Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

conference on WWII
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234>
Author
  Share Topic Share Topic  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
konstantinius View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 22-Aug-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 762 		  Quote konstantinius Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: conference on WWII
    Posted: 24-Nov-2007 at 12:36
Originally posted by Sarmat12

Originally posted by deadkenny



So, inspite of pathetic and inaccurate attempts to make it seem as though the Soviets were against the Nazi's and the US was not, the fact is that it was the other way around up until the Nazi's betrayed their erstwhile 'ally' with the invaision in 1941.  Once both the US and the USSR were at war with Nazi Germany, the US provided considerable material assistance to the USSR (i.e. Lend Lease).  Further the American military leadership 'allowed' the Red Army to occupy territory in Germany and Eastern Europe that the Americans could easily have gotten to first if they had been interested in forestalling the Soviets.  It was only later, when the Stalin started to overtly break previous commitments he had made that the US 'turned against' the Soviet Union. 
 
There never was an "alliance" between USSR and Nazi Germany. Both of them considered the Pact of 1939 just as uncomfortable, yet very convenient arrangement. Nobody, really was thinking that that "peace" would last forever.

Yes, there was. It was signed on paper which makes it very actual. It doesn't matter what they both thought about it. It was signed and confirmed so stop making excuses.
 
But if you want to consider the origins of signing the pact, you should examine in debts the overall situation in Europe in the late 30th. Including the bertrayal of Czechoslovakia and Munich pact, that was actually the similar thing as a Molotov Ribbentrop pact, but made by the West in that case.
 
Never did Stalin thought that Nazis were better than French and English, however, the latter simply prefered to ignore all the attempts of the USSR to to create anti-German alliance.

Such as which one? Stalin was notoriously suspicious, including of his own shadow. He would never trust the Anglo-French more than he would trust the Germans.
 
That's why it's stupid to say that only USSR is solely responsible for Molotov-Ribentrop pact. The very chance for conclusion of that pact became possible only due to the irresponsible position of the Western powers.
 
Who ever said the USSR is solely responsible? Germany also seek the pact and got it because it served her tactical purposes at the time, i.e buying time before the attack on the USSR.
 
However, I don't think USA was really willing to invade USSR so much. USA simply didn't care and wanted to stay away from the war.
 
But, honestly speaking, American companies were keeping doing business with Nazist even after the war had started. Few know that the accounting devices which Nazist used in Osventsim and Buhenwald were made by IBM.
" I do disagree with what you say but I'll defend to my death your right to do so."
Back to Top
konstantinius View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 22-Aug-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 762 		  Quote konstantinius Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Nov-2007 at 12:46
Originally posted by deadkenny

Originally posted by Sarmat12

I don't even want to comment on this. You obviously didn't read my post where all the questions you raised were discussed in detail.
 
Of course, Soviet Union didn't have to sign the pact. But the thing is that it could easily be attacked afterwards by Nazis backed by the Western support (or may be even Polish support).
 
Stalin opted to invade Poland only when he saw that Western Allies bertrayed Poland (meaning that it would be too risky to rely on them as allies), although they clearly could support its stuggle by invading Germany from the West while most of its forces were in the East.
 
Also note that it was again Soviet initiative to negotiate about alliance with France and England in 1939. Why the negotiatione failed is discussed in my post.
 
I don't thing that Molov-Ribbentrop pact was a "positive" document. Definetely, it triggered the start of WWII in some sense. However, the responsibility for WWII is shared equally by England and France as well. And I addressed it in my post.
 
But, anyway, you don't want to read it it and it's up to you.


Well, the fact is that you said....

Originally posted by Sarmat12

....That's why it's stupid to say that only USSR is solely responsible for Molotov-Ribentrop pact. The very chance for conclusion of that pact became possible only due to the irresponsible position of the Western powers....


So the issue was 'responsibility' for signing the pact with Nazi Germany, not for starting the war.  Your post does not support the claim that the Allies were 'responsible' for the Soviets signing the pact.  The Soviets were responsible for their own actions.

I absolutely agree. No one held a gun to Stalin's head to sign the pact. He gambled and he got into a tough one for himself afterwards.   

