Failed anti-Hitler Alliance between France, Britain and the Soviets

Well,that's ignoring the fact that Stalin never would join an alliance against Britain (why should he ?) and that Britain and France also did not want an alliance with Stalin (why should they ?)
Britain and France wanted the statu quo,and an alliance with the SU would endanger the statu quo,besides ,Stalin only would be usefull if Poland was defeated,and Germany had a common border with the SU .
And,for Stalin,Hitler only would be dangerous,if Poland was defeated(the common border),but,without the Molotow-Ribbentrop pact,an attack on Poland was impossible .
Litwinof had not been workig hard to constitute an anti-nazi alliance,he had been working hard to prevent a French-British-German alliance against the SU.
Since 1933,Hitlerwas parading as the defender of the western civilisation against the bolchevic danger,the reply of Stalin was to present the SU as a liberal democracy,defending peace against fascism .And,for this,Litwinof was the ideal man :he spoke French,was dressed as a western politician,and could do blahblah for hours about democracy,peace,the covenant,etc.Litvinof could tell clichés till the cows were dancing on the ice and give the impression that he believed them..He could be considered by the western politicians (experts in blahblah about democracy,peace,the covenant,etc)as one of us .No western politician would consider Molotov as one of us .

 

No I dont believe that every one was obligated to come to rescue. But, do you not find the humor in "Why did the Poles fear this? I mean, Britain and France would be ready to help them".

 

Sigh,as always,people are still adhering to this etnocentric POV=that everything was decided by decisions made at London and Paris,while the truth is that these countries were unable and unwilling to get involved in a quarrel between Poland and Germany .The importance of the guarantee from Britain and France was insignifiant .They were not ruling Europe.
The only country which could help Poland was the SU,but,as the SU did not consider that it was in its interest to help Poland,Poland was doomed .

 

The above is from a small booklet "Why we are at War with Germany" written in 1939 by Henderson, British Embassador to Germany, to explain to the British nation how the Government had tried every possible path to Peace but reluctantly had to face Germany in a new war.

You will note the reference to Litvinov. France, Russia and Czechoslovakia had agreed a defence pact. Russia wanted to bring Britain in to add serious weight to this Pact (watered down unfortunately at the last minute by Laval). Russia was ignored then at later at the Czech talks even thought it had a pact with Czechoslovakia.

Every action of the Soviet Government pointed to them seriously wanting to ring in Hitler. No one did or said anything without Stalin's approval. Litvinov was well accepted in the West and that is why Stalin used him.

Of course there was never any prospect of a British\French\Nazi crusade against Stalin. However you are right that Stalin's nightmare was that the West would sit on its hands and encourage Hitler to destroy The Soviet Union.

Naturally this would be one of Litvinov's objectives but this does not exclude constructing a cordon around Germany of Britain France Russia with additions from Czechoslovakia, Romania and Poland (less likely) etc. Even Italy at an earlier stage could have been considered. This would have suited Russia perfectly, at least in the short term, if it detered Hitler (or his Generals - remember he promised he would not wage war on two fronts).

Stalin showed himself to be the most flexible of all the leaders in WW2. Unfortunately the British Government (and population) let their ideaological qualms prevent them from joining a serious front against Hitler whilst there was still time.

 

1)The Soviet treaty with Czechoslovakia only would apply if France would go to war for the Czechs
2) The only way for the SU to help the Czechs was by invading Poland/Romania,two countries who had an alliance with France ...against the SU
3)the following always is forgotten :the British/French/Soviet front against Germany only could be triggered,if there was a reason=if the Czechs were willing to resist to Hitler,and,there is no proof that the Czechs would resist to Hitler,if they were supported by Britain and France,only post war claims by the Czechs ,to put the fault on Britain and Frnce
4)Britain had no obligations at all to the Czechs
5)Why would Britain join an alliance against Germany ? Germany was no danger for Britain,it also was no danger for France

 

1) The Franco-Soviet treaty was watered down by the French side - by the incoming Minister, Laval! The Russians had argued for a stronger Treaty.

2) Many of the treaties eg Franco-Polish treaty and the Little Entente (Romania, Yugoslavia and Czech) plus France were aimed at all their Big Neighbours - both Germany and USSR (plus Hungary). These had been agreed in the early 1920's when Russia was seen as the main threat but after Hitler came to power it was clear that Germany was the problem. Most had gone into decline or been altered by new geopolitical facts.

