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

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Why didn't the allies declare war on the USSR?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 5>
Author
AL_C0 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 29-Mar-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1
  Quote AL_C0 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Why didn't the allies declare war on the USSR?
    Posted: 18-Jul-2009 at 14:35
If the U.K and France were obliged to protect Poland, why did they only declare war on Germany and not the USSR when they attacked Poland?


Back to Top
cavalry4ever View Drop Down
AE Moderator
AE Moderator
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator Emeritus

Joined: 17-Nov-2004
Location: Virginia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 589
  Quote cavalry4ever Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Jul-2009 at 13:29
Soviet Union attacked later (17 September 1939), when they were sure Polish Army was defeated by Nazi. 
Chamberlain was an appeaser and could not decide to fight Hitler, it would be hard to imagine he would like to fight Soviet Union. Daladier  could not do too much without Chamberlain's support. There was a strong push to negotiate for peace with Germany in 1940.
Surprisingly there was Franco-British plan to help Finland in 1940 against Soviet invasion.
You have to understand atmosphere in Western Europe. With the communist scare, lots of politician look at Hitler as god sent to fight the "red tide".
British were cursed during that war. One leader was Hitler's puppet and other one (Churchill) became Stalin's puppet. As we get better understanding of what transpired at Teheran and Yalta conferences, Churchill and  Roosevelt look pretty tarnished as well.
Back to Top
Pytheus View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 10-Jul-2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 135
  Quote Pytheus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Jul-2009 at 15:40
Originally posted by cavalry4ever

Soviet Union attacked later (17 September 1939), when they were sure Polish Army was defeated by Nazi. 
Chamberlain was an appeaser and could not decide to fight Hitler, it would be hard to imagine he would like to fight Soviet Union. Daladier  could not do too much without Chamberlain's support. There was a strong push to negotiate for peace with Germany in 1940.
Surprisingly there was Franco-British plan to help Finland in 1940 against Soviet invasion.
You have to understand atmosphere in Western Europe. With the communist scare, lots of politician look at Hitler as god sent to fight the "red tide".
British were cursed during that war. One leader was Hitler's puppet and other one (Churchill) became Stalin's puppet. As we get better understanding of what transpired at Teheran and Yalta conferences, Churchill and  Roosevelt look pretty tarnished as well.
 
Sorry but this is utter nonsense, did you even study WWII before you posted this. Give me a single piece of evidence in support of your claims.
Back to Top
cavalry4ever View Drop Down
AE Moderator
AE Moderator
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator Emeritus

Joined: 17-Nov-2004
Location: Virginia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 589
  Quote cavalry4ever Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Jul-2009 at 12:41
The best case of naivete from both Churchill and Roosevelt was at Teheran conference. They were invited to stay at Soviet Embassy. All their private conversations were monitored by KGB. Before each negotiating session Stalin would get transcript. 
Churchill was wondering why negotaiations were so hard. I think a person with an average IQ would get idea. Roosevelt had an excuse, he was fairly sick.
My other favorite story is when Churchill gave Stalin a piece of paper showing division of Europe between Allies and Soviets (eyewitness accounts). I would say fools like this were god sent gifts to Stalin. The amount of damage they did in Europe was amazing.

If you would like to read more you can look up articles and books on "Secret Provisions Of Yalta Protocol" and articles on Teheran Conference.
Back to Top
Cryptic View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke

Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 05-Jul-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1962
  Quote Cryptic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Jul-2009 at 15:53
Originally posted by Pytheus

 
Sorry but this is utter nonsense, did you even study WWII before you posted this. Give me a single piece of evidence in support of your claims.
 
I think he is right. Any decision making by Britian had to balance several questions that were constantly changing:
 
-Treaty obligations aside, was Britain truly ready for war with Germany and the Soviet Union and possibly Japan?
 
- Was Nazism or Communism the main threat to Britain? The answer was not always clear as the  upper classes of Western Europe were deathly afraid of communism.
 
-What was the will power and if needed, the negotiating abilities of the decision maker?  Do they truly understand who it is that they are negotiating with?.
 
Matching wills and negotiating with extreme sociopaths who also happen to be highly intelligent (Stalin) is difficult even in controlled environments where the negotiator has direct authority.  Then factor in that at Yalta, Stalin's power and confidence were increasing and you can see how things can go down hill fast. Descnet men like Churchill and Roosevelt were not ready for Stalin. Mao, however, did understand Stalin. Too bad they did not take him along for guidiance on dealing with men like StalinWink.
Back to Top
cavalry4ever View Drop Down
AE Moderator
AE Moderator
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator Emeritus

Joined: 17-Nov-2004
Location: Virginia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 589
  Quote cavalry4ever Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Jul-2009 at 20:17
I think another problem with Churchill was his arrogance. He was looking down on Stalin (uncle Joe) and because of this it never occurred to him that he was dealing with someone with intelligence superior to his.
Problem with Hitler and Stalin, both had enablers in the West. A firm stand at some point could prevent some of human catastrophes later.

Not attacking Germany in 1939 when German army was not really that strong and reservists were guarding Germany's west border while almost whole army was engaged in Poland. Credit should be given here to Daladier and Chamberlain.
The stupid slogan "the peace in our time" while giving away fortified part of Czechoslovak border to Nazi.
Here enabling credit goes to Chamberlain.
European march toward war could have been stopped many times. Stalin's grab of more than half of Europe could have been stopped too. US and England moved when it was obvious that Paris may get "liberated" by wrong army or Stalin and Hitler may reach agreement again. 
This is interesting question:
Who is more responsible for an ensuing catastrophe - enablers or perpetrators.


Edited by cavalry4ever - 21-Jul-2009 at 07:04
Back to Top
Cryptic View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke

Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 05-Jul-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1962
  Quote Cryptic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Jul-2009 at 09:26
I think that Hitler was more enabled than Stalin. Though a stronger hand could have limited Stalin, by 1943 / 1944 he was very strong and only getting stronger. The only actions able to limit him may have been an early D-Day or a seperate peace with Germany. Both seem to have been pretty unlikely.  
 
I like your point about Churchill badly underestimating Stalin's intelligence. Another WWII era leader whom constantly out thougt his rivals and friends was Franco.
Back to Top
cavalry4ever View Drop Down
AE Moderator
AE Moderator
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator Emeritus

Joined: 17-Nov-2004
Location: Virginia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 589
  Quote cavalry4ever Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Jul-2009 at 09:51
Good point about Franco. He was a survivor. My favorite story was how he got rid of ultra-fascists which, it is hard to believe, were more right wing than him and wanted to force him to enter war. He packaged them into Division Azul. Not too many came back from the eastern front to bother him. 
He should have been forced to step down, but because of cold war, US decided he was useful. There were guerillas fighting him trough the war and they did feel betrayed.
Dieppe landing could have succeeded, if there was a bit more planning involved and if Canadians used Sherman tanks instead of useless Churchills that got bogged down on the gravel beach.
I think this is a fascinating subject, but it deviates a bit from original topic. I am going to open a topic on enablers and perpetrators just so we can continue with this.
Back to Top
kurtusanami View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 20-Aug-2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2
  Quote kurtusanami Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Aug-2009 at 16:59
I don't see how Churchill and Rooesvelt lost at the conference in Yalta. Europe had been devided and so had been Germany. The Russians had to take Berlin and pay with blood for that. They lost more people in Berlin than anewhere lese. Had the US been forced to take Berlin, the american blood would have to be spilled, not the Russian. Sure, Germany, and mayby some of poland and chech republick would have become democratic countries, but was it worth it, for those who had to be killed to make it happen. The us didn't have to wave its flag from Reichstag, and soldiers didn't have to be killed. the russians had no choice beacuse it was they who had been attcked. 
Back to Top
cavalry4ever View Drop Down
AE Moderator
AE Moderator
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator Emeritus

Joined: 17-Nov-2004
Location: Virginia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 589
  Quote cavalry4ever Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Aug-2009 at 10:52
Originally posted by kurtusanami

I don't see how Churchill and Rooesvelt lost at the conference in Yalta. Europe had been devided and so had been Germany. The Russians had to take Berlin and pay with blood for that. They lost more people in Berlin than anewhere lese. Had the US been forced to take Berlin, the american blood would have to be spilled, not the Russian. Sure, Germany, and mayby some of poland and chech republick would have become democratic countries, but was it worth it, for those who had to be killed to make it happen. The us didn't have to wave its flag from Reichstag, and soldiers didn't have to be killed. the russians had no choice beacuse it was they who had been attcked. 

