Britain's Declaration of War?
-
Caesar
- Member
- Posts: 102
- Joined: 09 Aug 2004 20:19
- Location: Belguim
-
tonyh
- Member
- Posts: 2911
- Joined: 19 Mar 2002 12:59
- Location: Dublin, Ireland
I doubt it. The British plan for landing in Norway had little to do with anything except cutting off the iron ore supply from Gallivare and denying the use of Narvik as a viable ice-free shipping port for that ore in the winter months.
What would happen after the British landed is very difficult to speculate.
Tony
What would happen after the British landed is very difficult to speculate.
Tony
-
Caesar
- Member
- Posts: 102
- Joined: 09 Aug 2004 20:19
- Location: Belguim
-
szopen
- Member
- Posts: 814
- Joined: 21 May 2004 15:31
- Location: poznan, poland
People here tend to ignore that Hitler (in his own words) said that initially he wanted to attack France and England first, and only because he was sure that Poland would then attack him he decided to attack Poland first and only then turn against the west.
The war, in opinion of Hitler, was inevitable. It was just it was preparing to start it in 1940s, not in 1939.
The war, in opinion of Hitler, was inevitable. It was just it was preparing to start it in 1940s, not in 1939.
-
Polynikes
- Member
- Posts: 2229
- Joined: 03 Jan 2004 02:59
- Location: Atlanta, Georgia
Are you saying that Poland was about to attack germany or that Hitler somehow thought they were?szopen wrote:People here tend to ignore that Hitler (in his own words) said that initially he wanted to attack France and England first, and only because he was sure that Poland would then attack him he decided to attack Poland first and only then turn against the west.
The war, in opinion of Hitler, was inevitable. It was just it was preparing to start it in 1940s, not in 1939.
-
szopen
- Member
- Posts: 814
- Joined: 21 May 2004 15:31
- Location: poznan, poland
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=55420Polynikes wrote:Are you saying that Poland was about to attack germany or that Hitler somehow thought they were?szopen wrote:People here tend to ignore that Hitler (in his own words) said that initially he wanted to attack France and England first, and only because he was sure that Poland would then attack him he decided to attack Poland first and only then turn against the west.
The war, in opinion of Hitler, was inevitable. It was just it was preparing to start it in 1940s, not in 1939.
Note that There si much talk about war with England and France, and little about the Poland.
http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/imt/nca/nca- ... 08-12.html
The Obersalzburg Speech. On 22 August 1939, Hitler addressed his commanders in chief at Obersalzburg. (1014- PS). At the date preparations were complete. In the course of his speech Hitler declared:
Page 702
"Everybody shall have to make a point of it that we were determined from the beginning to fight the Western powers."
Also notes from meeting in May 1939"It was clear to me that a conflict with Poland had to come sooner or later. I had already made this decision in spring, but I thought that I would first turn against the West in a few years, and only afterwards against the East."
http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/h/hit ... oland.html
and later in that page are full notes from 22 August 1939 speech.It is questionable whether military success in the West can be achieved by a quick decision, questionable too is the attitude of Poland.
"The Polish government will not resist pressure from Russia. Poland sees danger in a German victory in the West, and will attempt to rob us of the victory.
I thnk it's clear that Hitler wanted first strike against the West, and because he was sure that Poland would then attack him in that case he decided to take Poland first."It was clear to me that a conflict with Poland had to come sooner or later. I had already made this decision in Spring. [Apparently this referred to (L-79).] But I thought I would first turn against the West in a few years, and only afterwards against the East. But the sequence cannot be fixed. One cannot close one's eyes even before a threatening situation. I wanted to establish an acceptable relationship with Poland, in order to fight first against the West, but this plan which was agreeable to me could not be executed, since essential points have changed.
"It became clear to me that Poland would attack us, in case of a conflict in the West
I really don't know why I have to repeat that every time when British are saying that they went to war over Poland, that Hitler wanted only war woth East and if left alone, then there would be no war in the west. That's simpy untrue.
