WWII - an unnecessary waste and the fault of England?

[Bill Mattocks]

Did they? I am no WWII expert but I do recall something about the British military in late 1930's having the bulk of their power understandably concentrated in their navy. The Germans really never bothered too much with building a strong navy, preferring to rely on their large and well-equipped armies.

Yes, but the German Army was elsewhere - in Poland. The Germany Air Force was also superior to the RAF, but it was likewise elsewhere.

I don't think the British could do anything on land to defend Poland even if they had wanted to pursue that strategy.

What they wanted to do is the crux of my question. I think I'm not making my question clear. I am aware of what they did; what I want to know is why. Why make the agreement, knowing they would abrogate it? Why did they abrogate it? What you're saying is that they did what they did because they did it. I think there was a reason - I'd like to know what that reason was.

What about the French? Dunno. They couldn't have been that strong either if the Nazis defeated them so easily either.

Actually, that's quite untrue. France had a very powerful army at that time, and Germany feared it. France greatly outnumbered the Germans who were stationed on the Siegfried Line; most of Germany's power was in Poland on the other side of Germany at the time. France declared war and invaded Germany in the Saar. They won in a walk - Germany was being routed! Yet France called a halt to the invasion, sat still for a few weeks doing nothing, and then fell back, giving the Saar back to Germany for no apparent reason. It was also known as 'The Phoney War' because not only did France halt it's successful offensive, it began feeding completely made-up reports of French victories against German troops to Poland, who was sitting waiting for the planned relief of their embattled forces by both France and Great Britain.

What's going on here?

Maybe there's really no big story behind it at all other than what everyone has mentioned already.

I don't think so. Nobody is really saying anything other than Great Britain wasn't really prepared to take on Germany when it invaded Poland. I can dig that - but that's not what I asked. WHY did Great Britain make that promise to Poland, knowing it would not honor it? What was their purpose of entering the war by declaring war on Germany and then not attacking as they agreed to? Why Poland and not Czechoslovakia? And let's add more to this - why did Great Britain not declare war on the USSR when it also invaded Poland weeks after Germany did (USSR was then an ally of German, not the Allies).

The whole thing is strange, and I am not understanding the explanations - GB did what it did because that's what it did. That's a recounting, not an explanation.

 

[dancingalone]

GB did what it did because that's what it did.

That's certainly not the explanation I offered. I said Poland was a red line for Britain, meaning if the Germans attacked Poland, Britain would then know that war could not be avoided.

It's the equivalent of being mugged. If someone holds a knife to my neck and asks me for my wallet, I give him the wallet. If he wants me to go somewhere with him however, then the fight is on, even if he has the knife.

I don't believe there was anything that particularly important about Poland other than a historical precedent for an Anglo-Pole alliance. And Britain did not fight an all out war in Poland (or Germany for that matter) because she could not mobilize enough land forces to make a dent in the German war machine, even if the Germans were presently occupied with their Polish conquest.

No idea about the French.

 

[dancingalone]

By the way this old article from 1965 states the French military had not planned for any scenario other than an invasion of France itself, so a defense of Poland could never have been in the cards.

You need a membership to read the full article though.

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/23720/henry-owen/nato-strategy-what-is-past-is-prologue

 

[Bill Mattocks]

That's certainly not the explanation I offered. I said Poland was a red line for Britain, meaning if the Germans attacked Poland, Britain would then know that war could not be avoided.

But then they did basically nothing beyond declaring war. So it apparently was not as it appeared. Thus my question.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

By the way this old article from 1965 states the French military had not planned for any scenario other than an invasion of France itself, so a defense of Poland could never have been in the cards.

You need a membership to read the full article though.

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/23720/henry-owen/nato-strategy-what-is-past-is-prologue

Then why would they sign a mutual aid pact in the days before Germany invaded? Why would they launch an invasion that was incredibly successful, and then stop - without significant resistance - miles into German territory? Why feed Poland false reports of military successes after they retreated - without being forced - back to the Maginot Line?

They were successful in their invasion. They were not opposed significantly and suffered few losses. They basically whooped *** and were doing as they had promised Poland. The Germans would have had to divide their forces and fight two wars. Then the turned tail and headed back to France and started lying about it to Poland.

