I have a hard time understanding this part of WW2.
I understand why France would declare war. They were on the border with Germany, saw German aggression, and basically wanted to pre-emptively strike Germany.
I can imagine why the US got involved in 1941 (German declaration of war).
BUT WHY THE UK?
It seems to me that history shows that Hitler/Germany was extremely ideologically allied with England and the British Empire, and that in no way would Nazi Germany be in conflict with the British Empire.
Hitler in fact when war started, even made some kind of outlandish deal offering, whereas if the UK pulled out of the war, Hitler would send SS troops to protect colonies such as India.
So the point is…Why did the UK declare war on Germany, and potentially risked and lost her Empire in such a devastating world war?
If Hitler was no threat to the UK, why risk a world war fighting him, when you can just watch from the sidelines and stay rich/powerful?
Keep in mind, I believe that the post-war dreadful years of Empire collapse (decolonization, etc) really were a result of world war 2 damage to British power. In fact even Hitler predicted that the UK would not be an Empire anymore after WW2, regardless of which party won.
So…
France I understand.
Also understand USSR, USA, Greece, Denmark, Norway, etc.
But why UK?
Firstly, the UK and Nazi Germany were not ‘extremely ideologically allied’. The Nazis threw thousands in prison for their biological or ideological differences. The UK (generally) didn’t do that.
Nazi Germany famously repudiated democracy, the rule of law, and parliaments. All three of which are lodestones of the British constitution and British culture.
The Nazis were outwardly aggressive and militaristic, and Britain in the 1930s was timid and embarassed of militarism.
The Nazis wanted to tear up Versailles and establish Germany as a new, vibrant empire. Britain had some sympathy with undoing the evils of Versailles, but it had been a centuries-long policy of the UK not to permit one country to dominate Europe. It is to the shame of the Baldwin and Chamberlain governments that they did not continue this British tradition.
But yeah, apart from all that, they were ‘extremely ideologically allied’ :rolleyes:
The fundamental fact is that, while the UK was prepared to turn a blind eye to some German outrages, more out of guilt for Versaiiles and fear of war than ideological affinity. But once the Reich began routinely repudiating international agreements it had freely entered into since 1933 simply because it had tired of them - once it began outwardly flouting international law that respected the liberty of nations - there was no way peace was possible.
Britain could have preserved peace with Germany, or come to an understanding in 1940. Sure. Germany could have promised the world to preserve the British Empire and let Britannia rule the waves. But look at Germany’s record:
it broke the Anglo-German Naval Agreement;
it broke the Polish-German non-aggression pact;
it broke the Munich Agreement;
it broke the Molotov Ribbentrop Pact;
it attacked neutral nations it had no quarrel with.
In short, Nazi Germany was the most untrustworthy, despicable, two-faced, back-handed piece of work ever devised.
We could have had peace, but Britain had no guarantee it would last until Hitler got bored again. Why would he respect us when he respect nobody else?
The only security for Britain, Europe, the world was the total destruction of Nazi Germany. If it meant that the Empire went down, or Britain fell in the attempt, so be it.
Better to die on your feet than live on your knees.
Also, most people in the UK don’t see the end of the Empire, now, as particularly distressing, particularly as it was territory that we nicked and it didn’t belong to us. As the upshot of the war and the national solidarity that it engendered was the 1945 Labour Government, which brought about some of the greatest social changes in the UK and gave us a better domestic peace than what occurred after the First World War.
What I meant by “ideologically aligned” was not from the British side, but from the German side.
Geopolitically speaking, one cannot say that the Germans wanted the extinction of the British, the same way they wanted lebensraum in the East. In Mein Kampf I believe Hitler even imagines a world with a British Empire and a German Empire, co-existing somehow. This was not the case with the USSR.
As to the ideological and societal differences between the UK and Germany, I think they are highly irrelevant to the point. Germany was another country, it could do as it pleases domestically. If the Germans didnt believe in Democracy, that’s their problem. Just the same as Germans would have no place judging the British Empire, or wishing that a Republic would replace the Monarchy. It would be out of place.
The only point is whether or not there should have been war between Germany & the UK, based on geopolitical realities of the time.
In other words, since the UK declared war on Germany, and Germany did not (in fact was surprised by this), we must see from the UK point of view:
> Did Germany pose a threat to the UK?
> As such was war justified?
This is what I am trying to decipher in this thread.
You do bring some points to the table:
it broke the Anglo-German Naval Agreement;
it broke the Polish-German non-aggression pact;
it broke the Munich Agreement;
it broke the Molotov Ribbentrop Pact;
it attacked neutral nations it had no quarrel with.