In 1934 Poland negotiated a 10 year Non-agression pact with Germany - one of Hitler's cynical but clever moves as it secured his Eastern Border allowing him to achieve Anschluss with Austria (and only Italy seriously objecting).

3) The Czechs (and Russians) were excluded from the discussions with Hitler which was carried out by mainly by the British - Henderson's criticism is that there never was an "anti Hitler Front" since Britain did not react to Soviet overtures.

4) Correct and no obligation to Poland at that time either but as you correctly state the British wanted the Status Quo to continue - Chamberlain thought that there was justification in German demands for the Sudenenland and granting this demand would bring "Peace in our Time".

His eyes were completely opened by the absorption of the remainder of Czechoslovakia which was also a personal afront to him, as well as clearly dumping any hope of maintaining the Status Quo. Now it had to be containment of Germany - and he muffed this by not reacting to Soviets. He compounded his error by offering a Defence Treaty with Poland before he had agreement that Poland to allow in Russian troops. Actually Poland agreed to some weasel words days before the German attack which would have allowed in Soviet troops to enter Polish Territory but by then it was too late.

5) You and Hitler agree - Britain was in no danger from Hitler as along as it stayed out a European War. France would be different because there was still Alsace Lorraine on Hitler's list -still if they had given this up, he might not have attacked her either.
However even a wimp like Chamberlain could not allow a mega-antidemocratic power such as Hitler's to dominate the Continent.

 

On point 5 :the reason Britain was not in danger was that Germany was to weak :in WWI,Germany lost on the western front,and won on the eastern front.Britain and France were confident that they would win a new war.
You are also overestimating the influence of the occupation of Czechia in march 1939 :it did not (as is assumed) change British policy :appeasement did continue .
About the justification of the German demands (return of the Sudeten):Chamberlain thought these demands were justified,but,that is not the reason of his policy in 1938 :for Chamberlain,the Sudeten (and everything east of the Rhine) were not worth the bones of a British grenadier.In november 1937,he had sent Halifax to Berchtesgaden with the message that Germany could dominate Europe east of the Rhine,as long it happened without war .In september 1938 (when every one was convinced that a war was imminent),Chamberlain publicly said that it was unconceivable that Britain would be at war for the sake of people (Sudeten/Czechs) of which it knew nothing (translation:about which it did not care).
In 1919,Britain had refused to guarantee the frontiers east of the Rhine,mainly because it was afraid to be involved in a war about these frontiers..The policy of Chamberlain only was the continuation of the 1919 decisions ,which were supported by Lloyd George,Bonar law,MacDonald,Baldwin,Churchill,etc..,and were the corner-stone of the British foreign policy.Thus,why should Britain adopt a totally other policy,which only would benefit the SU ?

 

And what makes you an expert to the Polish attitude. Just when did Poland ask for the world for help? When attacked by Hitler, Polish soldiers were under the impression that France and Britian would attack immediately. They thought the Brits and French were ready to fight as it seemed clear that Germany would engage everyone in this war. Yes, they were tricked by their own government and as well as their Allies. I guess they were fools to think that European countries wouldn't allow Europe to fall in to Hell, again. If you dont understand why Poles feel betrayed, then check out
Polish contribution to World War II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
and the grand prize for all that was 50 years of communism, which by the way killed hunders of thousands during the war and thousands after the war. What about during the Warsaw Uprsing, our Ally SU would not lift a finger to help and worst would not allow Brits to land with supplies. Yes, the Brits did protest, but with US as a powerhouse, they could have DEMANDED for Stalin to help or allow supply planes to land and refuel. After arn't we allies? But instead what Poland got was over 200 000 dead and a city burned to the ground. But to get back on track. Besides WW2, when did Poland ask the world for help? Didn't allies help each other? So why does it bother you so much that Poland expected help from her allies? Isn't it kind of odd, that Polish soldiers probably did more for France and England during WW2 then they did for Poland. I bet you more Poles died on French soil then vise versa. Oh I almost forgot. Polish Armed Forces were not present during the Victory Parade in 1946. Why because Britain, US and every other Ally was too much of a chicken s--t to stand up to Stalin. Was Uncle Joe going to start WW3 over this, I don't think so. So yes, as a Pole I feel betrayed, many and many times.

