The Phony War: What was Britain & France waiting for?

Following the fall of Poland, why did not France and Britain act? What were they waiting for? - Germany to offer to withdraw humbly from Poland and Czeckoslavakia saying it was a mistake - oops - hope you don't mind - can we have peace again? Were peace deals being offered, you can have back Danzig/Polish Corridor? It became very clear Germany was planning to attack France as soon as possible after Nov '39. Why did the western allies not go on the offensive rather than act solely to develop defence strategies? While there wasn't much appetite for war in France and the UK, they nevertheless declared war on Germany - was this simply posturing?

Can anyone add some light regarding British and French policy (if any?) regarding war against Germany during the phoney war period?

 

I think the "Peace Feelers" scenerio was partly to blame, given Prime Minister Chamberlain's well known, abhorence to war.

The other, and I think more likely scenerio was that the British and French were waiting for their industries to be completely geared up on a total war footing, while their armies in the field were brought up to full strength.

 

Neither felt they were fully mobilized and ready to go on the offensive in 1939. France didn't expect to be able to complete their rearmament program in progress until early 1942. The British likewise, were desperately trying to get their forces fully equipped at the time.
This had alot to do with their reticense to go on the offensive.

 

G;day

The Fall Gelb plan was already known because of a German plane getting lost and landing in Holland before May 1940. This did not ring any alarmbell's with the Allieds. I think Britain and France were doing their best to keep Germany from taking any further steps in aquiring Lebensraum. Like barking but not biting. Keep in mind that WWI was what the British/French had in mind what the war would be like and again loosing that many men, so the Phoney or Sit war was the best option then. While war was declared the German army was in Poland, so the French could have walked in you might think.

Popski

 

A Country stricken by a first world war outlook, as were many others. despite the siren calls of Churchill the peace at any price had a lot of support.

It is well to recall that the agonies of the First World war were still fresh in the minds of the British. (That was only 21 years previously).

Led by weak leaders. You may find this difficult to beleive, but in the early part of the war, one of the Tory MPs got up in Parliament abd complained bitterly about the RAF bombing the German arms factories! He stated these are "private properties" it was that malaise of greed and "I'm alright Jack" that trickled down from the top. YUK!

All the time, the warnings of Churchill and a few others went unheeded.
Sapper

 

Bear in mind that French attack plans rely on their country being invaded first...


In the words of Johnny English, "the only thing the French are good at hosting... is an invasion"


Also the particularly harsh winter had something to do with it. But as my grandfather said, the war wasnt phoney for those in France.

 

I agree,

the western allied feared for a full battle thinking it would lead to the same kind of warfare like WW1. Don´t know what was the winning alternative back then?

Anyway, compared to the Germans every moment lost was in Germans´ favour in this case, I think. the again without the "Sichelschnitt" version it all might have been a very different story.

Personally I think the Germans should have been struck immediately as the forces had been gathered after declaring war in Sept 1939 but as Poland fell in sone three weeks and not three-four months as expected, this probably made severe delays for any possible attack from the west as Germany could move their troops sooner to face the attack...

[ 04. January 2004, 10:01 AM: Message edited by: Kai-Petri ]

 

Did the Marginot line[spelled right?] not have anything to do with it?France spent all this money to build and lured themselve's into believing they were safe.I don't know if England could have oganized in time but I'm sure someone will correct me on this.Where would they attack?Do you think Germans would have encircled them anyway?Germany owned the sky,too.What do ya'll think? FramerT.

 

Some dates:

http://www.expage.com/page/gren15

SEPTEMBER 1st, 1939
-Germany invades Poland.

SEPTEMBER 3rd, 1939
-Britain and France declare war on Germany

SEPTEMBER 7th, 1939
-French forces advance into Saarland but soon withdraw.

SEPTEMBER 9th, 1939
-British Expeditionary Force begins to land in France.

OCTOBER 6th, 1939
-Last Polish resistance ceases.

NOVEMBER 17th, 1939
-British and French decide on Plan D, a move into Belgium to defend against German attack.

----------

I think at least the French at the time trusted that the Germans would be bangin´ their head against the Maginot line and bleed themselves out of the war. At the time I think the British trusted they could keep the battle on the continent, and they trusted the Maginot line as well to take care of the job.

 

It was actually lost in Mechelen, Belgium.

Kai's right. The more time went by, it favoured the Germans more and more and affected the Allies.

There's no doubt that WWII would have been very different if France would have attacked with full-strenght the German border, the Rhineland and the Ruhr since Polish morale would have risen and Stalin would have thought it twice before invading Poland.

