Why UK & France dont declared war to russians?, when they attacked Poland

What was the reaction of UK and France when russians entered in Poland?
Why dont declared war to Soviet Union to? Because .. not olnly germans attacked Poland...

Iama

The French and British guarantees for Romania were only in case of a German attack. I suppose the situation was the same for Poland.

Oh it's more simple than that : nobody wants to commit suicide.

The rest was a job for lawayers to invent some excuse. Realpolitik, really.

There was no way on earth that UK & France could take on Germany & France. It's that simple, they had to choose lesser of two evils really.

I think you want to say Germany & Rusia.

Yes, it may be too hard. But... UK and France are two of the gib power, and UK, for example can attack in Yamamoto style at Vladivostock, Murmansk, etc. - big and important naval bases / ports. Just to give a lesson, and to force russians to back off.


Iama

You cannot be serious. The Germans advanced as far as the Volga river and Stalingrad, and the Russians did not want to learn any lesson. On the contrary...

In the days when Finland was under the siege of the Red Army, some British and French generals and politicians asked to send an expeditionary force in Finland, against the Russians.
Some of them were simply idiots, assuming that they would be able to fight with Germany and U.S.S.R. in the same time. However, most of them were no idiots, but these latter guys were not so happy with the fact that the war with Germany was going on. Their point: We declared war to help Poland. As Poland does not exist any more, the reason of war does not exist any more. They assumed that once the French and the British will get involved in Finland against the Red Army, their governments will quickly sign peace with Germany. Some even expected that Germany will stand together with them, in a final Anti-Communist Crusade...

A big wake up call to these pin heads was the speed and efficiency shown by Germany when they invaded Norway, in spite of the fact that the sea was controlled by the British and the French fleets. It became obvious that if they would dare to send troops to Finland, Germany was able to stab them in the back!

One of the countries who pressed U.S.S.R. to back off from Finland was the United States. Also Germany. The main mineral resource of Finland was the nickel. The nickel mines were owned by the Americans and the British, and Stalin had to accept with great pain that the evil Capitalists will continue to own them!
For whoever is surprised how could The United States make their point with Stalin, in March 1940, this is not too hard. The United States was the biggest donor of technology and technologic know-how to the U.S.S.R., in the 30's.
Well, not quite a donor, because they were paid.

This post has been edited by Florin on January 16, 2005 12:02 am

Yes, Florin, you are right. Most of the machine-tools used by the Russian military industries came from the United States. The equipment was paid, of course, and the commercial relations between the "evil capitalists" and the "red monsters" were flourishing. But the U.S. input was also an human one, because a sizeable number of specialized workers and engineers worked in the Soviet Union during the 30's. U.S. firms were involved in the design and development of weapon systems for the Russians, such as, for instance, aircraft carriers (actually huge hybrids between an aircraft carrier and a battleship) of unprecedented size and complexity.
The Russians also got licences for the local production of two excellent U.S. aircraft, the DC-3, built both for the VVS and the Aeroflot, the PBY Catalina, built at Taganrog by what was then known as Central Design Bureau of Seaplanes, headed by Georgy Beriev. The transfer of technology from the U.S.A. to the Soviet Union was much more important, as industrial know-how is concerned, than any other similar contacts between the Russians and several European countries for the same period, i.e., the 1930's (France was important as an exporter of aircraft engines and their technology, both air cooled radials and in-line, water-cooled powerplants, though).

This post has been edited by Ruy Aballe on January 16, 2005 12:27 pm

Oh, I forgot to add a comment on the rather close cooperation between Italian and Russian naval architects and experts... in the first half of the 1930's, just before Italians and Russians faced each other in Spanish soil...
The Russian cruisers built at the end of the decade, like the Maksim Gorkhi class, reflected Italian influence, mixing it with locally designed solutions and heavy weapons. The Russians, however, didn't copied one of main features of Italian vessels, though: lighter armour in exchange for higher speed. This proved to be a fatal mistake when the Regia Marina faced the Royal Navy in the Mediterreanean...

I think you want to say Germany & Rusia.

Yes, it may be too hard. But... UK and France are two of the gib power, and UK, for example can attack in Yamamoto style at Vladivostock, Murmansk, etc. - big and important naval bases / ports. Just to give a lesson, and to force russians to back off.


Iama

Indeed! Sorry for the mixup, I'd been drinking.

The answer can be found in the topic titled "Who started WW2".

Why UK & France dont declared war to russians?

I'll tell you why.

Because countries of the same ideology don't fight eachother.
Paris, France is the birthplace of Liberalism and Democracy. (that screwed up revolution..)
Both France and England were the main centers of Freemasons and ocult societies, London in particlar is the headquarters of secret societis.
In Hitler's opinion Moscow was the center of world bolshevism and headquarters of the great conspiracy. (Communism's ultimate goal was to rule the world, was't it)

World war two was a war of ideologies.

...(Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité) (..yes.. "brotherhood"..I know exactly which brother hood that is..)..

hey, this communist symbol... it's amazing how much it resembles to the one of the UN today..
Oh ,yes.. (nations of the world..Unite!) ... the resemblance is frightening.



This post has been edited by Der Maresal on January 19, 2005 07:40 pm

I'm sorry to tell you that your nice theory doesn't hold water in the real world.

Countries of the same ideology don't fight each other?
The Greek regime was a local form of fascism; same basic ideas, same formal arrangements (a king and a strongman), same anti-bolshevism, same authoritarian and freedom-killing policies. Why, Metaxás had explicitly copied some of Mussolini's fanciful ideas.
So how come that Italy attacked Greece?

Now let's look at the Polish regime. Formally a democracy, it was actually authoritarian, militaristic, fairly anti-Semitic and rabidly anti-bolshevist.
So how come that Germany attacked Poland?

Let's move closer to Romania. Do you believe that what divided it from Hungary was an ideological difference?

Let's move away from WWII. Care to explain the Balkan Wars in terms of ideological opposition, or (this is probably the best) the Chinese-Vietnamese War? How come that in WWI the Kaiser and the K.u.K. fought against the Czar, the Mikado and the British Emperor? Weren't them all emperors?

Maybe ideology isn't the end of the story. Think again.

In January and February 1939 the British and French tried to form an alliance with Russia to guarantee the neutrality of Poland and Romania. Russia was offered valuable trade deals to help France and britain oppose Hitler.

Stalin was not interested as he was already planning to invade Poland himself.

During the rest of 1939 and even up to July 1941 Stalin ignored British offers.

After the Soviet invasion of Finland in November 1931, the British sent 30 Gloster Gladiator fighters to protect Finland. Britain's colony in South Africa also donated 88 Gloster Gauntlet fighters to Finland. Britain shipped mines and hand grenades to Finland.

The British also tried to form Norway and Sweeden into a millitary mutual self protection pact for the defence of Finland and arranged to send a private army of volunteers from the RAF along with a squadron of Blenheims and a squadron of hurricanes in March 1940.

When news of this got out Hitler decided he had to invade Norway to prevent the British alliance with Finland.

The British effort was called the Catherine Plan. The 500 strong volunteer force was to be made of RAF pilots and mechanics with private funding from Lord Nuffield and lord Beaverbrook. the force was to be led by the son of a former US President General Kermit Roosevelt.

I suppose one hardly needs to mention the chances of Britain occupying Norway, Sweden & Finland would have been extremely slim to not implementable.

Not enough equipment or ways to get it there while having to dodge German ships and aircraft, who had a far larger range than the RAF could give from the UK.

Even the UK and French forces they managed to get on the ground were squandered with many problems of communication and poor intelligence as to German activity.

A French Mountain Corp which was sent, had ski's but a French quartermaster forgot to pack the bindings for fixing their ski's to their boots, so they were essentially handicapped and could only walk through deep snow.

Kevin in Deva

This is at least hillarious. Either you wanted to say something different, or you are another fan of the "conspiracy theory". The "screwed up revolution" was a key event in world history. And Moscow WAS for the whole duration of USSR the center of world bolshevism. Have you ever heard/read about the Communist International (or Komintern)?