Germany and Russia attack Poland Sept 1943

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I have been wondering about this for a long time.Why when Germany and Russia attacked Poland in 1939 did France and Britain only declare war on Germany. I believe Russia also attacked Norway and the Baltics.

[econ21]

I believe they very nearly did declare war on Russia. I believe Churchill - who was obessed about the Bolshevik threat for even longer than he had been about the Nazi one - had a plan to do something like this (intervening to help the Finns) but did not implement it because the German attack on Norway [1] diverted the forces provisionally allocated to it. Thank goodness - otherwise WW2 might have turned out very differently

I believe the answer to your question may be something about biting off more than you can chew. Traditionally, Russia was France's trumpcard in seeking to contain Germany. The Nazi-Soviet Pact was relatively recent - before that, the Allies had looked to Russia increasingly as a counter-balance to Germany. I guess they figured, correctly as it turned out, that nature will out and the Pact probably not last.

Plus, Chamberlain and the French in 1939 were not exactly gung-ho about war (if it had been Churchill who was PM, things may have been different). IIRC, Germany attacked Poland first and so was presented with the ultimatum. To do the same to Russia when she struck later - when Poland was already effectively doomed - would have served little practical purpose and merely double the strength of your enemy, who already looked very formiddable.

I think war is something about which pragmatism is (almost) everything. For example, I am always surprised by, and admire, the pragmatism of one condition in the Catholic doctrine for a just war - for it to be just, you must be able to win it

[1] Edit - I don't recall Russia attacking Norway, Gawain. But she did take part of Rumania as well as the Baltic States and later fought a winter war with Finland.

[Cazbol]

Perhaps because the Allies had been expecting war with Germany due to its expansion into Austria and Czechoslovakia, and had stated that they would not allow any further expansion. The Soviet attack probably came rather unexpectedly. The idea of war with Germany was frightening enough, and the prospects bleak enough without having to throw in another major power, which would be even harder to fight.

The reaction to the German invasion wasn't so much a favour to the Poles, but rather a step to prevent Germany from growing even more powerful.

[econ21]

Quote[/b] (Cazbol @ May 28 2004,04:51)]The reaction to the German invasion wasn't so much a favour to the Poles, but rather a step to prevent Germany from growing even more powerful.
I had not thought of it in those terms, but that is surely right - especially from France's position. She must have feared it was her turn next after Poland. Britain probably had more choice, being less threatened, and did attach weight to the obligations to Poland. However, the allies did virtually nothing practical to help Poland, although objectively, there was perhaps little they could do.

[SwordsMaster]

IMHO, everyone expected Russia and Germany to engage each other and annihilate each other as much as possible.
Only my opinion.

[Alrowan]

hitler was always going to break the nazi-soviet pact, all to do with his land obsession.

anyway, the reason for the russian invasion is stalin ddint want war, so he wanted to sign a pact with hitler, at least to delay the war for them. Poland became the prize for that treaty, being divided up to the 1914 fronteir IIRC.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Quote[/b] ]Gawain just said lunatic, and I am offended.

I said lunatic and I was punished, now I expect the same behavior, if not I request my punishment retracted.



Yeah I meant Finland. Why not just sit Back and wait for Germany and Russia beat the snot out of each other. Thats what I would have done

[Crimson Castle]

That would have seem the more sensible option.

Given the totally lacklustre performance of the Allied land armies in Sept 1939 - March 1940, one would have to wonder why bothering with the declaration of war? The British and French armies did practically nothing.

But the democracies couldnt keep their outrage still - Hitler's invasion of Prague and Poland showed to the world the bankruptcy of appeasement.

Frankly, France and Britain couldnt take it anymore - the public was baying for their governments to do something.

The problem was that it was too little - too late.

The British plan was to help the French.

The French plan was to defend themselves against the "sudden Germany attack" like in 1914. Anyhow, they were totally ill-prepared for WW2 style of warfare. The French had spent billions of francs building the Maginot Line fortifications; their war plan was based on defence.

The French did not count that the Germans would need to mop up some other forces first.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Quote[/b] ]But the democracies couldnt keep their outrage still - Hitler's invasion of Prague and Poland showed to the world the bankruptcy of appeasement.

But couldnt the same be said of Russia?

[Tribesman]

There was a treaty between France Britain and Poland to deal with threats of German aggression directed at the League of Nations mandated area around Danzig , Russia was not considered a threat to this specific area so was not covered as an aggressor in the pact , attempts to get Russia to join the mutual defense agreement collapsed when Russia signed the non-aggression pact with Germany while the allies were still trying to negotiate .
Germany invaded so the British and French declared war in accordance with the treaty , France invaded Germany , but stopped the advance as they were still hoping for neotiated settlement and realisticly neither they nor britain could effestively contribute to the land war in Poland (hence why they needed the Russians to join the pact as well)
2 weeks after the German invasion Russia invaded , there was no mutual defense pact covering a Russian invasion of Poland so war could not be declared (Kellog/briand pact).The only action that could be taken against Russia wasexpulsion from the League of Nations which by that time was a worthless organisation due to so many major powers either leaving or being expelled for taking unilateral military action .
The Baltic states were not covered by any mutual assistance pacts
The only treatycovering Finland was the non aggression pact between Finland and Russia , which Russia broke .
In summary the only war that could be legally declared was Britain(and the Commonwealth)and France against Germany under the terms of the mutual defense agreement

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Quote[/b] ]2 weeks after the German invasion Russia invaded , there was no mutual defense pact covering a Russian invasion of Poland so war could not be declared (Kellog/briand pact)

If you have a mutual defence pact it does not matter who attacks you your allies are supposed to help not say oh sorry they werent on the list help yoursrlf.

