I've been thinking about this since the World War II unit in school.

So Hitler and Stalin signed a treaty in August of 1939. A little over a week later, Hitler invaded Poland. Angered, Britain & France declared war on Germany and said let the games begin.

Not long after, Stalin unexpectedly orders an attack on neutral and innocent Finland, yet the "allies" do nothing about it. Hypocrisy? Most definitely. In WWI, we all know how quick the allies were to defend neutral Belgium when they were "raped" by Germany. So it would have only made sense to declare war the Soviets when they not only attacked a neutral country, but were at the time allies with the country they were already fighting, Germany.

Considering the foriegn policies that Britain and France seemed to have had during this time, it would have made sense for them to attack the Soviets. So it'd be Churchill and De Gaulle versus Hitler and Stalin (and God knows what would've happened between the two of them).

In reality, WWII is a lot more complex once you look at it from a different point of view. Does anyone agree with me here? Or want to disagree?

thanks for reading...

Foreign policy is usually contradictory. Especially coming from an interventionist perspective. Thus, the reason for more conflict and chaos.

Double standards are nothing new to foreign policy, its the exact reason the United States uses this form of hypocrisy often in dealing with foreign policy.

The fact that Britain and France didn't declare war on the Soviet Union as well is a sign that they weren't suicidal in uniting Germany and Russia under a common cause.

France and England have always been scared of a powerfully united Germany as they were prior to WWI and WWII. They were even showing hesitation in uniting Germany again when the wall fell down in 1989 because they thought a resurgence of military power might explode in the middle of Europe and dominate Europe's politics.

The fact that they declared war on Germany reflects how they felt potentially threatened by Germany's rise to power during the 1930's and had little to fear from the Soviet Union (at the time). Not to forget that France and Britain supposedly declared war on Germany out of principle (the failure of appeasement) and did not imagine that another massive world war was to erupt. It's the same reason Britain and France did nothing for most of 1939 except mobilize a few forces, they truly thought that they could appeal to the rational side of hitler and find a peaceful resolution by uniting two of Europes strongest powers together. However their lack of aggressiveness led to them losing France and the rest is history...

__________________
Signature:

^Yeah, I know about the "phony war" and all of that. I can also see why they'd be more intimidated by Hitler and the Nazis than those sorry communists.

__________________
We may rise and fall, but in the end we'll meet our fate together.

Keep in mind that the Molotov-Ribbentrop Agreement shocked the international community, and was almost a blow that ended attempts by the Allies to coax the Soviet Union into taking stance against Hitler. However, Roosevelt at the time was tugging strings behind the scenes to ensure that the Allies didn't just give up on Stalin as a potential Ally against the highly threatening Hitler...

After World War One, international politics changed. I don't think there is any doubt about that... If you really look at the differences in the international community during World War One and Two, you see a lot of diplomatic differences. The Triple Entente rushed into war fairly quickly during World War One, but the UK and France had been preparing for a potential conflict with the Kaiser for a while... Wilhelm was a clear enemy of the United Kingdom, and he wasn't hesitant about making it fairly obvious that he wasn't a fan of Britian... Hence the reason the British tried to court the United States during the Great Reproachment. It was clear that Germany was a threat, and there wasn't much doubt that the powder keg would explode eventually...

In the Post-World War Two era, the sting of WWI was still lingering. You had people like Neville Chamberlain willing to appease Hitler just to avoid some massive war again, people just didn't want it... So is it really so much of a surprise that the Allies didn't declare on the Soviet Union? Nah. Why face another huge foreign power, who commands the prospect of vast numbers of conscripts? Why go through the pain of World War One all over again by adding more enemies to the list?

I agree with you, that's why they won the war. I mean, that's what this thread is about.

If the UK and France did indeed declare war on the Soviets, no way they would have won. Hitler would have easily taken over all of Europre (including the UK) with the help of the Soviets. Afterwards, who knows what would have happened.

I know it seems pointless to talk about, but I actually found this interesting.

__________________
We may rise and fall, but in the end we'll meet our fate together.

Pointless? I don't think so... It's an interesting perspective, really... I mean, the only thing that really dragged the Soviet Union into the war was Hitler's own actions. Imagine what it would've been like if only a few minor events had transpired differently, and Hitler hadn't broken the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.

Yeah, if the Soviets hadn't gotten in the war at all, then Germany wouldn't have been fighting on two fronts.

Considering that Hitler was at the height of his power in 1942, after the U.S. joined, he would have been fully able to concentrate on the countries to the west. Who knows what could have happened then...Hiter could have won the war, carried out his genocide, and the world could be a much different place today.

All because of a few bad decisions of his, things turned out another way.

__________________
We may rise and fall, but in the end we'll meet our fate together.

I think its a very interesting topic, but like I said, GB and France weren't trying to protect the sovereignty of Poland, rather they just wanted to contain Germany. So when the USSR invaded Finland, they objected on principle but war was way out of the question.

Another interesting perspective would be what would have happened if Germany actually had an effective ally or allies. I mean Italy was a useless political block and that Germany kept on having to rescue from problems, and Spain which had ties to both Italy and Germany stayed neutral. And Japan was way too far away to be an effective ally in the sense that it could lend aid to Germany and vice versa.

A lot of what-ifs, but interesting nonetheless.

__________________
Signature:

Who could've really served as an effective ally for Germany? Italy was fairly successful as an ally, their navy was a pretty big deal. They did tend to bite off a bit more than they could chew, however. During the later parts of the war they become more of a problem than anything...

The USSR being Nazi Germany's ally? Eh. I just can't see it. The ideological differences between Fascism and Communism were just too great. Stalin and Hitler criticized themselves publicly far too much, even moreso than Stalin and Roosevelt.

__________________
"It is a hard matter, my fellow citizens, to argue with the belly, since it has no ears." - Marcus Porcius Cato

“I am an extreme moderate... I believe anyone not in favor of moderation should be castrated." - Benjamin Franklin, HBO's "John Adams"