80 years ago today - Britain Declares War on Germany
Discussion
aeropilot said:
Largely as a result of Allied stategic bombing hindering production, plus a certain person then insisting it be turned into a bomber.
Again, a story that is only partially true. Apparently, it wasn't Hitler's suggestion but an idea raised by Willie Messerschmitt himself - to try and encourage the RLM (the German Air Ministry) to place a production order. Messerschmitt was very adept at pandering to what he thought would go down well with Herr Hitler. Other aircraft manufacturers, such as Ernst Heinkel, were less astute.You would get a few individuals who might be enticed to join up with the Germans - but quite a few European countries threw in their lot with the Nazi regime of Germany - mostly to further their own political and territorial agendas. I was listing those countries that allied themselves formally with Germany for some or all of the period 1939 to 1945 and also those occupied countries where there was sufficient internal support for extreme Nazi type views that recruiting combatants was not that hard. Indeed, there were entire military units in the Wermacht and even the SS made up of non-Germans.
The Germans did try to recruit from the Prisoner of War camps. They had high hopes of being able to persuade Irish prisoners of war (guys that had been serving with the British Army, RAF and Royal Navy) as they thought that Irishmen might be persuaded to join up to fight the "old enemy". They were pretty unsuccessful on that score.
The Germans did try to recruit from the Prisoner of War camps. They had high hopes of being able to persuade Irish prisoners of war (guys that had been serving with the British Army, RAF and Royal Navy) as they thought that Irishmen might be persuaded to join up to fight the "old enemy". They were pretty unsuccessful on that score.
theplayingmantis said:
british, indians, americans etc too. probably examples form every nation who thought on both sides...
Or perhaps, "didn't think"?You need to differentiate between random individuals and those countries that formally allied themselves with Germany. There is a big difference.
Yes - those baltic nations were prepared to embrace Germany as an ally as they had a far greater fear (with plenty of justification) of Stalin's Soviet Union.
However, especially in the case of the Estonians and Latvians, they seemed to become very enthusiastic in carrying out Nazi policies regarding races and religions.
However, especially in the case of the Estonians and Latvians, they seemed to become very enthusiastic in carrying out Nazi policies regarding races and religions.
Some countries were formally allied. Some, like the Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Denmark and France, had surrendered to the Germans and therefore came under German control (or the Vichy French in the southern half of that country).
The Germans, by and large, did not dismantle the pre-existing civilian security apparatus of occupied countries. They generally put a German official in charge or a sympathetic native. Many of these countries had had fascist type parties of their own so recruiting somebody sympathetic to Nazi ideals did not prove too difficult. The most infamous of people like this would have been Vidkun Quisling, who led Norway under German occupation. He was executed as a traitor after the war.
The Germans actively recruited young men from most of the occupied countries and were able to get so many from certain countries that they were able to form entire Dutch/Norwegian/Danish etc divisions.
In the occupied countries, the civilian police continued more or less as before the war but, of course, now had to enforce legislation imposed by the Nazis - which included rounding up Jews and other "undesirables" as well as trying to stop the activities of any resistance movements.
I am sure if Britain had been invaded the situation would have been no different. Indeed, the one part of the British Isles that was occupied (the Channel Islands) did go through some similar events as happened on the European mainland.
The Germans, by and large, did not dismantle the pre-existing civilian security apparatus of occupied countries. They generally put a German official in charge or a sympathetic native. Many of these countries had had fascist type parties of their own so recruiting somebody sympathetic to Nazi ideals did not prove too difficult. The most infamous of people like this would have been Vidkun Quisling, who led Norway under German occupation. He was executed as a traitor after the war.
The Germans actively recruited young men from most of the occupied countries and were able to get so many from certain countries that they were able to form entire Dutch/Norwegian/Danish etc divisions.
In the occupied countries, the civilian police continued more or less as before the war but, of course, now had to enforce legislation imposed by the Nazis - which included rounding up Jews and other "undesirables" as well as trying to stop the activities of any resistance movements.
I am sure if Britain had been invaded the situation would have been no different. Indeed, the one part of the British Isles that was occupied (the Channel Islands) did go through some similar events as happened on the European mainland.
gruffalo said:
Also they must have been confused as hell, they are not accustomed to moving forward when on a war footing;-)
I'd prefer if the jokey clichés were kept to a minimum. It's grossly unfair to impune the bravery of French soldiers. The problems of the French military were at the top and in the way it was organised. Indeed, there were some very important senior French officers who were generally sympathetic with some of the goals of Nazism, primarilly a shared hatred and fear of socialists and communism,.France had suffered very badly in WW1 with large tracts of its country devastated by trench warfare and hundreds of thousands of Frenchmen killed. They did not want a repeat of that. They therefore planned that any future war would be a war of defence - using "super trenches" in the form of the supposedly impregnable Maginot Line. What they failed to take into account were the technical innovations that had occurred after 1918. And also, for budgetary and political reasons,they never actually completed the Maginot Line, so it could be circumvented around the unfinished northern end - which is exactly what happened.
DoubleD said:
Countries take the piss out of each other, our own military takes the piss out of each other. Its nothing to get upset about.
