbeciles ( is that not much harsh?) I/m sure , if they were not deceibed the poles- the Warsaw should begin to search another REAL political and military guaranties for himself. Maybe even with Stalin - they could play on nazis-soviet ideological frictions.
… And again, many saw Stalin as as bad as Hitler was and quite capable of waging aggressive wars when it suited him…
But they seems been very well suted to wage agressive wars against population of their own colonies? What a human-loved “democraties”? Moreover they plans to use Hitler for their own purposes;) To see that ethnic genocide of millions, based on race ideologies. Well , im sure Stalin gives them an a good lesson of tolerance in 1939. He did not saved SU from german invasion- but when invasion happen in 1941- the Nazis had has the war with Britain ( and USA behind) - so the Barbarossa become very questionable operation.
Hitler may have positioned himself as the anti-Bolshevist and polar opposite of Stalin and communism. The French were certainly idiots on many levels but then, pretty much everybody acted like idiots on some level. Germany and Hitler was fairly open in is disdain for the French and the humiliations of Versailles as well as the bitter memory of the French Occupation of the Rhineland (which resulted in large numbers of French colonial African troops being massacred due to the alleged, mainly false rumors, or German women being raped by “the savages”. But you are over-focusing on, and simplifying, French culpability here. Hitler often spoke of humiliation and the need for vengeance against the French, so obviously they were well aware of this. In any case, it’s easy to say in hindsight what they should have done but at the time they were simply trying to avoid another disastrous war fought on their soil and certainly the French populace had no stomach for a mass mobilization and a crusade into Germany - at least not without Allied support. And the British themselves had only started rearming as well and the French Army, and especially the Air Force, needed to reequip as well…
Mein Kampf had a sequel, and Hitler (or so I’ve read via Adam Tooze) spoke of the United States as his greatest enemy because of its boundless means of production and industrial base. Hitler’s goal of defeating the Soviets had less to do with the polar opposite ideological divide and more with the pragmatic as a means to acquire their factories and resources to somewhat even the odds with the U.S.
I’m sure their major problem was not a beurocratic or mobilisation problems ( the Germany had the same conscript army) - the reason was a lack of will to fight. They missunderstood the safety. In fact they had no realised the danger. It was their pure failure. And note- the soviet invaded Poland 17 september- why? Becouse the France and Britain were obliged the start the active military operation within first two weeks of war- i.e. till the 14 september. But since they done nothing- and soviets had realised this - it was de-facto legitime operation. The polish govenment has become in doomed situation.
And I’m sure you’re wrong. The French had to actually release a number of conscript reservists due to their skilled labor in the war industry. The French reserve system was beset by problems and errors and the Army was overwhelmed with the manpower. The standing French Army was not large and certainly had no plan to simply invade Germany at a moment’s notice. And there isn’t much difference between 9/14/39 and 9/17/1939 here. The French expected the Poles to holdout for much longer, even months. The greatest French error regarding Poland was their insistence that the Poles not fully mobilizing their Army in order to seek peace with Hitler over the Danzig question. The Soviet invasion of Poland put an end to any sort of Polish “redoubt strategy”…
So if they both just “feared of battle” and were “not ready for a war”- why then they give the such an feckless phony guaranties for Poland, unless they were not idiots? I may understand the Brits- their guile might be explaned by the protection of La-Mansh ( and having the greatest fleet on the world- they might to have a hope) but France behaved like their gov were a buch of medical imbeciles
Because they never though Poland with collapse in six weeks of combat and Poland had already suffered catastrophic defeats in the opening days. The French gov’t and high command was beset with worries including defending the Low Countries and Belgium as well as France. The French had no easy access for a German invasion route and planned on securing a route through Holland, the same one Monty wanted for Market Garden, but the Netherlands was not at war with Germany and neither was Belgium. The Saar land was essentially a bowl with a poor road network not conducive to a large scale, prolonged operations. The French and British were also genuinely shocked by the German effectiveness overall and knew they could not match the German Heer in a mechanized “war of movement”, so the plan was to bottle them up with a “war of position” until the Allies had overwhelming superiority in tanks, artillery, and aircraft by 1941. Because as stated, the French did not have the long term manpower the Germans could call on in a battle of attrition. So they had to focus on armaments and hope they could contain a German offensive and inflict massive casualties on the Heer fighting defensively…
But they seems been very well suted to wage agressive wars against population of their own colonies? What a human-loved “democraties”?
Of course the French, and everyone else, were hypocrites. But the French still had Verdun fresh in their collective memory and how that broke the back of the French Army, at the German cost of breaking the back of theirs. So it is a bit cavalier to expect them to be Europe’s savior as they were beset by the social turmoils of the Third Republic. After all, there were numerous cased of Soviet loving French communist workers actually performing sabotage in the war industries at the request of the Soviets due to their lovely deal with Hitler.
Were the French somehow worse to the Poles than the Soviets?
That was one of two major problems for France, and Britain: no desire to go to war again. Appeasement was a perfectly understandable policy for those two nations which had lost a good part of a generation in WWI.
The other major problem was Hitler’s desire to go to war again, to try for a better result than Germany got in WWI.
France and Britain couldn’t do anything to stop Hitler’s ambitions and growing aggression, and the ambitions and growing aggression the Nazis whipped up in significant sections of the German populace.
As Chevan says, France and Britain were both idiots to make an issue of Poland when they couldn’t do anything about it.
Common sense tells anyone to avoid a fight they can’t win, at least when they have a choice about avoiding it. France and Britain lacked common sense over Poland, and Poland paid the price for their idiocy in making a military / war issue of something they couldn’t influence militarily.
Then again, France and Britain had to draw a line in the sand sooner or later to confront German aggression and expansionism, which they had failed to do over Sudetenland and Czechoslovakia. So Poland pretty much had to be it, which made it not pure idiocy but pretty much unavoidably necessary idiocy.
The bigger question is whether drawing a line in the sand much earlier would or could have changed the road to WWII?
Amazing thread , thank you! Are there any books about this?
thx!