Congratulations to Mr. Prewitt. It should be noted, however, that France’s highest order of merit is called the Legion of Honour (Légion d’honneur), not the Legion of Armour, and also that France doesn’t actually have knighthoods in the same sense as Britain does. “Chevalier” (knight) is indeed one of the Legion of Honour’s five levels, and the name is a holdover from the days when France still had an aristocracy, but the French nobility system went out the window with the French Revolution. I once saw a series of amusing cartoons depicting what life in France would be like today if the Bourbon monarchy hadn’t fallen, and one of them showed an irate air traveler standing at the ticket counter of “Royal Air France” and telling the ticket agent “But I’m a baron and I have a confirmed reservation!” The agent replies, “I’m sorry, sir, but the Duke of So-and-so has precedence over you, so we gave him your seat.” In fairness, the same sort of thing actually happens in real-life republican France. A few years ago, there was scandal involving one of the major D-Day anniversaries (I think it was the 50th one), when the French government contacted various hotels in Normany and appropriated some of their existing reservations so that various French officials could have rooms for the event. Some of those rooms, however, had been reserved by foreign veterans of the D-Day invasion. When the story broke on the front page of French newspapers (under such headlines as “Our Liberators Insulted!”), public opinion was outraged and the French government beat a hasty retreat. The prevailing editorial opinion over this affair was: Do this to our own citizens if you want, but don’t do this to the heroes who ended the occupation of France.
During WWI and WWII, does Allies Democracies were as GOOD as they say?
-
The Axis powers absolutely needed to be defeated and more justification came about later when they did not abide by the Geneva conventions regarding POWs (and of course Germany’s holocaust).
Are the Western Allies innocent? Of course not, they killed plenty of innocent civilians in their bombing raids (fire bombing and atomic bombings).
It is factual truth about evil deeds.
We should not forget them.
Those deeds were committed during the war, and except for the Hitler’s “finale solution on the Jewish problem”, I’m quite sure that no country wanted to go to war to make atrocities against civilians.But I think I’m wondering much about the effective motives of these countries to enter war.
What was the political interest of each country?
Assuming that every country has the politics of his own interest first and foremost.Someone on an earlier tread found this interview about this actual topic:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9yNEvV6lI4 -
@Baron:
Just a piece to think about it: UK declare and enter war on Germany for the behalf and good of Poland sovereignty.
But, at the end of the war, UK entirely left it to Soviet Union communist.
They forgot to save Poland, the first reason they use to justify war on Germany.It have to wait the fall of the Berlin’s Wall (in a certain way), to mark the end of this submission toward Moscow for Poland.
The Western Allies did not “forget” Poland. They had no realistic way to compel the Red Army to give up control of Poland (among other nations).
-
@Baron:
Just a piece to think about it: UK declare and enter war on Germany for the behalf and good of Poland sovereignty.
But, at the end of the war, UK entirely left it to Soviet Union communist.
They forgot to save Poland, the first reason they use to justify war on Germany.It have to wait the fall of the Berlin’s Wall (in a certain way), to mark the end of this submission toward Moscow for Poland.
The Western Allies did not “forget” Poland. They had no realistic way to compel the Red Army to give up control of Poland (among other nations).
That’s a bunch of cop out BULL #&. The western allies Snubbed the poles hard.
Particularily England, who did not allow the Poles to parade in the victory celebrations, for fear of “Offending” the soviets.
The western allies had the means to free humanity for all of time, and failed.
-
Poland does leave a bitter taste.
Historically, it has always been badly treated by its neighbours and Britain’s abandoning it when all was over is a dreadful shame and embarrassment. I think Wheatbeer is correct though: what could the Western Allies have done? Russia was the new power in Europe, with an irrational man as its leader(much like Hitler).Garg: the West had had enough of war.
I would have loved a continuation too, but except among a few longer sighted Generals(Patton) and disaffected, unemployed, Germans there was no will to comtinue hostilities. -
The Poles and other nations were one of the Big time loosers, because they were sucked in into something they did not even want.
And paid for it even the war was long over!The Western Allies GOOD? in what? just because they looked good during and after the war doesn´t mean they were GOOD!
The western allies had the means to free humanity for all of time, and failed.
I go with this one!
