Selective War Declarations?

[redcoat]

Of course, the embargo was in direct response to Japan's invasion of China, so it's not like the US declared its embargo just for giggles.

I never stated that the USA didn't have a good reason for the embargo, merely that it was the main reason for Japan's decision to go to war against the US and Britain ( who had joined the US embargo)

 

[silence]

As a personal onservation, there should have been red flags showing with how Germany had been attempting inroads against Poland since the mid 30's with "Diplomatic" overtures, like their interest in Danzig and certain requests for territory exchanges.

Heh - I had to read this several times before I realized you meant political red flags as opposed to, for example, little red flags marking roads and stuff. Wow, I need a mind-break!

 

[silence]

I suspect the Soviet military was in no position to take unilateral offensive action prior to the German invasion of Poland. Stalin's Great Purge removed three of five marshals (then equivalent to five-star generals), 13 of 15 Army commanders (then equivalent to three- and four-star generals), eight of nine admirals (the purge fell heavily on the Navy, who were suspected of exploiting their opportunities for foreign contacts), 50 of 57 army corps commanders, and 154 out of 186 division commanders. That scale of change in just a few years, and the fear that it must have generated, must have impacted operational efficiency. To that end, Silence's observation about Soviet performance during the Winter War is absolutely relevant.

As to British and French responses to the German invasion of Poland, frankly there wasn't much either country could do to prevent it. As has been observed, neither country wanted war. Their alliance and the promises made to Poland were a bluff and Hitler called them on it. Neither France nor Britain had the access or means to provide and sustain any military force of substance in a position to aid the Poles.

The wider question of partial declarations of war is an interesting one. What would have happened, for example, had Japan attacked just Thailand, Malaya and the Dutch East Indies? Would Roosevelt bring America into the war on that basis? I suspect not. Of more immediate historical relevance, what would have happened if Hitler had not declared war on America - that always struck me as one of the daftest moves ever by a political leader.

The one thing the UK could have done was to reimpose the blockade, only since this time the German Navy had only two undergunned commissioned BBs the RN could have almost sailed into German ports. Just lay 20mi outside the operational range of stukas and interdict everything going in or coming out. Let France extend their defensive line from the Maginot to the sea.

You're totally correct in saying they cannot save Poland, but they can destroy a German economy already racing towards a meltdown because of overspending. Plus I hear Germans like to eat without rationing.

 

[redcoat]

The one thing the UK could have done was to reimpose the blockade,

They did.
However as part of their pact the Soviets were supplying them with the raw materials and foodstuffs they needed.

 

[pbehn]

There were a small number of communists in Britain and a small fraction of these belonged to the Labour Party, the Labour Party however represented the acceptable face of capitalism rather than its unacceptable face. The majority of those in Britain that supported the lunatic fringes of politics had their roots in the Tory Party, both the Daily Telegraph and Daily Mail were huge advocates of Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party, there were in fact a great number of pro Nazi defeatists within the Tory party and good old Winston had first to tread them into the ground in order to save Britain from surrender.

The Communist party was so named after the revolution. Before that it was called the russian social democratic Labour Party. The British Labour party was much older and believed in small successive "victories" (Fabianism) rather than a single revolution. Both were Marxist based and had strong ties. However many pro Nazis there were in the Tory Party they are vastly outnumbered by the Marxists in the Trades Unions from where Churchill would have to recruit his army. Declaring war on Russia would be madness and would do absolutely nothing for Poland. I am sure the USA would just sit on the side shaking its collective head.

 

[pattle]

The Communist party was so named after the revolution. Before that it was called the russian social democratic Labour Party. The British Labour party was much older and believed in small successive "victories" (Fabianism) rather than a single revolution. Both were Marxist based and had strong ties. However many pro Nazis there were in the Tory Party they are vastly outnumbered by the Marxists in the Trades Unions from where Churchill would have to recruit his army. Declaring war on Russia would be madness and would do absolutely nothing for Poland. I am sure the USA would just sit on the side shaking its collective head.

Not forgetting that the British had already fought against the Communist party in the revolution and that the Labour party was still in favour of empire and that British trade unionists realised that trade union rights were being suppressed in Russia, in addition to this the Nazis within the Tory were in a position of influence where the Marxists were not as both the Trade Unions and Labour party were run by patriots who were unwilling to sell out to another country. Britain didn't declare war on Russia because it was just to weak, a blind eye was turned to those who wished to volunteer to help the Finns however.

 

[silence]

Sitzkrieg!

Phoney War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Best kind of war, really.