I would say point 2, 4, 5, are totally irrelevant to British-German relations and quarrel. In fact you could even ask: “Why did Britain have the gal to meddle in continental European politics”? Its not a valid reason for war (but could be for France, as its geopolitical sphere was encroached upon).
I’ll be honest…If the purpose of war was simply the annihilation of Germany due to its place being too bothersome to the British, that doesnt put the British in a very good light, regardless of who the Nazis were.
Let’s focus rather on the THREATS which Nazi Germany posed to the UK, then we could elucidate whether or not the UK had a moral and military imperative to intervene against Germany.
Keep in mind: I fully agree and understand the UK’s move against Germany during WW1. Clearly in that war, Germany escalated and threatened against the UK. The Kaiser was belligerent and wanted to attack the British Empire.
But I just dont see those reasons with the Hitler regime in 1939. Hitler’s goals were totally different from the Kaiser. Hitler looked at the east. Possibly even in cooperation with the Western world.
Do you grasp that the politicians making decisions in 1939 were personally involved in World War I? And that they weren’t working from hindsight in 2015, but possibly from hindsight from recent decisions?
You wouldn’t have come far with “Just let them have Eastern Europe, they won’t come attacking us” in 1939, and there’s little reason to believe a continuation of “Peace, for us at least, in our time” wouldn’t have eventually lead to a giant third Reich strongarming Western Europe, unless one suffer from severe ideological blinkers.
If Germans attacked French positions in 1917, would Britain not provide support? Of course it would - they were allies fighting a shared enemy. So why should Britain act any differently when Germany launched a new assault in 1939?
In other words, as far as the Brits were concerned, the war wasn’t starting - it was continuing.
Germany wasn’t just doing what it pleased domestically, it was marching across Europe, knocking down other countries like nine pins. If you can’t imagine how the UK might have felt threatened by that, then I can’t help you.
Ever heard of international treaties, where one country promises to come to the support of another? Like the UK and Poland in 1939? It’s generally not a great idea to just renege on your promises to other countries, in case you might ever need their help, or not want them to invade you.
‘To bothersome’? Interesting choice of words. So Europe has barely recovered from the most devastating war ever seen, with our men thrown to the slaughter and our cities bombed to smithereens, started by the ‘bothersome’ Germans, and here was the younger, more aggressive, way more disturbing child about to do the same and you want the UK to…just leave them to it? Pull up the channel drawbridge, a mere 20 miles from the French border, and cross little fingers that France was going to keep Hitler happy?
First, the British had no reason to believe that the Nazis would only look eastward. If they could invade Czechoslovakia and Poland, they could also invade Belgium and the Netherlands.
Second, the Germans had taken over Czechoslovakia even though they had signed a treaty saying they wouldn’t. They could not be trusted. The UK might even had gone to war over Czechoslovakia, but they weren’t ready for war. (One of the reasons for the Munich Agreement was that the UK needed more time; Churchill and others knew the Germans would probably break it, but their forces weren’t strong enough to go to war against Germany.)
But Hitler had quite rapidly demonstrated his willingness to ignore what he publically stated in Mein Kampf and do whatever he could get away with. He never stated any intention of hostility against Denmark or Norway, for example, but they were conquered regardless. His willingness to attack his neighbours ruthlessly was apparent. Any country with that attitude is a clear and present danger.
Well when your refer to ideological affinities, that’s what’s normally (in my experience) meant by them. As to ideological affinities in the international realm…yes, they aligned to some degree, but quite rapidly in the 1930s they diverged. Britain welcomed a strong, assertive Germany within a community of nations. It did not welcome a Germany that threatened international peace and sought to dominate Europe. Again, no country should be permitted to do that.
After the breaching of the Munich Pact in April 1939, there had to be war as Germany had demonstrated it was a rogue state.
Yes - there was no way any ‘peace’ could be considered anything of the kind.
Yes - firstly, to put Germany back in its box, which is inherently a danger to Britain. Secondly, for the rights of the conquered people of Europe. Thirdly, because peace with Germany meant nothing more than dominance by Germany. We might have lost the Empire but we regained our dignity, our self-respect, and retained our sovereignty.
Often because in the 1930s Britain was seen as the one country capable of establishing a policy vis-a-vis Germany. As I said, a long-term British policy had been aligning against the greatest power on the Continent, which was Germany.
And each of those incidents in isolation may not matter much, but look at them as a chronology. A pattern emerges that Germany signs agreements, promises to uphold them, and then, later, violently breaches them. Germany could not be trusted, and also shows its willingness to invade and conquer to get its way.
