Comments by "doveton sturdee" (@dovetonsturdee7033) on "Why didn't the Allies declare war on the USSR when they invaded Poland?" video.

The Allied treaty with Poland in 1939 promised support in the event of an attack on Poland by Germany, but made no such similar promise in the event of an attack by the Soviet Union. Read the details of the alliance terms for yourself if you don't believe me.
2
Why would they have wanted Hitler to attack Poland, when the terms of their alliance meant that this would require a declaration of war? The alliance was intended to be a line in the sand, to halt further German expansion, and thus prevent a general European, not precipitate one.
1
@tadeuszczernia5422 No. From start to finish, Hitler's true enemy was the Soviet Union. Read what Trevor-Roper wrote in his book. The attack on France was intended to prevent her interfering with his eastern ambitions.
1
@tadeuszczernia5422 As I said, read what Hugh Trevor-Roper wrote. The German attack on France was intended to ensure that Germany would not need to fight on two fronts. Hitler had condemned Kaiser Bill for this. However, his hopes for a one front war collapsed when Britain refused to play ball. It was a gamble, and it failed.
1
How did the French and British persuade Japan to attack Pearl Harbor, and then persuade Hitler to declare war on the US? What was this peace with Britain that you imagine the Germans offered? At best, a humiliating surrender/armistice akin to that accepted by France, along the lines of Hitler's 'Appeal to Reason' which basically said 'surrender or we bomb you.'
1
Because it isn't true, perhaps? Immediately after WW1, British governments regarded Germany as a bulwark against the westward expansion of Communism.
1
@FiveNineO When did Germany try to negotiate peace multiple times? The Western Allies viewed the Soviet Union as the lesser of two evils, and allied with them on the grounds that 'my enemy's enemy is my friend.' Similarly, the Allies didn't help the Soviet Union to take over half of Europe. Rather, they prevented them taking over all of it. Hess was never released because he was convicted of war crimes.
1
@FiveNineO I have tried to find a source for the alleged German peace offers, without success. I am in good company, as no other credible historian has either. Sorry to be a wet blanket, but Britain & France did not go to war to save Poland. The alliance, with the threat of a declaration of war, was intended to be a line in the sand, which would prevent further German aggression, and thus avoid a general European war. 'The war had barely started at this point.' Really? Tell that to the countries occupied by Germany in early 1941. You are right that Hess wasn't convicted of war crimes, but he was found guilty on two counts: crimes against peace (planning and preparing a war of aggression), and conspiracy with other German leaders to commit crimes. He was never released because Spandau was located in West Berlin, and its existence gave the Soviets a foothold in that sector of the city. Hence, the Soviets repeatedly vetoed it. In fact, the British made 11 unilateral appeals for Hess to be freed. The Americans and French supported them in a further nine. The Soviets always refused to consider the case.
1
@FiveNineO Traditional British foreign policy has always been to maintain a balance of power in Europe, hence the wars at regular intervals against France up to Waterloo. When the British weren't actively fighting people like Louis XIV or Bonaparte, they would at least finance people who did! That rather changed with the unification of Germany in the 1870s, when the British began to see Germany as the greater potential threat. The Entente Cordiale with France was seen as a means of ensuring that Germany did not come to dominance in Europe. After the carnage of WW1, both Britain & France were willing, with massive support among their populations, to seek to appease Germany in order to encourage her to tone down her territorial ambitions, and avoid a general European war. Of course, we all know how that ended!
1
'Hitler offered to withdraw from Poland if they could have Danzig and other pre-WW1 German lands back.' Really? Documentary source for such an offer, please.
1
'Giving?' Hardly. The Soviets had already occupied Poland.
1
The Allied treaty with Poland in 1939 promised support in the event of an attack on Poland by Germany, but made no such similar promise in the event of an attack by the Soviet Union. Read the details of the alliance terms for yourself if you don't believe me.
1
@lmyrski8385 The treaty was an attempt to draw a line in the sand, and to prevent a general European war, by telling Hitler that, should he invade Poland, he would be obliged to fight a war against two major European powers. Far from seeking war with Germany, Britain and France went far, some would argue too far, in their attempts to avoid one. To be frank about it, Britain and France did not go to war to defend Poland. Poland was simply incidental in the issue. Both honoured their treaty obligations by going to war, even though Britain as a sea power had only a tiny army, and the much larger French army was not ready for anything other than defensive actions at least initially.
1
Not quite. English/British foreign policy was traditionally to prevent any one European power from becoming supreme in Europe. More specifically, to prevent any single power from controlling the whole of the Channel coast. Britain has always, at least since the 17th century, been a trading nation looking outward, rather than a European nation looking inward. As Charles de Gaulle remarked, given the choice, Britain will always choose the sea.
1
The Western Allies had been assured that there would be free and independent elections in Poland after the end of the European war. Unfortunately, they did not have the same interpretation of the phrase 'free and independent' that Uncle Joe did.
1
No. They fought for Poland, using the only remaining European country in arms against Hitler as their base, and as a source of weapons.
1
@FWAKWAKKA Genial Joe Stalin cared so much about human lives that he extinguished millions of them.
1
What do you suggest they could have done about Auschwitz?
1
So, if Germany wanted to avoid war, all Hitler needed to do was not invade Poland?
1
@HispaniaGothorum Danzig was a Free City, under the supposed protection of the League of Nations. This was agreed at the Treaty of Versailles, when, actually, both France & the United States wanted Danzig to become part of the State of Poland. In the inter-war period, almost all of Poland's exports went through Danzig. Danzig was not 'stolen.' It was part of the price imposed upon Germany following WW1.
1
@HispaniaGothorum No. The loss of Danzig was a result of losing the war, much like France lost Alsace-Lorraine in 1871, and won it back in 1919.
1
@HispaniaGothorum In the area around Danzig, which was also part of the Free State, the population was almost entirely Polish. The reason the Allies did not declare war is obvious. Realpolitik. Quixotic gestures have no place in such decisions.
1
@HispaniaGothorum You seem obsessed with the city, whereas I am writing about the 'Free State.' I do not feel the need to post insults either by the way; I will leave that to you. Just to correct you, the city was 98% German, but the villages around it, almost 200 of them, were more or less entirely Polish. Why was Poland an 'excuse' to declare war? Poland was an independent state, with alliances with both Britain and France, which was invaded by nazi Germany. It really is quite simple. If Germany didn't want war, then why not just not invade Poland? The Allies had made enough concessions during the appeasement period. For how much longer would you have had them continue to feed the Tiger? Please try to remain courteous, by the way. So much more civilised.
1
@HispaniaGothorum The Allies went to war because Germany invaded Poland. Poland was an independent country. You seem to believe that aggression and military expansion is entirely right and proper when the Germans do it. What has the anschluss and the re-occupation of the Sudetenland got to do with the issue? 'Your “realpolitik” is the typical excuse for when you don’t have arguments.' Of course I have arguments. Realpolitik is the argument.
1
The Allied treaty with Poland in 1939 promised support in the event of an attack on Poland by Germany, but made no such similar promise in the event of an attack by the Soviet Union. Read the details of the alliance terms for yourself if you don't believe me.
1
The alliance between Britain/France and Poland was quite specific. The allies undertook to declare war on Germany if Germany invaded Poland, but made no similar commitment where the Soviet Union was concerned. At the time of the declaration of war, Germany & the USSR had a non-aggression pact. Are you seriously suggesting that the events of June 1941 were predictable in September, 1939?
1
@martinlarios8669 I am not 'implying' anything. I am simply stated what the terms of the alliance actually said.
1
The Allied treaty with Poland in 1939 promised support in the event of an attack on Poland by Germany, but made no such similar promise in the event of an attack by the Soviet Union. Read the details of the alliance terms for yourself if you don't believe me.
1
The Allied treaty with Poland in 1939 promised support in the event of an attack on Poland by Germany, but made no such similar promise in the event of an attack by the Soviet Union. Read the details of the alliance terms for yourself if you don't believe me.
1