In one or another way Germany was forced into this war BUT it will never, and I repeat never be an excuse for the Holocaust, even this Generation wich has nothing to do with it anymore still has to pay for it!
Hitler wasn´t the only one the Devil took possesion of, there were gazillion others. It was a feast!
@wittmann:
: what could the Western Allies have done? Russia was the new power in Europe, with an irrational man as its leader(much like Hitler).
Answer below…
The western allies had the means to free humanity for all of time, and failed.
-
I agree Aequitas and Garg.
It just was never going to happen. -
From an American perspective it would of been difficult to find support for a continued war against Soviet Russia. The US had years of pro Soviet, Uncle Joe propaganda behind it. A lot of casualties suffered just liberating Western Europe and North Africa not to mention the Far East.
The western Allies big mistake was underestimating Soviet ambitions primarily the desire to use Eastern Europe as a buffer against future attacks. The goal should of been to meet the Soviet armies as far east as possible.
-
@Baron:
Just a piece to think about it: UK declare and enter war on Germany for the behalf and good of Poland sovereignty.
But, at the end of the war, UK entirely left it to Soviet Union communist.
They forgot to save Poland, the first reason they use to justify war on Germany.It have to wait the fall of the Berlin’s Wall (in a certain way), to mark the end of this submission toward Moscow for Poland.
The Western Allies did not “forget” Poland. They had no realistic way to compel the Red Army to give up control of Poland (among other nations).
After reading Churchill’s book about WWII- it was extremely clear that it was tough for the Western Allies to keep Greece a democracy after the war- Stalin would not have let them have Poland too.
-
We can take this topic into WWI and discuss the English bloackade of the North Sea to all German ships and the effects of this action on the war and its effects on the people of central Europe. The German Turnip Winters in 1916-1918 were extremly difficult. These actions forced the Germans hand with unrestrictive U-Boat War.
-
The western allies had the means to free humanity for all of time, and failed.
What means do you refer to? Nuclear weapons?
How do you think the Western armed forces and public would react to turning around attacking their ally the Soviet Union? Especially after the horror of nuclear warfare became known?
-
You don’t need public support to start a war. You only need it to finish one.
The American/Western public didn’t support a war until the Japanese attacked the USA. Then look what happend!
The same principles could have easily been applied had the soviets been “advertised” as continuing their expansion across europe, asia, and the middle east.
Don’t you remember when Patton said he could start the war, and make it look like it was the soviets?
And once the war starts… however it starts, with America itself at risk, and failure not an option… The west would have won, irregardless of “starting” support.
The Nuke on our side, and not on the Russians would have gone a long way too.
Yeah, lots of people would have died. But lots of people died throughout all of the cold war micro conflicts; and we still have totalitarian states that exterminate their own people today.
-
@Baron:
Last week, I saw a French documentary (strange?! isn’t it?) defending the idea that Allies democracies were the real “go-to-war”.
France and Britain ignored various opportunities to go to war against Germany when their chances of winning would have been far greater and when Germany had conveniently handed them all the justification they would have needed – for example when Germany remilitarized the Rhineland in abrogation of the Versailles Treaty. Chamberlain and Daladier in particular went out of their way to appease Hitler and avoid war with him, most famously when they sold out Czechoslovakia at Munich. So I find it hard to believe that France and Britain secretly wanted to provoke a war with Germany.
-
The same principles could have easily been applied had the soviets been “advertised” as continuing their expansion across europe, asia, and the middle east.
…
The Nuke on our side, and not on the Russians would have gone a long way too.If this scenario is as plausible as you suggest, why didn’t the United States do exactly that?
-
The same principles could have easily been applied had the soviets been “advertised” as continuing their expansion across europe, asia, and the middle east.
…
The Nuke on our side, and not on the Russians would have gone a long way too.If this scenario is as plausible as you suggest, why didn’t the United States do exactly that?
First reason, the only three bombs were exploded: 1 in Nevada, 1 Hiroshima, 1 Nagazaki.
If Japan hadn’t accept the peace after Nagazaki, USA have no more Nuke. And it implies an invasion of Japan and much more marines’ casualities.
It probably take much time to produce them at first. -
@CWO:
@Baron:
Last week, I saw a French� documentary (strange?! isn’t it?) defending the idea that Allies democracies were the real “go-to-war”.
France and Britain ignored various opportunities to go to war against Germany when their chances of winning would have been far greater and when Germany had conveniently handed them all the justification they would have needed – for example when Germany remilitarized the Rhineland in abrogation of the Versailles Treaty. Chamberlain and Daladier in particular went out of their way to appease Hitler and avoid war with him, **most famously when they sold out Czechoslovakia at Munich. ** So I find it hard to believe that France and Britain secretly wanted to provoke a war with Germany.
The more I read this topic the more I think the Documentary was toying with the truth and made by a Revisonary historian.
In it, they got the testimony of Hitler’s translator. When he said UK declares war, all the chiefstaff of Hitler turned silence and astonished. It seems they weren’t prepare to declare war against UK.
The twist about it, I think is pretending about Hitler’s motive. He maybe surprised because he probably thought that France and UK will let them go without risking war but got it in his face.Or something like that…
We can ask where IIIrd Reich and Hitler would had stop their annexions of neighbours after Danzig?
-
@Baron:
In it, they got the testimony of Hitler’s translator. When he said UK declares war, all the chiefstaff of Hitler turned silence and astonished. It seems they weren’t prepare to declare war against UK.
The twist about it, I think is pretending about Hitler’s motive. He maybe surprised because he probably thought that France and UK will let them go without risking war but got it in his face.Hitler’s earlier territorial gains – the remilitarized Rhineland, Austria, the Sudentenland and the rest of Czechoslovakia – had been achieved without war. Had he been given the opportunity, he would no doubt have been happy to keep acquiring territories without going to war, in view of the very favourable gain-to-cost ratio that this method delivered. The method, however, couldn’t keep working indefinitely until he had conquered all of Europe without firing a shot; sooner or later, it would be realized that the only way to stop him was by putting up a fight. France and Britain finally (and reluctantly) came to that conclusion when Hitler abrogated the Munich Pact and absorbed the rest of Czechoslovakia. Even then, the response of France and Britain to the invasion of Poland was half-hearted at best: they declared war on Germany, but took little action on land (though the war at sea was another story). France mostly just sat behind the Maginot Line. Britain dropped leaflets on Germany rather than bombs. Both countries basically planned to just stay in place for a few years until they had built up enough strength to feel confident that they could attack, while at the same time hoping that Hitler would be overthrown by a coup and that everyone could go back home without bloodshed. Unfortunately for them, this left Hitler in the driver’s seat strategically, and he took full advantage of their apathy – which he had counted on, or at least hoped for.
If there’s any truth to the notion that Hitler was dismayed or shocked when France and Britain declared war on him, I’d guess that it would have been over the risk that France and Britain might actually take serious military action in the West while the bulk of Hitler’s forces were tied up in Poland. Some of his surviving officers have said that, if there had been a major Allied offensive in the West (where Germany had no armoured forces), the Wehrmacht could only have resisted a couple of weeks. Hitler hoped, however, that France and Britain would essentially do nothing while he dealt with Poland; this in fact turned out to be the case, so he won his gamble.
For reasons of ideology in the East, and of revenge for WWI and Versailles in the West, Hitler’s long-range plans did ultimately include war with the USSR and France – but in 1939, his attitude towards war with both countries was similar to St Augustine’s famous remark “Grant me chastity, but not yet.” He wanted to get his timing right so that he could deal with his enemies one at a time. He wanted the USSR and France and Britain to give him time to deal with Poland; he wanted the USSR to give him time to deal with France and Britain; and he wanted to deal with the USSR after he had cleared France and Britain from the chessboard. Britain, not being part of continental Europe, was a country with which he hoped he could avoid war altogether (amphibious operations not being to his liking), or which he at least hoped he could persuade to come to terms with him after he had knocked France out of the game.
-
Very good Post CWO Marc, Very good!
-
Another point in the documentary was Poland refuse to discuss and make any deal with Hitler about a road and access to Easter Prussia via Danzig.
They say that UK told Poland to remain silence because UK made promise to help and fight Germany.Does UK play a fair diplomatic exchange with Poland knowing they didn’t have the strength to protect Poland?
Why Poland, with a very week army remain deaf on every German’s demand?
