Why did France and Britain leave Germany invade Poland ?

Damian

Regular Member
Messages
19
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Tell me why did France and Britain leave Poland in spetember 1939 ? There was an alliance betwwen Poland and France with Britain
 
This shows how much Poland was worth to Britain and France. Obviously it wasn't worth to die for. Another sacrificial lamb on Hitler's table.
 
They didn't let Germany invade Poland. This was what triggered their declaration of war against Germany. France and Britain let the annexation of Bohemia and Austria take place though (but that wasn't an aggressive military invasion either, and neither country tried to resist or asked for help).
 
spetember 1939

They didn't let Germany invade Poland. This was what triggered their declaration of war against Germany. France and Britain let the annexation of Bohemia and Austria take place though (but that wasn't an aggressive military invasion either, and neither country tried to resist or asked for help).

1th september 1939 Nazis invaded Poland and 17th spetember 1939 Soviet Union invaded Poland from East. Soldier 's Russian were like animals.
From 1939 to 1943, Stalin murdered 20 000 Polish Officers in Katyń, Charków, Miednoje. Do you know why? Because they were
persons of indomitable spirit. They hated "Comunism".


What do You know about it?
 
They didn't let Germany invade Poland. This was what triggered their declaration of war against Germany. .
Yes, that's it, everything ended just on declaration of war. But there was no will to fight for the ally.
 
1th september 1939 Nazis invaded Poland and 17th spetember 1939 Soviet Union invaded Poland from East. Soldier 's Russian were like animals.
From 1939 to 1943, Stalin murdered 20 000 Polish Officers in Katyń, Charków, Miednoje. Do you know why? Because they were
persons of indomitable spirit. They hated "Comunism".


What do You know about it?

I know that you didn't need to hate communism to be killed by Stalin. He killed most of his generals just before the war. I believe most of them were patriots and communists. Yes, polish people suffered a lot by Stalin, but not as much as Ukrainians or Russians. By some estimates Stalin killed between 20 to 60 millions citizens of Soviet Union, during his years in power.

Damian, look around, we all are like animals...
Seams like you're are one angry, young man. Try doing something constructive and positive instead of constantly scratching old wounds. It's time to forgive and move on making new friends.
Cheers
Pawel
 
I agree with you

I know that you didn't need to hate communism to be killed by Stalin. He killed most of his generals just before the war. I believe most of them were patriots and communists. Yes, polish people suffered a lot by Stalin, but not as much as Ukrainians or Russians. By some estimates Stalin killed between 20 to 60 millions citizens of Soviet Union, during his years in power.

Damian, look around, we all are like animals...
Seams like you're are one angry, young man. Try doing something constructive and positive instead of constantly scratching old wounds. It's time to forgive and move on making new friends.
Cheers
Pawel

Hello Pawel!

I agree with You. The future is more important than the past. Hower in nowdays, some people like Erika Shteinbach and Władimir Putin are lying.
In Russian some journalists are dying of truth! For example Anna Politkowska. Why in XXI century are West Civilizations silent?
 