-
Polynikes
- Member
- Posts: 2229
- Joined: 03 Jan 2004 02:59
- Location: Atlanta, Georgia
This is a new spin...
Forgive me if it sounds a bit like the excuse of invading the USSR before the USSR invaded Germany.
I quite agree that had Nazi Germany been victorious in the East, at some point Hitler would turn his attention Westwards. However I find the idea that Poland was about to invade Germany (or that it Hitler's prime target was France) contrary to the evidence.
Hitler proved in 1940 that his overifing aim was to sieze land in the East. Did he not say as much in his book? Did not also say that Russian/Ukrainian grain would be one of the three pillars supporting his 3rd Reich?
Now with all due respect to the Polish army of 800,000 men, France was a far more potent threat and did actually declare war whilst Hitler was engaged in Poland yet the prospect of war on his Western front didn't seem to worry him.
I doubt that Hitler or OKW had any serious concerns over Polish military plans.
But anyway here's a few quotes for you to add to your collection:
http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/h/hit ... oland.html
From the minutes of a conference held on 23 May 1939, Fuehrer's Study in the New Reich Chancellery:
"Living space, in proportion to the magnitude of the state, is the basis of all power....The choice is between advancement or decline. In 15 or 20 years' time we shall be compelled to find a solution... "Danzig is not the subject of the dispute at all. It is a question of expanding our living space in the East and of securing our food supplies."
From this we can only take that Poland was always a strategic target, not a tactical one.
"...Poland will always be on the side of our adversaries. In spite of treaties of friendship, Poland has always had the secret intention of exploiting every opportunity to do us harm."
From this we can take that Hitler possessed nothing but scorn for the Poles.
"If fate brings us into conflict with the West, the possession of extensive areas in the East will be advantageous. Upon record harvests we shall be able to rely even less in time of war than in peace."
Notice the "if". From this we take that Hitler wanted Poland also as insurance against any POSSIBLE war with the West - a strategic target to prevent the starvation that gripped Germany in WWI from the British blockade.
"The Polish government will not resist pressure from Russia. Poland sees danger in a German victory in the West, and will attempt to rob us of the victory.
This is one of your quotes & is now put into context. Poland was an a potential asset, a future necessity and a possible enemy at Germany's border.
"Fundamentally therefore: Conflict with Poland -- beginning with an attack on Poland -- will only be successful if the Western Powers keep out of it. If this is impossible, then it will be better to attack in the West and to settle Poland at the same time.
How else to intepret this?
Hitler thought that an attack on the West MAY be necessary to allow him to take Poland and not the other way round.
In the end, he decided he could attack Poland without fear from the West & he was right.
Forgive me if it sounds a bit like the excuse of invading the USSR before the USSR invaded Germany.
I quite agree that had Nazi Germany been victorious in the East, at some point Hitler would turn his attention Westwards. However I find the idea that Poland was about to invade Germany (or that it Hitler's prime target was France) contrary to the evidence.
Hitler proved in 1940 that his overifing aim was to sieze land in the East. Did he not say as much in his book? Did not also say that Russian/Ukrainian grain would be one of the three pillars supporting his 3rd Reich?
Now with all due respect to the Polish army of 800,000 men, France was a far more potent threat and did actually declare war whilst Hitler was engaged in Poland yet the prospect of war on his Western front didn't seem to worry him.
I doubt that Hitler or OKW had any serious concerns over Polish military plans.
But anyway here's a few quotes for you to add to your collection:
http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/h/hit ... oland.html
From the minutes of a conference held on 23 May 1939, Fuehrer's Study in the New Reich Chancellery:
"Living space, in proportion to the magnitude of the state, is the basis of all power....The choice is between advancement or decline. In 15 or 20 years' time we shall be compelled to find a solution... "Danzig is not the subject of the dispute at all. It is a question of expanding our living space in the East and of securing our food supplies."
From this we can only take that Poland was always a strategic target, not a tactical one.
"...Poland will always be on the side of our adversaries. In spite of treaties of friendship, Poland has always had the secret intention of exploiting every opportunity to do us harm."
From this we can take that Hitler possessed nothing but scorn for the Poles.
"If fate brings us into conflict with the West, the possession of extensive areas in the East will be advantageous. Upon record harvests we shall be able to rely even less in time of war than in peace."
Notice the "if". From this we take that Hitler wanted Poland also as insurance against any POSSIBLE war with the West - a strategic target to prevent the starvation that gripped Germany in WWI from the British blockade.
"The Polish government will not resist pressure from Russia. Poland sees danger in a German victory in the West, and will attempt to rob us of the victory.
This is one of your quotes & is now put into context. Poland was an a potential asset, a future necessity and a possible enemy at Germany's border.
"Fundamentally therefore: Conflict with Poland -- beginning with an attack on Poland -- will only be successful if the Western Powers keep out of it. If this is impossible, then it will be better to attack in the West and to settle Poland at the same time.
How else to intepret this?
Hitler thought that an attack on the West MAY be necessary to allow him to take Poland and not the other way round.
In the end, he decided he could attack Poland without fear from the West & he was right.
-
szopen
- Member
- Posts: 814
- Joined: 21 May 2004 15:31
- Location: poznan, poland
And how you would explain the 22 August speech in 1939 where he clearly said that "I first though i would turn against the west" ?
Hitler definetely wanted to destroy Poland sooner or later, but also he was convinced that conflict with West is inevitable too.
the "If" in your quote is also about potential conflict with Poland only, not "if" the war with West will be at all.
Also, one have to remember, that initially Hitler made quite a few offers to Poland to made an alliance; Poland would pay with Danzig and corridor, and in turn would receive some spoils after SU would be defeated (Ribbentrop was supposed to said "Black sea is a sea too")
Hitler definetely wanted to destroy Poland sooner or later, but also he was convinced that conflict with West is inevitable too.
the "If" in your quote is also about potential conflict with Poland only, not "if" the war with West will be at all.
Also, one have to remember, that initially Hitler made quite a few offers to Poland to made an alliance; Poland would pay with Danzig and corridor, and in turn would receive some spoils after SU would be defeated (Ribbentrop was supposed to said "Black sea is a sea too")
-
tonyh
- Member
- Posts: 2911
- Joined: 19 Mar 2002 12:59
- Location: Dublin, Ireland
Szopen, you're drawing conclusions far too quickly.
Hitler didn't want anything to do with the West, his interests lay firmly in the East. Hitler loathed a situation whereby a re run of the first world war would occur. His memory of the trenches was still quite fresh. In Hitler's opinion an attack on the West would turn into a bogged down replay of 1914-18 and that was to be avoided.
However, Hitler was worried that there was a chance that the Western Countries of France and Britain (Primarilly Britain) would not stand by, while Germany "neutralised" Czechoslovakia and Poland as a precusor to His long planned invasion of Bolshevik Russia.
Perhaps you are taking the quote out of context.
"I first though i would turn against the west"? probably means that Hitler feared or anticipated a conflict with the West after the Czech crisis and during 1939 at some point. But as we know his fear was misplaced. It was the intransigence of Britain, France, Poland and Russia and their bickering during the Czech crisis, that fortified Hitler's decision to occupy both Czechoslovakia and later Poland in September. He felt that if Britain and France etc did nothing about Czechoslovakia, then they would do nothing over Poland. He was very nearly correct. France was reluctant to declare war after Britain, as they weren't to happy about Poland's seizing of the Teschen region of Czechoslovakia in 1938 or about their mistrust of Russia and their reluctance to let Russian troops pass through her borders to stop Germany in Czechoslovakia. Also France knew that a declaration of war from her would probably prevoke Germany into an attack. But it was the hope that the combined strength of Britain and France would convince Hitler to return to the negotiation table over Danzig. But Britains "guarantee" had given the Polish Government the fake hope that she would not stand alone against Germany, if war manifested itself.