 

[silence]

They did.
However as part of their pact the Soviets were supplying them with the raw materials and foodstuffs they needed.

How could I have forgotten that? Thank you for the reminder.

 

[parsifal]

France moving into Germany in Sept. '39 could likely have toppled the Nazi government. I think it would have given the dissenting Generals the "honorable" reason they thought they needed to move against Hitlers and he fellow defectives. (While I admire their sense of honor, it makes me sad that they clung to it so tightly while millions died.)

I remember reading that the announcement of war in Germany brought a pall down over the country, quite unlike the euphoria of 1914.

This was simply not possible to achieve at the outbreak of the war. The Maginot line was fully manned, but otherise, Franch mobilzation was progressing pathetically slowly. By September 17, the date that Polish resitance really began to crack, French forces at the frontier (so-called "fortress sector" troops aside, since these troops were largely immobile and of no offensive value whatever) was still heavily outnumbered by the more capable reserves manning the Westwall. The French did attempt, admittedly very half heartedly some manouvres into the Saar, but had not stomach for it, because the reserves they needed were not available, and their heavy artillery regiments still forming. They considered the heavy artillery, particularly the rail guns absolutely essential to take on the German fortifications. Whether in fact that was an accurate assesment, is another question, since the westwall defences were shown postwar to be largely bluff.

but the idea of early, preemptive strike by either the British or the French is a post war myth. They thought the Poles would hold out for at least six months, they got less than a month. this simply was not long enough for the allies to mount any sort of effective relief effort to decrease the pressure on Poland.

Regarding questionable german loyalty, this in 1939 was unlikely. Though I conceded some post war apologies that try to pass as meaningful analysis have claimed this. There is no evidence to support this, and in fact the Germans had left more than adequate forces in the west to deal with any likley French reaction, which they (the General Staff) fully expected.

 

[parsifal]

As a personal onservation, there should have been red flags showing with how Germany had been attempting inroads against Poland since the mid 30's with "Diplomatic" overtures, like their interest in Danzig and certain requests for territory exchanges.

Nope. Until 1936 the Poles and germans enjoyed very good relations and had a non-agression pact and, if memory serves me correctly, a treaty of military co-operation. As late as 1938 there was still military co-operation between poland an Germany, as evidenced in the carve up of the mutal foe, the Czechs. Then, all of a sudden, almost overnight, German intentions changed towards Poland. it took some time for the Poles to realize they were on the menu however, by which time it was completely too late.

 

[silence]

Nope. Until 1936 the Poles and germans enjoyed very good relations and had a non-agression pact and, if memory serves me correctly, a treaty of military co-operation. As late as 1938 there was still military co-operation between poland an Germany, as evidenced in the carve up of the mutal foe, the Czechs. Then, all of a sudden, almost overnight, German intentions changed towards Poland. it took some time for the Poles to realize they were on the menu however, by which time it was completely too late.

Officially, yes, Unofficially, no. Hitler was looking to annex western Poland from as early at Autumn '33. The early pacts were attempts to damage Polish-French relations and form a German-led anti-Soviet coalition with the end result a effective German takeover of Polish territory while the Poles moved east into (former) Soviet territory. Naturally, the Poles balked at this, so enter Danzig.

Poland's share of the former Czechoslovakia was one city, Český Těšín, a town previously divided between Czech. and Poland. As an aside Hungary received far more territory than Poland.

 

[parsifal]

Yeah, its a bit hard to argue that the Poles could not be at least a little aware of german intent. Hitler had been espousing his ideas about living space in the east since Mein Kampf. But then hitler was a master of deception. Many Jews voted for him in 1933, believing his racist rants were not going to be actually implemented. Almost certainly the Poles fell for the same sort of deception. Certainly the Brits fell for Hitler and his two faced charm. "hitler is a man I can do business with", and "in this piece of paper I hold the key for peace in our time"

Everybody, at some point or other and to a greater or lesser extent, was fooled by Hitler. Why would the Poles be any different???

 

[pattle]

I don't think that telling fibs and being misleading was one of Hitler's greatest faults, for me it was probably the genocide.

 

[silence]

Actually, as deceptive as Hitler was I tend to think it was his victims who were even more self-deceptive. Pastor Niemöller's "First they came for..." kinda spells it out nicely, too. But, then, who could believe how far the Nazis would end up going? I for one can understand the self-deception: the alternative is just too horrible to believe that it could actually be made a national policy until it actually did happen. (And I'm kind of glad I can't imagine it happening while being horrified that it did.)

One reason I admire Dietrich Bonhoeffer so much is that he was never fooled by the Nazis and opposed them from the very beginning.