British Debts

[Arsenal VG-33]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

My comment about the victors and WW1 and being one of the causes that led to WW2 has to do with the way the victors handled the reparations after WW1.

It helped fuel the political environment in Germany in the 1930s that helped the NSDP rise to power.

Was it the only cause of WW2 or the dircect cause? No but it was a factor that helped lead to the 2nd World War.

....and I agree absolutely.

[Instal]

I personally think that the U.S. is owed a debt of gratitude for thier part as well but not to the exclusion of anyone else as you would have it. I am of the opinion that we should have been there in Viet Nam, better yet the allies should have continued the fight into Russia as Stalin was very near the evil tyrant that Hitler was then there would have been no Viet Nam. As far as learning my WW2 history I have never professed to be in posession of all the facts, that is why I find this forum so interesting. I have however learned and researched as time has allowed. With all due respect I invite correction when my knowledge is lacking but my opinion is my own.

[Instal]

Originally Posted by mkloby

I agree Chris.

Instal - I thought back on page 1 you were reacting emotionally, not rationally to the issue. Parts of me agree with some of the things you have said, but I haven't seen anything to make me think that the US taxpayer should have been asked to shoulder the costs.

British decline was not caused by repayment of these debts. It was far more deep than that, and not the subject of this thread.

Also, if you speaking of the Marshall Plan above when you spoke of conquered nations receiving aid, the UK was not excluded either.

Thank you mkloby, I was not aware that the U.K. recieved any assistance post war. I realise that there were more factors involved in the decline of the U.K.'s financial situation however repayment of war debts must have been a contributing factor.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by Instal

I personally think that the U.S. is owed a debt of gratitude for thier part as well but not to the exclusion of anyone else as you would have it.

Did I say that? No, I did not. Please dont put words in my mouth.

If I recall I even said that it was a complete Allied effort. The US could not have done without her allies England, Canada, Australia, Russia, etc.. but England and the rest of the allies could not have done it without the US either.

You are the one that said the rest of the world should pay gratitude to England for fighting Germany. I am sorry but England was not the only one fighting Germany.

Originally Posted by Instal

I am of the opinion that we should have been there in Viet Nam,

That is your opinion and you are certainly entitled to it. I personally dont think they should have been there. To me it was not there war.

Originally Posted by Instal

better yet the allies should have continued the fight into Russia as Stalin was very near the evil tyrant that Hitler was then there would have been no Viet Nam.

I will not agree nor disagree on this. I do however think that is a discussion for a different thread.

Originally Posted by Instal

As far as learning my WW2 history I have never professed to be in posession of all the facts, that is why I find this forum so interesting. I have however learned and researched as time has allowed. With all due respect I invite correction when my knowledge is lacking but my opinion is my own.

Then I challenge you to learn more on this subject.

Please dont take me wrong when I say this because I am not trying to insult you but I think your views on this very topic you are thinking without rational and letting your emotion get in the way of facts and what truely happened historically and why they happened that way.

Originally Posted by Instal

Thank you mkloby, I was not aware that the U.K. recieved any assistance post war. I realise that there were more factors involved in the decline of the U.K.'s financial situation however repayment of war debts must have been a contributing factor.

I dont know if you saw what I posted about aid under the Marschall Plan to help rebuild western europe and that England recieved the most aid so I will post the numbers again.

The top 5 recievers of aid from the US post WW2:

England: 3,297,000,000
France: 2,296,000,000
Germany: 1,448,000,000
Italy: 1,204,000,000
Belgium and Netherlands: 777,000,000

[freebird]

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

Heads in the sand? The real sin during that period was the way Britain and France sat on their asses for 8 months after Germany rolled through Poland.

SIN? The US sat on its @$$ during this period too!
The British & French high command did not think that an attack into Germany would be successful, so the were building up their forces (especially air!) preparing for the expected attack on France. Why should the British & French be held responsible for the defence of Poland? They did declare war, yes, but they are under no "obligation" to pursue war other than how they see fit, in their own national interests. Why should the US not also be responsible for protecting a fellow democracy?

[mkloby]

Originally Posted by freebird

SIN? The US sat on its @$$ during this period too!
The British & French high command did not think that an attack into Germany would be successful, so the were building up their forces (especially air!) preparing for the expected attack on France. Why should the British & French be held responsible for the defence of Poland? They did declare war, yes, but they are under no "obligation" to pursue war other than how they see fit, in their own national interests. Why should the US not also be responsible for protecting a fellow democracy?

Regardless of whether you think the US should or should not have intervened, the case is not even remotely close to the relationship between Poland and the UK and France. Just out of curiosity Freebird - when did the US pledge that they would enter a European war to defend any democracy????

Correct me if I'm wrong - but didn't both the UK and France have alliances with Poland in case they were attacked by Germany? Mutual assistance!? Hardly.

[freebird]

The UK did not have as close an alliance with the poles that France did. The UK alliance with Poland did not specifically state that the UK would be obligated to invade Germany, and they were not capable of landing in Poland. They warned Germany that an attack on Poland would lead to war, and they declared war. The US did not pledge to help any democracy or defend against Fascism, you can judge that any way you like.

My point was that to expect that the British to pursue the war in any particular way is not for any other nation to decide. I did not understand where the "Sin" came from. The British lived up to the agreement, which did not call for any specific remedy, and Poland was eventually liberated from the Nazi's

Mutual assistance, what exactly do you think the British could have done? (remember that the French were the larger allied army and refused to leave the "Magiot line") Parachute 10 UK divisions into Warsaw?

[mkloby]

Originally Posted by freebird

The UK did not have as close an alliance with the poles that France did. The UK alliance with Poland did not specifically state that the UK would be obligated to invade Germany, and they were not capable of landing in Poland. They warned Germany that an attack on Poland would lead to war, and they declared war. The US did not pledge to help any democracy or defend against Fascism, you can judge that any way you like.

My point was that to expect that the British to pursue the war in any particular way is not for any other nation to decide. I did not understand where the "Sin" came from. The British lived up to the agreement, which did not call for any specific remedy, and Poland was eventually liberated from the Nazi's

Mutual assistance, what exactly do you think the British could have done? (remember that the French were the larger allied army and refused to leave the "Magiot line") Parachute 10 UK divisions into Warsaw?

The British and the French in 1939 had FAR different capabilities. I wasn't supposing the British launch a major ground offensive into Germany. However, France was certainly capable of launching an offensive into western Germany, and Britain would have been able to support such an operation.

[freebird]

You are right about that, the French were capable, unfortunately many of them had lost the will to fight. And they did not have strong political or military leadership either. It was a bit brazen for Chamberlain to "draw a line in the sand" so to speak, when Britain did not have a large army, but it was a bluff & Hitler called it.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by freebird

SIN? The US sat on its @$$ during this period too!

Was it the United State's war at that point?

NO! It was a European Regional conflict.

Originally Posted by freebird

The British & French high command did not think that an attack into Germany would be successful, so the were building up their forces (especially air!) preparing for the expected attack on France.

Whole lot of good that did them!

If the French and British governments had not followed a policy of appeasement, none of it would have ever happened anyhow.

Originally Posted by freebird

Why should the British & French be held responsible for the defence of Poland?

Because they guaranteed the independence of Poland prior to the invasion. They chose to give an ultimatum to Germany to withdraw from Poland.

Did the United States do this? No because it was at that point a regional European conflict and remained so until Japan attacked Pearl Harbor and Germany declared war on the United States.

Ever heard of the Franco-Polish Military Alliance

France guaranteed she would grant Poland military credit in case of a war between Poland and Germany. It also stated that it would start minor air and land offensive immediatly and to start a major offensive with 15 days after the declaration of war.

France declared war on Germany on Sept 3, 1939.

Now for the United Kingdom.

On March 30, 1939, the government of the United Kingdom pledged to defend Poland, in the event of a German attack, and Romania in case of other threats. The British “guarantee” of Poland was only of Polish independence, and pointly excluded Polish territorial integrity.

"This declaration was further amended in April, when Poland's minister of foreign affairs Colonel Józef Beck met with Neville Chamberlain and Lord Halifax. In the aftermath of the talks, a mutual assistance treaty was signed. On August 25 the Polish-British Common Defence Pact was signed as an annex to Polish-French alliance. Like the “guarantee” of March 30, the Anglo-Polish alliance committed Britain only to the defence of Polish independence. It was clearly aimed against German aggression. In case of war, United Kingdom was to start hostilities as soon as possible; initially helping Poland with air raids against the German war industry, and joining the struggle on land as soon as the British Expeditionary Corps arrived in France. In addition, a military credit was granted and armament was to reach Polish or Romanian ports in early autumn.

However, both British and French governments had other plans than fulfilling the treaties with Poland. On May 4, 1939, a meeting was held in Paris, at which it was decided that the fate of Poland depends on the final outcome of the war, which will depend on our ability to defeat Germany rather than to aid Poland at the beginning. Poland's government was not notified of this decision, and the Polish–British talks in London were continued. A full military alliance treaty was ready to be signed on August 22, but His Majesty's Government postponed the signing until August 25, 1939."
Western betrayal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by freebird

They did declare war, yes, but they are under no "obligation" to pursue war other than how they see fit, in their own national interests.

Read above...

Originally Posted by freebird

Why should the US not also be responsible for protecting a fellow democracy?

Read above again....

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by freebird

You are right about that, the French were capable, unfortunately many of them had lost the will to fight. And they did not have strong political or military leadership either. It was a bit brazen for Chamberlain to "draw a line in the sand" so to speak, when Britain did not have a large army, but it was a bluff & Hitler called it.

And how is that the fault of the United States?

[FLYBOYJ]

Freebird, your arguments are a the reverse of many who today are against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. You said the US should of stood up to Nazism and Fascism - so we attack countries who did nothing to us except rattle their sabers? Some argue today that the war on terror (especially in Iraq) was being fought to prevent radical Islam from growing, but those against it have always maintained that there was no reason to go into Iraq. Wouldn't the US been accused of entering a conflict for no reason in 1939 just as we are being accused today?

Bottom line is the European War didn't concern the US in 1939 but we still helped in the form of Lend Lease that eventually affected our neutrality and sovereignty. So with that said "loaning" the materials of the trade to our allies were more than justified. At the end of it all (and as stated earlier) we didn't ask for a dime back from the Marshal Plan, and I rarely see those who got assistance through that plan actually thank the US for their generosity.

[Arsenal VG-33]

Originally Posted by mkloby

Arsenal - you have good points in your post, but nothing to sustain the notion that the French couldn't have launched a successful invasion.

Did you actually read anything I wrote? Those were but a few of the more important reasons why the French could not have launched a successful invasion. Perhaps their Saar offensive should have pressed harder, or deeper, maybe relieve some pressure on Poland, who knows? I feel I've pointed out some hard facts before and at the beginning of the war to explain why the French were unable to do much of anything.

Originally Posted by mkloby

Now how in God's name can you say that French officer's didn't seem to care about their troops????

While the French 1st Armee and Maginot Line troops were fairly well looked after and well treated (and well respected too), the same cannot be said for the reserve and Class B troops holding the crucial Ardennes sector. They were the weakest elements of the whole army, treated most poorly, and ill-equipped. There is plethora of written evidence of French troops complaining that their officers were nowhere to be seen. Indeed, during the Phoney War training was neglected, leaves were disrupted, food was often left for the troops to forage or barter with local farmers, boredom and even cabin-fever set in some cases, all while their Lt. or Cpt. was resting comfortably in the town hotels having nice dinners going to the theatre. This kind of officer-soldier disconnect is exemplified by the French CnC Gamelin who posted himself in a huge and dreary chateau located in Vincennes. He was far from the front and shut from the outside world except for the occassional courrier on motorcycles that would deliver news and send orders. Again, NO RADIOS!

It's also worth keeping in mind the highly political nature of the troops themselves, who were often at odds over eachother in their treatment. At the height of the Phoney War, there was a genuine fear among the lower-medium ranks of repeat of the 1917 mutiny because of communistic inspired dissent.

Originally Posted by mkloby

Come on - no basis for saying regardless of what someone wrote in a book.

I think I've discovered the crux of the problem. Thanks for spelling it out.

[Arsenal VG-33]

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

and I rarely see those who got assistance through that plan actually thank the US for their generosity.

This is simply not true, and I think you know that. Most Europeans are plainly aware that post-war recovery would have been extremely difficult or even impossible without the Marshall Plan. In a way, I would argue that it WAS paid off too, by simply preventing western Europe from falling into political and economical chaos and not adopting a Stalinist communists ideals. Wasn't that afterall, one of the main goals for the success of the Marshall Plan? As for the war debts, lend lease and reverse lend lease with re-loans and etc., I think that subject has been fairly well covered here already.

[plan_D]

"(Then Colonel Charles de Gaulle had published 2 books considered somewhat avant-garde among contemporary military thinkers, and which also made him many enemies. Few people will acknowledge that Guderian actually pinched a few ideas from de Gaulle's book "The Edge of the Sword" for his own "Achtung Panzer")."

These people who don't acknowledge de Gaulle most likely haven't read Achtung Panzer because Guderian clearly mentions de Gaulle, and the French and British leadership in armoured tactics during the 1920s.

"French troops were almost immediately caught in minefields and mine detecting equipment was not to be found. Also, the further they went into Germany, the closer they came to the Seigfreid Line. Again, contrary to popular opinion, this line was not abandoned and it's artillery was fully manned and operational."

Read Panzer Battles by Maj. Gen. von Mellenthin and you'll discover what the Seigfreid Line was really like. The German propaganda machine had a great effect on the French strategy; they seemed to believe it was actually a strong defensive line when the Germans knew all along it was poorly manned and even less well built.

I do have to say the post was good but as mkloby stated it gives no real reason for a lack of French invasion in 1939 when the Wehrmacht and its armour was in Poland. The failings of French equipment and planning are all a failing of the French military and a failing of France. The strategy of France should have been one based around fighting on her own for the cases where she didn't have allies, instead of basing the war strategy around allied efforts.