A bank would not continue to lend money to someone who refused to pay. A judge would not let of lightly a repeat offender. The same concern applies.
The aims of Britain in the war were to restore the balance of powers in Europe and uphold the rights of nations to self-determination, which Germany had flouted outright. it didn’t seek the destruction of Germany but the destruction of the Nazi Party, which was the cause of its aggressive, reckless attitude.
But it’s precisely the same. Just because Hitler took the east is irrelevant. You referred to Mein Kampf; everyone knew his intention was vengeance on France for the defeat of the First World War. Why do you consider the situation in WW2 different?
The Kaiser in WW1, at least, had not demonstrated in so flagrantly a manner as Hitler that he was an untrustworthy swine who broke international law when it suited him. Give me the Kaiser over Hitler any day.
According to Churchill’s account, and there is no reason to doubt him: The foundation of English and then British/UK grand strategy going back to Elisabethan times was to take an attitude ranging from alert suspicion to armed hostility to the strongest continental power. The logic behind this was to prevent a continental hegemon from emerging; only such a hegemon could pose a threat to British existence. Spain was the threat of the late 1500s and early 1600s, France emerged as the threat in the late 1600s, and Germany emerged in the late 1800s.
…well, Germany and the UK were both capitalist, and the USSR was communist, and in that sense, Hitler and a large proportion of the UK’s decision makers were in agreement as to who the real enemy was.
In the 30s, Mosley and his blackshirts, the British Union of Fascists, were at least semi-respectable and reasonably popular in the UK.
It is to Churchill’s credit that he was able to clearly see that the Nazis were a bigger threat to the UK than the Communists. That wasn’t a popular position at all in the late 30s.
Hitler’s offer to Churchill was basically to leave Britain alone and even help it retain some of its colonial possessions in exchange for a free hand in Europe. A Hitler with a free hand in Europe would soon have controlled all of Europe, or at least all the bits he wanted. What do you think that would have meant for Britain in the long term? An invasion by France or Germany or some other continental power was impractical. An invasion by all of them would be unstoppable (US support notwithstanding, and even that was hardly guaranteed in 1939).
[QUOTE=Yes Minister]
Sir Humphrey: Minister, Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least the last five hundred years: to create a disunited Europe. In that cause we have fought with the Dutch against the Spanish, with the Germans against the French, with the French and Italians against the Germans, and with the French against the Germans and Italians. Divide and rule, you see. Why should we change now, when it’s worked so well?
**Hacker**: That's all ancient history, surely?
**Sir Humphrey**: Yes, and current policy. We 'had' to break the whole thing [the EEC] up, so we had to get inside. We tried to break it up from the outside, but that wouldn't work. Now that we're inside we can make a complete pig's breakfast of the whole thing: set the Germans against the French, the French against the Italians, the Italians against the Dutch. The Foreign Office is terribly pleased; it's just like old times.
Well said by Sir Humphrey, but the EU seems to be quite capable of creating a pig’s breakfast on its own with very little British prodding. Not that the Brits aren’t still prodding; merely that events demonstrate it’s not really necessary.
Britain didn’t really have a choice in the matter. They could buy some time to build up there defenses, but a strong German-controlled Europe couldn’t live side-by-side with a strong British Empire. Hitler would have eventually viewed Britain as a threat. The Brits knew that and also knew they were going to have to defend their allies against Germany. Their fate was sealed.
Nazi Germany (aka Hitler) invaded Poland. Britain had an Anglo-Polish military alliance which was activated when Germany invaded Poland on September 1. To meet it’s obligation to Poland, Britain had no choice but to declare war on Nazi Germany because Hitler refused to end his aggression in Poland.
*1939: Britain and France declare war on Germany
Britain and France are at war with Germany following the invasion of Poland two days ago.
At 1115 BST the Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain, announced the British deadline for the withdrawal of German troops from Poland had expired.
He said the British ambassador to Berlin had handed a final note to the German government this morning saying unless it announced plans to withdraw from Poland by 1100, a state of war would exist between the two countries.
Mr Chamberlain continued: “I have to tell you now that no such undertaking has been received and consequently this country is at war with Germany.”
Similarly the French issued an ultimatum, which was presented in Berlin at 1230, saying France would be at war unless a 1700 deadline for the troops’ withdrawal was adhered to.*
I’d say the marshaling of an invasion fleet by the Nazis (Operation Sea Lion) and sending waves of bombers to attack Britain are hints that the Nazis weren’t intent on peaceful coexistence with the British Empire.
Yeah, gimme $2,000 a month and I’ll “protect” you.
By the way, the real “evil of Versailles” was the Allied failure to enforce its provisions, thus emboldening Hitler.