And Hitler's considerations about an alliance with Poland in an attack on Russia or his terms over Danzig and the Polish corridor aren't any indication of a desire to attack the West. Poland had to either be allied with or occupied if Hitler was to complete his goal of liebensraum in Russia.
Finally, if Hitler really wanted a war with the West before his terms with the East were complete, plans would have been drawn up LONG before Manstein developed his attack plan in 1940, because all that Hitler had up to that point was a re-run of the Schliefflen plan, which most people, including Hitler, expected to end in disaster.
Tony
Hitler didn't want anything to do with the West, his interests lay firmly in the East. Hitler loathed a situation whereby a re run of the first world war would occur. His memory of the trenches was still quite fresh. In Hitler's opinion an attack on the West would turn into a bogged down replay of 1914-18 and that was to be avoided.
However, Hitler was worried that there was a chance that the Western Countries of France and Britain (Primarilly Britain) would not stand by, while Germany "neutralised" Czechoslovakia and Poland as a precusor to His long planned invasion of Bolshevik Russia.
Perhaps you are taking the quote out of context.
"I first though i would turn against the west"? probably means that Hitler feared or anticipated a conflict with the West after the Czech crisis and during 1939 at some point. But as we know his fear was misplaced. It was the intransigence of Britain, France, Poland and Russia and their bickering during the Czech crisis, that fortified Hitler's decision to occupy both Czechoslovakia and later Poland in September. He felt that if Britain and France etc did nothing about Czechoslovakia, then they would do nothing over Poland. He was very nearly correct. France was reluctant to declare war after Britain, as they weren't to happy about Poland's seizing of the Teschen region of Czechoslovakia in 1938 or about their mistrust of Russia and their reluctance to let Russian troops pass through her borders to stop Germany in Czechoslovakia. Also France knew that a declaration of war from her would probably prevoke Germany into an attack. But it was the hope that the combined strength of Britain and France would convince Hitler to return to the negotiation table over Danzig. But Britains "guarantee" had given the Polish Government the fake hope that she would not stand alone against Germany, if war manifested itself.
And Hitler's considerations about an alliance with Poland in an attack on Russia or his terms over Danzig and the Polish corridor aren't any indication of a desire to attack the West. Poland had to either be allied with or occupied if Hitler was to complete his goal of liebensraum in Russia.
Finally, if Hitler really wanted a war with the West before his terms with the East were complete, plans would have been drawn up LONG before Manstein developed his attack plan in 1940, because all that Hitler had up to that point was a re-run of the Schliefflen plan, which most people, including Hitler, expected to end in disaster.
Tony
-
szopen
- Member
- Posts: 814
- Joined: 21 May 2004 15:31
- Location: poznan, poland
-
tonyh
- Member
- Posts: 2911
- Joined: 19 Mar 2002 12:59
- Location: Dublin, Ireland
Envisioning a war with a Country doesn't mean that you wish a war with that Country. Hitler was aware that the Western powers might....MIGHT attack Germany if he carried out his plans for expansion towards the East.
It is somewhat clear that at some point, if Hitler was to put in action his invasion of Russia (his be all end all reason for war), then both Czechoslovakia and Poland would either (A.) have to allied with Germany in a war against Russia or (B.) have to be neutralised as a blockage or a potential threat. This meant that there was a percenage chance that Britain would make threatening moves towards Germany if such actions were carried out. This event alone would throw Hitler's plans for an invasion of Russia and an Eastern Empire and thus German economic hedgemony in Europe into chaos. If the Western powers make war with Germany while she is busy in russia, that would be the end of the game, as Germany could not carry out an active war with Russia AND Britain and France at the same time. In other words, war with Britain and possibly France was "envisioned" but certainly not desired.