If Cold War ever became hot war, they made Western Europe indefensible. The soviet army was stationed in the center of Europe. By time NATO would organize, the war would be over.
Back to Top
MERN View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 10-Aug-2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 15
  Quote MERN Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Nov-2009 at 21:19
"If the U.K and France were obliged to protect Poland, why did they only declare war on Germany and not the USSR when they attacked Poland?"

I tend to think the British saw Germany as the bigger threat to their Empire and naval power.
Back to Top
Peteratwar View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 17-Apr-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 591
  Quote Peteratwar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Nov-2009 at 06:39

Neither Churchill nor Rooseveldt were Stalin's puppets. Roosevelt may have been fooled by Stalin unfortunately. However, Churchill was always aware of the ussian menace as was most of Europe at the time.

 
Having declared war on Germany, Chamberlain certainly wasn't going to declare war on Russia as well. In any event he wasn't technically obliged to. The guarantee to Poland was against Germany
 
At that time Germany wasn't a particular naval threat BTW apart from the submarines.
 
Besides which consider the practicalities of the time when mentioning woulds and shoulds.
 
Yes the Iron Curtain clanged down and the cold war developed. There is no reason to expect NATO to have just folded up. If the Russians had been preparing an assault do you think this would have gone unnoticed. It may have taken many long years but the communist threat finally vanished though the steadfastness of America and its allies
 
Politics is often the art of what is possible
Back to Top
fano View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 27-Nov-2009
Location: Florida
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2
  Quote fano Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Nov-2009 at 19:56
As far as appeasement is concerned, we just talked about this in my history class, and the thing was that the Treaty of Versailles left Germany in really REALLY bad shape, with no army, and no economic stability, as well as having a bunch of land taken from it. Many of the European nations likely thought that Germany growing it's own internal illegal army, and taking back the Ruhr were things that Germany should be allowed to do, because they all realized that it really wasn't fair what Germany got stuck with. Why should Germany be the only country without an army, and why shouldn't it be allowed to take back the Ruhr from the French? Now, I don't know about a lot of the other instances, but I think that's the kind of mindset that a lot of Europe was in at that time. That combined with the fact that Hitler was harshly opposing Stalin and Communism.


Back to Top
cavalry4ever View Drop Down
AE Moderator
AE Moderator
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator Emeritus

Joined: 17-Nov-2004
Location: Virginia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 589
  Quote cavalry4ever Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Nov-2009 at 08:03
Originally posted by fano

As far as appeasement is concerned, we just talked about this in my history class, and the thing was that the Treaty of Versailles left Germany in really REALLY bad shape, with no army, and no economic stability, as well as having a bunch of land taken from it. Many of the European nations likely thought that Germany growing it's own internal illegal army, and taking back the Ruhr were things that Germany should be allowed to do, because they all realized that it really wasn't fair what Germany got stuck with. Why should Germany be the only country without an army, and why shouldn't it be allowed to take back the Ruhr from the French? Now, I don't know about a lot of the other instances, but I think that's the kind of mindset that a lot of Europe was in at that time. That combined with the fact that Hitler was harshly opposing Stalin and Communism.


This can explain things up to 1936. After that it is appeasement or misguided idea of using Germany to fight Bolshevism. And we should remember that fascist sympathisers were very strong in both France and Britain. 
Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
suspended

Joined: 23-Sep-2009
Location: Long Beach, MS,
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4621
  Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Nov-2009 at 14:33
Originally posted by kurtusanami

I don't see how Churchill and Rooesvelt lost at the conference in Yalta. Europe had been devided and so had been Germany. The Russians had to take Berlin and pay with blood for that. They lost more people in Berlin than anewhere else. Had the US been forced to take Berlin, the american blood would have to be spilled, not the Russian. Sure, Germany, and mayby some of poland and chech republick would have become democratic countries, but was it worth it, for those who had to be killed to make it happen. The us didn't have to wave its flag from Reichstag, and soldiers didn't have to be killed. the russians had no choice beacuse it was they who had been attcked. 


Actually sir, I would respectfully disagree with you and a few other posters concerning this period of time!

It seems to me that the Western allies, full well were ready for the Communists and Nazis to fight it out till both were spent! Remember that Uncle Joe and Uncle Adolph did not really have to worry much about politics! Certainly the secret police, hist squads, and firing squads, etc., settled most political squabbles in both Germany and Russia during this period, whereas Chruchill and Rooseveldt both had to please a voting public!