Now, if you want to change the question to responsibility for the starting of WWII, then that is a different question.  In that case it was clearly Germany who started the war.  The Soviets may bear some responsibility for 'facilitating' Germany's actions.  However, clearly much greater responsibility belongs to the Allies for 'allowing' Hitler to get to the position he did when he started the war.  There was 'allowing' the violations of the non-armament provisions of Versailles, the Rhineland, Austria, selling out Czechoslovakia (twice).  Regarding your point in the your most recent point, how could Germany 'easily' attack the Soviet Union if there had been no pact between them?  As I pointed out, there was no common land border between them until the Soviets collaborated with the Nazis in the partition of Poland in Sept. '39.  The 'buffer' states between them had been 'guaranteed' by Chamberlain, meaning that the Germans could not have 'gotten at' the Soviets without triggering war with France and Britain as well.  It seems as though, in this case, you're swallowing the communist story, hook line and sinker.  This is the 'propaganda' myth that the poor Soviet Union was the 'victim' in this situation - 'forced' by the Allies to make a deal with Hitler and then betrayed by him.  In fact it was simply a cynical 'deal' by which Stalin hoped to profit from but which 'backfired' on him.

Absolutely correct in my opinion yet again.
" I do disagree with what you say but I'll defend to my death your right to do so."
Back to Top
Anton View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 23-Jun-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888 		  Quote Anton Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Nov-2007 at 18:42
Originally posted by Majkes

During this aggression SU comitted atrocities like masacre in Katyn forest of which Russia still doesn't want to accept as crime against humanity and some Russian media claim it was German crime.
 
Remind me at least one precedent when winning side accepted its war actions as a crime against humanity.
.
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3113 		  Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Nov-2007 at 19:20
Originally posted by Majkes

 17th September was simple and unaceptable aggression and all the claims to justify it are shameful. During this aggression SU comitted atrocities like masacre in Katyn forest of which Russia still doesn't want to accept as crime against humanity and some Russian media claim it was German crime.
 
 
Again, guys please read my post attentively before giving such biased assesments.
 
I never said in my post that the attack on Poland was an "honorable" thing.
 
I was talking about the "reason for signing of Molotov-Ribbentrop pact." Moreover the pact itseld didn't envision any "attack on Poland". This was in the secret addendum to it.
 
Undoubtely, the attack on Poland was a trecherous and disgusting act so was a meaningless massacre of Polish officers in Katyn forest. The latter BTW absolutely didn't have any justifications and is a perfect example of Stalin's paranoia.
 
Regarding this I want to stress that USSR OFFICIALLY RECOGNIZED that massacre in Katyn forest happened. USSR government officially assumed the responsibility for that crime and transferred the related NKVD documents to Polish archives. This is a known and established fact.
 
If one says that "Russian mass media doesn't recognize Katyn massacre" it's nothing more than BS, unless one read "Russian massmedia" dated 1950th.
 
So, it's stupid to say that Russia "doesn't want to accept it" USSR has officially expressed regret and admitted responsibility for the massacre. And current Russian government is an official legitimate heir of the USSR according to International law, so it bears all the obligations and responsibility for all the official statements which were made by USSR government. The responsibility that was taken by USSR for Katyn massacre is now taken by Russia.
 
So, I beg you next time before saying smth. like that do some basic research.
 
 


Edited by Sarmat12 - 24-Nov-2007 at 20:17
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3113 		  Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Nov-2007 at 19:29
Originally posted by Majkes

I see Sarmat12 that You believe in communist propaganda like cgristians in the bible. Most of You said in Your posts is laughable and funny. Stalin seems to be almost holy man and only this bad Poland didn't let him to help as He was eager to doLOL.
First of all the simple reason why Poland didn't agree for SU "help" is that SU armies were known that if they come somewhere with brother's help" they would never leave and it was this small problem for Poland. Sorry but change source "Z dziejow stosunkow polsko-radzieckich. Studia i materialy. T.III. Warszawa, 1968. S.262, 287 - above book are old communism fairytales.

 
It's laughable and funny that you simply don't want to accept the responsibility of the Polish government for the failure of peace negotiations.
 
Polish government gladly expressed "solidarity with Furhrer" during the reap of Czechoslovakia for what it was called a hyena by Churchill.
 
It also rejected a "reasonable military demand" (as was noted by French and English observers) by the Soviet government.
 
And yes, it had claims on the Soviet territory. Of course so did USSR on the Polish territory. But the difference between us is that while I admit USSR's responsibility for the Pact and military crimes, it's very hard for you to admit that Poland also bears the responsibility for the failure of the negotiations between USSR and Western powers.
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3113 		  Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Nov-2007 at 19:54
Originally posted by deadkenny


Now, if you want to change the question to responsibility for the starting of WWII, then that is a different question.  In that case it was clearly Germany who started the war.  The Soviets may bear some responsibility for 'facilitating' Germany's actions.  However, clearly much greater responsibility belongs to the Allies for 'allowing' Hitler to get to the position he did when he started the war.  There was 'allowing' the violations of the non-armament provisions of Versailles, the Rhineland, Austria, selling out Czechoslovakia (twice). 
 