Tony
It is somewhat clear that at some point, if Hitler was to put in action his invasion of Russia (his be all end all reason for war), then both Czechoslovakia and Poland would either (A.) have to allied with Germany in a war against Russia or (B.) have to be neutralised as a blockage or a potential threat. This meant that there was a percenage chance that Britain would make threatening moves towards Germany if such actions were carried out. This event alone would throw Hitler's plans for an invasion of Russia and an Eastern Empire and thus German economic hedgemony in Europe into chaos. If the Western powers make war with Germany while she is busy in russia, that would be the end of the game, as Germany could not carry out an active war with Russia AND Britain and France at the same time. In other words, war with Britain and possibly France was "envisioned" but certainly not desired.
Tony
-
Polynikes
- Member
- Posts: 2229
- Joined: 03 Jan 2004 02:59
- Location: Atlanta, Georgia
I would have to see the whole speech to form an opinion.szopen wrote:And how you would explain the 22 August speech in 1939 where he clearly said that "I first though i would turn against the west" ?
Hitler definetely wanted to destroy Poland sooner or later, but also he was convinced that conflict with West is inevitable too.
the "If" in your quote is also about potential conflict with Poland only, not "if" the war with West will be at all.
Also, one have to remember, that initially Hitler made quite a few offers to Poland to made an alliance; Poland would pay with Danzig and corridor, and in turn would receive some spoils after SU would be defeated (Ribbentrop was supposed to said "Black sea is a sea too")
Hitler had previously stated that he had hoped to remain at peace with Britain as he saw Britain as a stabilising force in the world - that doesn't mean that at some time he wouldn't have decided that Germany was better placed to exercise that stabilisation.
Poland was always a target for him on three levels:
1. An end in itself - the infamous Lebensraum.
2. As insurance against attack from the West.
3. A necessary stepping stone to Hitler's #1 target, Soviet Bolshevism.
The idea that a simple land corridor was sufficient to conquer the USSR is riddiculous - especially in the light of previous statements about Poland always on the lookout to cause Germany harm.
Hitler didn't want to destroy Poland, merely to take ownership of it.
-
szopen
- Member
- Posts: 814
- Joined: 21 May 2004 15:31
- Location: poznan, poland
Polynikes, nope - Hitler decided that Poland had to be destroyed and is main enemy AFTER Poland refused to accept alliance. Even in 1938 Beck was many times opened wiith open arms and suggestions, that Poland would get some port in Black sea in exchange for Danzig and concessions.
Whole speech of Hitler is at Nizkor site, easy to find.
Whole speech of Hitler is at Nizkor site, easy to find.
-
Karman
- Member
- Posts: 744
- Joined: 23 Aug 2004 10:39
- Location: Russia
Re: Britain's Declaration of War?
Poland signed the Versailles Treaty in which there was a paragraph stating that the Eastern borders of the Succession States will be defined in the future. But also Poland signed the Protection of Minorities Treaty which stipulated that the State of Poland was establish on the part of the Russian Empire inhabited by Poles. Polish Government definitely pursued for more land in the East but in the end of 1919 when the situation on the Russian-Polish border was really a threat Lord Kerzon offered to specify the border along the line which was called the Kerzon line. Poland agreed with that proposal and signed the respective docs in Spa (Belgium) but Russia denied the Antanta mediation being in the progress of assault deep into Poland. After the defeat of the Soviet Army at the Warsaw Battle Russia and Poland signed the Riga peace treaty according to which Russia agreed that the Soviet-Polish border was defined far to the East from the Kerzon line. Actually Western States never acknowledged the Polish Eastern territorial acquisitions. So in 1939 when Russia returned the captured lands she formally did not do anything wrong. Besides Stalin exploited the right of nations to self-determination proclaimed by the League of Nations (just like Hitler in Czechoslovakia). Ukrainians in Galicia and belorussians in the Western Byelorussia expressed their wish to join their "Soviet brothers".WHEELER wrote:I have got a mystery that I am not able to solve?
If Britain and France declared war on Germany because she invaded Poland, why didn't they declare war on Russia also? Both Russia and Germany invaded Poland, yet Britain and France and ultimately America only declared war on Germany and America gave arms and money to Russia?
