During WWI and WWII, does Allies Democracies were as GOOD as they say?

@Baron:

Last week, I saw a French  documentary (strange?! isn’t it?) defending the idea that Allies democracies were the real “go-to-war”.

Especially, UK had made many moves to push Poland into not working a diplomatic solution with Germany about Danzig.
In pushing Germany in other solutions than diplomatic, UK get a reason to declare war against Germany and crush them.
Was this kind of documentary a revisonnary propaganda or sound reasonning?

I’m just opening my mind on this aspect. And I’m very curious, do you know some other documentary about this other side vision of history?

As someone said: “History is written by the victorious.”
And as far as I’m concerned, Allies win both wars…
Just a piece to think about it: UK declare and enter war on Germany for the behalf and good of Poland sovereignty.
But, at the end of the war, UK entirely left it to Soviet Union communist.
They forgot to save Poland, the first reason they use to justify war on Germany.

It have to wait the fall of the Berlin’s Wall (in a certain way), to mark the end of this submission toward Moscow for Poland.

No side in a war is completely ‘GOOD,’ but you have to admit, that if there ever was a ‘GOOD’ side it would be the Western Allies in WWII.  The Axis powers absolutely needed to be defeated and more justification came about later when they did not abide by the Geneva conventions regarding POWs (and of course Germany’s holocaust).

Are the Western Allies innocent?  Of course not, they killed plenty of innocent civilians in their bombing raids (fire bombing and atomic bombings).

@Baron:

Just a piece to think about it: UK declare and enter war on Germany for the behalf and good of Poland sovereignty.
But, at the end of the war, UK entirely left it to Soviet Union communist.
They forgot to save Poland, the first reason they use to justify war on Germany.

It have to wait the fall of the Berlin’s Wall (in a certain way), to mark the end of this submission toward Moscow for Poland.

The Western Allies did not “forget” Poland. They had no realistic way to compel the Red Army to give up control of Poland (among other nations).

@wheatbeer:

@Baron:

Just a piece to think about it: UK declare and enter war on Germany for the behalf and good of Poland sovereignty.
But, at the end of the war, UK entirely left it to Soviet Union communist.
They forgot to save Poland, the first reason they use to justify war on Germany.

It have to wait the fall of the Berlin’s Wall (in a certain way), to mark the end of this submission toward Moscow for Poland.

The Western Allies did not “forget” Poland. They had no realistic way to compel the Red Army to give up control of Poland (among other nations).

That’s a bunch of cop out BULL #&.  The western allies Snubbed the poles hard.

Particularily England, who did not allow the Poles to parade in the victory celebrations, for fear of “Offending” the soviets.

The western allies had the means to free humanity for all of time, and failed.

Poland does leave a bitter taste.
Historically, it has always been badly treated by its neighbours and Britain’s abandoning it when all was over is a dreadful shame and embarrassment. I think Wheatbeer is correct though: what could the Western Allies have done? Russia was the new power in Europe, with an irrational man as its leader(much like Hitler).

Garg: the West had had enough of war.
I would have loved a continuation too, but except among a few longer sighted Generals(Patton) and disaffected, unemployed, Germans there was no will to comtinue hostilities.

The Poles and other nations were one of the Big time loosers, because they were sucked in into something they did not even want.
And paid for it even the war was long over!

The Western Allies GOOD? in what? just because they looked good during and after the war doesn´t mean they were GOOD!

@Gargantua:

The western allies had the means to free humanity for all of time, and failed.

I go with this one!

In one or another way Germany was forced into this war BUT it will never, and I repeat never be an excuse for the Holocaust, even this Generation wich has nothing to do with it anymore still has to pay for it!

Hitler wasn´t the only one the Devil took possesion of, there were gazillion others. It was a feast!

@wittmann:

: what could the Western Allies have done? Russia was the new power in Europe, with an irrational man as its leader(much like Hitler).

Answer below…

@Gargantua:

The western allies had the means to free humanity for all of time, and failed.

I agree Aequitas and Garg.
It just was never going to happen.

From an American perspective it would of been difficult to find support for a continued war against Soviet Russia. The US had years of pro Soviet, Uncle Joe propaganda behind it. A lot of casualties suffered just liberating Western Europe and North Africa not to mention the Far East.

The western Allies big mistake was underestimating Soviet ambitions primarily the desire to use Eastern Europe as a buffer against future attacks. The goal should of been to meet the Soviet armies as far east as possible.

@wheatbeer:

@Baron:

Just a piece to think about it: UK declare and enter war on Germany for the behalf and good of Poland sovereignty.
But, at the end of the war, UK entirely left it to Soviet Union communist.
They forgot to save Poland, the first reason they use to justify war on Germany.

It have to wait the fall of the Berlin’s Wall (in a certain way), to mark the end of this submission toward Moscow for Poland.

The Western Allies did not “forget” Poland. They had no realistic way to compel the Red Army to give up control of Poland (among other nations).

After reading Churchill’s book about WWII- it was extremely clear that it was tough for the Western Allies to keep Greece a democracy after the war-  Stalin would not have let them have Poland too.

We can take this topic into WWI and discuss the English bloackade of the North Sea to all German ships and the effects of this action on the war and its effects on the people of central Europe. The German Turnip Winters in 1916-1918 were extremly difficult. These actions forced the Germans hand with unrestrictive U-Boat War.

@Gargantua:

The western allies had the means to free humanity for all of time, and failed.

What means do you refer to? Nuclear weapons?

How do you think the Western armed forces and public would react to turning around attacking their ally the Soviet Union? Especially after the horror of nuclear warfare became known?

You don’t need public support to start a war.  You only need it to finish one.

The American/Western public didn’t support a war until the Japanese attacked the USA.  Then look what happend!

The same principles could have easily been applied had the soviets been “advertised” as continuing their expansion across europe, asia, and the middle east.

Don’t you remember when Patton said he could start the war, and make it look like it was the soviets?

And once the war starts… however it starts, with America itself at risk, and failure not an option…  The west would have won, irregardless of “starting” support.

The Nuke on our side, and not on the Russians would have gone a long way too.

Yeah, lots of people would have died.  But lots of people died throughout all of the cold war micro conflicts; and we still have totalitarian states that exterminate their own people today.

@Baron:

Last week, I saw a French  documentary (strange?! isn’t it?) defending the idea that Allies democracies were the real “go-to-war”.

France and Britain ignored various opportunities to go to war against Germany when their chances of winning would have been far greater and when Germany had conveniently handed them all the justification they would have needed – for example when Germany remilitarized the Rhineland in abrogation of the Versailles Treaty.  Chamberlain and Daladier in particular went out of their way to appease Hitler and avoid war with him, most famously when they sold out Czechoslovakia at Munich.  So I find it hard to believe that France and Britain secretly wanted to provoke a war with Germany.

@Gargantua:

The same principles could have easily been applied had the soviets been “advertised” as continuing their expansion across europe, asia, and the middle east.
…
The Nuke on our side, and not on the Russians would have gone a long way too.

If this scenario is as plausible as you suggest, why didn’t the United States do exactly that?

@Baron:

In it, they got the testimony of Hitler’s translator. When he said UK declares war, all the chiefstaff of Hitler turned silence and astonished. It seems they weren’t prepare to declare war against UK.
The twist about it, I think is pretending about Hitler’s motive. He maybe surprised because he probably thought that France and UK will let them go without risking war but got it in his face.

Hitler’s earlier territorial gains – the remilitarized Rhineland, Austria, the Sudentenland and the rest of Czechoslovakia – had been achieved without war.  Had he been given the opportunity, he would no doubt have been happy to keep acquiring territories without going to war, in view of the very favourable gain-to-cost ratio that this method delivered.  The method, however, couldn’t keep working indefinitely until he had conquered all of Europe without firing a shot; sooner or later, it would be realized that the only way to stop him was by putting up a fight.  France and Britain finally (and reluctantly) came to that conclusion when Hitler abrogated the Munich Pact and absorbed the rest of Czechoslovakia.  Even then, the response of France and Britain to the invasion of Poland was half-hearted at best: they declared war on Germany, but took little action on land (though the war at sea was another story).  France mostly just sat behind the Maginot Line.  Britain dropped leaflets on Germany rather than bombs.  Both countries basically planned to just stay in place for a few years until they had built up enough strength to feel confident that they could attack, while at the same time hoping that Hitler would be overthrown by a coup and that everyone could go back home without bloodshed.  Unfortunately for them, this left Hitler in the driver’s seat strategically, and he took full advantage of their apathy – which he had counted on, or at least hoped for.

If there’s any truth to the notion that Hitler was dismayed or shocked when France and Britain declared war on him, I’d guess that it would have been over the risk that France and Britain might actually take serious military action in the West while the bulk of Hitler’s forces were tied up in Poland.  Some of his surviving officers have said that, if there had been a major Allied offensive in the West (where Germany had no armoured forces), the Wehrmacht could only have resisted a couple of weeks.  Hitler hoped, however, that France and Britain would essentially do nothing while he dealt with Poland; this in fact turned out to be the case, so he won his gamble.

For reasons of ideology in the East, and of revenge for WWI and Versailles in the West, Hitler’s long-range plans did ultimately include war with the USSR and France – but in 1939, his attitude towards war with both countries was similar to St Augustine’s famous remark “Grant me chastity, but not yet.”  He wanted to get his timing right so that he could deal with his enemies one at a time.  He wanted the USSR and France and Britain to give him time to deal with Poland; he wanted the USSR to give him time to deal with France and Britain; and he wanted to deal with the USSR after he had cleared France and Britain from the chessboard.  Britain, not being part of continental Europe, was a country with which he hoped he could avoid war altogether (amphibious operations not being to his liking), or which he at least hoped he could persuade to come to terms with him after he had knocked France out of the game.

Very good Post CWO Marc, Very good!