 
This is exactly what I'm desperately trying to communicate here.
 
Originally posted by deadkenny


Regarding your point in the your most recent point, how could Germany 'easily' attack the Soviet Union if there had been no pact between them?  As I pointed out, there was no common land border between them until the Soviets collaborated with the Nazis in the partition of Poland in Sept. '39.  The 'buffer' states between them had been 'guaranteed' by Chamberlain, meaning that the Germans could not have 'gotten at' the Soviets without triggering war with France and Britain as well.  It seems as though, in this case, you're swallowing the communist story, hook line and sinker.  This is the 'propaganda' myth that the poor Soviet Union was the 'victim' in this situation - 'forced' by the Allies to make a deal with Hitler and then betrayed by him.  In fact it was simply a cynical 'deal' by which Stalin hoped to profit from but which 'backfired' on him.
 
 
Ok, for your convenience I will summarize again what I said in my post. The thing is simple. Without any arrangments and guarantees between the Western powers and the USSR Nazist could easily occupy Poland and afterwards attack the USSR.
 
Here you can rise an objection: No, the Polish independence was guaranteed by Chamberlain etc. Ok, firstly, we had a perfect example of Chemberlain's guarantees with Czechoslovakia.
 
Secondly, even after Nazist attack Poland. Did France or Enlgand help her somehow despite the declaration of war? No. No material help at all. Have you heard the term "strange war"?
 
French clearly had all the means to strike Germans from behind while their main forces were fighting in Poland. They had all the military superiority in the West. But nothing followed... Why? Didn't it look just a like a natural example of continuation of the Munich policy by the West?
 
Tell me why couldn't Germany reach somekind of settlement with France and England after Poland is defeated?
 
Any obstacles for that? Wasn't is just exactly what France and England wanted?

 
And now, Why couldn't Germany go furhter to the East, after the defeat of Poland and the settlement with the West? Why not? Any reasons?
 
Moreover, at that time it could potentially be supported by the West, or at least it could have a friendly neutrality of the West.
 
Tell me, why this scenario is not possible in your eyes?
 
 


Edited by Sarmat12 - 24-Nov-2007 at 20:13
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
Majkes View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
Imperial Ambassador

Joined: 06-May-2006
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1144 		  Quote Majkes Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Nov-2007 at 20:50
Originally posted by Sarmat12

Originally posted by Majkes

I see Sarmat12 that You believe in communist propaganda like cgristians in the bible. Most of You said in Your posts is laughable and funny. Stalin seems to be almost holy man and only this bad Poland didn't let him to help as He was eager to doLOL.
First of all the simple reason why Poland didn't agree for SU "help" is that SU armies were known that if they come somewhere with brother's help" they would never leave and it was this small problem for Poland. Sorry but change source "Z dziejow stosunkow polsko-radzieckich. Studia i materialy. T.III. Warszawa, 1968. S.262, 287 - above book are old communism fairytales.

 
It's laughable and funny that you simply don't want to accept the responsibility of the Polish government for the failure of peace negotiations.
 
Polish government gladly expressed "solidarity with Furhrer" during the reap of Czechoslovakia for what it was called a hyena by Churchill.
 
It also rejected a "reasonable military demand" (as was noted by French and English observers) by the Soviet government.
 
And yes, it had claims on the Soviet territory. Of course so did USSR on the Polish territory. But the difference between us is that while I admit USSR's responsibility for the Pact and military crimes, it's very hard for you to admit that Poland also bears the responsibility for the failure of the negotiations between USSR and Western powers.
 
As I said before Poland couldn't accept SU "help" because as I said before they would never leave. Russians were defeated in Battle of warsaw in 1920 and people would never accept their presence in Poland the same as Germans. 
Poland said from the beginning that won't acept SU army on our territory.
Some of Your claims seems also bit illogical to me like e.g.
 
  

Besides, Poland was planning hostile actions against the Soviet Union

 Report of the 2d intelligence department of the polish military headquarters dated December 1938, was saying: Partition of Russia is the foundation of the Polish policy in the East. Thats why our position in case of such partition is that Poland shouldnt be passive in such a historical moment. Our task is to prepare physically and spiritually. Our main task is the destruction and defeat of Russia

 
You really believe this?? With who we would make this partition? With Chechens?
From history we know that it's Russia and Germany always get on well concerning Poland.
Back to Top
Majkes View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
Imperial Ambassador

Joined: 06-May-2006
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1144 		  Quote Majkes Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Nov-2007 at 20:59

Moreover. Ribbentrop noted after the meeting with Beck on January 1939: Mister Beck didnt hide that Poland has claims in the Soviet Ukraine and want the access to the Black Sea.  In other words, it was clearly more than possible that Poland could take part in the German aggression against SU.