Depends on context - as does all humour.This thread, I hope, is for accounting the events as they unfolded and, perhaps, maybe, dispelling some of the untruths and myths that have grown up around World War 2 - such as labelling the French and Italians as being cowardly. Both nations have been lambasted and laughed at, especially by the British, for their relative failures in World War 2. However, because they got their strategies all wrong or because their leaders could not organise their military campaigns effectively does not mean they were cowards.
Is that a question or a statement?
There was a fair bit of disquiet amongst pilots who were fully capable of flying but who were too old to be recruited as operational pilots to combat or transport squadrons. It was they who put pressure on the RAF and the government to find something useful for them to do that would make use of their talents.
There was a fair bit of disquiet amongst pilots who were fully capable of flying but who were too old to be recruited as operational pilots to combat or transport squadrons. It was they who put pressure on the RAF and the government to find something useful for them to do that would make use of their talents.
Derek Smith said:
My extended family, on both sides, were mainly in the navies. It was clear that they were terrified of the German surface ships. I remember one saying, with real terror in his voice, that Bismark could have sailed through the middle of a convoy the 'wrong' way and sink every ship in it. It was clear that they felt the loss of Hood was a small price to pay.
The German plans were made prewar when there was little intent to invade the UK. Some form of surrender or non-aggression might have been anticipated. The nature of the UK's dependence on convoys was hardly a surprise, but it seems it wasn't seen as that important. He'd secured his western flank and his main target was safe to attack. The classic 'what if' is one where Japan does not attack the USA, keeping only to its interests. The USA would probably not have come into the war, at least until the Germans had seen off Russia.
It seems odd that Hitler ignored the lessons of the multitude of Franco Russian wars, as well as the much more recent WWI. You'd have thought he'd have ensure preparedness for it being a bit chilly as well as starting a bit earlier.
One wonders why the Japanese went for the USA. Pearl Harbour was only ever going to be temporary. There were oil fields in China, and you'd have thought they'd have wanted to concentrate their efforts there, especially with Germany taking on Russia.
I know they planned and acted on the situations that presented themselves at the time, and extrapolated from there, but some decisions do seem way off.
There was, I am told by my family, a lot of resentment in my area of London against Churchill for declaring war so early. They felt that we should have kept out of it, not sent the expeditionary force, and kept the personnel, guns, tanks and ships to defend the UK, where the landings, they thought, would take place. We'll never know of course.
WWII meant that we would never have the resources for anything similar for some years. As it turned out, never again. All the previous wars had been away from the UK and all the subsequent ones have been as well, apart from, of course, the civil war. It's been peace in our time in effect. Pax Britannia lives. I don't think my generation realised for years how lucky we were so there's little hope for subsequent generations.
Japan had expansionist ambitions in Asia and the Pacific and knew that a war with the USA was almost a dead cert as there was bound to be a conflict of national and economic interests. Consequently, they decided the best policy would be to strike first and damage the US Navy in the Pacific so badly that Japan would get a free hand to do what they wanted to do a for a year or two. Their hope was that by the time the US had recovered from the attack, Japan would have achieved most, if not all, of their aims and then could negotiate with the US from a position of strength and territorial possession.The German plans were made prewar when there was little intent to invade the UK. Some form of surrender or non-aggression might have been anticipated. The nature of the UK's dependence on convoys was hardly a surprise, but it seems it wasn't seen as that important. He'd secured his western flank and his main target was safe to attack. The classic 'what if' is one where Japan does not attack the USA, keeping only to its interests. The USA would probably not have come into the war, at least until the Germans had seen off Russia.
It seems odd that Hitler ignored the lessons of the multitude of Franco Russian wars, as well as the much more recent WWI. You'd have thought he'd have ensure preparedness for it being a bit chilly as well as starting a bit earlier.
One wonders why the Japanese went for the USA. Pearl Harbour was only ever going to be temporary. There were oil fields in China, and you'd have thought they'd have wanted to concentrate their efforts there, especially with Germany taking on Russia.
I know they planned and acted on the situations that presented themselves at the time, and extrapolated from there, but some decisions do seem way off.
There was, I am told by my family, a lot of resentment in my area of London against Churchill for declaring war so early. They felt that we should have kept out of it, not sent the expeditionary force, and kept the personnel, guns, tanks and ships to defend the UK, where the landings, they thought, would take place. We'll never know of course.
WWII meant that we would never have the resources for anything similar for some years. As it turned out, never again. All the previous wars had been away from the UK and all the subsequent ones have been as well, apart from, of course, the civil war. It's been peace in our time in effect. Pax Britannia lives. I don't think my generation realised for years how lucky we were so there's little hope for subsequent generations.
They miscalculated badly..
Halb said:
Pretty much. They could have left them in 'splendid isolation.' The USA were squeezing Japan most heavily at the time, and one wonders if this passive-aggressive diplomacy was what made the Japanese go east instead of west first
It WAS the reason they attacked the USA. They knew a conflict was inevitable.Japanese officials and high ranking officers who survived the war state that this was their prime reason for attacking the US in 1941. They knew that they would end up fighting so a pre-emptive strike was felt necessary. They thought they were buying 2 years before the US could recover. In reality, the US was almost ready to go on the offensive in about 6 months.
