During WWI and WWII, does Allies Democracies were as GOOD as they say?

[Last Jack]

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.

[BJCard]

@wheatbeer:

@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.

[ABWorsham4]

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.

[wheatbeer]

@Gargantua:

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?

[Gargantua]

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.

[CWO Marc]

@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.

[wheatbeer]

@Gargantua:

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?

[baron Münchhausen]

@wheatbeer:

@Gargantua:

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.

[baron Münchhausen]

@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?

[CWO Marc]

@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.

[aequitas-et-veritas]

Very good Post CWO Marc, Very good!

[baron Münchhausen]

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?

[Jennifer]

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!

[CWO Marc]

@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”?

[Jennifer]

@CWO:

@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”?

I remember seeing images of the Polish charging the Panzers with mounted grenadiers.  It always sort of inspired me.

With men like that, who needs negotiation?

[Last Jack]

Men like that you need shovels.

[Razor]

@Cmdr:

So in my book, France and England, because they caused both WWI and WWII, are clearly the bad guys.Â

So you tell me that the Serbian terrorists that killed the Austrian Arch-duke and triggered the war, were not supported by the russian officers and mondene elite ? And you tell me that France and Britain joined WW I before Russia ? Then how can you explain that russian forces cut deep into Germany and Austria long before France and Britain startet their mobilization ?

Being a Ukrainean, how do you excuse the russians starving millions of ukraineans to death during the 1920 ? Just for fun ?

And was it not Stalin and Russia that made WWII possible by making the non-aggression pact with Hitler so he could attack Poland ? So russians are the good guys now, eh ? Forgotten are the GULag camps in Sibir ? And the western democracies with its evil freedom are now the bad guys ? Yes, that makes sence, evil USA always start all the wars. We trigger some wars on foreign territories, and then we sell them weapons and stuff and get real rich. We are bad capitalist pigs, man. Blame on U$a

[Jennifer]

I didn’t include or exclude Russia, did I?

Ah, it was in the other thread.

Yes, Russia declared war to attack the Austrian-Hungarians when they thought they had a chance to destabilize the local government. 
Germany, in response (and being the loyal allies and good people they were) declared war on Russia so that their friends and allies could put down the terrorist revolt in their nation.  They succeeded and Russia was forced to not only capitulate, but the government changed from a Monarchy to one of Socialism.

However, the Serbians asked Russia for help.  France and England just decided to declare war when they thought THEY could grab some extra land from Germany.  Germany was clearly and firmly entrenched as the good guys in WWI - even if they were the first to use chemical weapons (I believe that if you are in war, there is no action you can take that kills hostile forces that is illegal.  Only when they are no longer hostile or not involved in the war like POWs or civilians, do you run into unethical behavior.)

[KaLeu]

Regardless of any underlying motives, it’s important to stick to the facts. It was Germany that declared war on France on August 3, 1914. Not the other way around.
On August 2, Germany had demanded free passage of its troops through Belgium in a confidential communication to the government of that country. Belgium refused to comply with that demand, and the Germans invaded the next day.
Britain did indeed declare war on Germany, on August 4, in response to the German attack on Belgium and after a British “cease and desist” ultimatum had expired.

[Jennifer]

Maybe the website I got the French DOW on was wrong, or just listed the allied ones - since many times they reciprocate a dow even though they don’t need too…

Anyway, Germany was perfectly happy sitting there and doing nothing before Russia decided to stick it’s big fat nose in things, then France and England decided to fight Germany (DOW or not, they did cut off transport and trade with them, so in effect, they did declare on Germany even if it wasn’t on paper)

It’s clear that the side that supported the rebellion against the law abiding, peace loving states of Germany and Austria-Hungary are the aggressors, Germany and Austria-Hungary just defending themselves from unwarranted and unwanted attack. :P

And Belgiums a country?  Sheesh, I thought it was a truck stop on route to Paris!  Next you’ll be telling me Rhode Island is a state in the United States of America and not a gas station with delusions of grandeur!