BUY ME A COFFEE ► buymeacoffee.com/historyhustle Russian Perspective on the Outbreak of WW2: th-cam.com/video/WMLy4Uge76M/w-d-xo.html&pp=ygUgcnVzc2lhbiBwZXJzcGVjdGl2ZSBvdXRicmVhayB3dzI%3D
@@HistoryHustle Remember Poland had stop the Soviets from protecting Czechoslovakia and annex part of that country, and like the Poles the Soviets reclaimed their territory.
@@resiregHitler is the one who handed Eastern Europe to Stalin. Both in 1939 and in 43/44 by not intentionally throwing the western campaigns and putting extra amour there
@@xriz8409 the way the French had organized their army versus the concentration of armor of the german blitzkrieg tactics... the break through would be inevitable even with the added numbers and even if they somehow could magically keep logistics up for the entire French army in Poland to begin with, after the frontline breaks up, hundreds of thousands of soldiers would be cut off from said (magical) logistics and very prone to surrender when they run out of food and bullets.
@@davidrickwood5924 Yep they cared so much they just let the Soviets keep Poland (and the whole of Eastern Europe) after the war. 🤣 Britain and France are not (or were ever) some "noble heroes" defending Europe and Democracy. They were just out for themselves duh. And the "elites" in those countries care even less about their own people.
@@davidrickwood5924 ... But they didn't honour the same against USSR. Which proves his point... That their main objective was German containment rather that Polish Freedom.
@@iamkj2008 it didn't really make much sense cause the Soviets' ideology was way more alien to the other allies compared to the n@zis. Even modern conservatives are often compared to them
So much for "friendship" between Poland and France or Poland and the UK. It would seem that the Allies were willing to sacrifice Poland twice (1939 and 1944) in order to keep the Soviets rolling toward the West. That is why a lot of talk about friendship or mutual interest is often simple hypocrisy.
@@stephanottawa7890What could the UK and France have done in 39 and 44? France only began it's mobilisation on the 2nd September to not be seen as an aggressor so invading Germany before Poland was a lost cause was impossible. In 44 the western allies did all they could to aid the futile Warsaw uprising but nothing could stop the USSR from occupying eastern European short of a third world war.
@@billyosullivan3192Yes, it is a bad thing to be outwitted by the Germans and then to be outmanoeuvred by the Russians. Poor Poland. They might have been just as well aligned with Peru.
Gotta watch out for those bedfellows. Sometimes the enemy of your enemy... is also your enemy. The allies actually had been contemplating fighting the Soviets. They had wanted to go into Norway earlier than that they did (April 4th) partly to be better able to keep out the Wehrmacht, but also to help Finland in it's war against the Soviets.
Fun fact: The Allies planned to bomb the Soviet Baku oilfields in 1940 and send an expeditionary force to help Finland repel the Soviet invasion, but those went nowhere.
Years ago read that Churchill wanted to bomb Baku oil fields to keep Soviets from supplying Germany petroleum products. Similar to attacking French navy to prevent Germans capturing the ships
Yes. The Winter War was the time of the greatest crisis in Soviet-Western (US) relations. That's why Stalin backed down really, becuase Finland was only couple of weeks from collapsing (ammunition and other supplies stockpiles were critically low). Stalin was a very calculating politician and he knew that war with USA can't be won, contrary to German and Japanese leaders who believed the contrary.
The expedition to Finland was an excuse to occupy Narvik and cut the supply of swedish iron ore to Germany. They never had any intention to help Finland.
@@HistoryHustle Germany was infiltrated by our Naval Intelligence so when reports got back to Washington about anti gravity projects and others they felt it was best to take out Germany first and then worry about the Soviets later.
Soviet Union invaded Eastern Poland on 17 September. By then the Polish government had left Polish territory for Romania. There was little point in declaring war on the USSR when the Polish army had disintegrated and been defeated.
By the time the Communists invaded Poland, the Polish Army was already finished by the Germans. Who would declare war? The Polish people had naively believed that the Red Army would protect them from the Germans. Instead, Comrade Stalin as usual, stabbed Poland in the back. The Communists and the Germans even had a joint Victory Parade in Brest.
The Allied Forces had been always on the side of the Communists. It was the Western countries that had built humongous factories and steel works for Comrade Stalin in the 1930-s.
That Western Allies selectively declared war on Germany, and ignored the part played by the USSR, is something that never ringed right for me. This explanation is well said, but it looks amoral or unethical to prop up Stalin (a despot & autocrat)..
Soviets only did a deal with Germany after their attempts to form an alliance against Germany were rebuffed. (See Eastern Pact) Poland (1934) Britain France Denmark Latvia Lithuania Estonia all signed ‘non aggression’ pacts with Germany before the Soviets. Romania Italy Hungary Spain Japan Slovakia all made agreements too.
@@rjames3981 the nazi soviet pact was an alliance it was just a non aggression pact. They offered to materially support each other in wars of aggression
‘The Soviet Union was never an ally of Nazi Germany. The Third Reich accumulated resources for an offence against the USSR, and the Soviet Union was making every effort to delay the attack….. It was only when it became absolutely clear that Great Britain and France were not going to help their ally and the Wehrmacht could swiftly occupy entire Poland the USSR decided to send in Red Army units into the so-called Eastern Borderlines, which nowadays form part of Belorussia, Ukraine and Lithuania. There was no alternative - the USSR would have had to enter into the inevitable war with the Nazis from very disadvantageous strategic positions, while millions of people of different nationalities, including the Jews, would have had been left to die at the hands of the Nazis and their local accomplices. Furthermore, the Non-Aggression Pact was merely the last in a long list of pacts signed between Hitler and Western Powers on the verge of World War II and was only inked after the West repeatedly snubbed Soviet attempts to form an anti-Hitler coalition.’
Why would they? Did they have any agreement or pact with Finland to protect her? I think you mix past times with modern times, it's only in our time that you have one power that claims to lead it's multiple wars to protect certain "values and shit".
I think Finland was part of Russian sphere of influence during time of Russian Empire so no one bothered and thought Finland will be better off under Russian sphere of influence
Sorry but I don't buy your arguments. I think UK and France declared the war to Germany because they wanted keep their supremacy in Europe. For them, URSS was not a competitor but Germany, yes. Not only ideologically, but also economically and militarily.
@@oscaralegre3683 No competitor. Bolshevism crashed Russia very quickly, as was expected. Their economy was devastated and they were busy murdering millions of their own people and placing those that had survived or had managed to leave the country, in huge camps (Gulags). The Bolsheviks had to turn to the evil Capitalist countries to save their asses and offering what was wasn't destroyed yet, at bargain prices. Wall Street was happy to join in, and had started cooperating with the Bolsheviks already in the 20's.
Strongly agree. Britain declared war on Germany out of fear that Germany would become so powerful otherwise, that it could one day invade Britain. They considered the conquest of Poland by Germany as a step too far in that direction to be tolerated. The British didn't care what happened to Poland, so the fact that Poland was invaded by the Soviet Union didn't matter to them. France declared war because Britain did, and was very unenthusiastic.
Based on this video it is pure misinformation and is completely out of context. It cherry-picks information to arrive at silly conclusions. Reported to TH-cam as misinformation and 'hate speech' ... systematic denigration of nations and leaders... all for clicks.
Patton made many nonsensical statements. Even bordering on antisemitism. A general despised by many and who contributed to Allied war crimes. Furthermore he was a general and not a politician, so he had no authority on this. And even if he was a politician, just one person stating this bizarre thing is not a valid argument. Revisionists often use his quote for their own agenda. Please watch this video: th-cam.com/video/vB2zZWk9TfU/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/dWL0Nz4g5yk/w-d-xo.html
@@HistoryHustlehe's often singled out as a war criminal even though he wasn't the one who firebombed Dresdon (Eisenhower). Patton wished to rebuild Germany and not allow the Soviets into Berlin. He's only seen as crazy because globalists write the mainstream history books
@@mihovillmisha9885 bro really said "tow the line and be quiet" rather than give any real rebuttal. "don't critically think, just follow the mainstream narrative and shut up."
As AWESOME as this vid is, please allow me a minor correction. Poland was attacked (correctly, sept 1st 1939), but NOT from the west (as was assumed by Polish HQ would happen) but "only" north (Preussia) and south (Slovakia, with some slovakian support). West flank was rather quite for few days, until general Kutrzeba of Armia Poznan decided on his own to start to move his forces eastward, towards Warsaw. A move that culminated in the biggest battle of the campaign: Battle of Bzura. Also, since things were so quite in that part of front, some units of Army Poznan did actually invade german soil, although it was just a brief attack done mostly by recon units with few armored cars. Nevertheless, like I said, an awesome vid, great knowledge and I thank you for this.
@@jasse803 I think there was a serious offensive from Sillesia targeting Central Poland. Greater Poland region was only spared because German plan's principle was to encircle the main body of the Polish army.
Important detail. UK knew the details of Ribbentrop-Molotov (Hitler-Stalin) pact and how it divided Poland and Central Europe - already on August 23rd. But UK (and other allies) did not share with Poland those ‘details’. So when signing the UK-PL agreement of mutual assistance (against Germany) on August 25th, UK knew that Soviets would invade Poland once/if Germany ignite the war. So the only purpose of that latter pact was to discourage Germany from starting the war. However, the mutual assistance translated to UK maintaining recognition and relations with polish government in exile = Poland remained an ally, despite the country collapse. And partially thanks to this Poland re-emerged as a country after the war (as not fully absorbed to Soviet Union).
It was more complicated. At first Finland was together with UK against SU, but it changed. Finland was at war with UK. There was no fighting, Because neither side wanted it.
Correction: "Britain and France saw Germany as the primary competitor and the main threat to British and French world dominance." They didn´t care about Danzig.
@@billyosullivan3192Hitler wanted ,,only " 500 000 Km² of Leavingspace for The German Nation in Soviet Russia ( in his mind rulled by Jews ), France could agreed for that or not , It was to dangerous for French Hegemony in Europe
It wasn’t even half a century ago when Britain invaded Oranje-Transvaal to grab the gold that was discovered there. But the German invasion of Poland demanded a Franco-British intervention.
@@kieranororke620 Hitler didn't learn about the conquest of the boer countries from history books but from newspapers. He was 13 years of age when it ended.
This one of those Mark Felton Productions? Britain was going to do a lot of things instead they just lost their empire and became a second class power.
My nan, who was 14 in 1939 Poland, said 'there was nowhere to run, we were being invaded from all sides'. The Polish army in the east was ordered not to oppose or fight the invading russians.
In the US in school we are given the impression that the Soviet Union invaded Poland simultaneously with the Germans (i.e. September 1, 1939). In fact, Stalin waited two whole weeks, a long time by early WWII standards, before ordering Soviet troops into Polish ruled territory. Polish ruled because it was primarily populated by East Slavic speaking Orthodox people...i.e. not Poles.* The Polish government was heading to exile by that time, the army had collapsed with remnants heading to Romania, and the Soviets met zero resistance. *Even today the territory 'invaded' by the Red Army is mostly in the Ukraine (Orthodox, East Slav) and a bit is in Bielorus (Orthodox, East Slav).
That’s close to what I understand spending my 30 years on the west part of Belarus. The majority of population there were not ethnic Poles, there were some settlers and people who were forced by obstacles to change religion, but not majority. Taking in account existing of concentration camp and criminal persecution of ethnic minorities the USSR propaganda had a huge argument for intervention. Of course it went worse for Belarusians later, but in fact USSR had kind of justification
You are right. The USSR intervened only the east of Curzon Line and only after the Polish defence already collapsed. Those lands never ever were native for Poland, but were illegally annexed by Pilsudski Poland by force just a few years before while Russia was in the middle of brutal Civil War. And Stalin didn't annexed an inch of those territories to Russia, he returned the lands to respective nations. Where they are to this very day and rightfully.
@@RustedCroaker Officially yes, he didn't annex those lands, but who cares what is official and written on paper, when in real life those lands were 100% annexed to the USSR? Those republics, like Belarus, didn't have the option to make their own government, but instead it was assigned by the USSR itself. Anytime you talk about Stalin, remember, he is the second dictator in human history that caused more human deaths. More than Hitler!
Why in the hell you put invaded between ' ' ? USSR invaded those territories, USSR invaded a sovereign country of Poland. Poland ruled in those lands for centuries (with the exception of XIX century under Russian Empire rule). Also, most of the countries in the world have different ethnicities. How this can justify in any way, or even writing invasion between ' ' , when you invade another country?
@@Mendogology nope. If Poland ruled there it was a part of union. With your logic you can tell the Germany governs Poland now, since it’s a part of EU. Ethnically it was not a polish land and some of them were even returned back to USSR to avoid ethnic minorities to outnumber Poles in RP2
Seeing how Europe is today and hindsight being 20/20 I wonder if many of the decisions would have been different had they known. I've studied history for 50+ years and so many of the initial thoughts I've had have changed quite a bit upon reflection. Love your videos!
I can understand not wanting to have to fight Germany and the Soviet Union at the same time, but the Western Allies allowing the Soviet Union to occupy Poland and the rest of Eastern Europe shows that this was never about Poland.
Far i have read/heard, Ribbentrop visit to Moscow to sign the Pact was rather a last hour thing. To the point that the plane he was in, nearly got targetted by the Soviet air defenses.
@@MC-vf4mk Based on the provided search results, Poland did not invade Czechoslovakia in 1938. Instead, Poland reclaimed the Zaolzie region, which was previously annexed by Czechoslovakia during the Polish-Soviet War in 1920. This action was taken in November 1938, shortly after the Munich Agreement, which led to the partition of Czechoslovakia. PS: It was a similar to Finland retaking its land lost during winter war.
@@blaze4464 ...For this reason, on September 30, 1938, Poland issued an ultimatum to Prague, expecting the constituencies of Cieszyn and Fryštát to be included within the borders of the Republic of Poland within ten days, conducting a plebiscite in the remaining territories of the Republic inhabited by Poles, and the release of all political prisoners of Polish origin. On October 1, the demands were accepted and the ČSR authorities emphasized their goodwill in efforts to resolve the conflict.. Therefore, they did not attack the ČSR, but resolved it diplomatically, by giving an ultimatum to Prague
This is the exact question I asked 20 years ago to my 100 level History Professor. The answer I got was in a word Bullshit. I honestly think he was surprised someone had the brain power to come up with the question in the first place. To me its one of WW2's biggest WTF moments. Especially considering what Stalin did to Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia in 1940.
You don’t even know, that USSR invaded only after Polish government fled the country, and given still standing Polish soldiers direct orders, not to battle, but assist USSR military. USSR just returned land, that was stolen from Russian empire while civil war was raging. And by the way, Finland used situation with Russian civil war, and invaded Russia, to steal land too.
@mikebrase5161 Well, when you are tiny nations that manage to furnish whole SS divisions (plus outdo the Germans in judenreining your 'country'), there are consequences. It didn't help that the local N*zis kept fighting a few years after the war.
As for the territories "ceded to Poland as a result of the Civil War in Russia", this is absolutely untrue. The Civil War had absolutely nothing to do with it. The borders of independent Poland after its exit from the Russian Empire were approved in 1918 by the Entente commission headed by some British admiral whose name I cannot remember off the top of my head. Both the Poles and the Bolsheviks agreed with these borders. But the Eastern border of Poland declared on paper did not suit the Polish nationalist government, which dreamed of Poland's borders within the borders of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth of the early 17th century. Therefore, Poland declared war on the Soviet republics (Soviet Russia and Soviet Ukraine) and, as a result of this war, annexed territories that had previously belonged to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and were subsequently part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Naturally, the Soviet Union did not officially recognize these territories as Polish. International law was on the side of the USSR. Therefore, there could not have been any SECRET collusion between the USSR and Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union officially and openly claimed that the territories that Poland occupied as a result of the Soviet-Polish war would sooner or later be returned. And it was these territories that the Red Army occupied in the fall of 1939. And not one kilometer more than was supposed to be occupied. Surprisingly, after the Second World War, Stalin did not punish Poland, the Soviet Union occupied the territories due to it, but Poland received compensation in the form of German territories, in particular the port city of Gdansk (formerly German Danzig) and access to the Baltic Sea.
Don't feel surprised if Poland is betrayed. In fact, Britain and France are never keen to keep their words. I am Czech and I remember what happened to us in Sudetenland was all Britain and France's faults in the making. Or you can ask my Indochinese ancestors about how France gave us to the Japanese, which contributed to the 1945 famine.
> VERY foolish comment. France was defeated and had no choice but to "invite" the Japanese to occupy IndoChina. And really ----after the defeat of Japan, France took up it's colonial control of Indochina once again. Doesn't THAT make you happy?
@@SeattlePioneer Yes, after promising protection, Jean Decoux surrendered in four days and the Japanese would use French troops to suppress our people for five years. Vive la France!
@@SeattlePioneer Right, because French administration was kept as Japanese puppet while French troops were employed to suppress our people. Nice joke dude, was it different from the German-Soviet cooperation pre-1941?
Had Czech nationalists not urged Britain and France to cede Sudetenland to Czechoslovakia in 1919 without plebiscite there would have been no Munich 1938.
What the "History teacher" forgets to tell everyone is that both the French and the English denied several attempts from the USSR to form an alliance against Germany before the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact was signed. He also forgets to tell you that both countries signed multiple pacts with Germany too before the USSR did it, as did almost every other western european country between 1933 and 1938. The west was not preocupied with Poland nor with the growth of Nazi Germany, they didn't want the communists to continue to gain power because they could be a threat to their capitalist intentions. So they wanted the Nazis to destroy the USSR and would be fine with Hitler dominating all those oil fields and farms
On the first point you got me. The second point cannot be put on a par with the Soviet annexations. Not the mention the sheer brutality of both nazi and soviet occupation.
not just that west supported Hitler with dozens of pacts example Loccarno "History teacher" from the pact "The Locarno Treaties were seven post-World War I agreements negotiated between Germany, France, Great Britain, Belgium, Italy, Poland and Czechoslovakia in late 1925. In the main treaty, the five western European nations pledged to guarantee the inviolability of the borders between Germany and France and Germany and Belgium as defined in the Treaty of Versailles. They also promised to observe the demilitarized zone of the German Rhineland and to resolve differences peacefully under the auspices of the League of Nations. In the additional arbitration treaties with Poland and Czechoslovakia, Germany agreed to the peaceful settlement of disputes, but there was notably no guarantee of its eastern border, leaving the path open for Germany to attempt to revise the Versailles Treaty and regain territory it had lost in the east under its terms."
You are right. Stefan tries to be objective and neutral, but often nevertheless ends up in the position that Russia and the USSR and everything that comes from them is total evil. Alas, this is the cost of several hundred years of dominant Western propaganda in the battle for resources and territories. Processing documents and materials from 1938-1940, you clearly see how much the ruling elite of the United Kingdom and the United States wanted an alliance with Germany, wanted a war between Germany and the USSR and how much they trusted Hitler. But Hitler was not so simple!
@@HistoryHustle Are you, seriously, equating German and Soviet occupation brutality? It's not Nazi, btw, as you keep stating. It's German. Why are you white-washing Germans? You don't write 'communist' when referring to the Soviets. So, why do you write 'Nazi' when referring to the Germans? Agenda much? Anyhow, you seems to be some kind of a history expert. So, kindly remind the audience - how many Polish citizens were killed under the German occupation and how many under the Soviet occupation? Waiting patiently for the expert's reply.
@@johnsmith4811that’s the current narrative, mate. “Russians are literally Nazis, and always have been” (c). Yet anyone with half the brain can run the numbers and see the astounding difference - literally by orders of magnitude.
The simple truth is that neither France nor UK were capable of defeating Germany. And that the UK was not even able to help Finland, when the Soviet Union attacked it. Even the US did not think, that it was capable of defeating Germany alone or together with UK and France.
Yes but no. Britian had a much stronger navy than germany and by 1941 the raf was stronger than the lufftwaffe. The yes part is because Britian basically didn't built up its military from 1933-1938 and in 1939, military production massive increased
@@ciaranReal - on paper you may be correct but what was the reality? In 1940 the British had to redraw from the mainland and it lost the battle of Norway and control over the North Atlantic. It was heavily dependent on support from the US and still it took until 1944 before they were able to take on Germany. And even then there was a blame-game going on between the Soviet Union and UK/US about starting the second front (my source for this is Vilnis Sipols: Soviet diplomacy during WW2). Stalin was afraid that he would wear down his armies so much, that he was unable to occupy East Europe at the end of the war, but even then Churchill literally "handed it over" on a small piece of paper! He could have terminated Communism in 1945, and Estonia (and our neighbors) would never have had to suffer 50 years of occupation as we did.
That’s completely made up. The us wasn’t even thinking of being involved in a war in Europe. Germany ignorantly declared war on the us and they payed a dear price for it
They sure were. If France kept aggressively pushing East as Wehrmacht was concentrated in Poland, they had a VERY good chance at cutting WWII short by about 4-5 years. Just look up the numbers (soldiers, tanks, planes, etc.) for both sides circa 1939.
Nothing to discuss. The allies knew they couldn't defeat Germany and needed Russia. So they weren't going to shoot themselves in the foot by declaring war on the country they needed in order to win. Simples.
@@resireg The allies were weak. They had no chance of defeating either Germany or Russia. To be blunt. If the Germans couldn't defeat Russia, no western ally was going to manage it.
@@petercollingwood522 UK and France were both colonial empires. They had the ability to use hundreds of millions of soldiers from Africa and Asia to fight on their behalf. It would be way easier
Nonsense. Evenif they had mobilised those troops and they did manage to ge them to Russia they had no capacity to take the kind of losses such a war required. Only crimial gangster regimes like the Nazis and Comunists had that ability. Poland was an irrelivency to the west. The issue for them was stopping Hilter and they did whatever they had to do to accompolish that. Including allying themselve with Stalin.
It's not so hard to see how the elimination and absorption of the small states lying between the German and Soviet empires led to increased friction and eventual open conflict. Stalin's dreams of further gains in the area combined with Hitler's fears of losing important sources of raw materials, along with strong troop deployments by both sides, left the two sides at virtual bayonet point, and each planning for a decisive showdown. But I did not know that such a flow of history was foreseen by several western Allied leaders, strengthing their resolve not to add Russia to their roster of military foes.
A short-minded view. It was always the "west" that forced the germans in the arms of russia (Napoleon Bonaparte, Georges Clemenceau). The clever policy of the US after WW2 and the support of the german reunification by the US in 1990 anchored Germany in the West. The US avoided the stupidities of the past.Just my 2cents.
And the Poles, the Ukrainians, every Slavic people in the east. And the Jews. We stopped them dealing with the Jews also. But you didn't answer that, did you?
the soviet propaganda was insane and the west genuinely believed the soviets were a strong industrialised superpower, add that the fact that they had to fight a bigger ennemy (germany) they did not want to even speak with the soviets... till they invaded finland and realised that the soviet union was just a mid ass country, and then the germans invaded
Add the 2nd Polish Republic created from the German and Russian Empires at the end of WW1 in 1919 and you have where WW2 began in 1939. And Hungary also annexing territory from Czechoslovakia in 1938 and Poland invading Czechoslovakia in 1938.
Significant that the Soviets only did a deal with Germany after their attempts to form an alliance against Germany were rebuffed. (See Eastern Pact) Poland (1934) Britain France Denmark Latvia Lithuania Estonia all signed ‘non aggression’ pacts with Germany before the Soviets. Romania Italy Hungary Spain Japan Slovakia all made agreements too.
Did any of these non-aggression pacts you mention contain a secret protocol dividing Europe into spheres of occupation? Nah. Only the one with Russkies.
Most probably, the poles, if offered, would have joined the nazis to fight the USSR. Poland sabotaged the soviet efforts to create the anti-nazi alliance. And nowadays they are acting the same, pushing NATO to a direct war against Russia.
And the Germans only dealt with the Soviets after attempts of dealing with Poland against USSR. At least Hitler decided to get rid of Poland first and USSR later.
His plan backfired badly. ‘the German territories lost with the post-World War II Potsdam Agreement were either almost exclusively inhabited by Germans before 1945 (the bulk of East Prussia, Lower Silesia, Farther Pomerania, and parts of Western Pomerania, Lusatia, and Neumark), mixed German-Polish with a German majority (the Posen-West Prussia Border March, Lauenburg and Bütow Land, the southern and western rim of East Prussia, Ermland, Western Upper Silesia, and the part of Lower Silesia east of the Oder), or mixed German-Czech with a German majority (Glatz).’
Few remember that Stalin was trying to form an anti-Hitler alliance with France and Britain since march '38 at least, even fewer that Poland and Hungary attacked Czechoslovakia with the Nazis.
The history of the region on the Polish-Czech border known as "Teschen" in German (or Český Těšín in Czech) goes right back to 1920. Before WW1, it was located in Galicia, that part of Poland (and Ukraine) that was within the Austro-Hungarian Empire. That's why until the end of WW1 there was no argument about which country it belonged to. At first the Poles and Czechs split it evenly, but then the Czechs realised they had thus given away quite a lot of the coal-rich parts of this district. So they took advantage of the Polish-Soviet War of 1920 to get the Poles to agree at the Spa conference (Belgium) to whatever the major powers (i.e., U.K. and France essentially) decided in exchange for their helping the Poles defeat the Soviets. The major powers agreed with the Czech proposal to give more coal-producing areas to Czechoslovakia (but didn't tell the Poles that) and the Poles, desperate for assistance to beat back the Soviet Army, agreed to abide by whatever their decision was. Soon though, the Poles realised that they had signed a virtual blank cheque at Spa, and it poisoned Czech-Polish relations for the next 20 years. Incidentally, the Czech officials in Teschen told the incoming Poles that it would not be too long before the Poles would be handing Teschen over to the Germans, which of course is what happened in September 1939.
The reason that was probably the most important was that the treaty that ratified the Polish-French-English Alliance had written "If Poland was attacked by any regional power, France and England would declare war" or something along those lines. But in a secret article within the treaty, it stated that the "regional power" was Germany. Therefore, the treaty only applied to a German invason.
@@stephenbinion6348 USA was already supplying germany's enemies with war materials. Truly against their so called biased "neutrality". germany had no choice but to declare war to make it official (since america is doing war by supplying britain and ussr against germany without declaraing war) so german u-boats can sunk and blocked any american aid towards europe.
Do you have a similar program on the 1939-1940 winter war between Finland and USSR? Also, please comment on the Allied efforts to help little Finland in their was with USSR. Thankyou.
Foolish remark, in my opinion. There really wasn't much France and Britain could have done to prevent Poland from being conquered. France and Britain DID declare war on Germany, and France even invaded Germany in a limited way in 1939. Leftists and Communists spent the 1930s undermining the war fighting ability of France and Britain. Poland was just in a VERY BAD strategic position. It took 45 years of Cold War for the United Stated to win the independence of Poland, even AFTER Germany was defeated.
@@SeattlePioneer It’s true that there was little they could’ve done to prevent the fall of Poland outright, but France certainly did not commit in any real way to the Saar offensive. France had a decisive numerical superiority on that front at the time and were meeting minimal resistance as much of the German armed forces was in Poland, if they had not just decided to stop and hop back across the border Germany could’ve been in a real bad position real quickly.
@@mistapoli That's all true, but France did keep it's commitment to declare war on Germany, and did carry out an offensive on German teritory, although it was limited as you describe. The longer term result of that declaration of war was Germany's attack on France ten months later, with the result of France being defeated and conquered by Germany. With it's declaration of war against Germany, France anted up it's national security, and LOST it because of that effort. By contrast, Poland anted up NOTHING and was merely a victim in the events that occurred. That's the risk that goes along with the independence from major powers that Poland yearned for -----and got. But it could defend that independence, and perhaps still cannot.
Small Correction/question. At 4:40 you say both nations wanted Latvia. Wasnt it Lithuanian instead that both nations wanted? which ended up just being Germany taking Memel and adding it to Eastern Prussia, while the Soviets took over the rest of Lithuania. Latvia would have been cut off from Germany (even though after ww1 german troops fought as mercenaries in the baltics in an attempt to unite a germanic Livonia)
Memel was demanded by and ceded to Germany in March, but other than that you are right that the point of contention of course was Lithuania, not Latvia. A glance at the map makes that obvious too.
I believe the Allies did not declare war on the Soviet Union because they needed someone to attack Germany from the east like in World War I. This is why they did not help Finland when the Soviets invaded Finland. The second reason is that if we imagine that the Allies declared war and attacked both of them in order to save Poland, then first they would have to completely defeat Germany, so they would go through Germany and reach Poland. At that time the Soviets alone could easily defeat Poland. Therefore declaring war on the Soviet Union was futile.
They didn't declare war for very practical reasons. Germany alone was very much beatable, not so much if they are directly allied to the Soviet Union. Common sense....
Well. Technically Britain and France held up their part of the bargain. They declared war. And how exactly were they supposed to get men and supplies to Poland? And then keep them supplied? Impossible.
@@treystephens6166if only Britain and France realized that he had no intention of retaking lost land westward and was focused on the east, both for their ethnic brethren and to fight communism
The question is, why planned Hitler an invasion of Poland? He woke up 1 day and got the idea? No, Germany negotiated already a long time with Poland to restore the corridor to Danzig. Poland, backed by UK and France refused time after time a corridor. In that area lived mainly German or German orientated people, the area was several hundreds of years German (Prussia) UK and France feared Germany and they hoped to force Germany in a war on 2 fronts. Poland should be sacrificed to give France and UK time to prepare invasion of Germany. More or less same as currently done by western Europe and USA. Ukraine has same function as Poland 85 years ago. History repeats.
Yes, the Western powers have all the time had the same goal - to beat Russia. The only difference is that then Germany complicated it. Now it’s a so called ally.
The British reasons for being in the war , were completely phoney, the Khazarian Satanists bribed Churchill, that was the real reason, and must be covered up, ad infinitum , lest the British people find out they were duped xxxxx
The simple answer is: practicality. Britain and France, which had declared war on Germany, wasn’t about to declare war on the Soviet Union as well. The question was posed to Neville Chamberlain in the House of Commons. His answer was simply “What we will not do, is rush into adventures that offer little chance of success.”
Considering the performance of French troops in 1940, I would strongly disagree. especially considering Poland fall in 4 weeks, freeing enough troops to defend a possible French offensive.
@@fluna9724 Poland fell because of Stalin. And France was still a colonial empire. They simply moved the capital to London. So Charles de Gaulle ended up helping the communists, instead of being neutral
You should remember throughout the WW2, there were only two territories that had been jointly sold out and joint-governed: Poland (for Germany and Soviet Union) and Indochina (for France and Japan). Germany and Japan were the Axis ringleaders; the Soviet Union was an opportunist; and France was the traitor of the Allies. Explain why the Poles and the Indochinese (in particular Vietnamese) distrust and fear promises of their Allies.
> Stalin aimed to keep the USSR out of the European war he saw coming, hoping that European countries would beat each other to exhaustion and the Red Army could then invade and conquer Europe with relative impunity. This was conventional Leninist/Communist doctrine. Grabbing up a third of Poland and starting the European war was just an opportunity for Stalin. France declared war when Poland was invaded, and was invaded and conquered by Germany in turn in 1940. There really wasn't more they could have done, and in trying they lost their independence to Germany.
@@chileanhussar2659 Britain was not smart, it was negligent. How come they allowed the Bolsheviks to exist is the first question? How come they let the Romanovs die. Why didn't they rescued the White Army?
As anti war leftists (including me) were saying during the Vietnam War, "All we are say-ing, is give peace a chance!" France and Britain did what they could, but they really weren't in a position to prevent the German and USSR invasions after the Hitler-Stalin pact. Both France and Britain had been gravely weakened militarily by leftists who weakened their militaries during the 1930s.
Britain and France did create an expeditionary force to aid Finland in the Winter War, but didn't receive transit rights from Norway and Sweden. It almost went forward anyway due to tensions over delivery of Swedish iron to Germany through Narvik but was overcome by events when Germany invaded Denmark and Norway after the Altmark incident. Those forces would later fight in Trondheim and Narvik until the invasion of the lowlands brought them back to the continent.
It was an informative and wonderful historical coverage episode about reasons embodied silent attitude of both British and French toward Soviet invasion of East Poland 🇵🇱 in meantime they condemned Nazi invasion of western and heart of Poland 🇵🇱.the episode labeled two main reasons 1- Political Pragmatic reason 2- theirs. Future Hope ... Thank you for an excellent ( History Hustle) channel. This magnificent work introduced by Sir Stefan 🙏
Belgium and Poland were pretty much in a similar situation, except Poland was flanked by two enemy states... Post war the Poles must very dissapointed on how the borders were drawn (later Iron Curtain). Friend of my father is of Polish roots, his parents were Polish.
@@naru9453 Lithuania gained territory after World War II. Moreover, why Lithuania would want to take over historically and ethnically Polish areas? Think about what you're saying.
@@Staxon303Czarnecki could say same to you historically ethnically Gdansk as well as Silesia were at that time Germanic, just like Memel was Germanic. They got those parts. What other land do you mean? The Prussian part which was literally only German at the time? If you go back to kingdom times than you would be wrong because crownlands of Lithuania were way bigger. Even bigger than Poland and Germany combined at one point. Don't kid yourself with saying they didn't get enough land cause that's a straight up lie. If anything at all you could mean the parts behind the Curzon line. But what did they get? An expansion to the west so where there wasn't truly all polish territories
The truth is the French or British didn't declare war on USSR even when it attacked Finland a year earlier. They wanted to, as Churchill openly stated on more than one occasion, destroy German economy at any cost and were looking for a pretext. In other words, they simply sacrificed Poland, having put it on collision course with Germany, and didn't lift a finger until Poland was thoroughly defeated and divided up between USSR and Germany.
Thanks S5ef. The Western allies knew they were going to have to fight two ideologies, Nazism and Communism but could only fight one at a time. The allies did give support to Finland when the Soviets invaded 5here
I assume the video already talks about it, but in short: -United Kingdom's war on Germany was intent on maintaining their superpower status, same goes for France -The alliance treaty with Poland was signed to stray their relatioms with Germany -Poland was intended to be a secondary front like Russia was in WW1, a diversion -The treaty only specified aggression from Germans, not USSR, something that Churchill himself would say after Soviet Union invaded Poland.
In hindsight it was clear from his writings that Hitler would sooner or later Germany would turn on the Soviet Union. Neither he nor Stalin could be trusted. Everything they did and said was wholly cynical.
True, no doubt. Still, one can imagine Hitler NOT declaring war on the USSR, and being content to gobble up the rest of Europe, the Brits included perhaps. Hitler's decision to invade the USSR is widely considered to be his most foolish decision, especially since Stalin was loyally sending Germany loads of raw materials such as oil, which he was using to wage war in Europe.
The UK and France were PRACTICAL. They didn't see themselves as the policeman of the world. And having declared war on Germany as provided for in the guarantees they had made (however foolishly) they weren't about to declare war on the USSR because it invaded and occupied Poland as well. They weren't THAT foolish, although their guarantee to Poland was quite foolish enough. Poland was an "independent" country that lacked the means to defend itself against aggressive neighbors. In today's world, that is rather the rule more than the exception. Because of that, they were squashed.
@@SeattlePioneerI'm sorry, practical? They allowed this mess in the first place! Britain constantly sabotaged USSR on political arena. It's thanks to british effort anti-Hitler coalition failed to form in 30s, because they thought they could use him as a tool against USSR. And don't get me started on Asia. Brits signed off China to Japanese and encouraged them to once again attack USSR through Arita-Craigie Formula (which for some reason isn't as widely known as Pact of Molotov-Ribbentrop, I wonder what's that reason). What practicality? Where?
To enlargen their own territory again. A large part of the Poles are fierce nationalists who demand back their former Eastern parts among them Lwiw in Ukraine. Was reading an entry about it it two days ago. The comments Polish nationalists stated were fierce. But not as fierce as Russians who only NATO could stop to attack Poland.
Great explanation of the actions of the UK and France on a level of cold, almost cynical rationalism. (I can understand it on that level) However, this is not what we in Poland understand as an alliance, and even less as friendship (or something like that).
@@jokodihaynes419 Patton made many nonsensical statements. Even bordering on antisemitism. A general despised by many and who contributed to Allied war crimes. Furthermore he was a general and not a politician, so he had no authority on this. And even if he was a politician, just one person stating this bizarre thing is not a valid argument. Revisionists often use his quote for their own agenda. Please watch this video: th-cam.com/video/vB2zZWk9TfU/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/dWL0Nz4g5yk/w-d-xo.html
Poland was pretty much already dead when soviets came in. Many of those areas were not inhabited by Poles but by Belorussians and Ukrainians who were constituent peoples in the USSR. The added buffer was proved to be very helpful for the Soviets in ww2 making the Germans start at Brest instead of Minsk.
Geographically how would it be feasible for the UK and France to do anything about the soviets invading Poland? At least with germany they can attack it's rear flank and make it fight a war on two fronts. But how do you expect France and UK to travel through Germany who they are already at war with, through western poland, to go defend eastern poland from the soviet union? It makes zero logistical sense.
@@HistoryHustle Yes, they did, but Russia was in the chaos of the Civil War, while the USSR was well prepared for war with the biggest army in the world and a huge military-industrial complex.
Looking at how Barbarossa went in its first month the Red Army was not prepared but true, Allied landings like in the times of the civil war would have been much harder.
@@HistoryHustle The Red Army collapsed in the first month of Barbarossa not because it was not prepared for war, but because it was badly placed, the strongest units were too close to the border and they were quickly overrun and surrounded. They were not in a defensive posture.
Very interesting question... and one that I've never heard. I'll be a new subscriber here and say that when I was a young Canadian soldier stationed in Baden-Wurrtenberg I think my most enjoyable leaves were spent in Holland. It was the 1980's and I don't think I've ever been more welcomed in a foreign country... and I've been to rather a lot of foreign countries. Perhaps I'll get back there one day.
Was it at this time that an agreement was made as to what to do with the ethnic Germans in the Baltic countries or was that earlier or later? Would not the exodus of so many Germans from Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania (not sure if there were all that many in Lithuania) been a signal to the locals that something bad was about to happen? I would appreciate any accurate information on this subject. Thank you.
@@lollofixxi2216 The promise made by the United States not to invade Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis was not formalized in a written agreement. Instead, it was a verbal assurance given by President John F. Kennedy to Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev. This assurance was part of the negotiations to resolve the crisis, which also included the removal of Soviet missiles from Cuba and the secret agreement to remove U.S. missiles from Turkey.
Putin apparently apologized to the people of Donbas that he should have intervened earlier. 🙄🙄 The Ukraine conflict could be interpreted in a not-so-pro-Western way since it was NATO that kept expanding eastwards. Not a fan of Putin. Just stating historical parallels are not so straightforward. 😐😐
Good question. They were stirred up by war wongering Nazi propaganda. They lost in WW1 and were out on revenge. More details here: th-cam.com/video/4TlKvJ52TZk/w-d-xo.html&pp=ygUfZ2VybWFuIHBlcnNwZWN0aXZlIG91dGJyZWFrIHd3Mg%3D%3D
To say Poland was stuck between a rock and a hard place doesn’t describe how terribly vulnerable they were trapped between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. Prussia and Russia also divided Poland up previously with the three partitions (and Austria). Over 200 years pass and they finally become country again at the end of WWI only to be invaded again in 1939. The Poles have been on the receiving end of horrible luck for a very long time, I wish peace and prosperity for their people.
Possibly, the biggest losers in Europe are Germans. Historically, they have never won anything and have always been kicked out from every place they invaded. How many Germans dropped D. for their self serving leaders ? And the living Ostsiedlung running for their lives. Back home to mutter. They seem to love, Karma.
If you are trapped between hammer and anvil it is not a good idea to provoke both simultaneously. Instead of humiliating germany, backed up by french bayonets, the poles should have looked for better relations to germany before Hitler came to power. After Hitler threw of his mask with the annexion of czcheslovakia(March 1939) the UK and France should have sent Forces to Poland to deter Hitler. With a person like Hitler(similar to Putin) all previous agreements are written on toilet paper.
@@hansulrichboning8551 Poland did propose such an alliance, including Czechoslovakia, to oppose German expansionism and Warmongering. This was rejected. Yet, at the same time nothing was done to prevent Germany creating a new army. As if there were no spies all around reporting ! The eternal parasites who love shekels wanted war and vast profits.
the result of ther incompetence. If they were half as competent as their forefathers who invaded Moscow and various neighbouring countries then they wouldn't have suffered such. No need for victimisation here.
@@Tran5513 Victimisation = picking someone for cruel treatment. Much need to victimise Khazar Germans and Khazar Soviets, here. - What happened 300 years before is irrelevant in 1939.
BUY ME A COFFEE ► buymeacoffee.com/historyhustle
Russian Perspective on the Outbreak of WW2:
th-cam.com/video/WMLy4Uge76M/w-d-xo.html&pp=ygUgcnVzc2lhbiBwZXJzcGVjdGl2ZSBvdXRicmVhayB3dzI%3D
Well explained, Stefan!.
Obrigado! ☑ 🇧🇷
Because it wasn't about Poland, or the fight against dictators. It was about Germany.
True too.
@@HistoryHustle Remember Poland had stop the Soviets from protecting Czechoslovakia and annex part of that country, and like the Poles the Soviets reclaimed their territory.
@@Kevin-cw8of deny the enemy of good things.
Exactly. Churchill was a coward. He chose to give Europe to Stalin
@@resiregHitler is the one who handed Eastern Europe to Stalin. Both in 1939 and in 43/44 by not intentionally throwing the western campaigns and putting extra amour there
As the joke goes, the blue on the Polish flag represents trustworthy allies.
And what colour represent a Cerson line?
Even if the entire french army was in Poland, they will still lose
@@iamkj2008just no… french army was quite strong😮
@@xriz8409 the Germans alone would be stronger than the french
@@xriz8409 the way the French had organized their army versus the concentration of armor of the german blitzkrieg tactics... the break through would be inevitable even with the added numbers and even if they somehow could magically keep logistics up for the entire French army in Poland to begin with, after the frontline breaks up, hundreds of thousands of soldiers would be cut off from said (magical) logistics and very prone to surrender when they run out of food and bullets.
Dear HH, French and Brits did not give a s**t for Poland, they did not want to see the rise of a big continental power that could compete with them
See video.
Rubbish!! Britain and France has a treaty with Poland which they honoured
Exactly
@@davidrickwood5924 Yep they cared so much they just let the Soviets keep Poland (and the whole of Eastern Europe) after the war. 🤣
Britain and France are not (or were ever) some "noble heroes" defending Europe and Democracy.
They were just out for themselves duh.
And the "elites" in those countries care even less about their own people.
@@davidrickwood5924 ... But they didn't honour the same against USSR. Which proves his point... That their main objective was German containment rather that Polish Freedom.
> Declares war on Germany to protect Poland
> Gives Poland and the rest of Eastern Europe to the USSR
What did Churchill mean by this?
@@KnownNiche1999 it was never about loyalty/protection of allies, just the destruction of a powerful country outside the sphere of central banking
He meant he couldn't fight two huge foes simultaneously.
To be fair he did want to go ahead with operation unthinkable
Nazi was more radical than the soviets there was no way they could fight both so they made a choice
@@iamkj2008 it didn't really make much sense cause the Soviets' ideology was way more alien to the other allies compared to the n@zis. Even modern conservatives are often compared to them
So much for "friendship" between Poland and France or Poland and the UK. It would seem that the Allies were willing to sacrifice Poland twice (1939 and 1944) in order to keep the Soviets rolling toward the West. That is why a lot of talk about friendship or mutual interest is often simple hypocrisy.
It's risk reward.
@@mrhumble2937 Sorry, but I do not get what you mean. Would you be so kind as to elaborate? Thanks.
@@stephanottawa7890What could the UK and France have done in 39 and 44? France only began it's mobilisation on the 2nd September to not be seen as an aggressor so invading Germany before Poland was a lost cause was impossible. In 44 the western allies did all they could to aid the futile Warsaw uprising but nothing could stop the USSR from occupying eastern European short of a third world war.
@@billyosullivan3192Yes, it is a bad thing to be outwitted by the Germans and then to be outmanoeuvred by the Russians. Poor Poland. They might have been just as well aligned with Peru.
@@billyosullivan3192 damn an actually sane comment in response to a soypole, interesting
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend." "War makes strange bedfellows."
Indeed.
More like "the enemy of my fake friend is my friend"
More like "Bedfellows make strange wars".
If that attitude was encountered by a school psychiatrist, we might find the 3 of them subjected to a year of psychiatric counseling.
Gotta watch out for those bedfellows. Sometimes the enemy of your enemy... is also your enemy.
The allies actually had been contemplating fighting the Soviets. They had wanted to go into Norway earlier than that they did (April 4th) partly to be better able to keep out the Wehrmacht, but also to help Finland in it's war against the Soviets.
Fun fact: The Allies planned to bomb the Soviet Baku oilfields in 1940 and send an expeditionary force to help Finland repel the Soviet invasion, but those went nowhere.
Interesting.
Years ago read that Churchill wanted to bomb Baku oil fields to keep Soviets from supplying Germany petroleum products. Similar to attacking French navy to prevent Germans capturing the ships
Сам придумал?
Yes. The Winter War was the time of the greatest crisis in Soviet-Western (US) relations. That's why Stalin backed down really, becuase Finland was only couple of weeks from collapsing (ammunition and other supplies stockpiles were critically low). Stalin was a very calculating politician and he knew that war with USA can't be won, contrary to German and Japanese leaders who believed the contrary.
The expedition to Finland was an excuse to occupy Narvik and cut the supply of swedish iron ore to Germany. They never had any intention to help Finland.
Britain and France certainly could not beat the German Reich and the Soviet Union at the same time.
Indeed.
@@HistoryHustle Germany was infiltrated by our Naval Intelligence so when reports got back to Washington about anti gravity projects and others they felt it was best to take out Germany first and then worry about the Soviets later.
@@HistoryHustle
No.
"No." Can you elaborate?
@@didelphidae5228
Yes - they could have flattened Baku&c. oil fields.
Thanks!
Many thanks Frank!
It's worth pointing out that even Poland itself didn't declare a state of war with the Soviet Union.
Interesting..
Soviet Union invaded Eastern Poland on 17 September. By then the Polish government had left Polish territory for Romania. There was little point in declaring war on the USSR when the Polish army had disintegrated and been defeated.
@michaelmazowiecki9195 Oh, but there was nonetheless a point in forming a Polish exile government in London afterwards?
By the time the Communists invaded Poland, the Polish Army was already finished by the Germans. Who would declare war? The Polish people had naively believed that the Red Army would protect them from the Germans. Instead, Comrade Stalin as usual, stabbed Poland in the back. The Communists and the Germans even had a joint Victory Parade in Brest.
The Allied Forces had been always on the side of the Communists. It was the Western countries that had built humongous factories and steel works for Comrade Stalin in the 1930-s.
That Western Allies selectively declared war on Germany, and ignored the part played by the USSR, is something that never ringed right for me. This explanation is well said, but it looks amoral or unethical to prop up Stalin (a despot & autocrat)..
USSR didn't arrest a Rothschild.
@@allewis4008the USSR literally murdered Rothschild's and also the royal family's cousins and canceled all foreign debt.
Soviets only did a deal with Germany after their attempts to form an alliance against Germany were rebuffed. (See Eastern Pact)
Poland (1934) Britain France Denmark Latvia Lithuania Estonia all signed ‘non aggression’ pacts with Germany before the Soviets.
Romania Italy Hungary Spain Japan Slovakia all made agreements too.
@@rjames3981 the nazi soviet pact was an alliance it was just a non aggression pact. They offered to materially support each other in wars of aggression
‘The Soviet Union was never an ally of Nazi Germany. The Third Reich accumulated resources for an offence against the USSR, and the Soviet Union was making every effort to delay the attack…..
It was only when it became absolutely clear that Great Britain and France were not going to help their ally and the Wehrmacht could swiftly occupy entire Poland the USSR decided to send in Red Army units into the so-called Eastern Borderlines, which nowadays form part of Belorussia, Ukraine and Lithuania. There was no alternative - the USSR would have had to enter into the inevitable war with the Nazis from very disadvantageous strategic positions, while millions of people of different nationalities, including the Jews, would have had been left to die at the hands of the Nazis and their local accomplices.
Furthermore, the Non-Aggression Pact was merely the last in a long list of pacts signed between Hitler and Western Powers on the verge of World War II and was only inked after the West repeatedly snubbed Soviet attempts to form an anti-Hitler coalition.’
The real question is why they didn’t declare war on the ussr over the invasion of Finland in 1938
1939 November you mean?
Why would they? Did they have any agreement or pact with Finland to protect her? I think you mix past times with modern times, it's only in our time that you have one power that claims to lead it's multiple wars to protect certain "values and shit".
1930s Finland is the ally of National Socialists
@@MacakPodSIjemom Churchill wanted to go into Finland
I think Finland was part of Russian sphere of influence during time of Russian Empire so no one bothered and thought Finland will be better off under Russian sphere of influence
Sorry but I don't buy your arguments. I think UK and France declared the war to Germany because they wanted keep their supremacy in Europe. For them, URSS was not a competitor but Germany, yes. Not only ideologically, but also economically and militarily.
It doesn't matter his arguments, you will stick to your opinion no matter what he says.
then they were wrong because the URSS was definitely a competitor as well as Germany.
@@oscaralegre3683 No competitor. Bolshevism crashed Russia very quickly, as was expected. Their economy was devastated and they were busy murdering millions of their own people and placing those that had survived or had managed to leave the country, in huge camps (Gulags).
The Bolsheviks had to turn to the evil Capitalist countries to save their asses and offering what was wasn't destroyed yet, at bargain prices. Wall Street was happy to join in, and had started cooperating with the Bolsheviks already in the 20's.
If that’s the case boy were they wrong as the Soviet union was a bigger threat to them than nazi germany ever was
Strongly agree. Britain declared war on Germany out of fear that Germany would become so powerful otherwise, that it could one day invade Britain. They considered the conquest of Poland by Germany as a step too far in that direction to be tolerated. The British didn't care what happened to Poland, so the fact that Poland was invaded by the Soviet Union didn't matter to them. France declared war because Britain did, and was very unenthusiastic.
Thank you for a video on an important yet somewhat overlooked topic. Cheers from Denmark.
most underrated youtube history channel.
Thanks Eric.
so true
Based on this video it is pure misinformation and is completely out of context. It cherry-picks information to arrive at silly conclusions. Reported to TH-cam as misinformation and 'hate speech' ... systematic denigration of nations and leaders... all for clicks.
"I'm afraid we fought the wrong enemy" - General Patton (he was killed right after saying this 1945)
Patton made many nonsensical statements. Even bordering on antisemitism. A general despised by many and who contributed to Allied war crimes. Furthermore he was a general and not a politician, so he had no authority on this. And even if he was a politician, just one person stating this bizarre thing is not a valid argument. Revisionists often use his quote for their own agenda.
Please watch this video:
th-cam.com/video/vB2zZWk9TfU/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/dWL0Nz4g5yk/w-d-xo.html
@@HistoryHustle And the antigermanism of the jews? Nobody talks about this.
@@HistoryHustlehe's often singled out as a war criminal even though he wasn't the one who firebombed Dresdon (Eisenhower). Patton wished to rebuild Germany and not allow the Soviets into Berlin. He's only seen as crazy because globalists write the mainstream history books
What do you know? Tow the line and be quiet.
@@mihovillmisha9885 bro really said "tow the line and be quiet" rather than give any real rebuttal.
"don't critically think, just follow the mainstream narrative and shut up."
As AWESOME as this vid is, please allow me a minor correction. Poland was attacked (correctly, sept 1st 1939), but NOT from the west (as was assumed by Polish HQ would happen) but "only" north (Preussia) and south (Slovakia, with some slovakian support). West flank was rather quite for few days, until general Kutrzeba of Armia Poznan decided on his own to start to move his forces eastward, towards Warsaw. A move that culminated in the biggest battle of the campaign: Battle of Bzura. Also, since things were so quite in that part of front, some units of Army Poznan did actually invade german soil, although it was just a brief attack done mostly by recon units with few armored cars.
Nevertheless, like I said, an awesome vid, great knowledge and I thank you for this.
Thanks for sharing.
@@jasse803 I think there was a serious offensive from Sillesia targeting Central Poland. Greater Poland region was only spared because German plan's principle was to encircle the main body of the Polish army.
Important detail. UK knew the details of Ribbentrop-Molotov (Hitler-Stalin) pact and how it divided Poland and Central Europe - already on August 23rd.
But UK (and other allies) did not share with Poland those ‘details’.
So when signing the UK-PL agreement of mutual assistance (against Germany) on August 25th, UK knew that Soviets would invade Poland once/if Germany ignite the war.
So the only purpose of that latter pact was to discourage Germany from starting the war.
However, the mutual assistance translated to UK maintaining recognition and relations with polish government in exile = Poland remained an ally, despite the country collapse. And partially thanks to this Poland re-emerged as a country after the war (as not fully absorbed to Soviet Union).
Excellent video as always Stefan. Cheers from Tennessee
Many thanks for your comment.
Thx i have often wondered this.
👍
It was more complicated. At first Finland was together with UK against SU, but it changed. Finland was at war with UK. There was no fighting, Because neither side wanted it.
As it turned out Finns did well not to trust in UK. Ancient neighbor and true friend came through. Finnish Sisu did the rest
Correction: "Britain and France saw Germany as the primary competitor and the main threat to British and French world dominance." They didn´t care about Danzig.
So what? Germany had to be stopped after the annexation of Czechoslovakia, it was clear that German domination was not good for Europe.
Germany also didn't care about Danzig, if they cared about German minority rights they wouldn't be allied with Italy
@@billyosullivan3192Hitler wanted ,,only " 500 000 Km² of Leavingspace for The German Nation in Soviet Russia ( in his mind rulled by Jews ), France could agreed for that or not , It was to dangerous for French Hegemony in Europe
@@billyosullivan3192why?
@@inpersonaDK south Tyrol was majority German and fascists removed it's autonomy and language rights and harassed the locals
I never thought about this point. Thanks for doing the video on this subject.
Thanks for watching.
Stephen you are a awesome professor, and mini video lecture are simply one the best. Please continue creating great content.
Excellent presentation Prof. Stefan. A topic not discussed too often. Very informative and insightful.
👍👍👍
Great research Stefan 🙏 thank you for sharing Amigo!
I learned alot, thank u Stephan😌
Great!
It wasn’t even half a century ago when Britain invaded Oranje-Transvaal to grab the gold that was discovered there.
But the German invasion of Poland demanded a Franco-British intervention.
What a rubbish analogy that is. Looks like someone has a chip on his shoulder.
@@kieranororke620 Hitler didn't learn about the conquest of the boer countries from history books but from newspapers. He was 13 years of age when it ended.
@@thkempelooks like you didn't read the books when the bores conqueror native African lands
@@ciaranReal That’s irrelevant since the British did the same thing.
Britain seriously contemplated bombing the Soviet Union from possible bases in Finland
Yes, believe so too.
That’s what made during the winter war.
This one of those Mark Felton Productions? Britain was going to do a lot of things instead they just lost their empire and became a second class power.
@@TP-ie3hjbritian didn't become a second class power until 1956 and after that was still the 3rd strongest country up until late 1970s, early 1980s
Wrong war.
My nan, who was 14 in 1939 Poland, said 'there was nowhere to run, we were being invaded from all sides'. The Polish army in the east was ordered not to oppose or fight the invading russians.
In the US in school we are given the impression that the Soviet Union invaded Poland simultaneously with the Germans (i.e. September 1, 1939). In fact, Stalin waited two whole weeks, a long time by early WWII standards, before ordering Soviet troops into Polish ruled territory. Polish ruled because it was primarily populated by East Slavic speaking Orthodox people...i.e. not Poles.* The Polish government was heading to exile by that time, the army had collapsed with remnants heading to Romania, and the Soviets met zero resistance.
*Even today the territory 'invaded' by the Red Army is mostly in the Ukraine (Orthodox, East Slav) and a bit is in Bielorus (Orthodox, East Slav).
That’s close to what I understand spending my 30 years on the west part of Belarus. The majority of population there were not ethnic Poles, there were some settlers and people who were forced by obstacles to change religion, but not majority. Taking in account existing of concentration camp and criminal persecution of ethnic minorities the USSR propaganda had a huge argument for intervention. Of course it went worse for Belarusians later, but in fact USSR had kind of justification
You are right.
The USSR intervened only the east of Curzon Line and only after the Polish defence already collapsed. Those lands never ever were native for Poland, but were illegally annexed by Pilsudski Poland by force just a few years before while Russia was in the middle of brutal Civil War.
And Stalin didn't annexed an inch of those territories to Russia, he returned the lands to respective nations. Where they are to this very day and rightfully.
@@RustedCroaker Officially yes, he didn't annex those lands, but who cares what is official and written on paper, when in real life those lands were 100% annexed to the USSR? Those republics, like Belarus, didn't have the option to make their own government, but instead it was assigned by the USSR itself.
Anytime you talk about Stalin, remember, he is the second dictator in human history that caused more human deaths. More than Hitler!
Why in the hell you put invaded between ' ' ? USSR invaded those territories, USSR invaded a sovereign country of Poland. Poland ruled in those lands for centuries (with the exception of XIX century under Russian Empire rule). Also, most of the countries in the world have different ethnicities. How this can justify in any way, or even writing invasion between ' ' , when you invade another country?
@@Mendogology nope. If Poland ruled there it was a part of union. With your logic you can tell the Germany governs Poland now, since it’s a part of EU. Ethnically it was not a polish land and some of them were even returned back to USSR to avoid ethnic minorities to outnumber Poles in RP2
Very interesting video. Thanks, Stefan!
Seeing how Europe is today and hindsight being 20/20 I wonder if many of the decisions would have been different had they known.
I've studied history for 50+ years and so many of the initial thoughts I've had have changed quite a bit upon reflection.
Love your videos!
Please share with us your assessment of exactly how Europe is today?
@@gibraltersteamboatco888
I tried to explain it and my comment was instantly censored.
@@browngreen933yeah that happens a lot unfortunately
@browngreen933 right..
The Nazis would be more radical than soviets tho
I can understand not wanting to have to fight Germany and the Soviet Union at the same time, but the Western Allies allowing the Soviet Union to occupy Poland and the rest of Eastern Europe shows that this was never about Poland.
Churchill did try to save poland (and eastern europe also east germany) with the plan of operation unthinkable.
Far i have read/heard, Ribbentrop visit to Moscow to sign the Pact was rather a last hour thing. To the point that the plane he was in, nearly got targetted by the Soviet air defenses.
Excellent analysis.
Thanks!
You forgot to mention that in 1938 Poland occupied part of Czechoslovakia
It was not an invasion. Poland took it's own land Czechs took earlier. Like Fins helped Hitler and took the land lost in Winter war.
@@blaze4464 How they took that territory, by military or diplomatic means ?
@@MC-vf4mk Based on the provided search results, Poland did not invade Czechoslovakia in 1938. Instead, Poland reclaimed the Zaolzie region, which was previously annexed by Czechoslovakia during the Polish-Soviet War in 1920. This action was taken in November 1938, shortly after the Munich Agreement, which led to the partition of Czechoslovakia.
PS: It was a similar to Finland retaking its land lost during winter war.
@@blaze4464 ...For this reason, on September 30, 1938, Poland issued an ultimatum to Prague, expecting the constituencies of Cieszyn and Fryštát to be included within the borders of the Republic of Poland within ten days, conducting a plebiscite in the remaining territories of the Republic inhabited by Poles, and the release of all political prisoners of Polish origin. On October 1, the demands were accepted and the ČSR authorities emphasized their goodwill in efforts to resolve the conflict..
Therefore, they did not attack the ČSR, but resolved it diplomatically, by giving an ultimatum to Prague
Thank you for the great content, and in depth analysis.
Thanks for watching!!
This is the exact question I asked 20 years ago to my 100 level History Professor. The answer I got was in a word Bullshit. I honestly think he was surprised someone had the brain power to come up with the question in the first place. To me its one of WW2's biggest WTF moments. Especially considering what Stalin did to Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia in 1940.
Hope you enjoyed the video.
You're not as smart as you think you are.
@@Cohen.the.Worrieralso he is not as dumb as you are.
You don’t even know, that USSR invaded only after Polish government fled the country, and given still standing Polish soldiers direct orders, not to battle, but assist USSR military.
USSR just returned land, that was stolen from Russian empire while civil war was raging.
And by the way, Finland used situation with Russian civil war, and invaded Russia, to steal land too.
@mikebrase5161 Well, when you are tiny nations that manage to furnish whole SS divisions (plus outdo the Germans in judenreining your 'country'), there are consequences. It didn't help that the local N*zis kept fighting a few years after the war.
As for the territories "ceded to Poland as a result of the Civil War in Russia", this is absolutely untrue. The Civil War had absolutely nothing to do with it. The borders of independent Poland after its exit from the Russian Empire were approved in 1918 by the Entente commission headed by some British admiral whose name I cannot remember off the top of my head. Both the Poles and the Bolsheviks agreed with these borders. But the Eastern border of Poland declared on paper did not suit the Polish nationalist government, which dreamed of Poland's borders within the borders of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth of the early 17th century. Therefore, Poland declared war on the Soviet republics (Soviet Russia and Soviet Ukraine) and, as a result of this war, annexed territories that had previously belonged to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and were subsequently part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Naturally, the Soviet Union did not officially recognize these territories as Polish. International law was on the side of the USSR. Therefore, there could not have been any SECRET collusion between the USSR and Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union officially and openly claimed that the territories that Poland occupied as a result of the Soviet-Polish war would sooner or later be returned. And it was these territories that the Red Army occupied in the fall of 1939. And not one kilometer more than was supposed to be occupied. Surprisingly, after the Second World War, Stalin did not punish Poland, the Soviet Union occupied the territories due to it, but Poland received compensation in the form of German territories, in particular the port city of Gdansk (formerly German Danzig) and access to the Baltic Sea.
Don't feel surprised if Poland is betrayed. In fact, Britain and France are never keen to keep their words. I am Czech and I remember what happened to us in Sudetenland was all Britain and France's faults in the making. Or you can ask my Indochinese ancestors about how France gave us to the Japanese, which contributed to the 1945 famine.
How ur family looks like? Seems u have roots in Vietnam and Czechoslovakia
>
VERY foolish comment. France was defeated and had no choice but to "invite" the Japanese to occupy IndoChina.
And really ----after the defeat of Japan, France took up it's colonial control of Indochina once again. Doesn't THAT make you happy?
@@SeattlePioneer Yes, after promising protection, Jean Decoux surrendered in four days and the Japanese would use French troops to suppress our people for five years. Vive la France!
@@SeattlePioneer Right, because French administration was kept as Japanese puppet while French troops were employed to suppress our people. Nice joke dude, was it different from the German-Soviet cooperation pre-1941?
Had Czech nationalists not urged Britain and France to cede Sudetenland to Czechoslovakia in 1919 without plebiscite there would have been no Munich 1938.
What the "History teacher" forgets to tell everyone is that both the French and the English denied several attempts from the USSR to form an alliance against Germany before the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact was signed. He also forgets to tell you that both countries signed multiple pacts with Germany too before the USSR did it, as did almost every other western european country between 1933 and 1938. The west was not preocupied with Poland nor with the growth of Nazi Germany, they didn't want the communists to continue to gain power because they could be a threat to their capitalist intentions. So they wanted the Nazis to destroy the USSR and would be fine with Hitler dominating all those oil fields and farms
On the first point you got me. The second point cannot be put on a par with the Soviet annexations. Not the mention the sheer brutality of both nazi and soviet occupation.
not just that west supported Hitler with dozens of pacts example Loccarno "History teacher" from the pact "The Locarno Treaties were seven post-World War I agreements negotiated between Germany, France, Great Britain, Belgium, Italy, Poland and Czechoslovakia in late 1925. In the main treaty, the five western European nations pledged to guarantee the inviolability of the borders between Germany and France and Germany and Belgium as defined in the Treaty of Versailles. They also promised to observe the demilitarized zone of the German Rhineland and to resolve differences peacefully under the auspices of the League of Nations. In the additional arbitration treaties with Poland and Czechoslovakia, Germany agreed to the peaceful settlement of disputes, but there was notably no guarantee of its eastern border, leaving the path open for Germany to attempt to revise the Versailles Treaty and regain territory it had lost in the east under its terms."
You are right. Stefan tries to be objective and neutral, but often nevertheless ends up in the position that Russia and the USSR and everything that comes from them is total evil. Alas, this is the cost of several hundred years of dominant Western propaganda in the battle for resources and territories. Processing documents and materials from 1938-1940, you clearly see how much the ruling elite of the United Kingdom and the United States wanted an alliance with Germany, wanted a war between Germany and the USSR and how much they trusted Hitler. But Hitler was not so simple!
@@HistoryHustle Are you, seriously, equating German and Soviet occupation brutality? It's not Nazi, btw, as you keep stating. It's German. Why are you white-washing Germans? You don't write 'communist' when referring to the Soviets. So, why do you write 'Nazi' when referring to the Germans? Agenda much? Anyhow, you seems to be some kind of a history expert. So, kindly remind the audience - how many Polish citizens were killed under the German occupation and how many under the Soviet occupation?
Waiting patiently for the expert's reply.
@@johnsmith4811that’s the current narrative, mate. “Russians are literally Nazis, and always have been” (c). Yet anyone with half the brain can run the numbers and see the astounding difference - literally by orders of magnitude.
A very interesting question, and a very well-explained answer.
Thanks for watching!
THANK YOU...I have asked this question for years
Great to read!
The simple truth is that neither France nor UK were capable of defeating Germany. And that the UK was not even able to help Finland, when the Soviet Union attacked it. Even the US did not think, that it was capable of defeating Germany alone or together with UK and France.
Yes but no. Britian had a much stronger navy than germany and by 1941 the raf was stronger than the lufftwaffe. The yes part is because Britian basically didn't built up its military from 1933-1938 and in 1939, military production massive increased
@@ciaranReal - on paper you may be correct but what was the reality? In 1940 the British had to redraw from the mainland and it lost the battle of Norway and control over the North Atlantic. It was heavily dependent on support from the US and still it took until 1944 before they were able to take on Germany. And even then there was a blame-game going on between the Soviet Union and UK/US about starting the second front (my source for this is Vilnis Sipols: Soviet diplomacy during WW2). Stalin was afraid that he would wear down his armies so much, that he was unable to occupy East Europe at the end of the war, but even then Churchill literally "handed it over" on a small piece of paper! He could have terminated Communism in 1945, and Estonia (and our neighbors) would never have had to suffer 50 years of occupation as we did.
@@ciaranReal so what? there was no way they could have invaded the mainland. they did try and it was a disaster
That’s completely made up. The us wasn’t even thinking of being involved in a war in Europe. Germany ignorantly declared war on the us and they payed a dear price for it
They sure were. If France kept aggressively pushing East as Wehrmacht was concentrated in Poland, they had a VERY good chance at cutting WWII short by about 4-5 years. Just look up the numbers (soldiers, tanks, planes, etc.) for both sides circa 1939.
This is an often overlooked question about the second world war, thank you for explaining this issue
Thanks for watching.
The enemy of your enemy is your friend...then becomes the enemy.
Indeed.
The allies new the Soviets were no good from the start but there was a bigger immediate threat
When David Irving was asked this he said something like, ' because we weren't stupid!'.
I see..
Asked what?
Nothing to discuss. The allies knew they couldn't defeat Germany and needed Russia. So they weren't going to shoot themselves in the foot by declaring war on the country they needed in order to win. Simples.
But why not the other way? Why didn't they defeated Stalin and gave Russia back to democracy?
@@resireg The allies were weak. They had no chance of defeating either Germany or Russia. To be blunt. If the Germans couldn't defeat Russia, no western ally was going to manage it.
@@petercollingwood522 UK and France were both colonial empires. They had the ability to use hundreds of millions of soldiers from Africa and Asia to fight on their behalf. It would be way easier
@@resiregdoesnt matter if the industry doesnt keep up
Nonsense. Evenif they had mobilised those troops and they did manage to ge them to Russia they had no capacity to take the kind of losses such a war required. Only crimial gangster regimes like the Nazis and Comunists had that ability. Poland was an irrelivency to the west. The issue for them was stopping Hilter and they did whatever they had to do to accompolish that. Including allying themselve with Stalin.
It's not so hard to see how the elimination and absorption of the small states lying between the German and Soviet empires led to increased friction and eventual open conflict. Stalin's dreams of further gains in the area combined with Hitler's fears of losing important sources of raw materials, along with strong troop deployments by both sides, left the two sides at virtual bayonet point, and each planning for a decisive showdown. But I did not know that such a flow of history was foreseen by several western Allied leaders, strengthing their resolve not to add Russia to their roster of military foes.
As my German friend said to me "you stopped us dealing with the Russians".
‘ Dealing with ‘ the Russians ? What is that ? A thinly - veiled way of saying ‘ kill them ‘ ?…
A short-minded view. It was always the "west" that forced the germans in the arms of russia (Napoleon Bonaparte, Georges Clemenceau). The clever policy of the US after WW2 and the support of the german reunification by the US in 1990 anchored Germany in the West. The US avoided the stupidities of the past.Just my 2cents.
And the Poles, the Ukrainians, every Slavic people in the east.
And the Jews. We stopped them dealing with the Jews also.
But you didn't answer that, did you?
@@Cohen.the.WorrierWhere is war waging today? Perhaps you should stop watching Steven Spielberg‘s propaganda movies for once.
@@Wehrmacht_Greift_An never forget the pile of shoes
the soviet propaganda was insane and the west genuinely believed the soviets were a strong industrialised superpower, add that the fact that they had to fight a bigger ennemy (germany) they did not want to even speak with the soviets... till they invaded finland and realised that the soviet union was just a mid ass country, and then the germans invaded
Add the 2nd Polish Republic created from the German and Russian Empires at the end of WW1 in 1919 and you have where WW2 began in 1939. And Hungary also annexing territory from Czechoslovakia in 1938 and Poland invading Czechoslovakia in 1938.
Significant that the Soviets only did a deal with Germany after their attempts to form an alliance against Germany were rebuffed. (See Eastern Pact)
Poland (1934) Britain France Denmark Latvia Lithuania Estonia all signed ‘non aggression’ pacts with Germany before the Soviets.
Romania Italy Hungary Spain Japan Slovakia all made agreements too.
Did any of these non-aggression pacts you mention contain a secret protocol dividing Europe into spheres of occupation? Nah. Only the one with Russkies.
Most probably, the poles, if offered, would have joined the nazis to fight the USSR. Poland sabotaged the soviet efforts to create the anti-nazi alliance. And nowadays they are acting the same, pushing NATO to a direct war against Russia.
And the Germans only dealt with the Soviets after attempts of dealing with Poland against USSR. At least Hitler decided to get rid of Poland first and USSR later.
His plan backfired badly.
‘the German territories lost with the post-World War II Potsdam Agreement were either almost exclusively inhabited by Germans before 1945 (the bulk of East Prussia, Lower Silesia, Farther Pomerania, and parts of Western Pomerania, Lusatia, and Neumark), mixed German-Polish with a German majority (the Posen-West Prussia Border March, Lauenburg and Bütow Land, the southern and western rim of East Prussia, Ermland, Western Upper Silesia, and the part of Lower Silesia east of the Oder), or mixed German-Czech with a German majority (Glatz).’
Very Simple.
“The Allies offered the Soviets, War without Land. The Nazis offered the Soviets, Land without War.”.
Few remember that Stalin was trying to form an anti-Hitler alliance with France and Britain since march '38 at least, even fewer that Poland and Hungary attacked Czechoslovakia with the Nazis.
Believe so too.
The history of the region on the Polish-Czech border known as "Teschen" in German (or Český Těšín in Czech) goes right back to 1920. Before WW1, it was located in Galicia, that part of Poland (and Ukraine) that was within the Austro-Hungarian Empire. That's why until the end of WW1 there was no argument about which country it belonged to.
At first the Poles and Czechs split it evenly, but then the Czechs realised they had thus given away quite a lot of the coal-rich parts of this district. So they took advantage of the Polish-Soviet War of 1920 to get the Poles to agree at the Spa conference (Belgium) to whatever the major powers (i.e., U.K. and France essentially) decided in exchange for their helping the Poles defeat the Soviets. The major powers agreed with the Czech proposal to give more coal-producing areas to Czechoslovakia (but didn't tell the Poles that) and the Poles, desperate for assistance to beat back the Soviet Army, agreed to abide by whatever their decision was. Soon though, the Poles realised that they had signed a virtual blank cheque at Spa, and it poisoned Czech-Polish relations for the next 20 years.
Incidentally, the Czech officials in Teschen told the incoming Poles that it would not be too long before the Poles would be handing Teschen over to the Germans, which of course is what happened in September 1939.
The reason that was probably the most important was that the treaty that ratified the Polish-French-English Alliance had written "If Poland was attacked by any regional power, France and England would declare war" or something along those lines. But in a secret article within the treaty, it stated that the "regional power" was Germany. Therefore, the treaty only applied to a German invason.
See video.
@@HistoryHustle I was just reiterating was all
👍
English? Don’t you mean British?
@@Oobido potato tomato
Fantastic video!! Could you make a video on why Nazi Germany declared war on the USA? would be cool to see a break down on that topic from a historian
Perhaps one day yes 👍
Easily Hitler’s biggest mistake. He made quite a few, but this one was disastrous.
@@HistoryHustle That would be great. Hitler may have been bat$h!t crazy, but perhaps not entirely stupid :)
@@stephenbinion6348the U.S was supplying the war effort of the uk and ussr, easy?
@@stephenbinion6348 USA was already supplying germany's enemies with war materials. Truly against their so called biased "neutrality". germany had no choice but to declare war to make it official (since america is doing war by supplying britain and ussr against germany without declaraing war) so german u-boats can sunk and blocked any american aid towards europe.
Do you have a similar program on the 1939-1940 winter war between Finland and USSR?
Also, please comment on the Allied efforts to help little Finland in their was with USSR. Thankyou.
Not yet..interesting topic as well. Perhaps something for a future episode.
Outstanding
👍
Excellent topic!
Going to the 200K subs!
💪💪💪
The Air attack and bombing of Wielun happened before the Schleswig Holstein had fired on Westerplatte. And was the first attack on Poland by Germany.
Let me guess, allies were busy not fighting Germany :D
Lol
Foolish remark, in my opinion. There really wasn't much France and Britain could have done to prevent Poland from being conquered.
France and Britain DID declare war on Germany, and France even invaded Germany in a limited way in 1939. Leftists and Communists spent the 1930s undermining the war fighting ability of France and Britain.
Poland was just in a VERY BAD strategic position.
It took 45 years of Cold War for the United Stated to win the independence of Poland, even AFTER Germany was defeated.
@@SeattlePioneer Any evidence that Britain and France's war fighting capabilities were undermined by Leftists and Communists in the 30s?
@@SeattlePioneer It’s true that there was little they could’ve done to prevent the fall of Poland outright, but France certainly did not commit in any real way to the Saar offensive. France had a decisive numerical superiority on that front at the time and were meeting minimal resistance as much of the German armed forces was in Poland, if they had not just decided to stop and hop back across the border Germany could’ve been in a real bad position real quickly.
@@mistapoli That's all true, but France did keep it's commitment to declare war on Germany, and did carry out an offensive on German teritory, although it was limited as you describe.
The longer term result of that declaration of war was Germany's attack on France ten months later, with the result of France being defeated and conquered by Germany.
With it's declaration of war against Germany, France anted up it's national security, and LOST it because of that effort.
By contrast, Poland anted up NOTHING and was merely a victim in the events that occurred. That's the risk that goes along with the independence from major powers that Poland yearned for -----and got. But it could defend that independence, and perhaps still cannot.
Small Correction/question. At 4:40 you say both nations wanted Latvia. Wasnt it Lithuanian instead that both nations wanted? which ended up just being Germany taking Memel and adding it to Eastern Prussia, while the Soviets took over the rest of Lithuania. Latvia would have been cut off from Germany (even though after ww1 german troops fought as mercenaries in the baltics in an attempt to unite a germanic Livonia)
Memel was demanded by and ceded to Germany in March, but other than that you are right that the point of contention of course was Lithuania, not Latvia. A glance at the map makes that obvious too.
Why allies did not declare war on Poland a year earlier? Poland was not a part of the Munich deal. Neither was Hungary.
I believe the Allies did not declare war on the Soviet Union because they needed someone to attack Germany from the east like in World War I. This is why they did not help Finland when the Soviets invaded Finland. The second reason is that if we imagine that the Allies declared war and attacked both of them in order to save Poland, then first they would have to completely defeat Germany, so they would go through Germany and reach Poland. At that time the Soviets alone could easily defeat Poland. Therefore declaring war on the Soviet Union was futile.
They didn't declare war for very practical reasons. Germany alone was very much beatable, not so much if they are directly allied to the Soviet Union. Common sense....
Partially yes. See the video to enhance your knowledge.
Well. Technically Britain and France held up their part of the bargain. They declared war. And how exactly were they supposed to get men and supplies to Poland? And then keep them supplied? Impossible.
Brits had sent bombers with..... proclamations.
The Allies fought the wrong enemy and today they pay the price!
If only Hitler wasn’t so aggressive.
Really?
@@treystephens6166if only Britain and France realized that he had no intention of retaking lost land westward and was focused on the east, both for their ethnic brethren and to fight communism
@@itsame9647 I heard FDR was a Closet Communist.
@@itsame9647exacly, He wanted only 500 000 Km² Livingspace in Soviet Russia
The question is, why planned Hitler an invasion of Poland? He woke up 1 day and got the idea? No, Germany negotiated already a long time with Poland to restore the corridor to Danzig. Poland, backed by UK and France refused time after time a corridor. In that area lived mainly German or German orientated people, the area was several hundreds of years German (Prussia) UK and France feared Germany and they hoped to force Germany in a war on 2 fronts. Poland should be sacrificed to give France and UK time to prepare invasion of Germany. More or less same as currently done by western Europe and USA. Ukraine has same function as Poland 85 years ago. History repeats.
Yes, the Western powers have all the time had the same goal - to beat Russia. The only difference is that then Germany complicated it. Now it’s a so called ally.
What? The British pact with Poland didn't specifically name Germany? Wow!
The British reasons for being in the war , were completely phoney, the Khazarian Satanists bribed Churchill, that was the real reason, and must be covered up, ad infinitum , lest the British people find out they were duped xxxxx
@@jonbon8598 Bribed Churchill with what? Money, gold, women?
The simple answer is: practicality. Britain and France, which had declared war on Germany, wasn’t about to declare war on the Soviet Union as well.
The question was posed to Neville Chamberlain in the House of Commons. His answer was simply “What we will not do, is rush into adventures that offer little chance of success.”
Feel free to watch the video if you haven't.
Churchill wanted to invade the soviet union in 1945 to help free poland but the usa declined to that never happened
France could have stopped Germany early on.
Think so too.
France had the moral duty to defeat the Soviet Union and failed to do so
Considering the performance of French troops in 1940, I would strongly disagree. especially considering Poland fall in 4 weeks, freeing enough troops to defend a possible French offensive.
@@fluna9724 Poland fell because of Stalin. And France was still a colonial empire. They simply moved the capital to London. So Charles de Gaulle ended up helping the communists, instead of being neutral
@@resiregPoland got crushed before the UDSSR entered.
Thank you
👍
You should remember throughout the WW2, there were only two territories that had been jointly sold out and joint-governed: Poland (for Germany and Soviet Union) and Indochina (for France and Japan). Germany and Japan were the Axis ringleaders; the Soviet Union was an opportunist; and France was the traitor of the Allies. Explain why the Poles and the Indochinese (in particular Vietnamese) distrust and fear promises of their Allies.
>
Stalin aimed to keep the USSR out of the European war he saw coming, hoping that European countries would beat each other to exhaustion and the Red Army could then invade and conquer Europe with relative impunity. This was conventional Leninist/Communist doctrine. Grabbing up a third of Poland and starting the European war was just an opportunity for Stalin.
France declared war when Poland was invaded, and was invaded and conquered by Germany in turn in 1940. There really wasn't more they could have done, and in trying they lost their independence to Germany.
I'd never thought about the comparison between Indochina and Poland, that's very enlightening.
UK and France were colonial superpowers. So they had unlimited access to soldiers and resources
@@resireg But Britain was smarter by retreating early even with messes left behind. France wasn't that willing.
@@chileanhussar2659 Britain was not smart, it was negligent. How come they allowed the Bolsheviks to exist is the first question? How come they let the Romanovs die. Why didn't they rescued the White Army?
In a nutshell, only defence from an attack from Germany was included in the British/French guarantee to Poland (they barely carried that out either)
Very good. Thanks. BZ
To the Allies shame Poland was thrown under the bus
Indeed. Thanks for watching.
As anti war leftists (including me) were saying during the Vietnam War, "All we are say-ing, is give peace a chance!"
France and Britain did what they could, but they really weren't in a position to prevent the German and USSR invasions after the Hitler-Stalin pact.
Both France and Britain had been gravely weakened militarily by leftists who weakened their militaries during the 1930s.
Britain and France did create an expeditionary force to aid Finland in the Winter War, but didn't receive transit rights from Norway and Sweden. It almost went forward anyway due to tensions over delivery of Swedish iron to Germany through Narvik but was overcome by events when Germany invaded Denmark and Norway after the Altmark incident. Those forces would later fight in Trondheim and Narvik until the invasion of the lowlands brought them back to the continent.
i wonder what would happen if they did declare war on the soviets
I explore that in the video shortly..
It was an informative and wonderful historical coverage episode about reasons embodied silent attitude of both British and French toward Soviet invasion of East Poland 🇵🇱 in meantime they condemned Nazi invasion of western and heart of Poland 🇵🇱.the episode labeled two main reasons 1- Political Pragmatic reason 2- theirs. Future Hope ... Thank you for an excellent ( History Hustle) channel. This magnificent work introduced by Sir Stefan 🙏
Belgium and Poland were pretty much in a similar situation, except Poland was flanked by two enemy states...
Post war the Poles must very dissapointed on how the borders were drawn (later Iron Curtain). Friend of my father is of Polish roots, his parents were Polish.
Bruh they literally gained land mass and Germany got divided. Why should the poles be unhappy with the treaties?
@@naru9453 They gained less land than they lost. Furthermore, Soviet 'comrade' made sure to strip this new territory's even from railway tracks...
@@Staxon303Czarnecki could be said the same for other countries. Certainly Lithuania would want a large chunk of poland
@@naru9453 Lithuania gained territory after World War II. Moreover, why Lithuania would want to take over historically and ethnically Polish areas? Think about what you're saying.
@@Staxon303Czarnecki could say same to you historically ethnically Gdansk as well as Silesia were at that time Germanic, just like Memel was Germanic. They got those parts. What other land do you mean? The Prussian part which was literally only German at the time? If you go back to kingdom times than you would be wrong because crownlands of Lithuania were way bigger. Even bigger than Poland and Germany combined at one point. Don't kid yourself with saying they didn't get enough land cause that's a straight up lie. If anything at all you could mean the parts behind the Curzon line. But what did they get? An expansion to the west so where there wasn't truly all polish territories
The truth is the French or British didn't declare war on USSR even when it attacked Finland a year earlier. They wanted to, as Churchill openly stated on more than one occasion, destroy German economy at any cost and were looking for a pretext. In other words, they simply sacrificed Poland, having put it on collision course with Germany, and didn't lift a finger until Poland was thoroughly defeated and divided up between USSR and Germany.
Thanks S5ef. The Western allies knew they were going to have to fight two ideologies, Nazism and Communism but could only fight one at a time. The allies did give support to Finland when the Soviets invaded 5here
True.
I assume the video already talks about it, but in short:
-United Kingdom's war on Germany was intent on maintaining their superpower status, same goes for France
-The alliance treaty with Poland was signed to stray their relatioms with Germany
-Poland was intended to be a secondary front like Russia was in WW1, a diversion
-The treaty only specified aggression from Germans, not USSR, something that Churchill himself would say after Soviet Union invaded Poland.
Please watch the video.
In hindsight it was clear from his writings that Hitler would sooner or later Germany would turn on the Soviet Union. Neither he nor Stalin could be trusted. Everything they did and said was wholly cynical.
True, no doubt.
Still, one can imagine Hitler NOT declaring war on the USSR, and being content to gobble up the rest of Europe, the Brits included perhaps.
Hitler's decision to invade the USSR is widely considered to be his most foolish decision, especially since Stalin was loyally sending Germany loads of raw materials such as oil, which he was using to wage war in Europe.
Uk and France where not cynical?
The UK and France were PRACTICAL. They didn't see themselves as the policeman of the world. And having declared war on Germany as provided for in the guarantees they had made (however foolishly) they weren't about to declare war on the USSR because it invaded and occupied Poland as well.
They weren't THAT foolish, although their guarantee to Poland was quite foolish enough.
Poland was an "independent" country that lacked the means to defend itself against aggressive neighbors. In today's world, that is rather the rule more than the exception. Because of that, they were squashed.
@@SeattlePioneerI'm sorry, practical? They allowed this mess in the first place! Britain constantly sabotaged USSR on political arena. It's thanks to british effort anti-Hitler coalition failed to form in 30s, because they thought they could use him as a tool against USSR. And don't get me started on Asia. Brits signed off China to Japanese and encouraged them to once again attack USSR through Arita-Craigie Formula (which for some reason isn't as widely known as Pact of Molotov-Ribbentrop, I wonder what's that reason). What practicality? Where?
I always wanted someone to ask the question. Thx
Thanks for watching.
And this is why Poland is beefing up to have the biggest modern military in all of europe can you blame them
I understand them.
No.
Poland just wants to steal western Ukraine.
To enlargen their own territory again. A large part of the Poles are fierce nationalists who demand back their former Eastern parts among them Lwiw in Ukraine. Was reading an entry about it it two days ago. The comments Polish nationalists stated were fierce. But not as fierce as Russians who only NATO could stop to attack Poland.
@@Lazendra Russia has no problems with Poland, in fact many Russians have a good view of Polish people despite turbulent history.
Great explanation of the actions of the UK and France on a level of cold, almost cynical rationalism. (I can understand it on that level)
However, this is not what we in Poland understand as an alliance, and even less as friendship (or something like that).
"We fought the wrong enemy"- George S Patton
@@jokodihaynes419 Patton made many nonsensical statements. Even bordering on antisemitism. A general despised by many and who contributed to Allied war crimes. Furthermore he was a general and not a politician, so he had no authority on this. And even if he was a politician, just one person stating this bizarre thing is not a valid argument. Revisionists often use his quote for their own agenda.
Please watch this video:
th-cam.com/video/vB2zZWk9TfU/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/dWL0Nz4g5yk/w-d-xo.html
@@HistoryHustlenah he was based
President Truman thought the same.
A great general, yet a crazy person.
@@HistoryHustlewhat Patton said turned out to be very prophetic in this case though🤷🏾♂️
Poland was pretty much already dead when soviets came in. Many of those areas were not inhabited by Poles but by Belorussians and Ukrainians who were constituent peoples in the USSR. The added buffer was proved to be very helpful for the Soviets in ww2 making the Germans start at Brest instead of Minsk.
Poles, Belorussians and Ukrainians lived in Poland since time of the Commonwealth and the bloody Soviet Union nor Russia had nothing to do with them.
Geographically how would it be feasible for the UK and France to do anything about the soviets invading Poland? At least with germany they can attack it's rear flank and make it fight a war on two fronts. But how do you expect France and UK to travel through Germany who they are already at war with, through western poland, to go defend eastern poland from the soviet union? It makes zero logistical sense.
Indeed although do notice that during the Russian Civil War these parties fought in Russia against the Reds.
@@HistoryHustle Yes, they did, but Russia was in the chaos of the Civil War, while the USSR was well prepared for war with the biggest army in the world and a huge military-industrial complex.
Looking at how Barbarossa went in its first month the Red Army was not prepared but true, Allied landings like in the times of the civil war would have been much harder.
@@HistoryHustle The Red Army collapsed in the first month of Barbarossa not because it was not prepared for war, but because it was badly placed, the strongest units were too close to the border and they were quickly overrun and surrounded. They were not in a defensive posture.
Criss crossing the country yes and thus not prepared for war.
Very interesting question... and one that I've never heard. I'll be a new subscriber here and say that when I was a young Canadian soldier stationed in Baden-Wurrtenberg I think my most enjoyable leaves were spent in Holland. It was the 1980's and I don't think I've ever been more welcomed in a foreign country... and I've been to rather a lot of foreign countries.
Perhaps I'll get back there one day.
Fascinating, really.
👍
Was it at this time that an agreement was made as to what to do with the ethnic Germans in the Baltic countries or was that earlier or later? Would not the exodus of so many Germans from Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania (not sure if there were all that many in Lithuania) been a signal to the locals that something bad was about to happen? I would appreciate any accurate information on this subject. Thank you.
it's frustrating to see people don't have memory. Many parallels the Ukraine conflict, much could have been done before it happened.
Please explain.
@@HistoryHustle Holding the made promise that nato shouldn't expand to the east.
@@JolandavanBoekelthere was never a treaty about that
@@lollofixxi2216 The promise made by the United States not to invade Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis was not formalized in a written agreement. Instead, it was a verbal assurance given by President John F. Kennedy to Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev. This assurance was part of the negotiations to resolve the crisis, which also included the removal of Soviet missiles from Cuba and the secret agreement to remove U.S. missiles from Turkey.
Putin apparently apologized to the people of Donbas that he should have intervened earlier. 🙄🙄
The Ukraine conflict could be interpreted in a not-so-pro-Western way since it was NATO that kept expanding eastwards.
Not a fan of Putin. Just stating historical parallels are not so straightforward. 😐😐
I could never understand why French and British were so traumatized by WWI and Germans, who lost more soldiers, were not…
Germans thought their armies were never beaten and the British still to this day think their ww1 generals were uniquely incompetent
Good question. They were stirred up by war wongering Nazi propaganda. They lost in WW1 and were out on revenge. More details here:
th-cam.com/video/4TlKvJ52TZk/w-d-xo.html&pp=ygUfZ2VybWFuIHBlcnNwZWN0aXZlIG91dGJyZWFrIHd3Mg%3D%3D
Because stab in the back myth
Good question
France anti communist
British anti communist
Nazi Germany anti communist
Soviet union Communism regime
Nazi Germany was more willing to ally with the USSR than the UK
They didn't want Hitler and Stalin to be allies against them for the rest of WW2 at least until Britain and France were defeated.
To say Poland was stuck between a rock and a hard place doesn’t describe how terribly vulnerable they were trapped between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. Prussia and Russia also divided Poland up previously with the three partitions (and Austria). Over 200 years pass and they finally become country again at the end of WWI only to be invaded again in 1939. The Poles have been on the receiving end of horrible luck for a very long time, I wish peace and prosperity for their people.
Possibly, the biggest losers in Europe are Germans.
Historically, they have never won anything and have always been kicked out from every place they invaded.
How many Germans dropped D. for their self serving leaders ? And the living Ostsiedlung running for their lives. Back home to mutter. They seem to love, Karma.
If you are trapped between hammer and anvil it is not a good idea to provoke both simultaneously. Instead of humiliating germany, backed up by french bayonets, the poles should have looked for better relations to germany before Hitler came to power. After Hitler threw of his mask with the annexion of czcheslovakia(March 1939) the UK and France should have sent Forces to Poland to deter Hitler. With a person like Hitler(similar to Putin) all previous agreements are written on toilet paper.
@@hansulrichboning8551 Poland did propose such an alliance, including Czechoslovakia, to oppose German expansionism and Warmongering.
This was rejected. Yet, at the same time nothing was done to prevent Germany creating a new army.
As if there were no spies all around reporting !
The eternal parasites who love shekels wanted war and vast profits.
the result of ther incompetence. If they were half as competent as their forefathers who invaded Moscow and various neighbouring countries then they wouldn't have suffered such. No need for victimisation here.
@@Tran5513 Victimisation = picking someone for cruel treatment.
Much need to victimise Khazar Germans and Khazar Soviets, here.
-
What happened 300 years before is irrelevant in 1939.