War in Europe, 1939 !

[dhermann1]

68 years ago today Britain declared war on Germany, officially starting World War II. It took them 3 days after Germany had invaded Poland to decide to honor their treay obligation to defend Poland in case of attack, but they finally came though. I've always wondered why historians seem to choose this date over Sept 1st, when the Germans invaded. Whatever. Seems like only yesterday (not).

 

[Tony in Tarzana]

Hard for us here in the States nowadays to get used to the idea that by 7 December 1941, the war in Europe had already been in progress for over two years, and the war in the Pacific (well, China) longer than that.

So many millions died, but if WWII hadn't happened, I might not have been born.

 

[Twitch]

Yeah the Japanese invaded Manchuria in 1932!

 

[dhermann1]

People wonder why we put the trade embargo on Japan in the fall of 1941. It wasn't out of a clear blue sky! The Japanese Empire had been violently and aggressively expanding for a good long while by that point.

 

[carter]

The same issues still exist and as long as there are nations that perceive that they are treated as second-class regardless of shifting alliances, boundaries, etc., the same reactions should not be surprising.
Any student of the period between WWI and WWII has a pretty good grasp of the reasons Japan fought with the Allies in WWI and with the Axis in WWII.

In reality, the entire 20th century can be viewed as one long conflict on a global scale with pauses for the players to catch their breath, shift alliances, refit and resupply, and then dive back into the conflict. No superpower has ever mamaged to stay completely uninvolved though some have tried. This wasn't a series of wars, this was one long conflict that gobbled up at least 4 generations.

I originally posted the above in another thread. It continues to amaze me that anyone can view the conflicts of the 20th century as anything other than another 100 Years War. The outcome of each conflict laid the groundwork for the next. IMHO current conflicts are a continuation of something that began over a century ago. This is a cycle not a series of new, unrelated events.
Yet we continue as though there is a new war. There isn't. The geography changes, the faces change, the names change but the sources of conflict that arose out of the Colonial Era remain.
Britain, France, Portugal, and Spain were the European maritime nations that lead the colonization of the "New World". They didn't just annex their neighbors. They annexed entire continents and then fought it out to see who got the biggest slice of the pie.
Did Germany feel like a second cless citizen? Without a doubt. What was their solution of choice once diplomacy was deemed no longer viable?
Japan was 'discovered' and opened to western trade. They sided with the Allies during WWI. Did they get a share of the pie once the Armistice was signed? Nope. Was diplomacy a factor between WWI and WWII? Yep. What was their solution of choice when diplomacy failed?

To understand is not to accept. To fail to understand is unacceptable

Dreams of empire. Dreams of prestige. These never die. They may hibernate but they always have a spring awakening.
This all started with dreams of empire. It never stopped. It just kept moving once the players caught their breath and realigned.
The date when Great Britain declared war on Germany is just a mile marker not the entire highway.

Sow the same seeds. Reap the same crops.
In farming, we know this will exhaust the soil until no crop can be sustained,
That's why we have crop rotation. To keep fields fertile.

The battlefields of the 20th Century were certainly fertile.

 

[dhermann1]

Without getting too involved in a discussion, these events also seem to prove to me what I always say about nations and individuals alike. The things others do to us are almost never as bad as the things we do to ourselves. Most of the disasters that befell Germany and Japan can be traced to their inability to implement democratic reforms in their own systems.

 

[Twitch]

Why not get involved in a discussion? That's what this place is for isn't it? Quite salient points! Nothing is as simple as it is proported to be. We can look back to our schooling and recall how we parroted dates and events while knowing absolutely nothing about the deeper stories.

 

[Miss Sis]

To me it makes sense to say WW2 started on 3 September 1939, as that was the deadline given by the British Government for the withdrawal of German troops from Poland after they had invaded.

When they didn't respond, then the state of war existed between the two countries, and parts of the Empire (now the Commonwealth) joined as soon as they knew what was happening. Australia and New Zealand could not respond until the next day (4 Sept) as they are ahead of England time - wise, but I still think 3 September as the beginning of the war for the whole Empire.

 

[Smithy]

To me it makes sense to say WW2 started on 3 September 1939, as that was the deadline given by the British Government for the withdrawal of German troops from Poland aftrer they had invaded.