It even makes it good sense to delay the Western offensive as long as possible, since it would further weaken the Germans and the Russians would be taking most of the bullets, rather than Americans, Australians, Canadians, Free French and Brits, etc.

HItler's biggest blunder may well have been his stubborness to take Stalingrad, rather than continue into the oil fields, where were, at one time, the ultimate object of his armies in the area. Oil became the largest enemy of Germany in the last three years of the war, since they had to try and rely upon synthetic oil for their supply. That is one reason that German tanks in the latter part of the war, were operating upon bronze bushings, rather than ball bearings, thus creating the "creak, squeek, clank" sounds made by their tanks.

But, back to the main point, I do not think that Rooseveldt or Churchill gave a "tinker's damn" about the millions of lives being lost by the Russians since they were saving the lives of the Western Allies. Certainly US, and allied transports were delivering almost everything of material and supplies to assist Russia's manufacturing proceses, as well as ammunition, food, aircraft, etc.

As regards the Western allies movement into Western Europe and Germany in particular, it seems that either by agreement or by other means, the Western powers, tried to ensure the Soviet attack upon Berlin, by itself! Probably Stalin had demanded such an agreement? But, in reality, could we really expect the German High Command to really fight as it did against the Soviet, if they had been expected to do against the Americans, Brits, and French forces?

As it was, it seems to me, that except for one certain event (IE, the Battle of the Bulge") that the Western forces mostly fought the eldest and youngest of the German Army, etc., since the real "flower of German warpower" was directed towards the East and the Russians! The "high German command, knew that they could expect "no quarter" from Stalin, but I feel they expected to be treated as fellow soldiers by the Western officer corps, etc. Thus, it seems an almost open highway to Berlin was offered to the Western Allies, but it seems politics, as always, also stabbed them in the back, when the Western Allies, actually stopped their advance, to let the Soviet surround and take Berlin! In my memory it seems that the Soviets lost 100,000 men in the Battle of Berlin only! The number of German troops and civilians lost is mostly not able to be determined.

The question remains, "if the Western allied armies had been given the leeway to take Berlin, just how grimly defended would it have been?
Regards,
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/
Back to Top
Tazjet View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 20-May-2010
Location: New Zealand
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 58
  Quote Tazjet Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-May-2010 at 18:03
Originally posted by Pytheus

 
Sorry but this is utter nonsense, did you even study WWII before you posted this. Give me a single piece of evidence in support of your claims.


http://orientalreview.org/2010/04/22/britain-planned-to-attack-ussr/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-British_plans_for_intervention_in_the_Winter_War

http://www.histdoc.net/history/greatpower1939.html

Early in 1940 there was an act of Parliament passed in Whitehall authorising the raising of a mercenary force from the british military and to supply british armaments to Finland in support of their war against Russia.

Seperately there was also a proposal to attack the Soviet oil fields in the Caucus by overflight of Turkey.

UK was also trying to buy loyalty from Mussolini by offers of coal deals and arms supplies in order to woe Italy away from Hitler.

Roosevelt however was more outraged by Soviet occupation of the Baltic states and Stalin's refusal to allow American trade access to soviet markets. Roosevelt was determined that Stalin and not Hitler were the enemy.

Roosevelt sent his emmisary Sumner Welles to Europe in a round of shuttle diplomacy to propose to the leaders of Europe a "New World Order" in which Western powers would co-exist and sort out their squabbles, yet unite together behind Germany to smash the bolsheviks.

This proposal crumbled in April 1940 with the invasion of Denmark and Norway. Hitler had become spooked by Anglo french interest in using a railway line from the port of Narvik to Finland which threatened Germany's sole source of iron ore. This was the tipping point of WW2.




Back to Top
Patryk View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 11-Jul-2010
Location: Hong Kong
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 97
  Quote Patryk Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Nov-2010 at 02:15
Indeed, in early 1940, it was unclear whether there would be war against Russia or Germany or both.  This of course changed when Hitler moved into the Low Countries in May 1940 and later attacked Russia in 1941. 
 