[Voigtkampf]

This was a very good question.

Basically, England and France were reluctant to go to war with Germany alone, not to mention the Russia. If you examine the behavior of troops on the German-French frontline, then you'll see that they have, aside of some sporadic battles, maintained a mere illusion of a war; they have played soccer with each other, traded cigarettes and liquor, German soldiers even began doing some gardening at the very frontlines Boredom was both armies greatest enemy at the very beginning of war.

Conclusively, the declaration of war from England and France to Germany was in itself more a political act of respected governments then an actual wish to aid their polish allies. And Russia? They wanted even less to fight war with them, because it would bring Germany and Russia even closer together, which was hardly something you'd wish back then.

People should never forget the actual anti-war mood that was in France and England at the time, which Hitler used perfectly to achieve his own goals; French and English people asked themselves "Why should we send our boys to Poland, some distant place we don't know or care about, to die in vain?"

[SwordsMaster]

Some historical info:

Russia and Germany had a treaty where they divided Poland in 2 halves, Russia would get the pre ww1 territories, and germany would get the capital and something else.

So, 1939, germany attacked and destroyed Poland, occupying the capital and destroing the polish army. So the russians, technically didnt occupy Poland, but a land without a government or an army, cecause the germans destroyed both.

The german advance stopped at the line agreed in the treaty and so did the russians.


The allies considered that russia "freed" they old territories, and declared war on germany because the germans did destroy the polish army in the field and occupied the capital, so techincally the germans were the conquerors.

[Mount Suribachi]

Also the Russian invasion was not yet another act of agression on their part - unlike Germany for whom it was what, their 3rd or 4th such act? Each time Britain/France said

"do that again and we'll declare war. Really, we will. No, we will, you just try it"

*Germany invades Czechoslovakia*

"right, thats it Do that one more time and we'll declare war..."

etc etc till they invaded Poland and Britain & France had to declare war (or seem ungentalmanly for not keeping their word).

[Hetman]

Very interesting i.e. complicated topic. I decided to join the discussion.

Tribesman You are very right that France and Britain couldn't legally declare war against Russia, unlike vs. Germany.
At that time Poland was allied with France and Britain against Germany and with Romania against Russia ( when Russia attacked Polish government declared that they don't expect Romanian government to fight Soviet Union).
I think many of you don't understand the real meaning of Ribbentrop-Molotov pact - it was not an ordinary non-aggression pact - it was SUPPOSED to look like this kind of agreement. It was rather invitation to 'lighting the fuse of war'. There were actually TWO aggressors, but one ( Russia) decided to wait for a moment.
Just think of this - between 1939 and June 1940 Germany invaded 6 countries ( Poland, Norway, Denmark, Holland, Belgium and France) and Russia 6 ( Poland, Finland, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania and Romania) i.e. BOTH WERE ALMOST EQUALLY AGGRESSIVE
Of course the idea of sending Russia against Germay or vice versa is widely known, the same the efforts of British and French diplomacy to encourage Stalin to attack Hitler, but it was naivety or foolishness. The question is why the hell Stalin should fight Hitler saving western Europe he hated so much, especially Poland - which humilated him in 1920 ?
Is it just a wishful thinking or actually a treachery ? Ask yourself.

I understand the governments wanted to save lives, but where - certainly not in eastern HALF of Europe. Who should pay the price for non-certain peace ? I think the British and French appeasement towards Hitler was replaced with another, equally immoral appeasement towards Stalin. And actually what was possible to gain this way - several years of cold war or worse.

I think strong response to Hitler's attack could really save Europe millions of lives. Stalin wouldn't dare to start the war ( at least not
before 1942-43). The Allies wasted the opportunity, that's all.
Churchill said once 'You've chosen peace before honour, you lost honour
and will not get peace'.

Generally I agree it was wise not to fight Russia nad Germany at the same time, but for God's sake why the British, French and the American were so naive, so foolish, so stupid to belive Stalin so much
Were they not aware he is using them all the time ?

Next.

SwordsMaster I don't know Your sources but You are horribly wrong

"Russia and Germany had a treaty where they divided Poland in 2 halves, Russia would get the pre ww1 territories, and germany would get the capital and something else."