Ribbentrop is as much reliable as Goebbels. Poland didn't have territory claims to SU and was never negotiating with Germany to attack SU. From history we know that it's always Russia and Germany get on very well concerning attacks on Poland.


 
Back to Top
Majkes View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
Imperial Ambassador

Joined: 06-May-2006
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1144 		  Quote Majkes Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Nov-2007 at 21:11
Originally posted by Sarmat12

Originally posted by Majkes

I see Sarmat12 that You believe in communist propaganda like cgristians in the bible. Most of You said in Your posts is laughable and funny. Stalin seems to be almost holy man and only this bad Poland didn't let him to help as He was eager to doLOL.
First of all the simple reason why Poland didn't agree for SU "help" is that SU armies were known that if they come somewhere with brother's help" they would never leave and it was this small problem for Poland. Sorry but change source "Z dziejow stosunkow polsko-radzieckich. Studia i materialy. T.III. Warszawa, 1968. S.262, 287 - above book are old communism fairytales.

 
It's laughable and funny that you simply don't want to accept the responsibility of the Polish government for the failure of peace negotiations.
 
 
 
Polish government gladly expressed "solidarity with Furhrer" during the reap of Czechoslovakia for what it was called a hyena by Churchill.
 
It also rejected a "reasonable military demand" (as was noted by French and English observers) by the Soviet government.
 
And yes, it had claims on the Soviet territory. Of course so did USSR on the Polish territory. But the difference between us is that while I admit USSR's responsibility for the Pact and military crimes, it's very hard for you to admit that Poland also bears the responsibility for the failure of the negotiations between USSR and Western powers.
 
I don't have a problem with admitting that Poland  didn't agree on Soviets troops in Poland and I said few times why. But it wasn't failure of peace negotiations because peace between Poland and SU was concluded in 1921 in Riga.
 
 
Back to Top
deadkenny View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 994 		  Quote deadkenny Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Nov-2007 at 21:26
Originally posted by Sarmat12

This is exactly what I'm desperately trying to communicate here.


The problem arises when you try to 'communicate' one point as if it is in contradiction to what I'm saying, when it's not.  Responsibility for the start of WWII is one thing, responsibility for  signing a pact with Nazi Germany is another.  You argue about the former when I have only commented on the latter.
 

Originally posted by Sarmat12

Ok, for your convenience I will summarize again what I said in my post. The thing is simple. Without any arrangments and guarantees between the Western powers and the USSR Nazist could easily occupy Poland and afterwards attack the USSR.
 
Here you can rise an objection: No, the Polish independence was guaranteed by Chamberlain etc. Ok, firstly, we had a perfect example of Chemberlain's guarantees with Czechoslovakia.



Continue to claim that I refuse to read your post if it makes you happy. 

Germany could 'easily' overrun' Poland and then go on to attack the Soviet Union while at war with France and Britain at the rear?  Well I simply disagree that it would have been simple at all.  In fact it more likely would have been disastrous for Germany.

Britain had no guarantee of or treaty with Czechoslovakia at the time of Munich.  However, it is a good example of the valid (or lack of) of a guarantee by France at the time.


Originally posted by Sarmat12

Secondly, even after Nazist attack Poland. Did France or Enlgand help her somehow despite the declaration of war? No. No material help at all. Have you heard the term "strange war"?


It's usually called the 'Phony War' in English.  The problem was that Poland collapses too quickly.  The Soviets moved into eastern Poland within about 2 weeks which was the final nail in the coffin for Poland, the Allies simply weren't prepared to move that quickly. Tell me, how many troops did Britain even have on the continent when the Soviets finished off Poland by their invasion in the east?


Originally posted by Sarmat12

French clearly had all the means to strike Germans from behind while their main forces were fighting in Poland. They had all the military superiority in the West. But nothing followed... Why? Didn't it look just a like a natural example of continuation of the Munich policy by the West?
 
Tell me why couldn't Germany reach somekind of settlement with France and England after Poland is defeated?
 
Any obstacles for that? Wasn't is just exactly what France and England wanted?


No, clearly France did not have the 'means' ready to strike within the timeframe imposed by Germany's rapid offensive and the SU's early invasion of Poland.  France was still using a WWI timetable and they needed weeks to mobilize and prepare for a major offensive.

As for a settlement after the conquest of Poland, that is exactly what Hitler wanted.  The Allies categorically refused to even discuss a 'settlement' until and unless the Germans pulled out of not only Poland but also the parts of the Czech state that they had illegally occupied in March '39.