But we must remember that Great Britain and France were not prepared for war yet. They doubted that a full-scale offensive could be supported for a long time. They feared that the meat grinder form WWI could be re-started again. That's why they had a deffensive strategy in the first place. France's military minds had taken a very deffensive attitude with justified reasons.

The problem is that British and French were too agressive in WWI and they only achieved to kill millions of their own soldiers and were too passive in WWII...

 

Indeed General

The plane got lost on the 10th of May1940 near Maasmechelen in BELGIUM. Allways thought it was in Holland . But no action was done when they had the plans, they thought it was a double cross.

Pop

 

Indeed, did not think it that way before....Actually it would be interesting if Stalin would not have attacked Poland if the allied had attacked in 1939 Germany in a much bigger force...

Now what would happen to the Ribbentrop Molotov pact, could Hitler stop the two-front war at all?
Or would Stalin just say that his hands were tied ( due to Germany´s situation and not attack Poland) and let the Red Army wait by the border whether to attack and HOW FAR....?

And if Stalin did not attack Poland would Hitler be forced to make his move on Russia earlier? Or would he just eat his bitter pill ( if possible ) and wait for a better time?

 

I don't think the French were to keen on a great offensive across the Franco-German border, that was what Plan XVII was, and we all know how that turned out, the invasion was thrust back, way back, and their entire flank was exposed, allowing the Germans to come within 30 miles of Paris, had it not been for Moltke's changes and the battles of Mons and the Marne Paris would have fallen, the French had believed in Offensive to the utmost, and it led to 75% casualty rate and a great gap in their population. Would they really want to attack into Germany through the same route?

 

The French believed in the safety of their Maginot Line and were also having trouble with their labor unions and were not prepared for an offencive battle.

The English did not have the political will until it was attacked and was also not prepared for war, espicially Bomber Command.

 

I read a few days ago that Britain sent a relatively small force to France in 1939/40, ten divisions, and that the French felt deeply let down by this number, as well as insulted - hence the lack of British involvement in overall military strategy. Did the British really not send as strong a force as it could have. (France had 90+ divisions if I'm not mistaken). Was this a major reason for the lack of good will between the French and British at this time? It seems Lord Gort had relatively little contact with Generals Gamelin or Georges, and was under Billotte who barely communicated with him.

 

Blockade of Germany was considered to be enough for the early stages. Time is in favour for the British and French. In 1939, no one thought in terms of "total war".

If the Germans are attacking in the West...welcome to the Maginot meatgrinder.

At least that was what they thought to happen.

Cheers,

 

I think another crucial aspect of Britain and France's non-involvement would be that Russia also attacked Poland.

If the British and the French attacked Germany, they would have no excuse to not attack Russia for the same purpose. Thus creating quite a dilemna and also buying themselves time to prepare for the inevitable.

 

I don't think he could have... Though Poland did not have the industrial and economical capacity to fight Germany for more than two months. Food and ammunition would have had to be supplied to Poland through the Mediterranean and then the Balcans...

In this case, I think Stalin would have not attacked Poland, seeing that Germany was in a bad strategical situation. Then, after it became clear that Germany would lose, then Stalin would have sided with Great Britain and France to take his piece of cake.

With Germany fighting France and Great Britain in her territory and Poland resisting in some way, I don't see how an attack on the USSR was possible...

With the strategic and tactical situations of early WWII, I think they must have done this.

This is very understandable and the French knew it. Great Britain did not have such a professional Army as it had in 1914 nor a massive great Army as it had in 1918. Great Britain was not willing to compromise again a whole generation of her youth fighting in France again.

110 to be exact, plus 4 armoured divisions, plus 10 divisions of the BEF, 10 Dutch and 20 Belgian divisions. Not bad at all.

Perhaps. And this lack of co-operation, arrogance of both sides was a crucial factor in France's defeat. All the good will and brotherly co-operation of WWI was gone. Most of British and French generals in WWII had been in the trenches with their men, not having much contact with their Allies, but certainly Gamelin, Georges, Billotte, Prételat were old enough to have had a lot of contact with Haig's staff in WWI. I blame both sides because of this!

 

Just reading Edward Shacklady´s "Hawker Hurricane".

He mentions that" ..by the outbreak of the Second World War, the RAF had little more than 300 Hurricanes in first-line service and approximately 150 Spitifres-less than a tenth of those ordered."

I guess I´d wait for more planes if this was the case....

 

Zod damn it! Have you seen the post above Kai's? What made one of the greatest thinkers in this forum to become a serious person?