Why?

 

[Empty Hands]

But then they did basically nothing beyond declaring war. So it apparently was not as it appeared. Thus my question.

I'm not sure that anything beyond "logistics" is needed. Others have pointed out the difficulty in positioning forces, balance of navy vs. army, etc. After the US declared war, we saw very little action until well into 1943 for that very reason.

So you ask why then the promise to defend? I think it might be more useful to look at defense pacts as deterrents or tools of diplomacy than immediately physically useful. GB might well have thought that a pact would deter Germany from further expansion on it's own, without the need to go to war immediately. That pact would have to figure in Germany's calculations to invade. None of that is invalidated by an inability to immediately act, nor does it make the pact a deception or that GB broke it.

As for France, I don't know enough to say. However, military miscalculation and limited intelligence is a huge part of war that is difficult to fully appreciate in hindsight. Maybe the French did not know they had the Germans outnumbered. Perhaps they did not know most of the forces were in Poland, or they feared a counterattack. Maybe other calculations figured, who knows.

Look at Gen. McClellan in the Civil War. He had a huge, well trained army sitting waiting to go. Yet he spent months and months letting them sit, always trying to further prepare, continually afraid that the enemy was better than him.

 

[dancingalone]

But then they did basically nothing beyond declaring war. So it apparently was not as it appeared. Thus my question.

Do you believe direct action is the only option? When you hold a weaker position, it's actually a good idea to sit back in a defensive position and wait for the foe to come to you and hopefully expend their strength trying to get to you.

I doubt anyone in the British government actually wanted to fight Germany. But you gotta do what you gotta do.

 

[dancingalone]

Then why would they sign a mutual aid pact in the days before Germany invaded? Why would they launch an invasion that was incredibly successful, and then stop - without significant resistance - miles into German territory? Why feed Poland false reports of military successes after they retreated - without being forced - back to the Maginot Line?

They were successful in their invasion. They were not opposed significantly and suffered few losses. They basically whooped *** and were doing as they had promised Poland. The Germans would have had to divide their forces and fight two wars. Then the turned tail and headed back to France and started lying about it to Poland.

Why?

An interesting question if your underlying premise is true. Why not ask this question on a history forum where the people will be more knowledgeable and perhaps can answer your question? (and post the link here )

 

[Archangel M]

I'm thinking that most of the "Powers" were hoping that Germany would just keep on heading East into Russia, with Poland being given up in an "when you have to make an omelet" fashion.

When they "went off the rails" and started slashing in all directions we were forced into an alliance of necessity against them.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I'm not sure that anything beyond "logistics" is needed. Others have pointed out the difficulty in positioning forces, balance of navy vs. army, etc. After the US declared war, we saw very little action until well into 1943 for that very reason.

So you ask why then the promise to defend? I think it might be more useful to look at defense pacts as deterrents or tools of diplomacy than immediately physically useful. GB might well have thought that a pact would deter Germany from further expansion on it's own, without the need to go to war immediately. That pact would have to figure in Germany's calculations to invade. None of that is invalidated by an inability to immediately act, nor does it make the pact a deception or that GB broke it.

As for France, I don't know enough to say. However, military miscalculation and limited intelligence is a huge part of war that is difficult to fully appreciate in hindsight. Maybe the French did not know they had the Germans outnumbered. Perhaps they did not know most of the forces were in Poland, or they feared a counterattack. Maybe other calculations figured, who knows.

Look at Gen. McClellan in the Civil War. He had a huge, well trained army sitting waiting to go. Yet he spent months and months letting them sit, always trying to further prepare, continually afraid that the enemy was better than him.

Both treaties - Britain's and France's, called for specific action, down to the number of divisions to be deployed within X days of the treaty being invoked. Seriously, they were quite specific. France and Britain both did none of those things.

This isn't about logistics and strategy - it's about specific agreements and the fact that they were violated. And the question remains.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Do you believe direct action is the only option? When you hold a weaker position, it's actually a good idea to sit back in a defensive position and wait for the foe to come to you and hopefully expend their strength trying to get to you.