Originally posted by Sarmat12

And now, Why couldn't Germany go furhter to the East, after the defeat of Poland and the settlement with the West? Why not? Any reasons?
 
Moreover, at that time it could potentially be supported by the West, or at least it could have a friendly neutrality of the West.
 
Tell me, why this scenario is not possible in your eyes?


They couldn't go further east and take on the SU while still at war with France and Britain because they weren't strong enough to do so.  Historically they were heavily dependent upon the SU for supplies that had been cut off by the British blockade in order to keep their industry running.  Furthermore, although France took a very long time to 'get ready', they eventually would have been in a position to attack in the west.  The Germans managed to defeat Poland quickly and shift forces west in time, but there's no way they could have defeated the SU in time to forestall a French offensive in the west.  That is just exactly why Hitler was so desperate to make a deal with Stalin when it become obvious that France and Britain would fight him if he attack Poland.  The scenario you suggest, i.e. Germany going 'through' Poland and continuing to attack the SU while at war with France and Britain clearly would have been a disaster for Germany.
Back to Top
Majkes View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
Imperial Ambassador

Joined: 06-May-2006
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1144 		  Quote Majkes Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Nov-2007 at 21:29
Aleksander Sabow in Rossijskaja Gazeta wrote this year 18th September article that suggest that Katyn masacre is not explain enough and it is doubtfull it was SU crime. And this is newspaper close to Russia goverment.
 
TV Centr also close to Kremlin showed similar views about Germans responsability in material shown also this year.
 
 Main Army Prosecutor in Russia wrote to Polish National Memory Institute that He doesn't recognize Polish killed in Katyn as victims of political repressions. Russia doesn't recognize Katyn masacre as a crime against hummanity but as serie of ordinary murders and the case is stale.
Back to Top
Majkes View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
Imperial Ambassador

Joined: 06-May-2006
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1144 		  Quote Majkes Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Nov-2007 at 21:33
Originally posted by deadkenny


They couldn't go further east and take on the SU while still at war with France and Britain because they weren't strong enough to do so.  Historically they were heavily dependent upon the SU for supplies that had been cut off by the British blockade in order to keep their industry running.  Furthermore, although France took a very long time to 'get ready', they eventually would have been in a position to attack in the west.  The Germans managed to defeat Poland quickly and shift forces west in time, but there's no way they could have defeated the SU in time to forestall a French offensive in the west.  That is just exactly why Hitler was so desperate to make a deal with Stalin when it become obvious that France and Britain would fight him if he attack Poland.  The scenario you suggest, i.e. Germany going 'through' Poland and continuing to attack the SU while at war with France and Britain clearly would have been a disaster for Germany.
 
I agree with that. Germany wasn't prepared at the time to fight on 2 fronts and if most of their trops would fight against russia Britain and France sooner or later would overrun Germany.
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3113 		  Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Nov-2007 at 23:43
Originally posted by Majkes

Aleksander Sabow in Rossijskaja Gazeta wrote this year 18th September article that suggest that Katyn masacre is not explain enough and it is doubtfull it was SU crime. And this is newspaper close to Russia goverment.
 
TV Centr also close to Kremlin showed similar views about Germans responsability in material shown also this year.
 
 Main Army Prosecutor in Russia wrote to Polish National Memory Institute that He doesn't recognize Polish killed in Katyn as victims of political repressions. Russia doesn't recognize Katyn masacre as a crime against hummanity but as serie of ordinary murders and the case is stale.
 
The opinion of all these people don't represent the official opinion of the Russian state in any manner. Russia has officially recognized Katyn massacre as a war crime and assumed the responsibility.
 
There is war memorial for Katyn victims in Russia with the monuments clearly stating that they are the vicitims of STALINISM.
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3113 		  Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Nov-2007 at 23:55
Originally posted by deadkenny



No, clearly France did not have the 'means' ready to strike within the timeframe imposed by Germany's rapid offensive and the SU's early invasion of Poland.  France was still using a WWI timetable and they needed weeks to mobilize and prepare for a major offensive.
 
Yes, they did. And if you're claiming otherwise, you are not familiar with the facts or you simply don't want to recongize the truth. Poland was bertrayed by its allies in the very same way as Czechoslovakia was.
 
 
 

The French attack on Saarland was a French sortie into the Saarland in the early stages of World War II. The purpose of the attack was to assist Poland, which was then under attack. However, the assault was stopped and the French forces withdrew.