Why is this?
There was no way that Western Powers declared war on Russia after M-R pact and Stalin clearly realized that. Vice versa he was definitely sure that after the collapse of Poland and Baltic States both UK, France and USA would support Russia in her war against Germany. And they did. Molotov informed the American Ambassador of all stages of negotiations with Ribbentrop and of all issues being discussed. In their turn USA advised UK of what was happening between Russia and Germany but Chamberlain was not smart enough to perform any proper actions.
UK and France collapsed in their bluffing with actually no trumps in hand. UK was not able to perform any independent military activities in Europe and French war doctrine was based on the concept of coordinated activities of the French army with armies of Succession States (Czechoslovakia, Poland, Romania and Yugoslavia). So when France betrayed Czechoslovakia in Munich it delivered the first destruction of her own army in the war. I cannot understand. Probably they believed the overestimated reports of the strength of Polish Army and thought that its force combining with that of France was enough to defeat Germany or at least to frighten Hitler.
Actually the uprising of Germany on its own meant the collapse of the Versailles system of collective security. UK and France could not afford it but the did not have any instruments to secure it and were not looking for any.
-
Karman
- Member
- Posts: 744
- Joined: 23 Aug 2004 10:39
- Location: Russia
Re: Britain's Declaration of War?
Poland signed the Versailles Treaty in which there was a paragraph stating that the Eastern borders of the Succession States will be defined in the future. But also Poland signed the Protection of Minorities Treaty which stipulated that the State of Poland was establish on the part of the Russian Empire inhabited by Poles. Polish Government definitely pursued for more land in the East but in the end of 1919 when the situation on the Russian-Polish border was really a threat Lord Kerzon offered to specify the border along the line which was called the Kerzon line. Poland agreed with that proposal and signed the respective docs in Spa (Belgium) but Russia denied the Antanta mediation being in the progress of assault deep into Poland. After the defeat of the Soviet Army at the Warsaw Battle Russia and Poland signed the Riga peace treaty according to which Russia agreed that the Soviet-Polish border was defined far to the East from the Kerzon line. Actually Western States never acknowledged the Polish Eastern territorial acquisitions. So in 1939 when Russia returned the captured lands she formally did not do anything wrong. Besides Stalin exploited the right of nations to self-determination proclaimed by the League of Nations (just like Hitler in Czechoslovakia). Ukrainians in Galicia and belorussians in the Western Byelorussia expressed their wish to join their "Soviet brothers".WHEELER wrote:I have got a mystery that I am not able to solve?
If Britain and France declared war on Germany because she invaded Poland, why didn't they declare war on Russia also? Both Russia and Germany invaded Poland, yet Britain and France and ultimately America only declared war on Germany and America gave arms and money to Russia?
Why is this?
There was no way that Western Powers declared war on Russia after M-R pact and Stalin clearly realized that. Vice versa he was definitely sure that after the collapse of Poland and Baltic States both UK, France and USA would support Russia in her war against Germany. And they did. Molotov informed the American Ambassador of all stages of negotiations with Ribbentrop and of all issues being discussed. In their turn USA advised UK of what was happening between Russia and Germany but Chamberlain was not smart enough to perform any proper actions.
UK and France collapsed in their bluffing with actually no trumps in hand. UK was not able to perform any independent military activities in Europe and French war doctrine was based on the concept of coordinated activities of the French army with armies of Succession States (Czechoslovakia, Poland, Romania and Yugoslavia). So when France betrayed Czechoslovakia in Munich it delivered the first destruction of her own army in the war. I cannot understand. Probably they believed the overestimated reports of the strength of Polish Army and thought that its force combining with that of France was enough to defeat Germany or at least to frighten Hitler.
Actually the uprising of Germany on its own meant the collapse of the Versailles system of collective security. UK and France could not afford it but the did not have any instruments to secure it and were not looking for any.