Reply to "Why France and UK left Poland being invaded by the germans". (First a background check) Poland had no friends within the soviet leadership, especially since the attacks of polish forces into territories claimed by the red russians to be in their soviet sphere. It is a bit forgotten today that the 1918/19 reborn Polish state had a war with "soviet" russia in the 20ies and that there was a "battle of Warsaw" than. Stalin was already involved in these military operations and felt personaly hurt by the retreat of the red troops after the "Polish reactionaries" suceeded to beat the red forces back way beyond the previous agreed border (Curzon line). So against the agreements made on the allied conference tables (Curzon was british) the Polish command succeeded to gain a portion of land which the soviet leadership will of cause always keep in mind for a future reglement de comptes. Staline was taking over the leadership of the soviet state and when years later he could cut a deal to get back that lost portion of "russian-soviet" land stolen by the polish in a moment of soviet weakness, he did so with the germans. Before the attack of the nazi regime in 1941 on soviet union it should be reminded here that Soviet Union leadership had always larger sympathies for "germans" in general than for dangerous poles and british leader. Germany was considered as a nation with compatible goals with Russia and the soviets (both nations sufffered in WWI as "loosers at some point and Rappallo treaty is such a symptome of commun policies, too). But not Poland. So when Staline could hope to win back the territories the Russian Republic first lost in Brest Litovsk 1918(also because of Trotsky's "mistakes"), and than again to the Polish Counter revolutionaries in the 20ies, by just letting the German Nazi Government attack that "agressive" Polish State first, the risk to get a war declared by the french and british for invading the agreed territory (till the Bug river) was outweighed by the rare occasion to have Germany put itself in the role of "demanding submissive dirty job doer" and get the land delivered on a dish. Soviet Union was officially just entering Poland to protect the ukrainian population and prevent troubles and this was also the ultimate "excuse" for the british government to not consider the soviet military operations on the soil of Poland as a good enough reason to declare war on the USSR. (But there was a period this option was considered in debates at the Parliament). Basically neither France, neither the UK declared war on the USSR because they considered such a war against Germany and the USSR as hopeless. The question "Why did the UK and France" let Germany invade Poland is not the best way to ask: The declarations of war of France and the UK intervened quite swiftly after the start of the german military actions into Poland. First an ultimatum was issued to the german government, asking for immediate return of the german forces back to germany.. and when this did not happen the declaration of war was transmitted to the german governement within just a few days. Technically speaking France and the UK were not "interested" to make a large offensive against the western border of Germany. The hope to win this war by any other option than a full scale massive operation with hundred of thousands of victims was still in most peoples mind. Nobody was ready to accept that their respective capitals werein immediate range of airforce bombing fleets like never seen before in history. (A kind of "Pre-nuclear Era Patt" situation) Same for the Nazi Leadership who calculated that sooner or later the western allies will just give up and let Poland down for good. Stalin on his side suported the german war effort by providing the raw materials delivered in large quantities from the USSR as it was agreed and also received weapons and military vehicles delivered by german factories. He was not interested to save the western allies by sacrifying his people like in 1914 Russia did to comply with the request of the allies to have an urgent attack on eastern Prussia (Helping win the Marne Battle, but loosing 2 russian armies in the change). This time he hoped to play the "Last laughs best" actor. The french and british hoped that a conflict between the Nazi Regime and the USSR will start before heavy battles will be happening in the west and the soviets hoped the same in the opposite way. The soft warfare which was than called "Drole de Guerre" on the western german border 1939 till may 1940 is a result of these wait and see games.. "who will have his troops killed first?". So to make a short answer to the question is: France and UK did not let Germany invade Poland but put in the balance their nations wealth and safety for a treaty of assistance which was technically not able to guarantee the non-occupation of the guaranteed nations integrity (Poland) for the time of the war operations. Today a lot of Polish People feel upset that so little military offensive operations have been conducted by the French and UK troops and airforce in 1939 following the declarations of war. But they need to look at the politics of their state before september 1939, too. Soviet Union had proposed to Poland a treaty of assistance, which was refused. (We can understand the reasons of cause when we study Latvia and Finnland p.ex.). But in 1938 Poland did not hesitate to upset a lot of sympathisers in the west when polish troops occupied parts of the former remaining (post-munich) Cechoslavakia with full agreement of the Nazi Government liquidating the state into something different. There have been protests in the UK against this advantage taking by the polish, and in Warsaw polish nationalistic demonstrators made nasty riots in front of the UK Embassy. So it must be understood that basically nobody really had the wish to die for Poland.. but rather to stop germany from getting out of control. Also had the Nazi Government proposed a treaty to Poland which intended to support both nations interest to stop red efforts and later destroy the Soviet State together. But this proposal to be a partner with germany was not accepted by the Polish government neither and Poland ended up again, as previously with her both neighbors predating her territory. Concerning the Kathyn massacre of polish officers: I consider this action as a possible proof that in these days (1940) Stalin had no intention to join the western allied coalition (No such hidden agenda towards Hitler). It may indicate that he considered that he may stay out of the war and if ever he had to attack germany his forces would be sufficiently strong to never give up the areas were the mass graves were located. Once the entire foreign politic had "unfortunately" to be shifted away from the alliance with Hitler to Churchill and Roosevelt, both in contact with Sikorsky and the Polish exile government in London.. this massacre became a very embarrasing subject and I suppose proves also that Stalin in 1940 had zero intention to ever deal as a partner with the UK Leadership supporting the "reactionary former Polish leadership and their army staff". The massacre of the polish officers in kathyn seems to be a personal revenge for the war against soviet russia in the 20ies and a possible proof that Stalin wished to stay allied to the nazi regime for a longer period than what Hitler claimed later as his (cheap) excuse to attack them in summer 1941. In fact, as horrible as it may sound.. the Kathyn massacre may be a proof of loyalty towards the Ribbentrop Pakt and the long term design to split more spheres of influence with the nazi governement in the future without fighting wars.
 