According to the Franco-Polish military convention, the French Army was to start preparations for the major offensive three days after mobilisation started. The French forces were to effectively gain control over the area between the French border and the German lines and were to probe the German defences. On the 15th day of the mobilisation (that is on September 16), the French Army was to start a full scale assault on Germany. The pre-emptive mobilisation was started in France on August 26 and on September 1 full mobilisation was declared.

A French offensive in the Rhine river valley area (Saar Offensive) started on September 7, four days after France declared war on Germany. Then, the Wehrmacht was occupied in the attack on Poland, and the French soldiers enjoyed a decisive numerical advantage along the border with Germany. However, the French did not take any action that was able to assist the Poles. Eleven French divisions advanced along a 32 km line near Saarbrcken against weak German opposition. The French Army had advanced to a depth of 8 kilometres and captured about 20 villages evacuated by the German army, without any resistance. However, the half-hearted offensive was halted after France seized the Warndt Forest, three square miles of heavily-mined German territory.

The attack did not result in any diversion of German troops. The all-out assault was to be carried out by roughly 40 divisions, including one armoured division, three mechanized divisions, 78 artillery regiments and 40 tank battalions. On September 12, the Anglo-French Supreme War Council gathered for the first time at Abbeville in France. It was decided that all offensive actions were to be halted immediately. By then the French divisions had advanced approximately eight kilometres into Germany on a 24 kilometre-long strip of the frontier in the Saarland area. Maurice Gamelin ordered his troops to stop not closer than 1 kilometre from the German positions along the Siegfried Line. Poland was not notified of this decision. Instead, Gamelin informed marshal Edward Rydz-Śmigły that half of his divisions were in contact with the enemy, and that French advances had forced the Wehrmacht to withdraw at least six divisions from Poland. The following day the commander of the French Military Mission to Poland General Louis Faury informed the Polish chief of staff, general Wacław Stachiewicz, that the planned major offensive on the western front had to be postponed from September 17 to September 20. At the same time, French divisions were ordered to retreat to their barracks along the Maginot Line. The Phony War had begun.



 
Originally posted by deadkenny


As for a settlement after the conquest of Poland, that is exactly what Hitler wanted.  The Allies categorically refused to even discuss a 'settlement' until and unless the Germans pulled out of not only Poland but also the parts of the Czech state that they had illegally occupied in March '39.

They couldn't go further east and take on the SU while still at war with France and Britain because they weren't strong enough to do so.  Historically they were heavily dependent upon the SU for supplies that had been cut off by the British blockade in order to keep their industry running.  Furthermore, although France took a very long time to 'get ready', they eventually would have been in a position to attack in the west.  The Germans managed to defeat Poland quickly and shift forces west in time, but there's no way they could have defeated the SU in time to forestall a French offensive in the west.  That is just exactly why Hitler was so desperate to make a deal with Stalin when it become obvious that France and Britain would fight him if he attack Poland.  The scenario you suggest, i.e. Germany going 'through' Poland and continuing to attack the SU while at war with France and Britain clearly would have been a disaster for Germany.
 
False. The thing is that it was Hitler who didn't want to have any settlements after Poland was defeated, However, if there wouldn't be any arrangements with SU, I don't think Hitler would reject this option.
 
In any case England and France despite all their declarations didn't do anything to stop Hitler, until they were attacked in 1940, which is a clear indication that they were hoping to settle the problems with Germany without fighting.
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3113 		  Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Nov-2007 at 00:04
Originally posted by Majkes

Moreover. Ribbentrop noted after the meeting with Beck on January 1939: Mister Beck didnt hide that Poland has claims in the Soviet Ukraine and want the access to the Black Sea.  In other words, it was clearly more than possible that Poland could take part in the German aggression against SU.

Ribbentrop is as much reliable as Goebbels. Poland didn't have territory claims to SU and was never negotiating with Germany to attack SU. From history we know that it's always Russia and Germany get on very well concerning attacks on Poland.
 
Form history we know that it was Poland who attacked and destroyed Western Ukrainian republic and also attacked Soviets in 1921. Poland occupied Soviet territory and also some territory of the other states like for example Vilno region of Lithuania (this was never recognized by the League of Nations BYW).We also know from history that Poland, that was a military dictatorship conducted an aggressive foreign policy in 1930th. by military threatening Lithuania and invading Czechoslovakia together with "furher." 
 
You may dislike Soviet sources, but the foreign of Poland at this period was characrerized as a behavoir of "hyena" by Winston Churchill, who was an ardent anti communist. So, it's very natural that it had also had claims on the Soviet territory. 


