The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - November 21, 2008

Dunnigan's and Bay's Latest
Advertisement
New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Squad Battles: Winter War
2.Silent War
3.Manoeuvre
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 

Online Giving

Utah SEO Firm

Xango

Smiley Gifts for Babies
Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
Leadership Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Should the UK have gone to war with the USSR 1939?
Johnny Frost    5/12/2003 8:20:33 AM
The UK declared war on Germany following its invasion of Poland in 1939. Russia as part of the Nazi/Soviet pact invaded poland and the Baltic republics.
Why did the allies not dclare war on the USSR for its invasion of Poland. Were we not treaty bound? I can see why the UK might not have wanted to.
 
Quote    Reply
 Latest
 News 		  Most
 Read 		  Most
 Commented		  Hot
 Topics

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5   NEXT
Shaka of Carthage    RE:Should the UK have gone to war with the USSR 1939?   5/12/2003 1:38:44 PM
Short answer, No. Here's why: France, UK and Poland were allied. The "plan" against Germany was that an attack on one, would result in war with all of them, hence a two (2) front war which Germany had stated it did not want to fight. Second, Europeans did not want a repeat of WWI, so it was believed by the UK that a "strategic bombing" campaign would deprive Germany of some of the limited resources it had. Lastly, Hitler's hold on Germany was not absolute. Russia at this time was ignored, even though Poland had made quite a few warnings about Russia. Main belief was that Russia and Germany would always be at odds, since fascism was anti-communist. Then Germany invaded Poland. France and UK honored the treaty and declared war on Germany. Poland fell, and was then carved up by Germany and Russia. UK/France did not know what to do. No hope of a two front war. Germanies resource problem was solved by trade with Russia. So they did nothing. Should the UK have declared war on Russia? Honorable thing to do yes, but the wrong thing to do from the geopolitical viewpoint. France/UK did not want to have to fight Germany/Russia. The numbers were against them. So first they said that Russia was too far away, then they said they were waiting on the two of them to turn on each other. Valid points, but it meant that Poland was sacrificed. National self-interests always come before allied interests, especially if you feel you will lose.
 
Quote    Reply

Final Historian    RE:Should the UK have gone to war with the USSR 1939?   5/12/2003 1:52:59 PM
Hindsight is 20/20, but I for one would have liked for the US/UK to have taken Stalin out in '45. If we had killed him, and Baria as well, the Soviet Union might have broken apart a civil war. That would have prevented the Communist takeover of Eastern Europe, and likely would have ensured that China didn't become Communist, and thus a whole lot of wars would have been prevented.
 
Quote    Reply

giblets    RE:Should the UK have gone to war with the USSR 1939?   5/13/2003 3:41:52 AM
Personally I think we should have joined the Germans in WW1, the monarchy was related, which would be a natural alliance, we could ahve split france between us, and regained our possesions in SW France (the reason France has a wine industry is because of Britain ),the Germans could have taken Eastern France. Then we could have split the French Colonies between us. This would result in no WWII, Leaving Britain with huge colonies, America would not have had the war that made it the most powerful in the world by far, and France would be no more, everyone is happy.
 
Quote    Reply

Johnny Frost    RE:Should the UK have gone to war with the USSR 1939?   5/13/2003 4:11:10 AM
What I was after was the legal position of the UK. The Soviet Union invaded Poland before it fell to the Nazis. So how did we avoid having to go to war with the USSR. Was the treaty with Poland only over a potential invasion from Germany? As to Giblets position in WW1, I feel a bit let down by Belguim recently. We went to war to protect 'plucky little' Belgium, not France in WW1. We could have stayed out but honoured our treaty with Belguim. Yet they now have become a feirce critic of UK foriegn policy. I know its been 80years but still they owe us alot, like not speaking German.
 
Quote    Reply

Shaka of Carthage    RE:Should the UK have gone to war with the USSR 1939?   5/13/2003 12:17:31 PM
France, UK and Poland had a mutual defense treaty. Stated that any attack on one would require the others to come to its aid. It was not specific only against Germany. UK/France not declaring war on Russia was a breech of that treaty. They broke the terms.
 
Quote    Reply

American Kafir    Alternative History   5/13/2003 12:56:05 PM
If Britain had allied with Germany in WW1, and became an enemy of the US, America might have snatched up pieces of the British Empire in much the same way it came into possession of several Spanish territories less than 20 years earlier.
 
Quote    Reply

Johnny Frost    RE:Alternative History   5/13/2003 1:03:33 PM
Hi, If Britain had been on germanys side then there would have been no blockade and Uboat attacks Lusitania etc. The US would not have entered the war. If it did its navy would have lost against the RN at the time.
 