Where was the Poland strategy? -
As the only one I know of qualified to speak to the Russian mindset (I was born in the Ukraine, a conquered nation under the Russian hegemony you called the Iron Curtain) I’d have to say this:
Russia has a long history of being invaded by Europeans and Scandinavians and no, I don’t consider them the same thing. Thus, at the end of World War 2, the Russians refused to give up their border territories. This way, should they be invaded again, they could scortch the earth without damaging their own lands and allow invaders to peter out while still travelling towards Russia - much as they did against Napoleon and Hitler, but to someone else’s crops instead of their own!
I believe, if you look at their actions in this light, they will seem a bit less cruel and a bit more human. I think much of the Cold War was a misunderstanding of how America and Russia play at war. Americans, as you know, love to “liberate” countries and make them carbon copies of the United States. At least, that’s how we were taught in school!
To the topic at hand.
I believe the Western Allies, specifically France and England, were the “bad guys” in World War 2.
As we know from history, a terrorist organization attempted to overthrow the government of Austria-Hungary. Russia decided to try and take advantage of the situation and invade Austria-Hungary and Turkey (they often tried to gain access to the Black Sea and the ports leading out to the Med, this is why the Crimean War happened!) Germany, seeing their bestest buddies being invaded by the mean old Russians, declared war on Russia.
This was eventually followed up by France and England declaring war on Germany and Austria-Hungary (but the Hondurans had to declare first, and I swear, to see the Kaiser’s face when he was told Honduras went to war with Germany and the utter giggling fit that must have ensued would have been classic to watch! I snicker a little at the thought!)
So we already have France and England being the aggressors.
Germany later crushed Russia so hard there was a revolution at home and Russia surrendered. Did Germany abuse them further? No. They took the surrender, kept what they had taken in legitimate warfare, and let the Russians go home in peace (and pieces.)
About this time the US was finally getting into the war. Perhaps the only allied nation to do so for a legitimate reason, not that they were ever exactly NEUTRAL in world events. So France and England get fresh faces, less jaded and experienced troops that could be used to revive a war effort that, had the US stayed the frak out of, probably would have ground to a halt where it was.
France, England and the US force a capitulation in Germany and Austria-Hungary. Not because they could not fight anymore, but because they did not want to fight anymore. The treaty of Versailles was drafted and it was NOTHING like what the Axis powers were expecting! But, because they already surrendered, they went with it - trench warfare was truly hell, or so the saying goes.
The treaty was so horrible, so nasty, that the allies felt guilty and when Germany started to bust at the seams and reclaim land stolen for Poland, Slovakia, France, etc, they just let them go. You understand, the germans had 3 paydays every day, and after each one the men would RUN home and give the wife the money so she could buy whatever she could before inflation made the currency worthless. In such a situation, how can a people survive if not by rebelling against the unfair nature of their situation? Even having landed gentry was not as bad as this!
Now, I am not saying Hitler was a good man, that the National Socialists were good men, that the death camps never existed or that they should have. No. There were evils and atrocities, and there were good soldiers too, like ones saving kittens from burning homes. What I am going to say is this, had England and France stayed out of an internal matter in the Austrian-Hungarian empire, there would have been no death camps, no atrocities, hell, no trench warfare in WWI (no Argonne Forest either!) and no NAZIs and thus no WWII.
So in my book, France and England, because they caused both WWI and WWII, are clearly the bad guys.
Much of my mindset is jaded by my heritage and schooling, and much of your statements are likewise jaded by your heritage and your schooling. It’s the nature of the beast. So if you do not agree, then you do not agree, and if you do agree, great!
-
@Baron:
Another point in the documentary was Poland refuse to discuss and make any deal with Hitler about a road and access to Easter Prussia via Danzig.
In Munich, in late September 1938, Hitler offered a deal to France and Britain which said essentially, “Give me the Sudentenland and I’ll leave the rest of Czechoslovakia alone”. They gave it to him – and in so doing, they gave Germany a convenient position inside of Czechoslovakia’s natural mountain defenses. In mid-March 1939, Germany used the Sudetenland as a springboard to take over the rest of Czechkoslovakia, despite Hitler’s assurances at Munich that he had no further territorial ambitions. Given how quickly Hitler had broken his word about Czechoslovakia, why on earth would Poland have had any reason to trust him if he offered Poland a deal which essentially said, “Give me a land corridor to Danzig and I’ll leave the rest of Poland alone”?
Suggested Topics