I have long thought that this was one of Hitler's greatest strategic blunders.  He could have used anti-Russian feelings in the West to actually get the UK and France to help him attack Russia or at least encourage those two to fight thus weakening both.  Hitler's aim was always Ukrainian Lebensraum and never war with England and France just for the sake of war.  Hitler could have used the Winter War to his advantage against Russia.  Alas, Hitler was never a great a thinker.  He was deeply conservative and never innovative (though he liked taking credit for other people's innovations).  From the start he showed himself wedded to the idea of simply re-fighting WWI.
 
Indeed, Hitler's total lack of strategic vision during the Winter War could be seen the war's REAL "turning point."
Back to Top
Mosquito View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
Suspended

Joined: 05-Aug-2004
Location: Sarmatia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2537
  Quote Mosquito Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Nov-2010 at 06:33
Originally posted by Patryk

Indeed, in early 1940, it was unclear whether there would be war against Russia or Germany or both.  This of course changed when Hitler moved into the Low Countries in May 1940 and later attacked Russia in 1941. 
 
I have long thought that this was one of Hitler's greatest strategic blunders.  He could have used anti-Russian feelings in the West to actually get the UK and France to help him attack Russia or at least encourage those two to fight thus weakening both.  Hitler's aim was always Ukrainian Lebensraum and never war with England and France just for the sake of war.  Hitler could have used the Winter War to his advantage against Russia.  Alas, Hitler was never a great a thinker.  He was deeply conservative and never innovative (though he liked taking credit for other people's innovations).  From the start he showed himself wedded to the idea of simply re-fighting WWI.
 
Indeed, Hitler's total lack of strategic vision during the Winter War could be seen the war's REAL "turning point."
 
 
Thats actually not truth. France was always Hitler's target #1. Germany and especially Hitler wanted the revange for WW1 and Versailles treaty. One of the goals was to regain the disupted territory that Germany lost after WW1.
"I am a pure-blooded Polish nobleman, without a single drop of bad blood, certainly not German blood" - Friedrich Nietzsche
Back to Top
Patryk View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 11-Jul-2010
Location: Hong Kong
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 97
  Quote Patryk Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Nov-2010 at 06:55
Originally posted by Mosquito

Thats actually not truth. France was always Hitler's target #1. Germany and especially Hitler wanted the revange for WW1 and Versailles treaty. One of the goals was to regain the disupted territory that Germany lost after WW1.
 
I will not dispute this.  Certainly, Hitler wanted to bring all Germans "home" to the Reich and that included Germans in Alsass and Loraine as much as Germans in Danzig and Bohemia.  But in the long term, Hitler sought Lebensraum in the East NOT in the North, South, or West.  
 
If Hitler could have gained his Lebensraum in the East without war with France, but if Hitler chose war with France anyway because he harboured hatred against France stemming from his time as a Frontkampfer, the Hitler really was WAS irrational from the start. 
 
I would really need to study the diplomatic history of the Winter War more to know if Hitler every entertained the idea forming an alliance with France against Russia rather than simply trying to re-run the Schlieffen Plan.
 
That being said, Hitler didn't care about ALL terrirtory lost in 1919.  Hitler showed little interest or concern for Germans in Southwest Africa and the old German East Africa not to mention territory in the Pacific.  Those territories he effectively wrote-off.
Back to Top
Mosquito View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
Suspended

Joined: 05-Aug-2004
Location: Sarmatia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2537
  Quote Mosquito Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Nov-2010 at 07:43
In 1938 after Czechoslovakia, Hitler offered Poland an alliance. His proposals were:
 
1. Poland will resign from rights to Gdansk/Danzig and agree for building exterritorial highway.
2. Poland will stay idle in case of German war against France.
3. Poland will join Germany in invasion against Soviet Union.
4. Poland will adopt the anti - jewish policy similar to that in Germany.
 
In exchange Poland would recive territorry on Ukraine and eventually resign from corridor except for the city of Gdynia where was newly built Polish seaport. On the Ukraine Hitler offered Poland the Odessa city and sea port. (Germans said that Black Sea is a sea as well).
Those proposals were refused by Polish goverment and since the refusal Hitler diecided to invade Poland first. Before it he wanted to invade France first.


Edited by Mosquito - 16-Nov-2010 at 07:50
"I am a pure-blooded Polish nobleman, without a single drop of bad blood, certainly not German blood" - Friedrich Nietzsche
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 5>

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 0.078 seconds.