Edited by Sarmat12 - 25-Nov-2007 at 00:15
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
deadkenny View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 994 		  Quote deadkenny Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Nov-2007 at 00:59
Originally posted by Sarmat12

 
Yes, they did. And if you're claiming otherwise, you are not familiar with the facts or you simply don't want to recongize the truth. Poland was bertrayed by its allies in the very same way as Czechoslovakia was....
 

On the 15th day of the mobilisation (that is on September 16), the French Army was to start a full scale assault on Germany....



It's pretty sad when you don't even read your own post!  The so called Saar Offensive was a small scale probing attack that didn't get very far.  Poland was effectively finished, and Germany was shifting forces west, before the French were completely mobilized and prepared to launch a major offensive, just as I stated.  I'm not sure why you insist on making lengthy posts and then claiming that they somehow refute my statements when they obviously don't.  First you made the 'responsibility for signing the pact' vs. 'responsibility for starting the war' switch and now you've 'confused' my point that France couldn't completely mobilize and prepare for a major offensive with France being able to attack at all.  Whatever promises France may have made that they were incapable of living up to are irrelevant.  Further, I never said that France was completely incapable of taking any offensive action, I said they couldn't completely mobilize and launch a major offensive in the timeframe.  Your Wiki source supports my point, it doesn't refute it. 


Originally posted by Sarmat12

 
False. The thing is that it was Hitler who didn't want to have any settlements after Poland was defeated, However, if there wouldn't be any arrangements with SU, I don't think Hitler would reject this option.
 
In any case England and France despite all their declarations didn't do anything to stop Hitler, until they were attacked in 1940, which is a clear indication that they were hoping to settle the problems with Germany without fighting.

 

What is supposed to be false?  Hitler made peace offers, which were rejected by the Allies.  The basis for any settlement in Hitler's mind was that he would retain control of the areas of Poland and Czechoslovakia that he already held.  That was completely unacceptable to the Allies, who's position was any settlement would require Germany to withdraw from Poland and the Czech territory occupied in violation of the Munich agreement.  The fact the Allies didn't take any offensive action against Germany directly doesn't in any way refute the point I made that it was Hitler who wanted a settlement and the Allies who refused.


Edited by deadkenny - 25-Nov-2007 at 01:00
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3113 		  Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Nov-2007 at 01:52
I don't read my own post... Read it first before writing this. This is what is says:
 

According to the Franco-Polish military convention, the French Army was to start preparations for the major offensive three days after mobilisation started. The French forces were to effectively gain control over the area between the French border and the German lines and were to probe the German defences. On the 15th day of the mobilisation (that is on September 16), the French Army was to start a full scale assault on Germany. The pre-emptive mobilisation was started in France on August 26 and on September 1 full mobilisation was declared.

France had to start the full scale assault on Germany on September 16, this was according to their agreement with Poland. Did they start it? No
 
 
A French offensive in the Rhine river valley area (Saar Offensive) started on September 7, four days after France declared war on Germany. Then, the Wehrmacht was occupied in the attack on Poland, and the French soldiers enjoyed a decisive numerical advantage along the border with Germany. However, the French did not take any action that was able to assist the Poles.
 
The article clearly says that French did not take any action. Is not like they were not able to take it. They simply didn't take it.
 
 
The all-out assault was to be carried out by roughly 40 divisions, including one armoured division, three mechanized divisions, 78 artillery regiments and 40 tank battalions. On September 12, the Anglo-French Supreme War Council gathered for the first time at Abbeville in France. It was decided that all offensive actions were to be halted immediately.
 
On September 12 as well as on September 16, the fighting in Poland was going on. It was actually the time of the largest battle in Poland the battle of Bzura. The action of the Allies was required exactly at that time. Yet it didn't follow-a clear bertrayal.
 
 
Moreover, French command clearly lied about its actions to their Polish allies:
 
Maurice Gamelin ordered his troops to stop not closer than 1 kilometre from the German positions along the Siegfried Line. Poland was not notified of this decision. Instead, Gamelin informed marshal Edward Rydz-Śmigły that half of his divisions were in contact with the enemy, and that French advances had forced the Wehrmacht to withdraw at least six divisions from Poland. The following day the commander of the French Military Mission to Poland General Louis Faury informed the Polish chief of staff, general Wacław Stachiewicz, that the planned major offensive on the western front had to be postponed from September 17 to September 20. At the same time, French divisions were ordered to retreat to their barracks along the Maginot Line. The Phony War had begun.
 
 
After this, you're still insistising that "the article supports your point"?
 