Beautiful write up, and spot on analysis Nicolas, my hat's off.
 
I'm impressed. But I do not agree with you on all matters. Zaolzie Poland came in Czechoslovakia. I do not commend it. However, it was a piece of land marny. There lived a lot of Poles. Hitler occupied almost half of Europe without a shot being fired! Nobody reacted! In the case of attack by the UK or France, Poland would certainly help.

Maybe in Poland were nationalist demonstrations in those years but they were a negligible amount. In those years in Poland there were only 68 percent of Poles! The rest were Jews, Ukrainians and Germans.

By the end of the 18th century there was a Polish multinational.

In the years 1918 - 1939 Poland alluded to the tradition of 18th century. But the most outrageous statement me, which is now emerging in the press and television - "Polish death camps". In fact, Nazi Germany built a camp Aushwitz.

The alleged nationalism always hear from abroad. In my family always had respect for the so-called foreigners.
 
Hello Pawel!

I agree with You. The future is more important than the past. Hower in nowdays, some people like Erika Shteinbach and Władimir Putin are lying.
In Russian some journalists are dying of truth! For example Anna Politkowska. Why in XXI century are West Civilizations silent?

I'm not versed in Russian internal affairs these days, but what I'm hearing it's sad and unnerving. The old guard still doesn't let go of their megalomaniac dreams of being the dominant force in the world. They can't do much though with 2 trillion dollar GDP versus 15 trillion of EU. I just hope they keep their nukes safe, so they don't fall into rouge hands. They just behave like a bully to neighbouring counties, using oil and gas, as scare tactic. But this is about it what they can do these days.
They have big internal problems, ruined economy, alcoholism, unhappy citizens, corruption, you name it. They're actually killing themselves quickly. They are their worst enemy at the moment. Sadly they are behaving like an addict, they need lots of help to get better, but they still in deep denial.

Unfortunately it will take another/new generation to replace old guards in power for positive changes to arrive. Russia has to understand that their only survivor is in close cooperation and good relationship with rest of Europe. Soon China and India will dominate in Asia, and who knows if China is not dreaming about new border on Urals? Russia alone won't stand a chance against, possibly, 100 trillion GDP of China in 50 years.
 
Yes, that's it, everything ended just on declaration of war. But there was no will to fight for the ally.

There was no will to fight at all. People in Britain and France were tired of war, after losing millions of young men in WWI. They were not psychologically nor physically ready to fight and wanted to avoid confrontation at all cost. That's why the French didn't resist much when the Germans invaded. If they were not willing to defend themselves, how could you expect them to go fight for others ?
 
After Nicolas' beautiful summary of the situation, I don't have much to add. :)
 
it's interested

After Nicolas' beautiful summary of the situation, I don't have much to add. :)

This discution is very interesting.
I want to tell that we can't be passive.
I've just readen article about the Russian atom bomb....
 
There was no will to fight at all. People in Britain and France were tired of war, after losing millions of young men in WWI. They were not psychologically nor physically ready to fight and wanted to avoid confrontation at all cost. That's why the French didn't resist much when the Germans invaded. If they were not willing to defend themselves, how could you expect them to go fight for others ?
........................
Please consider that the french army and civil population still had arround 100.000 causalties... in just a few months (1940) and that the german forces also had such a quote for their own losses in their official records (Hitler speech 1940). Now compare this to the losses of present day forces defending democracy and freedom. Do you feel "a loss of will" or will you modify your scaling of the measurment of "will" to something else than the wish of a population to be killed in larger numbers for their goals and choose other forms of dealing with dangerous enemies? Maybe the french knew that adding a million or two more victimes in a trench style war, with Paris bombed to ruins will not make them win faster than by just doing it the way it turned out to happen in 1944-1945? One proof may be the fact that the german garrison in Paris did not show hard will to demolish "their" Gross Paris neither when they left. The USA were not ready to enter this war and had not shown clear will to do so at all in 1939 and 1940.
 
........................
Please consider that the french army and civil population still had arround 100.000 causalties... in just a few months (1940) and that the german forces also had such a quote for their own losses in their official records (Hitler speech 1940). Now compare this to the losses of present day forces defending democracy and freedom. Do you feel "a loss of will" or will you modify your scaling of the measurment of "will" to something else than the wish of a population to be killed in larger numbers for their goals and choose other forms of dealing with dangerous enemies? Maybe the french knew that adding a million or two more victimes in a trench style war, with Paris bombed to ruins will not make them win faster than by just doing it the way it turned out to happen in 1944-1945? One proof may be the fact that the german garrison in Paris did not show hard will to demolish "their" Gross Paris neither when they left. The USA were not ready to enter this war and had not shown clear will to do so at all in 1939 and 1940.

War causes casualties. Even if most of the nation was fed up fighting, some people tried to protect France when the Germans invaded. Overall, considering their unpreparedness, I think that the French did well not to resist too much. There is no need to jeopardise more lives or risk destroying cities when you know you don't stand a chance. Then the Germans wanted to see and enjoy Paris. :embarassed:
 
When the germans occupied their quarters in Paris 1940, going downtown to the cabarets and cinemas, they were not allowed to carry weapons, except for some of the officers. The guns had to be turned in at special places upon arrival in the city for the time the soldier was on a visit. Of cause were always armed soldiers on guard duties or when in transit without right to stop in that town. The navy officer who was pushed on the railway tracks in the Barbes Subway station was on such an excursion and had no weapons. The rules were changed in 1944 I think. Today armies would not consider to have their soldiers walk arround unarmed in a foreign country which is having an entire coast being a front line. But in those days things were different and much of that is no more known today. The decision "not to destroy Paris" is also the result of the recognition by the german garrison soldiers that this town was just too nice to be ruined because they had a good time there. This was also a way to win a war.. by changing the occupiers minds, step by step.. every day and night..
 
Sometimes I wonder why did my grand-grand-father fight in the II WW?
Why? German slodiers ddin't destroy Paris and some Europe city...except Warsaw. In 1944 Hitler ordered to destroy the capital city of Poland and they did it. Despite it, in 1th september 1944 uprising broke out but only for two monts.
 
I'm not versed in Russian internal affairs these days, but what I'm hearing it's sad and unnerving. The old guard still doesn't let go of their megalomaniac dreams of being the dominant force in the world. They can't do much though with 2 trillion dollar GDP versus 15 trillion of EU. I just hope they keep their nukes safe, so they don't fall into rouge hands. They just behave like a bully to neighbouring counties, using oil and gas, as scare tactic. But this is about it what they can do these days.
They have big internal problems, ruined economy, alcoholism, unhappy citizens, corruption, you name it. They're actually killing themselves quickly. They are their worst enemy at the moment. Sadly they are behaving like an addict, they need lots of help to get better, but they still in deep denial.

Unfortunately it will take another/new generation to replace old guards in power for positive changes to arrive. Russia has to understand that their only survivor is in close cooperation and good relationship with rest of Europe. Soon China and India will dominate in Asia, and who knows if China is not dreaming about new border on Urals? Russia alone won't stand a chance against, possibly, 100 trillion GDP of China in 50 years.

So nice to know sometimes what others think about you in reality :LOL:
 

This thread has been viewed 47773 times.

Back
Top