Timeline for Why didn't France and the UK invade Germany in September 1939?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
27 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 29, 2020 at 17:14 | comment | added | Amorphous Blob | If I put this as an answer, people would demand SOURCES, but some factors I've heard of are: Vacillating and appeasing UK leadership, Chamberlain not understanding Hitler and seeking a negotiated settlement even after the invasion of Poland. There were also strong pacifist movements in UK universites. In France, there were proto-fascists and anti-Semites in the military. In both countries, there was no appetite to lose a million more young men for the second time in 25 years. | |
| Apr 29, 2020 at 13:37 | history | protected | Pieter Geerkens | ||
| Apr 25, 2020 at 18:47 | comment | added | Stefan Skoglund | France was still divided internally in 1940 when germany attacked. The generals risked mutiny if they would have ordered attack. If the british army and the french had aggressive generals at all at that time - that is another matter. Petain turned out to be a catastrophe in 1940 (or badly underestimated the germans ability to march.) Germans soldiers in 1914 tried to walk to the coast but the supply train couldnt keep up - in 1940 it was able to. | |
| S Apr 25, 2020 at 10:31 | history | suggested | Rodrigo de Azevedo | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Added tag. Minor improvements.
|
| Apr 25, 2020 at 10:06 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Apr 25, 2020 at 10:31 | |||||
| Mar 15, 2020 at 23:49 | answer | added | Italian Philosopher | timeline score: 3 | |
| Mar 2, 2018 at 9:16 | comment | added | DrZ214 |
Hitler left only 23 divisions on Western front, while the allies had 110 divisions. And those Germans divisions were poorly equipped. The French had 4 to 1 advantage in artillery, 80 to 1 advantage in tanks and the Germans hardly had any planes there. Any citation for this? If it's true, then I learned something pretty amazing today. I would like to read more about it.
|
|
| Jan 29, 2018 at 1:48 | answer | added | jmw | timeline score: 1 | |
| Jan 12, 2017 at 5:12 | answer | added | Jorge Aldo | timeline score: 1 | |
| Jan 13, 2015 at 15:13 | answer | added | William Jockusch | timeline score: 6 | |
| Nov 7, 2014 at 1:43 | comment | added | Greg | Also, you assume a blietzkrieg strategy on the part of the allies, which clearly they have not mastered (or even considered) at that time. The German (and at some extent the Soviet army) was practicing and experimenting with this approach, and built up/equiped the army according to, but a plan that targets invading and defeating a country in couple of weeks was clearly not in allies' dictionary. | |
| Nov 7, 2014 at 1:37 | comment | added | Greg | "if an allied offensive, no matter how poorly prepared, took place, the allies would soon be in Berlin." I think it is highly somewhat speculative, in spite of the sources you cited. Mobilizing an army and actively attacking a country is extremely organization intensive task, and regular armies are not trained for fast response neither to act without much planning. | |
| Oct 21, 2014 at 3:38 | answer | added | user5001 | timeline score: 6 | |
| Jul 22, 2014 at 16:50 | comment | added | Oldcat | @Russell - this isn't really relevant to the Sept 39 situation, as Chamberlain and England did declare war and thus enter a World War. | |
| Jul 22, 2014 at 15:16 | answer | added | Yves | timeline score: 7 | |
| Jul 22, 2014 at 13:15 | answer | added | user2357 | timeline score: 3 | |
| Jul 24, 2013 at 22:55 | answer | added | clif | timeline score: -2 | |
| Jul 12, 2013 at 0:26 | answer | added | sds | timeline score: 13 | |
| Feb 8, 2013 at 13:25 | answer | added | Swordsman | timeline score: 25 | |
| Sep 10, 2012 at 23:39 | history | edited | Daniel |
edited tags
|
|
| Sep 7, 2012 at 0:35 | answer | added | Tom Au | timeline score: 17 | |
| Sep 2, 2012 at 3:37 | answer | added | choster | timeline score: 68 | |
| Sep 2, 2012 at 3:27 | comment | added | Russell | 20 years before, they had had a horrible war. Chamberlain didn't want to start another world war, and wanted instead to solve the problem with diplomacy. | |
| Sep 2, 2012 at 1:22 | answer | added | Nemanja Trifunovic | timeline score: 17 | |
| Sep 1, 2012 at 21:52 | comment | added | DVK | No properly cited answer, but the fact that Churchill wasn't made Prime Minister yet in 1939 (he was in 1940 IIRC) may have been a contributing factor. | |
| Sep 1, 2012 at 21:02 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/StackHistory/status/242004438842216448 | ||
| Sep 1, 2012 at 16:31 | history | asked | Jake Jay | CC BY-SA 3.0 |