 
Also read this:
 

Both the pre-war reports of the Polish intelligence and the post-war testimonies of German generals (most notably of Wilhelm Keitel and Alfred Jodl) reported that there was an equivalent of less than 20 divisions facing France in 1939, as compared to roughly 90 French divisions. On the other hand, German orders of battle show 33 infantry divisions, plus eleven newly raised infantry divisions, plus the equivalent of six border guard divisions, all under command of Army Group C. Similarly, most of the Luftwaffe and all armoured units were then in Poland while the Siegfried Line was severely under-manned and far from completed. Knowing all of the above, the Polish commanders expected that the French offensive would quickly break the German lines and force the OKW to withdraw a large part of its forces fighting on Polish soil back to German western frontier. This would force Germany to fight a costly two-front war.

The French assault was to be carried out by roughly 40 divisions, including one armoured division, three mechanized divisions, 78 artillery regiments and 40 tank battalions. All the necessary forces were mobilised in the first week of September. On September 12, the Anglo-French Supreme War Council gathered for the first time at Abbeville in France. It was decided that all offensive actions were to be halted immediately.

After the war, General Alfred Jodl commented that the Germans survived 1939 "only because approximately 110 French and English divisions in the West, which during the campaign on Poland were facing 25 German divisions, remained completely inactive."
 
 


Edited by Sarmat12 - 25-Nov-2007 at 02:16
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3113 		  Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Nov-2007 at 02:02
Here is another article about the pact from bbc site . Totally supporting my points expressed earlier.
 
Nazi-Soviet pact

Hitler's only real concern was that a sudden German invasion of Poland might alarm Stalin and trigger a war with the Soviet Union. Stalin feared a German invasion and had been seeking an anti-Nazi 'collective security' alliance with the western powers for many years, but by July 1939 Britain and France had still not agreed terms.

Poland had also rejected an alliance with the Soviet Union, and refused permission for the Red Army to cross its territory to engage the Wehrmacht in a future war. Hitler saw his opportunity, and authorised his Foreign Minister, Joachim von Ribbentrop to enter into secret negotiations with the Soviet Union.

The result was the signing of the Nazi-Soviet Pact on 23 August 1939. Both Hitler and Stalin set aside their mutual antipathy for national gain and in particular the restoration of their pre-1919 borders.



Edited by Sarmat12 - 25-Nov-2007 at 02:18
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
deadkenny View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 994 		  Quote deadkenny Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Nov-2007 at 04:15
Originally posted by deadkenny

...
 France was still using a WWI timetable and they needed weeks to mobilize and prepare for a major offensive....


Originally posted by Sarmat12

...On the 15th day of the mobilisation (that is on September 16), the French Army was to start a full scale assault on Germany...


How does what you've posted in any way refute what I posted.  You continue your 'technique' of arguing against something that I never said.

Originally posted by Sarmat12

 
France had to start the full scale assault on Germany on September 16, this was according to their agreement with Poland. Did they start it? No 


No, they didn't.  So tell me, what was the position of Poland by Sept. 16?  How many divisions had Germany already shifted to the west?  The facts are that France was simply not able to start their offensive quickly enough to 'catch' the Germans with the bulk of their forces in the east, as I stated in the first place.  I have no idea what you think you're arguing against, but I am certain that your posts do not refute what I've said.
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3113 		  Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Nov-2007 at 04:43
Originally posted by deadkenny

No, clearly France did not have the 'means' ready to strike within the timeframe imposed by Germany's rapid offensive and the SU's early invasion of Poland. 
 
Is it what you wrote or not?
 
You said that France didn't have the means. I showed that they had them.
 
Once again the quote about the planned offensive on September 16:

The French assault was to be carried out by roughly 40 divisions, including one armoured division, three mechanized divisions, 78 artillery regiments and 40 tank battalions. All the necessary forces were mobilised in the first week of September. On September 12, the Anglo-French Supreme War Council gathered for the first time at Abbeville in France. It was decided that all offensive actions were to be halted immediately.

After the war, General Alfred Jodl commented that the Germans survived 1939 "only because approximately 110 French and English divisions in the West, which during the campaign on Poland were facing 25 German divisions, remained completely inactive."
 
 Now, tell me why France didn't have the means for the attack on September 16. Clearly they had all the means for the planned attack.
 
Yet, they did nothing. And the worst thing was that when they made the decision to halt any offenisive was that the Poles were still fighting and they didn't knew that USSR would invade Poland from the East. Moreover, French lied to their Polish allies that "everything was going according to the plan and German are withdrawing their forces back to the West."
 
What is this in your view? Isn't this a clear bertrayal?
 
Regardless of what you mean by "major offensive" French clearly had enough forces to create pressure on the German on the West, which would be a great help for Poles, but they did nothing.
 
 


Edited by Sarmat12 - 25-Nov-2007 at 04:48
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.094 seconds.