 

If Poland did not ask for help(as you are saying),why was Poland expecting help from her allies(as you were saying) ?
That poland was dominated for more than 50 years by the SU,was not the fault of the west,but the fault of Hitler:he started and lost,the war against the SU .
Instead of repeting the old absurd lamentations (the west demanding Stalin to help,and,if he did not :what then ? declare war on the SU ?)you better should read the work of the Polish author Anna Ciencialaoland and the Western Powers 1938/1939 (it is available on the net),who is writing
on P 227:"the guarantee was neither a rigid commitment to Poland,nor was it conceived to imply any possibility of direct military aid.At best,it was seen as a diplomatic deterrent ".
Frankly,this Polish ingratitude is getting on my nerves :after 67 years still whining that Poland was betrayed,and ignoring/neglecting/concealing the fact that Britain was fighting for 6 years to honour her guarantee.Poland was not the only to suffer:go tell the people of Coventry,London,Liverpool that they have betrayed Poland .
That Poland was at the end of the war occupied by the SU ,was in evitable,or do you expect that Britain would,after all these sufferings,start a new war,against the SU ?
Btw :if the West had sent supplies to the Warsaw Uprising,the result still would have been the same :200000 dead and a city burned to the ground .
In the political-military context of WWII,Poland was negligible :the SU was worth 1000 time Poland :without the SU,Germany could not be defeated,but,no one needed Poland to defeat Germany .

 

About the guarantee to Poland :it was the logical continuation of Munich:both were appeasement actions,and both were perceived as a victory for Britain ,and both were expected to save/gain the government a lot of marginal constituencies in the elections of november 1939.
The problem is that some people still are considering Chamberlain as a wimp,a naive old fool,who was cheated by Hitler .
This is wrong:Chamberlain knew what he wanted,and,one is not lasting Chancellor of the exchequer for 6 years,nor is one becoming PM,if one is a naive old fool .

 

So di Britain fight for 6 years to honor her guarantee to Poland or save her ass from Hitler? Most Poles have HUGE gratitude to Britain, US, France, but they also have plenty to be sore about. AND RIGHTFULLY SO. Just because you do not see, it's your prejudice against the Poles. Again I bet more Poles died for Britain then vise versa. So no I would not have a problem saying what I'm saying in London. Again, when did Poland ask the world for help? Why were the Brits too afraid of Stalin to allow Polish Armed Forced in the parade? The reason were are still talking about it, is because for over 50 years we could not talk about it. Something people who live in a democratic nation know nothing about. Thanks to communisim Poland is just now starting publicly honour its WW2 veterns, like the Home Army, soldiers abroad, "Cursed Soldiers", etc.

 

"In the political-military context of WWII,Poland was negligible :the SU was worth 1000 time Poland :without the SU,Germany could not be defeated,but,no one needed Poland to defeat Germany"

Your ignorance, insensitivity and prejudice is clear. What you refuse to accept is that Poland contributed to the war as much as many other nations, but unlike many other nations it did not get the recognition is RIGHTFULLy deserved.

 

Correction oland contributed to the war as little as many other nations .
Always repeating the same myth<that Poland was betrayed by its allies< does not change the fact,that Britain sacrificed her Empire to liberate Poland from the German occupation .
Without the British/French declaration of war,what would remain of Poland? Would there still be Poles?
Your ingratitude is clear .What you refuse to accept is that the world did not owe Poland anyting,that Poland was not the centre of Europe,and,that without the sacrifice of a lot of brave people,Poland would no more exist .

 

Correction. Without US there would not be Britain or France.
Correction. The British and French declaration of war, did very little help the Polish cause.
Correction. I have the highest respect and gartitude to the Brits. You however, can not give a Pole any respect or recognition for WW2 contributions.
Correction. I never said the world owes Poland anything. It must be a figment of your imagination, that perpetuates your Polish bigotry.
When you say sacrifice of a lot of brave people, obvisouly you do not include the hundreds of thousands of Poles fighting and millions of Polish civilians who died. Or did you?

Feel free to respond, but I am however finished with you and your disrespect.
Have a nice life.

 

You must be joking...!