I doubt anyone in the British government actually wanted to fight Germany. But you gotta do what you gotta do.

I can point you to the wording of the actual agreement; it called for very specific responses, including numbers of divisions and what land would be taken by the British by what dates. They did none of those things. France was worse - they started and then stopped, and then lied about it to Poland, saying they were complying when they were not.

It's not a question of what is the 'best action'. When you agree to pay a bill, you pay the bill. You don't argue that you have a better solution which involves not paying the bill, but it's OK because direct action isn't necessarily best. They made a series of very specific promises and didn't keep them. Why did they make them and why did they abrogate them?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I'm thinking that most of the "Powers" were hoping that Germany would just keep on heading East into Russia, with Poland being given up in an "when you have to make an omelet" fashion.

When they "went off the rails" and started slashing in all directions we were forced into an alliance of necessity against them.

Ah.

So let's play a game. Let's say France and Britain could have forced Germany to withdraw from Poland by actually doing what they promised to do. But that would have left them fighting Germany and the USSR (Germany's ally at that time) and no USA helping them.

But we were forced, weren't we?

 

[Sukerkin]

But then they did basically nothing beyond declaring war. So it apparently was not as it appeared. Thus my question.

I think I answered your question a few posts back, Bill.

It was a political gambit that was intended to be a message to the German government to be happy with what they have and come no further. A diplomatic 'bluff', if you will.

The concession of the Sudetenland had only been a precursor to Hitler taking even more territory, so a change of tactic to hold back the tide was in order.

It did in fact do some good as it caused Hitler to pause for a time before taking the steps that he intended from the start - as I said earlier, he was aware that the 'prestige' of the Empire was more mighty than it's waning actuality (with the Royal Navy being the most powerful remaining military force).

 

[Sukerkin]

Here is a good little thumb-nail time-line that should prove useful as a guide for where to direct research:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwtwo/invasion_poland_01.shtml

 

[Bill Mattocks]

It did in fact do some good as it caused Hitler to pause for a time before taking the steps that he intended from the start - as I said earlier, he was aware that the 'prestige' of the Empire was more mighty than it's waning actuality (with the Royal Navy being the most powerful remaining military force).

He only paused from August 25 or 26 to Sept 1 as I recalled. Not really much of a pause.

And again - it appears that Britain had the ability to do far more than bluff, as did France (perhaps France even more so).

So I'm sorry, but for me, the question really isn't answered. "It was a bluff" doesn't really fit the situation from what I can tell.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Here is a good little thumb-nail time-line that should prove useful as a guide for where to direct research:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwtwo/invasion_poland_01.shtml

Thanks, I like it.

 

[Tez3]

http://www.historyman.co.uk/road2war/

 

[Bill Mattocks]

http://www.historyman.co.uk/road2war/

I hate to say it, but this is not useful. It says (without cites) pretty much what we've all been saying - here's what happened. It does not say why the UK made a mutual defense pact with Poland - or why it chose not to follow through with it. It claims that the 'cowardly French' were unwilling to go to war - but the French had a powerful army and they did indeed advance into Germany (at first) and met little resistance, they were winning bigtime until, for unknown reasons, they gave up and went home - without military pressure forcing them back.

And the article even hints at something that the story I linked to said straight out - that America was neutral and did not want to get involved in this war and would need to be lured in. If the UK and France had managed to contain Germany and force it to withdraw from Poland by providing enough pressure on the other side of Germany so that Germany would have to fight on two fronts, which experienced German generals feared and tried to warn Hitler against.

So again - the UK seems to have taken action it did not need to by signing a mutual defense treaty with Poland in the week before Germany invaded; they didn't have to have that reason to declare war. But as I've said and as your link says, it seems they didn't really want to - or were not ready to - go to war, yet they knew they would be going to war in days. Then they declared war in accordance with their agreement, but took next to no action - strange for a country that knew it was just about to have to declare war. Again, they made very specific promises to Poland and utterly disregarded all of them, so why did it make them knowing it could not fulfill them? France invaded Germany and made great progress and then turned back for no apparent reason, and even your link agrees that the UK realized it need the USA in the war, but the USA didn't want to be in the war.

So, forgive me, but it looks from reading your link that there is some substance to this interesting theory - that the UK and France didn't actually want to end up in a war with Germany and maybe the USSR that didn't also include the USA and that they might have chosen not to win too early in order to put themselves in a situation that the USA would be forced to enter the war. I'm not saying that's what happened, but none of my basic questions have been answered. It's just not an answer to point out that the UK didn't have a modern army and wasn't ready to fight. Presumably they knew that and did what they did - and didn't do what they didn't do - on purpose or for a reason that's not being mentioned.

 

[dancingalone]

I can point you to the wording of the actual agreement; it called for very specific responses, including numbers of divisions and what land would be taken by the British by what dates. They did none of those things. France was worse - they started and then stopped, and then lied about it to Poland, saying they were complying when they were not.

It's not a question of what is the 'best action'. When you agree to pay a bill, you pay the bill. You don't argue that you have a better solution which involves not paying the bill, but it's OK because direct action isn't necessarily best. They made a series of very specific promises and didn't keep them. Why did they make them and why did they abrogate them?

Sovereign nations aren't the same thing as individuals or even corporations obviously. The consequences for nonperformance on a contract ("treaty") are rather less enforceable even if they are mentioned (doubtful), particularly if it is one between allies. Countries sign treaties all the time that they intend to breach or ignore at first opportunity. I don't think I need to name examples for that surely.

Regardless you are looking for a fairly specific response to your question and you simply won't find it here on MT, as well educated as many of us are, none of us are historians specializing in the historical causes of World War II. We've posted our thoughts as laymen with relatively superficial study of the topic.

A phone call to the University of Michigan - Ann Arbor to the right professor might end in the information you are looking for.

 

[K-man]

Nope.

"Whereas the Government of Germany has formally declared war against the Government and the people of the United States of America:
Therefore be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the state of war between the United States and the Government of Germany which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared; and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war against the Government of Germany; and, to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States."
Approved, December 11, 1941, 3:05 p.m., E. S. T.

Sorry to disappoint. This is not a declaration of war. This is the response to Germany's declaration of war. ( See the first line of your quote)

German Declaration of War against the United States

The Government of the United States having violated in the most flagrant manner and in ever-increasing measure all rules of neutrality in favor of the adversaries of Germany and having continually been guilty of the most severe provocations toward Germany ever since the outbreak of the European war, provoked by the British declaration of war against Germany on September 3, 1939, has finally resorted to open military acts of aggression.

On September 11, 1941, the President of the United States publicly declared that he had ordered the American Navy and Air Force to shoot on sight at any German war vessel. In his speech of October 27, 1941, he once more expressly affirmed that this order was in force. Acting under this order, vessels of the American Navy, since early September 1941, have systematically attacked German naval forces. Thus, American destroyers, as for instance the Greer, the Kearny and the Reuben James, have opened fire on German submarines according to plan. The Secretary of the American Navy, Mr. Knox, himself confirmed that American destroyers attacked German submarines.

Furthermore, the naval forces of the United States, under order of their Government and contrary to international law have treated and seized German merchant vessels on the high seas as enemy ships.

The German Government therefore establishes the following facts:

Although Germany on her part has strictly adhered to the rules of international law in her relations with the United States during every period of the present war, the Government of the United States from initial violations of neutrality has finally proceeded to open acts of war against Germany. The Government of the United States has thereby virtually created a state of war.

The German Government, consequently, discontinues diplomatic relations with the United States of America and declares that under these circumstances brought about by President Roosevelt, Germany too, as from today, considers herself as being in a state of war with the United States of America.

Accept, Mr. Chargé d'Affaires, the expression of my high consideration.

December 11, 1941

This is not to say that America was still strictly neutral to that time but the majority of Americans were in favour of staying out of the war. Roosevelt was convinced America should be assisting the Allies but he did not have the support of Congress. That changed dramatically after Pearl Harbor. You will notice that this declaration of war by Germany and the American response occurred four days after the Japanese attack. Prior to that he didn't have the numbers.