The truth is that before 1st World war there was NO Poland at all. The German/Russian border was much closer to Berlin. The Ribbentropp-Molotov pact line wasn't historical in any way. Examples - the Russians were supposed to get EASTERN PART OF WARSAW I.E. THE CITY WAS GOING TO BE DIVIDED ( western 'Nazi' Warsaw and eastern 'Soviet' Warsaw) only after the country was conquered it was decided to
replace central-eastern Poland for Lithuania.
Even funnier the city of Lwow/Lviv was granted to Russia, actually the town was never in Russia before ( it was 450 years in Poland and 123 years in Austria). This way Ireland could demand Brittany,

"So, 1939, germany attacked and destroyed Poland, occupying the capital and destroing the polish army. So the russians, technically didnt occupy Poland, but a land without a government or an army, cecause the germans destroyed both."

You may be suprised but on the 17th September 1939 about 40% of Polish army was still fighting ( INCLUDING 50 % OF AIRCRAFTS). The government was still in Poland, and Warsaw capitulated on 28th September i.e. 11 DAYS LATER.
Of course when the Red Army invaded Poland ( about 1 000 000 soldiers with 3000 tanks and 1000 aircrafts) Polish army couldn't use more than 10 000 of Border Guards ( so called KOP - veterans of 'small war' vs Soviets which had lasted since 1921), teenagers, and small numbers of proffessional soldiers, but still it they lost some soldiers ( about 100 tanks - demaged mostly, 1000 dead and 2000 wounded + 10 or more aircrafts) - Grodno was fighting for three days for example.
And the Germans were fighting Polish regular troops to 5th October, even garrison in Hel peninsula was defending to 2nd October i.e. it was
next to Baltic - 80 kilometers from Danzig

It is really possible that without Russian help the war in Poland could
last to November/December 1939 unless our western 'allies' would start fighting Germans at last.

So YOU ARE WRONG

And they occupied Poland, and did it quite efficiently - it is possible that between 1939 and 1941 the Russians were responsible for more deaths than Germans ( about 800 000 including 100 000 Jews), and the Polish resistance was fighting both).

"The allies considered that russia "freed" they old territories, and declared war on germany because the germans did destroy the polish army in the field and occupied the capital, so techincally the germans were the conquerors."

as above + according to Polish-Russian non-agression pact from 1932 (renewed in 1934) the Soviet Union was the aggressor, nothing else, although Soviets claimed ( i.e. lied) that they are liberating somebody, that Polish army is virtually non-existent, polish government left the country and so on.

Regards Cegorach/Hetman http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif

[Oleander Ardens]

nice post hetman...

The Sovietunion was easily as aggressive and as dangerous as Nazi-Germany - just not directly to the "West".

The facts speak for themselves...one of the two great evils was just a little more careful.

[SwordsMaster]

ok, Hetman, my sources might be not all that accurate, coz they are actually Soviet sources. (1973 Russian History book).


I was guessing already that it couldnt be all that wonderful. (Lvov, for instace is said to be an ukranian city.)

Anyway, you will agree that Germany invaded first, and that alone could make the allies look differently at both countries.

Regards.

[Hetman]

Quote[/b] (SwordsMaster @ May 30 2004,11:31)]ok, Hetman, my sources might be not all that accurate, coz they are actually Soviet sources. (1973 Russian History book).


I was guessing already that it couldnt be all that wonderful. (Lvov, for instace is said to be an ukranian city.)

Anyway, you will agree that Germany invaded first, and that alone could make the allies look differently at both countries.

Regards.
I can agree about that.

BTW - the XVI-XVII mod - the work is in progress, in Polish Total War forum I found a real historician who volunteered to make some 'famous generals' info soon.

Hetman http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif

[Hetman]

I've found something which You will find interesting I'm sure.

First.
In early 1940 British and French high comandwere preparing airstrikes on Soviet oilfields nearby BAKU ( Caucasus) - about 60 % of Russian oil was from this place if not more.
In March the reconnaissance was finished i.e. French and British planes crossed Soviet border several times, without losses - no Russian fighter couldn't intercept them.
At that time Russian government employed an American company to ask them if there is any possible way to extinguish a possible firestorm at Baku area.
The Americans answered that the local soil absorbed so much oil that the firestorm would last for weeks, even months
Because of German attack in France and Finnish-Soviet peace treaty the airstrikes were cancelled. It is possible that this threat encouraged Soviet authorities to sign the peace treaty with Finland in March.
I'm sure about this I've seen the plans of the strikes for example.

I've found this info in 'War in the air' by Janusz Piekalkiewicz - he wrote this book when he lived in Germany ( couldn't return to Poland - the communists wouldn't let him) and I know it was translated to several languages, so it's possible You can find this book.

Second.
When the Finland was fighting Soviet invaders the British and French governments prepared an expeditionary force which was to be sent to Finland. The corps consisted of a Polish brigade ( there were about 100 000 Polish soldiers in France at that time - most escaped from occupied Poland) for example ( because Poland was in war with Russia) and several units of 'volunteers'. The corps was used in Norway at Narvik.
when the Germans invaded this country.

Regards Hetman/Cegorach http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cheers.gif