Quote    Reply

Johnny Frost    I believe I just got my wars mixed up! Ouch   5/13/2003 1:41:28 PM
Sorry
 
Quote    Reply

giblets    RE:I believe I just got my wars mixed up! Ouch   5/13/2003 2:03:29 PM
The US Navy would have been thrashed, not solely because of the RN, the German Navy at the time was the second largest Navy, with more Dreadnaughts too. There woiuld also have been no Russian Revolution...
 
Quote    Reply

Kalashnikov    RE:Should the UK have gone to war with the USSR 1939?   5/13/2003 3:00:33 PM
UK WAS about to go to war with USSR in defense of Finland, but decided it best not to make enemies out of two powerful states (The Axis and the USSR). Besides, the Soviets were willing to be their ally.
 
Quote    Reply

bsl    RE:Should the UK have gone to war with the USSR 1939?   5/13/2003 8:10:17 PM
<> I think the Romans would be surprised to hear this.
 
Quote    Reply

bsl    RE:Should the UK have gone to war with the USSR 1939?   5/13/2003 8:20:25 PM
<> Not that I have any great emotional investment in WW1, where I think Germany had some legitimate issues, but... <> 1)France's colonies were not huge. Britain might have liked to make Africa one color on the map, but how would this have changed anything? Would you really have enjoyed IndoChina all that much? 2)You're wrong about the effect WW1 had on the development of American power. It wasn't much of an issue and didn't move much forward. The move towards increasing military power as well as towards a greater role in the world was already nearly two generations old by 1917. The economic and technological base on which the increasing power was based had almost nothing to do with WW1. OTOH, you might have found a very uncomfortable confrontation with America over trying to take control of French colonies in the Western Hemisphere after carving up France. Was French Guiana really worth going to war over? More realistic outcome is that Britain would have offered America the French Western Hemisphere colonies - which were very minor - as a goodwill gesture. 3)I like this sort of speculating as much as the next fellow. Any fantasy which removes France from the map has a certain appeal, after all. Still, you can't be serious about "no WW2", can you? How many years of foreign rule of the French would it have taken before blood was shed? In such a context, with America already well into the "anti-colonial" movement which developed, anyway, in the actual history, have you trouble seeing a war, a generation later, with America joining the cause of French liberation? The fact is that under the ethos of the era, Britain had no justification for ruling any part of metropolitan France. And, given the evolution of British politics and the British Constitution, it was just too late in history to sustain such a thing. Your own domestic politics would have prevented it from lasting for any great time. Not, as I've said, it would have been all that bad an idea....
 
Quote    Reply

bsl    RE:Alternative History   5/13/2003 8:22:47 PM
"If it did its navy would have lost against the RN at the time." You grossly underestimate American industrial capacity by that time. Also, American dependence on foreign trade and resources. Essentially, Britain lacked the capacity to conquer America and had no ability to choke America by cutting sea lanes. The reverse, otoh, was not true. The only variable would have been how long it took to build the fleet to sweep the seas of the RN. At that point, Britain asks for terms, or is starved or conquered.
 
Quote    Reply

bsl    RE:I believe I just got my wars mixed up! Ouch   5/13/2003 8:30:32 PM
"US Navy would have been thrashed, not solely because of the RN, the German Navy at the time was the second largest Navy" giblets, This was WW1. No aircraft carriers, no missiles. Naval artillery range was roughly 20 miles, at the outside. There is no way to defeat a continental power with dreadnoughts. The combined British and German navies couldn't even reach all the American shipyards. You lacked the ability to move whole armies across the Atlantic and supply them against a hostile America. You lacked the numbers and the technology to overwhelm America. You had no way to choke vital supplies or resources, because virtually everything American needed was available, by land. OTOH, you had no way to prevent America from conquering Canada, which would have happened fairly quickly. You had no way to prevent America from fortifying it's coasts with artillery as large as anything carried on a ship. You had no way to prevent America from building a fleet larger than the combined British and German navies. And, at that point, you were screwed. We were as good as you were, as advanced as you were, and would have shown the same resolve we actually showed in WW1 and WW2. More, actually, under the circumstances. Results? After a good four or five years of bitter fighting, the British and German Empires are gone and the world has an awful lot more countries a lot sooner than it did, in our real history. And, Canada is part of the US. Given your idea of WW1, as the prelude, Quebec is probably an independent country, too. Alsace Lorraine are French. And, bet your alternative life that Ireland is independent before our ships clear the horizon. Maybe with a long-term lease granted for large American military installations. 8^) bsl
 
Quote    Reply

Final Historian    RE:I believe I just got my wars mixed up! Ouch   5/13/2003 11:53:24 PM
This talk is pretty foolish, expect when you remember that naval strategist during the late 20's, early 30's figured that Britains most likely opponent when it came to sea power would be the US. They figured if the two powers were to become involved in a war, it would be between the two. Shows how little they knew.
 
Quote    Reply
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5   NEXT

StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2008StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy