Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

Missed opportunities and hypocrisy leading up to WWII.

Discussion in 'WWII General' started by USMCPrice, May 14, 2016.

  1. USMCPrice

    USMCPrice Idiot at Large

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2009
    Messages:
    5,168
    Likes Received:
    2,140
    Location:
    God's Country
    I'm not suggesting that Germany and Japan (and the Soviet Union), weren't the bad guys in WWII. They definitively were. However, a number of our allies, to include the Soviet Union and Chiang Kai-Shek were also pretty disreputable entities as well. Stalin's purges and Chiang's atrocities could arguable give the Nazi's and the Japanese in China a run for their money. In particular there were a number of times when the future war with Japan might have been averted, but for some reason these opportunities were not pursued.

    Hypocrisy number one. How did Britain justify declaring war on Germany for it's invasion of Poland on 1 September, 1939, but not on the Soviet Union when they did the same thing on 17 September?






    Edit: Corrected grammar, used were twice.
     
    Tamino likes this.
  2. OpanaPointer

    OpanaPointer I Point at Opana Staff Member WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    18,245
    Likes Received:
    5,669
    What would they gain by declaring war on Russia?
     
  3. DerGiLLster

    DerGiLLster Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2015
    Messages:
    128
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    Illinois
    Britain was afraid of gaining more enemies, they knew that having Germany and Russia against them would be a disaster. Also, perhaps Britain did not do so as they sensed a possible alliance with Russia against Hitler soon, and well they were right.
     
  4. OpanaPointer

    OpanaPointer I Point at Opana Staff Member WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    18,245
    Likes Received:
    5,669
    Ture. The Mutual Back-stabber Assistance Treaty, aka the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, was a volte face by Stalin and another one wouldn't be surprising even in 1939.
     
  5. OpanaPointer

    OpanaPointer I Point at Opana Staff Member WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    18,245
    Likes Received:
    5,669
    We did have one fabulous chance missed:

    From: PHA, Pt. 12, Exhibits of the Joint Committee, pp. 213-14.


    [Secret]
    From: Washington
    To: Tokyo
    1 December 1941
    (Purple)
    #1227
    Indications are that the United States desires to continue the negotiations even if it is necessary to go beyond their stands on the so-called basic principles. However, if we keep quibbling on the critical points, and continue to get stuck in the middle as we have been in the past, it is impossible to expect any further developments. If it is impossible from the broad political viewpoint, to conduct a leaders' meeting at this time, would it not be possible to arrange a conference between persons in whom the leaders have complete confidence, (for example, Vice President Wallace or Hopkins from the United States and the former Premier Konoye, who is on friendly terms with the President, or Adviser to the Imperial Privy Council Ishii). The meeting could be arranged for some midway point, such as Honolulu. High army and navy officers should accompany these representatives. Have them make one final effort to reach some agreement, using as the basis of their discussions the latest proposals submitted by each.
    We feel that this last effort may facilitate the final decision as to war or peace.
    We realize of course that an attempt to have President Roosevelt and former Premier Konoye meet, failed. Bearing in mind the reaction to that in our nation, it may be to our interest to first ascertain the U. S. attitude on this possibility. Moreover, since we have no guarantee either of success or failure of the objectives even if the meeting is held, careful consideration should first be given this matter.
    Page 214
    We feel, however, that to surmount the crisis with which we are face to face, it is not wasting our efforts to pursue every path open to us. It is our opinion that it would be most effective to feel out and ascertain the U. S. attitude regarding this matter, in the name of the Japanese Government. However, if this procedure does not seem practical to you in view of some internal condition, then how would it be if I were to bring up the subject as purely of my own origin and in that manner feel out their attitude. Then, if they seem receptive to it the government could make the official proposal.
    Please advise me of your opinions on this matter.
    25727
    JD-1: 7055 (D) Navy Trans. 12-4-41 (1)
     
    USMCPrice likes this.
  6. Terry D

    Terry D Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2015
    Messages:
    602
    Likes Received:
    264
    Location:
    Huerta, California
    Why not declare war on the USSR on 9/17? Simple: one enemy at a time. That's not hypocrisy, just strategic and political sense. Thanks to the Conservative government, Labour myopia, and some other things, Britain was not yet fully rearmed and indeed would not be so until early 1942. The French were behind too. Declaring war on the USSR at that point would have been biting off much more than the Allies could comfortably chew; they had enough trouble coping with the Germans. And Russia was also very difficult to get at geographically.

    Quite a lot of influential people in Britain and France DID want to fight the Russians as well as the Germans--or rather than the Germans. This idea was very popular in right wing circles in both countries; that scoundrel Weygand was very much in favor. Take a look at the history of the Winter War, when Finland received aid from the Allies. The Allied desire to help the Finns was one of the things that drew Allied attention to Scandinavia and contributed to the German decision to invade the region. In the end it was quite fortunate that the Allies did not declare war on the Soviets; if they had they would have definitely driven Stalin even deeper into Hitler's arms than he already was.
     
  7. Skipper

    Skipper Kommodore

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2006
    Messages:
    24,984
    Likes Received:
    2,386
    For the French and the British ! invade Germany in 1936 when Hitler moved to Rhineland.

    For the French : move deeper into Germany in September 1939 istead of hopping around Saarland and waiting that the Germans were done in Poland.

    For the Germans , not stop at Dunkirk and anihilate the British while they could.
     
  8. LJAd

    LJAd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Messages:
    4,997
    Likes Received:
    237
    As Poland did not declare war on the SU, there was no reason for FRance to declare war . Why always talking about Britain ? It had no army .
     
  9. LJAd

    LJAd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Messages:
    4,997
    Likes Received:
    237
    1) Again : Britain could not invade Germany and there was no reason to do anything : the reoccupatin of the Rhineland did not threaten Britain, and France also considered that it was not in danger .

    2) France had not the forces to move deeper in Germany in september 1939

    3 ) Germany could not annihilate the British at Dunkirk, besides it is an exaggeration to say that the BEF was encircled at Dunkirk .
     
  10. LJAd

    LJAd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Messages:
    4,997
    Likes Received:
    237
    1) This is irrelevant

    2 ) This is not true ,only wrong revisionism :war with Japan was ineluctable, unless US would give up its positions in Asia and the Pacific . There was not enough place for the US and Japan .
     
  11. belasar

    belasar Court Jester

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Messages:
    8,515
    Likes Received:
    1,176
    :ballnchain:
     

    Attached Files:

  12. USMCPrice

    USMCPrice Idiot at Large

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2009
    Messages:
    5,168
    Likes Received:
    2,140
    Location:
    God's Country
    It is hypocritical, if Germany invading Poland was sufficient reason for Britain to declare war on Germany, why wasn't it sufficient reason to declare war on the Soviets as well? Britain was not in any position, militarily to actually attack Germany at that moment in time so the declaration was symbolic, and to show solidarity with the Poles. So it was politically OK for the Soviets to seize half of the country?
     
  13. OpanaPointer

    OpanaPointer I Point at Opana Staff Member WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    18,245
    Likes Received:
    5,669
    "Nations don't have friends or foes, they have interests."

    In other words, having Nazi Germany as an enemy was enough. They couldn't save Poland by going to war with the USSR.

    Anybody read the Color Books?
     
  14. Takao

    Takao Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    10,103
    Likes Received:
    2,574
    Location:
    Reading, PA
    Aren't you forgetting the secret protocol of the British-Polish pact?



    Germany is expressly mentioned...Attacks by any other European nation will only result in consultation between the two governments as to what action should be taken.

    Shortsightedness on the part of the British & Polish, or did the two governments accept as fact that the Soviet Union was too large to go to war with?
     
  15. USMCPrice

    USMCPrice Idiot at Large

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2009
    Messages:
    5,168
    Likes Received:
    2,140
    Location:
    God's Country
    Excellent choice. This is precisely one of the instances I was going to bring up. So in December the US decides a face to face with former Prime Minister Konoye is desireable. Why wasn't it a good idea two months earlier when Konoye was the actual Prime Minister? He had sought such a meeting back on August 27th, and he indicated that he was willing to make significant concessions, he had the support of the Emperor at that time, but Roosevelt ignored the request.
    "The meeting could be arranged for some midway point, such as Honolulu."- This is precisely the location Konoye suggested, but was told it would require too long an absence from Washington.

    Here is a good article on Konoye's attempts at averting war and coming to a diplomatic understanding with Washington, the failure of which led to his resignation on October 16th and Tojo's appointment as Prime Minister. From the Association of Diplomatic Studies and Training:

    http://adst.org/2013/11/the-failed-attempts-to-avert-war-with-japan-1941/


     
    Takao likes this.
  16. USMCPrice

    USMCPrice Idiot at Large

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2009
    Messages:
    5,168
    Likes Received:
    2,140
    Location:
    God's Country
    Very good. You nailed the correct answer again. Many of the factors that drove us (and Britain and Japan) towards war were those "interests", and our respective governments generated a different narrative in order to convince our populations to support going to war. It was never, simply, about right and wrong. That's because it is hard to convince mothers to send off their sons, or wives and children their fathers, husbands and brothers to protect "interests". It has to be some higher, more noble purpose. Our motivations were not as altruistic and noble as they have come down to us in our mythos of the war, there were a lot of greys. It wasn't the strictly black and white, good guys vs bad guys, narrative we have come to accept. We weren't quite the knights in shining armor we'd like to think ourselves. (That being said, Germany was about as close to any black, evil, no redeeming characteristics regime as I've ever come across, but Stalin and his cohorts were pretty close behind).
     
  17. USMCPrice

    USMCPrice Idiot at Large

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2009
    Messages:
    5,168
    Likes Received:
    2,140
    Location:
    God's Country
    Good question worth further discussion.

    Now back to the original question, this is a statement by the British Prime Minister to the House of Commons on 31 March 1939:



    The bolded section of the statement would appear, on the face of it, to justify a declaration of war against the Soviets as well as Germany. Polish independence was threatened and their armed forces were attempting to resist them.
     
  18. Terry D

    Terry D Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2015
    Messages:
    602
    Likes Received:
    264
    Location:
    Huerta, California
    I just said why they didn't declare war on both. Call it hypocritical if you like, but you don't take on more than you can deal with at the moment unless you absolutely have to. There were people in the 1960s who wanted to extend the war in Vietnam at the risk of bringing in China--this while we still had strategic responsibilities in Europe because of the Soviets. Yes, we were opposed to Communism generally (and rightly so) but One War at a Time is a sound maxim. No, an Allied declaration of war against the USSR in 1939 would have simply made WWII even harder for the Western Allies to win than it was. Stalin himself said later that a firm German-Soviet alliance would have been well-nigh invincible. In 1939, though, Germany was much the greater danger to the West, and it made sense for Britain and France to deal with him first--and preferably in isolation.
     
  19. USMCPrice

    USMCPrice Idiot at Large

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2009
    Messages:
    5,168
    Likes Received:
    2,140
    Location:
    God's Country
    It is hypocritical. I also understood your point, and a valid point it is. Britain did not have, at the time, the capability to wage war on either. Even with the 8+ months between their declaration of war on Germany and the invasion of France they were ill prepared to deal with the German war machine. IMO, it was a bluff by Britain, they thought the agreement would cause Hitler to restrain his territorial expansion plans. Hitler called their bluff, they had to declare war to save "face", even though there was nothing they could do militarily to save Poland. The "missed" opportunity was that had Britain and France taken a similar stance a year earlier when Hitler was planning for taking Czechoslovakia they might have toppled his regime:

    Excerpt from an article from "The History Place":

    http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/triumph/tr-munich.htm

    What I really find ironic is that Poland (and Hungary), yes the country whose invasion led to the declaration of war, was all too happy to agree to stand by and let Hitler invade if they got their piece of Czechoslovakia. Washington was right to warn us about foreign entanglements.
     
  20. TiredOldSoldier

    TiredOldSoldier Ace

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2008
    Messages:
    3,223
    Likes Received:
    452
    I would not use the word "hypoctytical" but to declare war on just one of the two aggressors (or 3 as Slovakian (troops participated as well and Slovakia was a separate entity), does not match the "official" motivation they were going to war to protect Poland against aggression. IMO the motivations were a lot more complex, the secret clauses clearly shows Britain wanted to counter German expansionism, they didn't want to get necessarily involved in a possible,border dispute between Poland and the USSR.

    Once politicians decide to go to war they need simple motivations to get people to "rally round the flag", especially if they are the ones doing the declaration of war, these are almost always oversimplified black and white interpretations of reality, historians that try to dig a bit deeper find the paradox that while the politicians went to war for complex reasons the soldiers initially fought and died for the simple ones, so which is the true reason ? the one in the heads of the politicians or the one in the hearts of the people who actually fought?

    After a while the "soldier mindset" kicks in, personal survival, "esprit de corps", protecting your family, and the original motivations cease to matter much, if you ask a soldier that's been in the frontline for more than a couple of weeks why he's fighting he will most likely not give the same motivation he would have given before getting to the front.

    If we dig into the "missed opportunities" we will most likely find, with 20/20 hindsight of course, that politicians could have done a lot better, there is a lot to learn there but politicians don't like their failures discussed and are very good at propaganda as its a basic requirement for the role. Of course I'm assuming they were actually trying to avoid getting involved in a war, looking for "missed opportunities" by Mussolini in1940 or Roosevelt in 1941 makes no sense.
     

Share This Page