The right and morality of Great Britain to go to war with Germany

[TlsMS93]

According to TikHistory, Great Britain had the right and moral authority to defend Polish independence from Nazi aggression, ignoring Polish provocations and the contradiction of a colonial power fighting third-party aggression.

What would you like to add?

[fireofice]

According to TikHistory, Great Britain had the right and moral authority to defend Polish independence from Nazi aggression, ignoring Polish provocations and the contradiction of a colonial power fighting third-party aggression.

What would you like to add?

I don't think his opinions are too unreasonable here given his premises, premises which assume his version of events are all true. He has videos elsewhere mainly using the Hossbach Memorandum to argue they were the aggressors. We would have to litigate that whole issue first before judging this video. There's not much to argue with here since he doesn't argue for his position in much depth in this particular video.

[TlsMS93]

According to TikHistory, Great Britain had the right and moral authority to defend Polish independence from Nazi aggression, ignoring Polish provocations and the contradiction of a colonial power fighting third-party aggression.

What would you like to add?

I don't think his opinions are too unreasonable here given his premises, premises which assume his version of events are all true. He has videos elsewhere mainly using the Hossbach Memorandum to argue they were the aggressors. We would have to litigate that whole issue first before judging this video. There's not much to argue with here since he doesn't argue for his position in much depth in this particular video.

The issue of the topic is their alleged right and morality to go to war against Germany. Tik uses arguments such as the mutual assistance agreement with Poland, forgetting the contradiction of only being valid in relation to Germany, this kind of answers the title of the video, and the moral question of hypothetically defending a friend from a bully, not addressing whether the provocative acts of such a friend justify your intervention or even if you are not a bully in the first place.

[Hektor]

....
The issue of the topic is their alleged right and morality to go to war against Germany. Tik uses arguments such as the mutual assistance agreement with Poland, forgetting the contradiction of only being valid in relation to Germany, this kind of answers the title of the video, and the moral question of hypothetically defending a friend from a bully, not addressing whether the provocative acts of such a friend justify your intervention or even if you are not a bully in the first place.

It's a technical argument. Britain gave Poland a Guarantee to assist, if Poland had to face 'German aggression'. Hence declaring war on Germany in such a case was the 'legal' thing to do. The morality of it was however a bit odd. There were several disputes between Germany and Poland going on already. And there were German initiatives to resolve those issues amicably already. This was disrupted after the Poles got this guarantee, which was solely directed against Germany. This of course incited them to be more confrontational in their policies with regards to the Germans... So it actually fueled the conflict the Brits promised the Poles support in. Funny enough the Poles got virtually no support that was of any use to them. The declaration of War on Germany by Britain fueled German determination to conquer Poland. But the Polish armed forces were on their own. The Slovaks who were invaded by Poland previously, gave the Germans more support than the Brits gave the Poles. The Brits got the pretext they needed for selling a war against Germany. So it with a win for British chicken hawks at the expense of the Poles. The Poles found out that the Brits weren't interested in supporting them, when the USSR invaded them without much of a negative reaction from the British side. And formally the Brits weren't oblige to do anything neither. The guarantee was exclusively designed to get a war against Germany going.

[TlsMS93]

....
The issue of the topic is their alleged right and morality to go to war against Germany. Tik uses arguments such as the mutual assistance agreement with Poland, forgetting the contradiction of only being valid in relation to Germany, this kind of answers the title of the video, and the moral question of hypothetically defending a friend from a bully, not addressing whether the provocative acts of such a friend justify your intervention or even if you are not a bully in the first place.

It's a technical argument. Britain gave Poland a Guarantee to assist, if Poland had to face 'German aggression'. Hence declaring war on Germany in such a case was the 'legal' thing to do. The morality of it was however a bit odd. There were several disputes between Germany and Poland going on already. And there were German initiatives to resolve those issues amicably already. This was disrupted after the Poles got this guarantee, which was solely directed against Germany. This of course incited them to be more confrontational in their policies with regards to the Germans... So it actually fueled the conflict the Brits promised the Poles support in. Funny enough the Poles got virtually no support that was of any use to them. The declaration of War on Germany by Britain fueled German determination to conquer Poland. But the Polish armed forces were on their own. The Slovaks who were invaded by Poland previously, gave the Germans more support than the Brits gave the Poles. The Brits got the pretext they needed for selling a war against Germany. So it with a win for British chicken hawks at the expense of the Poles. The Poles found out that the Brits weren't interested in supporting them, when the USSR invaded them without much of a negative reaction from the British side. And formally the Brits weren't oblige to do anything neither. The guarantee was exclusively designed to get a war against Germany going.

Tik argues that Germany declared war on the British because Hitler knew the consequences, but Hitler was never ready to defeat them. Furthermore, he treats the Polish state as an unblemished country, whose existence would be worth defending at the cost of his own empire, and it does not seem like it had just participated in the partition of Czechoslovakia or that it was a military regime with irredentist tendencies.

As one commenter in the video, it seemed more important for them to see Germany subjugated than to keep their territories.

[Pineapple]

Tik argues that Germany declared war on the British because Hitler knew the consequences, but Hitler was never ready to defeat them. Furthermore, he treats the Polish state as an unblemished country, whose existence would be worth defending at the cost of his own empire, and it does not seem like it had just participated in the partition of Czechoslovakia or that it was a military regime with irredentist tendencies.

As one commenter in the video, it seemed more important for them to see Germany subjugated than to keep their territories.

Poland was in the wrong regardless whether one subscribes to Axis or Allied narratives. I personally don't believe there were any large scale massacres of Germans, that's just a typical excuse to invade other countries.

Germany didn't want a war with Poland but it wanted a good portion of formerly German land controlled by Poland. No power generally wants a war but it's the last resort. Poland was not a good place at all. It was a worse state than Germany, comparable to pre 38 Austria.

The Polish government left Poland, leaving a vacuum which the USSR immediately filled(the Kresy lands weren't even Polish). A competent government would have signed peace with Germany. Hitler wanted a Polish state to exist until latest September 7. A new rump Polish state would have greatly decreased the probably of Barbarossa and the existence of this forum.The Polish government should have stayed somewhere in Poland, move the capital but not flee to neutral Romania. The Polish government failed its people by being too stubborn.

[Hektor]

.....
Tik argues that Germany declared war on the British because Hitler knew the consequences, but Hitler was never ready to defeat them. Furthermore, he treats the Polish state as an unblemished country, whose existence would be worth defending at the cost of his own empire, and it does not seem like it had just participated in the partition of Czechoslovakia or that it was a military regime with irredentist tendencies.

As one commenter in the video, it seemed more important for them to see Germany subjugated than to keep their territories.

Germany did not declare war on the British. Britain declared ar on Germany.
Poland was extremely aggressive against any of his neighbors. Essentially what one calls nowadays a rogue state.
And yes, they also jumped into the Czech crisis.

People only know "Germany invaded Poland"... And are completely ignorant of all the other details.

Germany was seen as a competitor on world markets and there was a fear of German hegemony, which was visible in the arts and sciences already.

[TlsMS93]

.....
Tik argues that Germany declared war on the British because Hitler knew the consequences, but Hitler was never ready to defeat them. Furthermore, he treats the Polish state as an unblemished country, whose existence would be worth defending at the cost of his own empire, and it does not seem like it had just participated in the partition of Czechoslovakia or that it was a military regime with irredentist tendencies.

As one commenter in the video, it seemed more important for them to see Germany subjugated than to keep their territories.

Germany did not declare war on the British. Britain declared ar on Germany.
Poland was extremely aggressive against any of his neighbors. Essentially what one calls nowadays a rogue state.
And yes, they also jumped into the Czech crisis.

People only know "Germany invaded Poland"... And are completely ignorant of all the other details.

Germany was seen as a competitor on world markets and there was a fear of German hegemony, which was visible in the arts and sciences already.

It is important to make it clear that the first to mobilize was Poland, and in military jargon this is war. It is argued that Poland would lose its sovereignty by accepting the German proposal. Based on nothing, Hitler made generous economic and territorial concessions to them.

Both Poland and Great Britain knew that the German demands were fair and their proposals reasonable, but they chose confrontation, to destroy the capacity of world markets and capture more territory from Germany. In fact, Hitler already knew about the plans for the Oder-Neisse line in one of his speeches.

[Hektor]

There can be valid reasons to mobilize one's army. But if it is apparent conflict with a neighbor taking a more confrontational course signals a credible threat with war. A credible threat is a justification of self-defense. The Poles will insist that the German occupation of Bohemian and Moravia was the reason for them mobilizing. But that was on request of the government there. And it posed no threat to the Poles that already had beefs with the Germans for other reasons. They were also technically Allied with Germany and had an agreement with Germany to solve conflicts peacefully. There were several unresolved issues that needed attention. But the Polish Junta took an increasingly provocative and confrontational course after they got more support from the British and I think the Americans as well. So it was the Germans that had reason to feel threatened by their lunatic neighbors. After the issues couldn't be resolved any other way, the Wehrmacht did invade Poland and the German territories they already had occupied.

This part of history is anything but well represented and at best a cartoon version of what really happened.

Indeed the German demands were exceptionally reasonable.
https://archive.org/details/16PointPlan ... tember1939

[TlsMS93]

Furthermore, the mutual assistance agreement was not only valid in case of aggression, it would be valid even if Poland started the war.

[Hektor]

Furthermore, the mutual assistance agreement was not only valid in case of aggression, it would be valid even if Poland started the war.

That is arguably a bit different. Blanket Invasion of Germany by Poles would be a difficult sell. Rather provoke as long as you can get a reaction and the 'respond' to this. It should be noted that they didn't even bother to make reservations for a case were the poles provoked a war.... And that was telling.

From diccourse I however do already know that most folks are to simple-minded to understand what those official text are actually saying and what they mean.

[TlsMS93]

Furthermore, the mutual assistance agreement was not only valid in case of aggression, it would be valid even if Poland started the war.

That is arguably a bit different. Blanket Invasion of Germany by Poles would be a difficult sell. Rather provoke as long as you can get a reaction and the 'respond' to this. It should be noted that they didn't even bother to make reservations for a case were the poles provoked a war.... And that was telling.

From diccourse I however do already know that most folks are to simple-minded to understand what those official text are actually saying and what they mean.

Germany gave guarantees to Romania and Molotov demanded military bases there and to know whether the agreement would be valid in relation to them. So was Barbarossa legally legal? No, the victors will say.

I believe that the blank check from Great Britain, far from causing a deterrent or an excuse for peace, incited the junta of Polish colonels not only to reject any agreement but also to fuel skirmishes aimed at more territory, including Danzig.

[Hektor]

I think one has to distinguish between events in 1939 and what preceded them. AND events that occurred prior the preemptive strike against the USSR. In both cases important information is often ignored, since it makes the German actions more plausible as reactions on actions against them.

[InuYasha]

No one can deny that it was England and France that started World War II in 1939, declaring war on Germany on September 3. But their moral superiority over Germany at that time is rather questionable.

After all, is a country with a freer population more just in matters of international politics? The US and Great Britain have clearly shown that even while adhering to relative democracy within themselves, they can ruthlessly destroy other countries. We saw clear examples in 2003, during the invasion of Iraq - when the nonsense about "Saddam's WMD" was supported by Colin Powell shaking a test tube with "anthrax" (in fact, there was washing powder inside) at a UN meeting:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_P ... ty_Council

I would describe England's start of the war with Germany as its commitment to the concept of "dividing the continent". It is simply unacceptable for the British leadership for Europeans to be united. The AH itself did not threaten Britain or its democratic system - neither publicly nor ideologically (the National Socialists recognized the English as an equal Aryan people, and the AH in some sense admired the Empire), nor even hypothetically. Sea Lion was unlikely, as the war games of 1974 showed, even if Hitler had decided to land on the Island, he would most likely have lost:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation ... _(wargame)

So, two of the three premises have already been rejected: neither for political-ideological reasons, nor for reasons of the desire for security - the declaration of war on the Reich is not justified by Great Britain. The last, but not the least, reason remains.

Aid to Poland was used by the British to justify the war with the AH. But was this intention sincere? No, it was not. Giving guarantees to the Poles led them to the illusion of not just security - but permissiveness and invulnerability. The Poles' confidence in their Western allies was so strong that it even led to the breakdown of all possible agreements; after March, any adequate settlement became impossible, and border clashes began to occur with enviable regularity.

Moreover, the Allies did not even fulfill their guarantees. In the first 72 hours they made exactly 0 (zero) diplomatic attempts to resolve the conflict (and at a stage when the AH was not yet considering the full occupation of Poland and the creation of the General Government), then they handed over an ultimatum to Germany and started the war. The war itself was so absurd that it was even called the "Phoney War". French troops entered the territory of the Reich, and left - moreover, without any military resistance from the Germans. The military failures of the Polish army and the flight of its government led to the disintegration of Poland, and Hitler decided to create a military administration in the region. They did not even try to "help" Poland. And then for many months the soldiers of the two "warring" countries simply played football in front of each other.

So, no, the entry of England (and France) into the war with Germany is not morally justified. They are only trying to convince us that it was.

[TlsMS93]

No one can deny that it was England and France that started World War II in 1939, declaring war on Germany on September 3. But their moral superiority over Germany at that time is rather questionable.

After all, is a country with a freer population more just in matters of international politics? The US and Great Britain have clearly shown that even while adhering to relative democracy within themselves, they can ruthlessly destroy other countries. We saw clear examples in 2003, during the invasion of Iraq - when the nonsense about "Saddam's WMD" was supported by Colin Powell shaking a test tube with "anthrax" (in fact, there was washing powder inside) at a UN meeting:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_P ... ty_Council

I would describe England's start of the war with Germany as its commitment to the concept of "dividing the continent". It is simply unacceptable for the British leadership for Europeans to be united. The AH itself did not threaten Britain or its democratic system - neither publicly nor ideologically (the National Socialists recognized the English as an equal Aryan people, and the AH in some sense admired the Empire), nor even hypothetically. Sea Lion was unlikely, as the war games of 1974 showed, even if Hitler had decided to land on the Island, he would most likely have lost:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation ... _(wargame)

So, two of the three premises have already been rejected: neither for political-ideological reasons, nor for reasons of the desire for security - the declaration of war on the Reich is not justified by Great Britain. The last, but not the least, reason remains.

Aid to Poland was used by the British to justify the war with the AH. But was this intention sincere? No, it was not. Giving guarantees to the Poles led them to the illusion of not just security - but permissiveness and invulnerability. The Poles' confidence in their Western allies was so strong that it even led to the breakdown of all possible agreements; after March, any adequate settlement became impossible, and border clashes began to occur with enviable regularity.

Moreover, the Allies did not even fulfill their guarantees. In the first 72 hours they made exactly 0 (zero) diplomatic attempts to resolve the conflict (and at a stage when the AH was not yet considering the full occupation of Poland and the creation of the General Government), then they handed over an ultimatum to Germany and started the war. The war itself was so absurd that it was even called the "Phoney War". French troops entered the territory of the Reich, and left - moreover, without any military resistance from the Germans. The military failures of the Polish army and the flight of its government led to the disintegration of Poland, and Hitler decided to create a military administration in the region. They did not even try to "help" Poland. And then for many months the soldiers of the two "warring" countries simply played football in front of each other.

So, no, the entry of England (and France) into the war with Germany is not morally justified. They are only trying to convince us that it was.

So much so that the Soviets attacked Poland in 1920, but that didn't mean a world war started, and that was because the Bolsheviks were interested in reaching Germany.

Considering the secret protocol that was aimed exclusively at Germany, it is clear that Chamberlain capitulated to the pro-war barons to stay in power and clean up his image, which was ridiculed as a fifth column because of Czechoslovakia.

The English, with their divide and conquer strategy, never wanted or allowed a European nation to hold dominant influence on the continent, as was the case with Spain, France and Germany. So the issue is never about the necks of others; countries don't have friends, they have interests.