Why did England and France declare war on Germany?

[tigerbob]

No they didn't knew what he was up to (the official governments at the time), because otherwise they would have stopped him when he broke the first of the rules he had to abide by (debt of WWI) and he never would have gotten as far as he did (because his military wasn't up for the Job at that time). Only Churchill and a couple of other people who were not in power to prevent it knew he was up to no good. He played the French and the English until he attacked poland.

That is completely untrue.

The British Government knew that massive German rearmament was taking place as much as 4 or 5 years before the war started.

 

[Diuretic]

I know this thread is about facts and not opinions, which is good. I know also that I don't know a lot about the facts, which is bad. But I'll try and keep my comments as objective as possible and not descend into opinioneering.

I seem to remember seeing a tv programme - many years ago now - which suggested that the Germans disguised their militarisation by - the example I'm thinking of relates to pilot training for the Luftwaffe - hiding it under civil cover, in my example men (yes I know the Germans used female test pilots for their rocket aircraft) being trained as pilots in gliders and in civil aircraft to prepare them for military service.

 

[Munin]

That is completely untrue.

The British Government knew that massive German rearmament was taking place as much as 4 or 5 years before the war started.

Yes but their diplomats were fooled by the Hitler and his intentions, normally Hitler would have been stopped if the British and the French would have sticked by the rules they ordered Germany to abide by after WWI. Germany was forbidden to have a big army, the Germans were forced to give away land and income. Hitler broke all those rules because he fooled the diplomats and allied governments (France and England) that were engaging him for peace talks. The fact that Hitler was able to break almost all those rules proves that the allied were fooled.

 

[Xenophon]

I know this thread is about facts and not opinions, which is good. I know also that I don't know a lot about the facts, which is bad. But I'll try and keep my comments as objective as possible and not descend into opinioneering.

I seem to remember seeing a tv programme - many years ago now - which suggested that the Germans disguised their militarisation by - the example I'm thinking of relates to pilot training for the Luftwaffe - hiding it under civil cover, in my example men (yes I know the Germans used female test pilots for their rocket aircraft) being trained as pilots in gliders and in civil aircraft to prepare them for military service.

By treaty Germany was not allowed Tanks or aircraft after WWI.

To train on such weapons Germany found ways around this, ironically by leasing areas in the Soviet Union to train with such weapons.

Another ruse was 'duel use' aircraft, transport and mail planes that could be converted into bombers (the Ju 52 and Do 17 are examples of this).

Hitler openly began arming in 1936 and these ruses ceased by that time.

 

[mightypeon]

Especially Britain had a sentiment that the Versailles Treaty was unfair, apart from that, they were not that worried about Germany building Tanks. If the Germans would have built aircraft carriers...
Germany also argued that a weak Germany would become food for the Soviet Union, the only nation that actually tried to enforce German disarmament was France.

 

[elvis]

Especially Britain had a sentiment that the Versailles Treaty was unfair, apart from that, they were not that worried about Germany building Tanks. If the Germans would have built aircraft carriers...
Germany also argued that a weak Germany would become food for the Soviet Union, the only nation that actually tried to enforce German disarmament was France.

Why didn't France send divisions into the Rheinland (which would have made Hitler withdraw) when Germany broke that part of the Versailles Treaty?

 

[elvis]

It was not just a war guarantee, it was a military alliance (like NATO) that Poland joined in on.

Why it was worth it for England: probably better relations with that Nation, leading to a higher trade and favorable trade agreements and not to forget: a stronger alliance (Poland fielded the third biggest army among the European Allies, after the Soviet Union and Great Britain, but before France). At that time Germany was believed to be defeated from WWI and not capable of ever waging war again (huge debt and economic problems: people were starving from hunger), so the British government initially never saw Germany as a threat to them.

Poland thought they could repel the Germans. After all, they defeated the Soviet Army in 1922 and took land from them (Is this what Stalin took back in 1939?) I have heard different things regarding Chamberlain. One is that after he was humiliated with the Munich situation, he said if Germany attacks Poland, we'll go to war with her. But then I also heard that Goering said his intelligence told him Britain and France would do nothing if Germany invaded Poland. I don't know which is correct. I don't know how both could be correct.
also, speaking of Poland, why does no one talk about Stalin taking the eastern section of Poland? Could it be said Hitler AND Stalin started WW2.

 

[tigerbob]

Poland thought they could repel the Germans. After all, they defeated the Soviet Army in 1922 and took land from them (Is this what Stalin took back in 1939?) I have heard different things regarding Chamberlain. One is that after he was humiliated with the Munich situation, he said if Germany attacks Poland, we'll go to war with her. But then I also heard that Goering said his intelligence told him Britain and France would do nothing if Germany invaded Poland. I don't know which is correct. I don't know how both could be correct.
also, speaking of Poland, why does no one talk about Stalin taking the eastern section of Poland? Could it be said Hitler AND Stalin started WW2.

[youtube]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/XE-7wljw_50&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/XE-7wljw_50&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]

I suspect both are true. Goering's intel was wrong.

 

[Xenophon]

Why didn't France send divisions into the Rheinland (which would have made Hitler withdraw) when Germany broke that part of the Versailles Treaty?

To understand that, you would have to understand how traumatic the first world war was for France in particular.

People in France didn't feel another such war was worth it simply to prevent the german from sending forces into the Rhineland.

France lacked the backbone, quite literally.

 

[elvis]

To understand that, you would have to understand how traumatic the first world war was for France in particular.

People in France didn't feel another such war was worth it simply to prevent the german from sending forces into the Rhineland.

France lacked the backbone, quite literally.

I wouldn't think it would be worth it for them to go to war over Poland.

 

[DiveCon]

Why didn't France send divisions into the Rheinland (which would have made Hitler withdraw) when Germany broke that part of the Versailles Treaty?

"the Maginot line will protect us"


thats not a direct quote, but that was the general opinion that they didn't need to because the Maginot line was impenetrable

 

[tigerbob]

"the Maginot line will protect us"


thats not a direct quote, but that was the general opinion that they didn't need to because the Maginot line was impenetrable

Pride goes before a fall.

 

[DiveCon]

Pride goes before a fall.

it sure does

 

[Xenophon]

I wouldn't think it would be worth it for them to go to war over Poland.

France did not want to, the French premier begged Chamberlin for another alternative.

The problem was France felt if it renegged on it's pledge to poland nobody would ever trust it again, so they reluctantly agreed to war.

Also keep in mind the French did not expect to lose, they believed that a static defense line with mobile reserves could hold any attack, that is what they planned to do and what they tried to do.

Germany had other ideas.

 

[DiveCon]

France did not want to, the French premier begged Chamberlin for another alternative.

The problem was France felt if it renegged on it's pledge to poland nobody would ever trust it again, so they reluctantly agreed to war.

Also keep in mind the French did not expect to lose, they believed that a static defense line with mobile reserves could hold any attack, that is what they planned to do and what they tried to do.

Germany had other ideas.

they also never expected Germany to attack over the north of the line

 

[Diuretic]

By treaty Germany was not allowed Tanks or aircraft after WWI.

To train on such weapons Germany found ways around this, ironically by leasing areas in the Soviet Union to train with such weapons.

Another ruse was 'duel use' aircraft, transport and mail planes that could be converted into bombers (the Ju 52 and Do 17 are examples of this).

Hitler openly began arming in 1936 and these ruses ceased by that time.

Ah, thanks for the information, cunning buggers

 

[Xenophon]

they also never expected Germany to attack over the north of the line

In fact they did expect this, they had a counter plan, known as the 'Dyle plan' to advance into Belgium with the BEF and the motor reserves of the french army.

What was not expected was an attacked through the forrested Ardennes region, which they believed impassible if properly defended.

France sent a reserve Army to hold this area, not a regular formation (France had 2 kinds of forces, the Regular Army and the Reserves called up for war, these were older men with limited training who recieved old weapons and equipment from depots. Reserves were meant to hold quiet fronts and in static defenes while the regular army did the heavy work).

The speed of the German advance stunned the French, who expected the germans to at least bring up artillery to cross the Meuse, a major river obsticle, but Germany used dive bombers instead of artlierry and wreaked havoc on the untrained and poorly led reserve troops.

 

[tigerbob]

they also never expected Germany to attack over the north of the line

Actually, they did. One of the key goals of Maginot was to make a frontal assault so costly as to convince the attacker to focus elsewhere - specifically, to attack Belgium instead!

In addition, the line began construction before the idea of airborne assault was recognized as a viable military option.

Essentially, the Germans went around and over the Maginot Line, rather than through it.

 

[Munin]

also, speaking of Poland, why does no one talk about Stalin taking the eastern section of Poland? Could it be said Hitler AND Stalin started WW2.

Yeah, but nobody declared war on the Soviet Union. In the agreement between the Soviets and the Nazis Eastern Poland was as a gift from the Germans towards the Russians, so Stalin would not declare a war in the near future (When Hitler needed its troops to attack the Netherlands, Belgium and France).

The French had good relations with the Russians, wich is why the Alliance didn't declare War on the Soviets (probably the best because they seemed to have had more then their hands full at fighting only with the Germans).

 

[Tech_Esq]

I know, they made a war guarantee to Poland, but why? Picture this.....

the US makes a war guarantee to Nicaragua should it be attacked by El Salvador. El Salvador attacks Nicaragua, the US declares war on El Salvador, and in return, El Salvador bombards New York City (London) for days and days in a row. That doesn't seem worth it to me. Why was it worth it for England?

It's complex, so don't look for an easy answer here. There isn't one reason to point to.

Militarily, a complex series of treaties were entered into by the Western Powers (England and France) and the countries in the East the Czechs and Poles especially. These countries were weaker and did not have the armies, or ability to raise one, that the French and British did. Therefore, defense of the east was a combined affair with much depending on pre-built fortifications and all countries being in the fight. Several things happened to upset this theory. First, France and Britain failed to sign up the Soviets to the their defense alliance. The Soviets feared that the Allies would trade Russian blood for time. Instead, the Soviets signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact with Germany which lasted until June 1941. Second, the territorial manoeuvrings of Hitler prior to the war outflanked the shaky eastern defense system. By taking Austria, Hitler outflanked Czechoslovakia. By taking the Sudetenland, Germany bypassed all of the pre-built Czech defenses. The remainder of Czechoslovakia was laid open and defenseless. This basically put Poland in the position that it was surrounded on 3 sides. Germany on one side, East Prussia on another and Czechoslovakia on the third.

Politically, there were both internal and external politics at work. Neither the British or the French had the stomach to face down Germany over remilitarizing the Rhineland in 1936. This may have been a late facing up to the unfairness of the Treaty of Versailles, but in any case there was no appetite to have a military confrontation even with a weak Germany. With foreign policy choices of Chamberlain and Daladier definitely focused on avoidance of war at all costs. Shamefully, they sold out the Czechs when they weren't even invited to the meeting.

Having said all that, it was a very near thing that the Poles did not get sold out as well. If the Polish colonels were of a less intransigent nature, the Brits and French would have imposed on them to cave as well. (Hitler's greatest fear at that point).