When they didn't respond, then the state of war existed between the two countries, and parts of the Empire (now the Commonwealth) joined as soon as they knew what was happening. Australia and New Zealand could not respond until the next day (4 Sept) as they are ahead of England time - wise, but I still think 3 September as the begining of the war for the whole Empire.

Agree with you entirely Miss Sis!

Heard it's been a soggy and chill summer in Blighty this year. Always difficult for us Kiwis!

 

[dhermann1]

Britain

People don't realize this (especially Americans) but Britain was at war longer than any of the other major participants, (Sept 3, 39 till VJ Day, Aug 45), and was the most highly mobilized nation as well. Meaning that it had the highest percentage of people either actually in uniform or involved in essential war industries. We tend to forget that the Soviets were still doing business with the Nazis, selling them raw materials, right till the very last minute before the Germans invaded in June of 1941. Britain really gave her all in the war.

 

[Spitfire]

In Churchills Memoirs of WWII there is a very interseting overview stating that it was not untill july 1944 that US had more troops directly involved with the enemy than UK and the empire.
A fact most people tends to forget.

 

[dhermann1]

In North Africa and even Italy, and with Eisenhower the overall theater commander, there was about a two to one British preponderance.
John Lennon's sarcastic line about "The British Army had just won the war", in "I Read the News Today, Oh Boy", was closer to the truth than we realize. And tho the Russians may point out that two thirds of the German army was on the eastern front, that didn't start till the Brits had been fighting them SINGLEHANDEDLY for a full two years.
I'm reading a book that has the Boer War as a back story, and Kitchener's horrible concentration camps. It's easy to criticize British Imperialism, but they (like the good old US of A, I might point out!) deserve a lot of credit for the good things they did as well.

 

[BellyTank]

People don't realize this (especially Americans) but Britain was at war longer than any of the other major participants, (Sept 3, 39 till VJ Day, Aug 45), and was the most highly mobilized nation as well. Meaning that it had the highest percentage of people either actually in uniform or involved in essential war industries. We tend to forget that the Soviets were still doing business with the Nazis, selling them raw materials, right till the very last minute before the Germans invaded in June of 1941. Britain really gave her all in the war.

Do people REALLY not know this..?

Surprising... very surprising.

B
T

 

[BellyTank]

In North Africa and even Italy, and with Eisenhower the overall theater commander, there was about a two to one British preponderance.
John Lennon's sarcastic line about "The British Army had just won the war", in "I Read the News Today, Oh Boy", was closer to the truth than we realize.

...English Army, old chap... English.

A Day in the Life.


B
T

 

[Alan Eardley]

<Snip> And tho the Russians may point out that two thirds of the German army was on the eastern front, that didn't start till the Brits had been fighting them SINGLEHANDEDLY for a full two years.

Yes, singlehandedly with the Poles, Free French (not the other lot), Czechs, Dutch, Belgians, Australians, Canadians, New Zealanders, South Africans,(Norwegians joined in a bit later), etc. etc. Anyone else I've missed?

Alan

 

[Twitch]

Heck Belly Tank don't be surprised. We aren't a bunch of young snots that just got out of todays schools where they cover WW II in 1 1/2 pages from a book.

 

[Spitfire]

The poles, the czechs, the free french, the norwegians, the belgians, the dutch and all the others from occupied countries - even the danes - could hardly have joined any other allied country at that moment - could they?

 

[Miss Sis]

I agree, Alan. It always makes me think 'What do you mean, singlehanded?' when so many countries sent troops, and not just those of the Empire, either.

So saying Britain was an island alone doesn't really cut it with me, although they were most likely to be invaded in 1940.

fftopic: Smithy, this summer has been terrible in England. Hoping September will be better.

 

[benstephens]

The list is quite long, but to add some more, The Rhodesians, The Jamaicans, The Irish (Not all Southern Irishmen were neutral, My Grandfather Fought along with 110,000 Irish men who were not compelled to join), The Indians, The South Africans and I suspect many more that I have not remembered.

Yes, singlehandedly with the Poles, Free French (not the other lot), Czechs, Dutch, Belgians, Australians, Canadians, New Zealanders, South Africans,(Norwegians joined in a bit later), etc. etc. Anyone else I've missed?

Alan

 

[Spitfire]

Canadians?
The first to bleed at Dieppe!