Derek Smith said:
The old adage is that you should not fight on two flanks at once.
If they had consolidated their gains in China, maybe pushing for, or dropping back to, defensible positions, they'd have had a settled frontier, as much as possible, on their west flank. Given Japan's resources, it was probably a big mistake for them to attack the USA at that time. I think that the USA might well have entered the war in Europe, what with the likelihood of their ships being sunk, continuing to be sunk, by German U-boats. They might even have used some ships in the Atlantic and Med.
They would have had more difficulty fully arming the country as there was massive support for isolationism in the states at that time. While the USA would have wanted to, at the very least, curb the expansionist desires of Japan, I don't think they were that bothered with the invasion of China. They only attacked Japan when forced to do so some 10 years after the first incident, and 4 after the Rape of Nanking. It's fair to say that the extent of the massacre was not clear, and few believed it was as high as it was. 200,00 or 300,000 dead; one is not necessarily more reprehensible than the other.
The Germans were otherwise occupied in 1941 and there was little pressure on the USA to support the UK in the war, beyond what they were already doing. Lend-lease was well established, and increasing steadily. It clearly violated the USA's neutrality but Germany did not want them in the war, and tried to avoid irritating them. They probably would have entered in 1942 most suggest, but it would have been against the majority view. Japan removed all other options.
With Germany engaged in fighting Russia, I should think the USA was rather happy that their main competitors: China, Russia, Europe, were beating themselves to a standstill. Having Japan in the mix merely meant that they too were exhausting themselves.
Many historians suggest that the threat from Russia was a significant reason for the Americans dropping the A bombs. I think they saw them, quite rightly as it turned out, as their biggest threat.
The USA coming into the European theatre helped ensure the Germans were not successful in their invasion of Russia. It wasn't the major factor, but if they'd been able to concentrate on the eastern front without the bother of mass bombings, one wonders what might have happened.
They weren't expecting to fight on two flanks. If they had consolidated their gains in China, maybe pushing for, or dropping back to, defensible positions, they'd have had a settled frontier, as much as possible, on their west flank. Given Japan's resources, it was probably a big mistake for them to attack the USA at that time. I think that the USA might well have entered the war in Europe, what with the likelihood of their ships being sunk, continuing to be sunk, by German U-boats. They might even have used some ships in the Atlantic and Med.
They would have had more difficulty fully arming the country as there was massive support for isolationism in the states at that time. While the USA would have wanted to, at the very least, curb the expansionist desires of Japan, I don't think they were that bothered with the invasion of China. They only attacked Japan when forced to do so some 10 years after the first incident, and 4 after the Rape of Nanking. It's fair to say that the extent of the massacre was not clear, and few believed it was as high as it was. 200,00 or 300,000 dead; one is not necessarily more reprehensible than the other.
The Germans were otherwise occupied in 1941 and there was little pressure on the USA to support the UK in the war, beyond what they were already doing. Lend-lease was well established, and increasing steadily. It clearly violated the USA's neutrality but Germany did not want them in the war, and tried to avoid irritating them. They probably would have entered in 1942 most suggest, but it would have been against the majority view. Japan removed all other options.
With Germany engaged in fighting Russia, I should think the USA was rather happy that their main competitors: China, Russia, Europe, were beating themselves to a standstill. Having Japan in the mix merely meant that they too were exhausting themselves.
Many historians suggest that the threat from Russia was a significant reason for the Americans dropping the A bombs. I think they saw them, quite rightly as it turned out, as their biggest threat.
The USA coming into the European theatre helped ensure the Germans were not successful in their invasion of Russia. It wasn't the major factor, but if they'd been able to concentrate on the eastern front without the bother of mass bombings, one wonders what might have happened.
They were hoping that the attack on Pearl Harbor would be a knock out blow - taking the US out of any war against Japan for at least two years. They would then have two free years to concentrate on expanding and consolidating their gains in the rest of Asia. If and when the US had recovered, Japan hoped that they could then negotiate with the US on such matters as respective spheres of influence from a position of strength. Like Germany, Japan did not have much in the way of natural resources so it felt it could not discuss or debate equally against the US until it had conquered countries where those resources were abundant, places such as Indonesia (or the Dutch East Indies as it was referred to back then).
Halb said:
One does wonder how the 'attack USA first' lot won the argument. Even considering the squeezing that was occurring at the time in the Pacific. Wary of opening up conspiracy tin worms (Pearl Harbour etc), but I wonder of there US had high level spies in good points in Japan.
Everyone did have spies, all over the shop, but where and how high.
At high levels, the Japanese military was suffused by a cadre of leaders who suffered from a delusion that the "democratic west" was soft, ineffectual and weak and did not have the stomach for a fight. Conversely, they felt they were infused with the warrior code of the Samurai, which made them feel cocky and almost invincible. It was a kind of deluded superiority complex.Everyone did have spies, all over the shop, but where and how high.
Nazi Germany had similar delusions.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff