Ireland's "shame" for its neutral status in the Second World War

toiletduck

toiletduck wrote:

He wasnt forced into war, he didnt have to invade Poland. But i agree that the last thing he wanted was to fight a war on two fronts.

he had hoped that Britain wouldn't declare war. But he was committed to taking out Poland. But then if he hadn't, and consolidated his power, perhaps the end of 1945 would have been alot different.

Sorry to enlighten you klaz, but the Holocaust proper did not start in 1936ish. The concentration camps were not built until years later.

really? In which countries? You see Hitler had ordered the construction of detainment camps from the moment he took power. Not concentration camps, but detainment camps for the "undesirables" and "crinimals". Redleslie2 gives the perfect answer.

Eh, Klaz, the Britain , France , Russia and the USA fought to some extent in WW2. Ok, you may quibble that the USA entered late, that France could have put up a better effort etc, but they did resist Nazism. Italy was an axis power, as you are no doubt aware. Britain and the USA over the years did accept numbers of Jewish refugees. What has this got to do with Ireland ?

Read the post again. My point was that not one of them actually declared war over the killing in the camps. France & Britain held to their pact with Poland, Poland was invaded, US dclared in response to Hitlers declaration of war, Russia held a non-aggression pact, and then was invaded.

Not one of the Allies, declared war to stop the Killing of the Jews and others in the detainment camps. They came into the war for the above reasons. That is my point. They came into the war because either they were forced, or for military reasons.

true wrote:

Re. the Christian Brothers, it was you ( klaz) who asked Teneka " Where did you get this tripe? Did you go to the Christian Brothers at any stage of your education? "

True wrote:

It was you (klaz) that wrote "You see, History has always been a passion for me, especially matters that pertain to WW2. The teacher I got in 6th class woke that interest in me."

And your point is? Your examples of my history being wrong are incorrect so far. Care to enlighten correctly?

Perhaps its that my examples don't conform with the Sci-Fi novels you've read about an alternate History?

The Wannsee conference which finalised "the final solution" was in January 1942. As far as I know, this was the beginning of the policy of systematic extermination of Jews. Before that there was oppression, deportation, imprisonment, work camps and murder but no coherent policy as such.

No policy towards the systematic execution of all Jews. But the killing started a long before. As far as I'm aware that conference, was brought into being because they found out that killing the Jews with firing squads wasn't efficient enough.

The Corinthian

Deleted User wrote:

I never said that Hitler wished to copy Napoleon. I said that he wished to beat Napoleon's campaign. Napoleon conquered mainland europe, reached into africa & egypt, and finally into Russia. Hitler wished to expand in a similiar fashion. The western aspect figured the need to Humble France, isolate Britain, and secure the mineral imports from Denmark/Norway.

Mussolini was the one who was interested in North Africa - he even had Egyptian Lira printed up in expectation of an easy victory. Hitler’s interest was more a burden as he was forced to shore up Italy’s surprising limited military resources. Outside of Eastern expansion (and with the exception of Alsace-Lorraine), all his other territorial interests were short-term military goals, and not part of a concerted effort to conquer Europe. In short, most of his expansion was due to the fact that he had to for strategic military reasons, not because he wished to.

Redleslie2 wrote:

Tell us when Dachau and Sachsenhausen were established then. Then tell us where the nazis put 150,000 communist and social democratic party people by the end of 1933.

Concentration camps was around long before the Nazis and were in fact not even invented by them; that honour falls to the British. The Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd ed. defines concentration camp as:

"a camp where non-combatants of a district are accommodated, such as those instituted by Lord Kitchener during the South African war of 1899-1902; one for the internment of political prisoners, foreign nationals, etc., esp. as organized by the Nazi regime in Germany before and during the war of 1939-45"

As such concentration camps were employed by all sides in World War Two (some of my own family was interred in a British concentration camp). The Nazis were using a combination of detainment, labour and concentration camps from long before the War - just like everyone else.

However, what the Nazis are better remembered for is the development and use of extermination camps. The purpose of these was not the temporary concentration or detainment of non-combatants, but their termination and subsequent physical disposal. The earliest of these was Auschwitz-Birkenau, which opened in 1940 as a labour camp and reportedly began exterminations a year later.

Concentration camps (Konzentrationslager; KL or KZ) were an integral feature of the Nazi regime between 1933 and 1945.

http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php?lang=en&ModuleId=10005263

March 1933

The concentration camp at Dachau is established.

http://www.chgs.umn.edu/Educational_Resources/Curriculum/Witness___Legacy_-_Educators__/Holocaust_Timeline_1933-_1939/holocaust_timeline_1933-_1939.html

I'll reply more later.

Mussolini was the one who was interested in North Africa - he even had Egyptian Lira printed up in expectation of an easy victory. Hitler’s interest was more a burden as he was forced to shore up Italy’s surprising limited military resources. Outside of Eastern expansion (and with the exception of Alsace-Lorraine), all his other territorial interests were short-term military goals, and not part of a concerted effort to conquer Europe. In short, most of his expansion was due to the fact that he had to for strategic military reasons, not because he wished to.

For the most part, Hitler's interest outside of the eastern expansionism, was down to resources and Military interests. yes. But Hitler also saw, with advice from his Generals, that capturing the Suez canal would reduce Britains capacity to resist their attacks. A large percentage of Resources needed to fuel the British war machine came through the Suez Canal from their colonies. Cutting the Suez Canal off, would have allowed Britain to be starved of resources , in conjunction with U-Boat attacks on shipping from the US.

But I agree it wasn't what he wanted. But Germany lacked any major resources. It needed to obtain massive resources especially tin, copper and oil for the running of its armies. Europe could only provide so much of that.

The Corinthian

Deleted User wrote:

For the most part, Hitler's interest outside of the eastern expansionism, was down to resources and Military interests. yes. But Hitler also saw, with advice from his Generals, that capturing the Suez canal would reduce Britains capacity to resist their attacks. A large percentage of Resources needed to fuel the British war machine came through the Suez Canal from their colonies. Cutting the Suez Canal off, would have allowed Britain to be starved of resources , in conjunction with U-Boat attacks on shipping from the US.

I think you’re exaggerating the strategic importance of Suez - by 1941 Britain had become almost completely reliant on supplies from the US and Canada and if Hitler had wanted to blockade Mediterranean traffic, it would have been a lot easier simply to have accepted Franco as an ally and bottleneck them at Gibraltar, TBH.

But I agree it wasn't what he wanted. But Germany lacked any major resources. It needed to obtain massive resources especially tin, copper and oil for the running of its armies. Europe could only provide so much of that.

All available in the Soviet Union in vast quantities.

Hmmm... this thread has gone very much off topic, methinks.

MG

Deleted User wrote:

http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php?lang=en&ModuleId=10005263

March 1933



http://www.chgs.umn.edu/Educational_Resources/Curriculum/Witness___Legacy_-_Educators__/Holocaust_Timeline_1933-_1939/holocaust_timeline_1933-_1939.html

I'll reply more later.

There is a difference between concentration camps and death camps. As far as I know the death camps were only established after Wannsee or perhaps just before it. The concentration camps woulld have seen plenty of murder but were not specifically death camps.

Getting back to the main topic, the concentration camps would have been known about in Ireland (certainly in government circles) but the death camps would not have been known about until later in the war. I would still argue that a moral imperative is unlikely to be deciding factor of any nations foreign policy and thus no shame attaches for pursuing a foreign policy of self interest.

true

The mass scale extermination of Jews and other "undesireables" did not start until after war commenced.
This is the point I was making, as someone asked about why did the allies join the war.

My second point , which someone else has just correctly made, is that there is a big difference between extermination camp and concentration camp. Dachau was not an exterminatin camp as such, even though I think something like 30,000 or so were killed / died of other causes there. Incidentally, in the museum on the way in, there are flags representing the various countries the inmates were from : practically every flag you ever saw is represented.

The numbers killed there were very small compared with the actual "extermination" camps.

sackville

MG wrote:

I would still argue that a moral imperative is unlikely to be deciding factor of any nations foreign policy and thus no shame attaches for pursuing a foreign policy of self interest.

Yes! didn't Stanley Kubrick once say something like " Big Countries behave like Gangsters,small one like whores"
weren't Norway, Denmark,Belgium, Holland, luxembourg, Finland all Neutral by choice - 'allied' only after invasion?

neutrality is every whores perogative, it seems.

Hmmm... this thread has gone very much off topic, methinks

Lol. want to continue this in the history/heritage section?

There is a difference between concentration camps and death camps. As far as I know the death camps were only established after Wannsee or perhaps just before it. The concentration camps woulld have seen plenty of murder but were not specifically death camps.

Fair enough. But the fact remains that the majority of people that entered the concentration cames never re-emerged. The only real difference was the construction of the Gas rooms for the extermination of the Jews. The concentration camps killed thousands through lack of food, disease, forced labour etc. There was the intended effort to introduce Typhus into camps as a way of killing off inmates. Still an effort towards genocide.

The mass scale extermination of Jews and other "undesireables" did not start until after war commenced.

Yes I agree. But in relation to my point about the allies, they knew of thge roundup of the undesirables. They knew the conditions that they lived and died in. And I daresay they knew the intentions of Hitler and his Nazi administration.

You see, some people here have stated that ignorance is no excuse, and as such Ireland's neutrality, based on ignorance of the Genocide, doesn't excuse us from feeling shame for that neutrality. The same goes for the Alllies but more so. They knew or suspected what was happening and what was going to happen, and they chose not to interfere. My point is that Ireland has no need to feel any shame, since, our more powerful cousins in europe failed to do anything themselves, until they were forced into war themselves.

Who knows? If Hitler hadn't invaded Poland, perhaps, Britain wouldn't have declared war, and Hitler would have continued his roundup without any interference.

The numbers killed there were very small compared with the actual "extermination" camps.

Probably so. I'm looking into it now. I'd like to see some estimates of camps being compared.

The Corinthian

sackville wrote:

weren't Norway, Denmark,Belgium, Holland, luxembourg, Finland all Neutral by choice - 'allied' only after invasion?

Actually Finland was an Axis member from 1941 to 1944.

Lemming

The Corinthian wrote:

Actually Finland was an Axis member from 1941 to 1944.

I believe Finland became an Axis member after the Russians tried to annex land from them and got a bloody nose for their troubles.

The Corinthian

Lemming wrote:

I believe Finland became an Axis member after the Russians tried to annex land from them and got a bloody nose for their troubles.

The USSR actually did manage to annex about 10% of Finland in what is known as the Winter war. In the peace that followed Finland allied herself to Germany, leading to the Continuation war of 1941 - 1944. Eventually Finland made peace with the USSR and turned on Germany in the closing stages of the war.

MG

Actually Finland is a perfect example of a country putting her national interest ahead of moral considerations. I think Finland was perfectly entitled to do this and there is a paralell with Irelands neutrality in so far as national interest drove foreign policy. I'd be interested to know if anyone thinks Finland was wrong in taking this approach.

I'd be interested to know if anyone thinks Finland was wrong in taking this approach.

Personally, I don't find anything wrong with it. There seems to be different rules out there for the big boys and then other rules for the small timers (which have been decided by the big boys).

When Britain constructed Concentration camps and rounded up whole villages, no nation really took any notice. To say anything was to confront the might of the British Empire.

the same went, when Russia attacked finland, with the desire to regain hereditary lands that were "owed" to Russia. The other powers ignored Finlands plight, and were suprised when the Russians were chewed up (initially at least).

Finland allied itself with the only nation capable or willing to protect them from Russian Expansionism. Maybe if Britain had been willing to help Finland, there wouldn't have been the need. After all, Britain only helped Poland because of a military alliance in effect. No such alliance was there to help Finland.

Finalnd only started receiving attention from the Allies when Russia needed to secure its flank when the counter-attack began. So its natural that Finland would do all in its power to preserve itself.

So Finland, the bad guys, for allying with Germany? No. I definetly don't think so.

MG

Deleted User wrote:

So Finland, the bad guys, for allying with Germany? No. I definetly don't think so.

I agree entirely. At the risk of going altogether off topic if Britain was acting altruistically and not out of self interest why did they only declare war on Germany for invading Poland and not on the Soviet Union?

Connecting back to the topic, I don't think any country acted for anything other than self interest in the war so we should not feel any shame for doing the same.

The Corinthian

MG wrote:

At the risk of going altogether off topic if Britain was acting altruistically and not out of self interest why did they only declare war on Germany for invading Poland and not on the Soviet Union?

Err.. because they were already at war with Germany by the time Germany invaded the Soviet Union?

Johnmb

The Corinthian wrote:

Err.. because they were already at war with Germany by the time Germany invaded the Soviet Union?

I think he means how come Britain declared war on Germany for invading Poland, but they didn't declare war on the Soviet Union for invading Poland.

MG

The Corinthian wrote:

Err.. because they were already at war with Germany by the time Germany invaded the Soviet Union?

Err......when the Soviet Union invaded Poland..........

The Corinthian

Upps

true

Johnmb wrote:

I think he means how come Britain declared war on Germany for invading Poland, but they didn't declare war on the Soviet Union for invading Poland.

Because Germany was an agressive invading evil regime, when it invaded Poland. The Soviets were common allies with Britain when the Soviets pushed the Germans back through Poland. British ships had supplied the Soviets with munitions on the arctic convoys.

After WW2 came the cold war, when Britain opposed Russia. Ireland was neutral yet again , even though it is clear we should not have been.

true

Deleted User wrote:

But in relation to my point about the allies, they knew of thge roundup of the undesirables. They knew the conditions that they lived and died in. And I daresay they knew the intentions of Hitler and his Nazi administration.

You see, some people here have stated that ignorance is no excuse, and as such Ireland's neutrality, based on ignorance of the Genocide, doesn't excuse us from feeling shame for that neutrality. The same goes for the Alllies but more so. They knew or suspected what was happening and what was going to happen, and they chose not to interfere. My point is that Ireland has no need to feel any shame, since, our more powerful cousins in europe failed to do anything themselves, until they were forced into war themselves.

.

You cannot have it both ways. You say the allies govt. knew but the Irish government did not know, ( Where did I hear this recently - oh yeah, the war on terror, the Northern bank job etc ).

Everyone knew in the thirties the Jews were being intimidated, boycotted, scapegoated etc and some were fleeing Germany. How many did Ireland let in ? A miserable sixty. The UK and US let in many, many more. The full extent of the concentration / extermination camps did not gradually become known to the Allies until 1943 / 1944 / 1945.

After the war, how many jewish refugees did we let in ? A miserable two hundred children, but then only on the condition that Jews living in Ireland had to support them , and they had to go again after two years.

Ireland can hang its head in shame for having such a government, and for having a leader that was uniquely infamous in signing a book of condolence on the death of Hitler.

arcadegame2004

Everyone knew in the thirties the Jews were being intimidated, boycotted, scapegoated etc and some were fleeing Germany. How many did Ireland let in ? A miserable sixty. The UK and US let in many, many more. The full extent of the concentration / extermination camps did not gradually become known to the Allies until 1943 / 1944 / 1945.

You say the US and UK let in many more. However, the US and the UK could have taken in a hell of a lot more than they did during the war, but did not. Roosevelt was apparently worried of losing votes due to a perception of jobs going to Jewish immigrants and this was likely the reason he didn't let in more. If the US and the UK really cared as much as they said about the Jews then they would have bombed the rail-lines leading to concentration-camps like Auschwitz. This would likely have saved many hundreds of thousands of lives. But no, they wait until after 6 million Jews have been exterminated. Please don't tell me that the UK and the US were committed to saving the Jews. They could have seriously reduced the numbers of Jews murdered by the Nazis but CHOSE not to.

After WW2, most Jews in Europe left for Israel anyway.

Ireland can hang its head in shame for having such a government, and for having a leader that was uniquely infamous in signing a book of condolence on the death of Hitler.

I am not responsible for the behaviour of the government of 60 years ago. But you are right that De Valera's condolences on Hitler's death were outrageous. I don't think though that the Irish people should be considered guilty of commiting all the acts of their leaders. I mean, would you hold the majority of Irish people responsible for the corruption arising from the revelations from the Tribunals? I don't feel we should. What did it have to do with me?!?! or most other people!?!?

ionapaul

Hmm, think True is still confused a little. Both Nazi Germany AND Soviet USSR invaded Poland in September 1939. The Soviets were not part of the Allies at this time.

The invasion of Poland by the Soviets in 1939 placed Britain in a very tricky situation; they had declared war on Germany to finally end the flawed policy of appeasement and show Hitler they meant business, but could not afford to alienate or become involved in a struggle with the Soviets. Luckily for the world Hitler's mad lust for expansion led him to attack the Soviets and draw their huge fighting resources to the Allied side.

As I have said earlier in this thread, it might have been a good idea for the Western Allies to re-equip the subdued Wehrmacht (Nazi-influence removed) in 1945 and together attack the Soviets and free the Eastern European and Central Asian nations of communism and Stalinism. Instead we got the Cold War and a wait of over 40 years for communism / Stalinism / Leninism / whatever to finally be overthrown.

The Corinthian

true wrote:

Because Germany was an agressive invading evil regime, when it invaded Poland. The Soviets were common allies with Britain when the Soviets pushed the Germans back through Poland. British ships had supplied the Soviets with munitions on the arctic convoys.

Germany was “an aggressive invading evil regime” and the Soviet Union wasn’t? And what would you call invading and annexing Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, a tenth of Finland and half of Poland then?

Additionally Britain was anything but an alley of the Soviet Union in 1939. Indeed, one of the reasons that Fascism gained support throughout between the World Wars was because it was considered preferable to Bolshevik Communism. Britain even sent troops in the early 1920’s to aid the anti-Communist elements in Russia’s bloody civil war.

After WW2 came the cold war, when Britain opposed Russia. Ireland was neutral yet again , even though it is clear we should not have been.

How was this clear? I don’t think you seem to understand the concept of neutrality.

After the war, how many jewish refugees did we let in ? A miserable two hundred children, but then only on the condition that Jews living in Ireland had to support them , and they had to go again after two years.

Rather than compare Ireland to the larger active participants of the war, why don’t you compare her to the smaller neutral nations before passing judgment?

Ireland can hang its head in shame for having such a government, and for having a leader that was uniquely infamous in signing a book of condolence on the death of Hitler.

It was correct diplomatic protocol for a country claiming to be either neutral or non-belligerent. Not to do so would have been immensely hypocritical. Spain, Switzerland and Sweden did much the same, TBH.

landser

true wrote:

Ireland can hang its head in shame for having such a government, and for having a leader that was uniquely infamous in signing a book of condolence on the death of Hitler.

i think the point here is that ireland, rightly or wrongly, was a neutral country during the war. therefore, the govt. sent a note of condolence to the german embassy on the death on the leader of that country, as per normal diplomatic etiquette. there's nothing shameful about it.

the level of knowledge we have now about concentration camps cannot be transferred back to the irish in 1945. we knew the camps existed, but few in europe knew what they were really about and no one knew about the level of killing that went on. it was unfortunate that the condolence was sent, but not shameful. either way, i cannot see how it is in any way relevant today.

DeV, did not sign a book of condolence, although the thought of a book of condolence being opened in the free state (as it then was) upon the death of hitler sounds like the beginning of a loyalist urban myth!

landser

true wrote:

Because Germany was an agressive invading evil regime, when it invaded Poland. The Soviets were common allies with Britain when the Soviets pushed the Germans back through Poland.

.

if this is areference to 1939, then it is factually incorrect. the soviets and the german foreign minister (ribbentropp) signed a non agression pact in 1938. it was agreed that upon the german invasion of the west of poland in 1939 that the soviets would invade poland in the east, and the country divided between them. part of the deal was that the soviets could then invade finland without germany coming to the aid of their ally. the soviets invaded finland in october '39.

the agreement was finally broken in june '41 and the commencement of operation barbarossa, when the germans invaded soviet held eastern poland

True

In regards to the Finland Question:

During World War II, the Axis came to include Slovakia (November 1940), Hungary (November 1940), Romania (November 1940), and Bulgaria (March 1941). Finland fought with Germany against the Soviet Union but did not sign the Tripartite Pact and was not technically part of the Axis alliance.
Yugoslavia joined the Axis alliance on March 25, 1941, but withdrew two days later after an anti-German coup. After Germany and its allies invaded and partitioned Yugoslavia, the newly established fascist satellite state of Croatia joined the Axis on June 15, 1941. Although an anti-democratic state sympathetic to the Axis, Spain refused either to join the Axis alliance or to enter the war with the Allies.

I can't remember where I got the quotation. Looking thru my bookmarks, but i wanted to post it anyway.

Point is, 1) Finalnd never became a true ally of Germany. 2) No fingers are pointing at the other members...

True wrote:

Because Germany was an agressive invading evil regime, when it invaded Poland.

Aggressive invading evil regime? You serious? What made them more evil than any other nation within the last 50 years that had invaded another nations borders.(Just assume the killing of undesirables is unknown)

below is a list of the wars since the 1900. Consider we're still talking abt a war 60 years ago, I only went 40 years back before WW2...

Second Boer War 1899-1902
Boxer Rebellion, 1900
Russo-Japanese War, 1904-1905
First World War, 1914 - 1918
Russo-Polish War, 1920
Graeco-Turkish War, 1920-1922
Spanish Civil War, 1936-1939
Sino-Japanese War 1937-1945

Germany invading Poland was no different than the other little war that had happened before. The only difference is in what was revealed later. At THAT time, there was no difference. I'm not defending the invasion of Poland by Germany, but I get tired of all this "evil" empire crap. At that time they were no different than Britain.

True wrote:

The Soviets were common allies with Britain when the Soviets pushed the Germans back through Poland. British ships had supplied the Soviets with munitions on the arctic convoys.

True enough. But the point remains that Russia partook in the splitting of spoils within Poland. It also took advantage of the invasion of Poland, by attacking Finland. It was only Hitler's invasion that changed Russia's stance. Personally, I'd say that if Hitler hadn't invaded, Stalin would have remained allies for the next 5 years plus.

True wrote:

After WW2 came the cold war, when Britain opposed Russia. Ireland was neutral yet again , even though it is clear we should not have been.

Again, I ask when was Ireland threatened by Russia? Why would Ireland need to stand against them? They're not evil afterall. They were part of the allies.

True wrote:

You cannot have it both ways. You say the allies govt. knew but the Irish government did not know, ( Where did I hear this recently - oh yeah, the war on terror, the Northern bank job etc ).

Sure I can. There is a large difference in what a superpowers government knows (Britain) and what a minor fledgling country (ireland) knows. But i'm sure they knew some of your next point.

True wrote:

Everyone knew in the thirties the Jews were being intimidated, boycotted, scapegoated etc and some were fleeing Germany.

Yes, they did know. Everyone knew that. It was just an advancement on what had been done for decades. Anti-semitism wasn't Hitlers creation.

True wrote:

How many did Ireland let in ? A miserable sixty. The UK and US let in many, many more. The full extent of the concentration / extermination camps did not gradually become known to the Allies until 1943 / 1944 / 1945.

ok. We let in sixty. Now look at these links for a bit. You might be suprised by the general attitude in the World at that time, and even after the war.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/holocaust/timeline/

http://www.ushmm.org/outreach/evichr.htm

http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php?lang=en&ModuleId=10005139

True wrote:

After the war, how many jewish refugees did we let in ? A miserable two hundred children, but then only on the condition that Jews living in Ireland had to support them , and they had to go again after two years.

See above links. Typical of the times.

ionapaul wrote:

The invasion of Poland by the Soviets in 1939 placed Britain in a very tricky situation; they had declared war on Germany to finally end the flawed policy of appeasement and show Hitler they meant business, but could not afford to alienate or become involved in a struggle with the Soviets. Luckily for the world Hitler's mad lust for expansion led him to attack the Soviets and draw their huge fighting resources to the Allied side.

It took two years for Russia to become Allies of Britain, and only when they themselves were being invaded.

Britain declared war because of its commitments to a previous alliance they had with Poland & France. It was not out of humanities sake. It was not peacekeeping. Otherwise, Russia would have been the enemy aswell as Germany in 1939.

landser wrote:

it was unfortunate that the condolence was sent, but not shameful. either way, i cannot see how it is in any way relevant today.

Ditto.

The Corinthian

Deleted User wrote:

Yes, they did know. Everyone knew that. It was just an advancement on what had been done for decades. Anti-semitism wasn't Hitlers creation.

Anti-Semitism was not Hitler’s creation, neither was it specifically a German thing (the Poles were often more than willing to assist in the rounding up of Polish Jews, for example). Given this Germanic society had long had a tendency towards anti-Semitism, for various religious and historical reasons (notably Lutheranism was famous for its founders anti-Semitic views, such as those published in his “On the Jews and Their Lies”).

Elsewhere in Europe, anti-Semitism was unusual or minimal. For example, Britain famously had a Jewish prime minister, Benjamin Disraeli, and ironically, in 1935, Carlo Ovazza, a Jew from Turin, founded "La Nostra Bandiera", a Italian-Jewish Fascist group.

ionapaul

Deleted User wrote:

Britain declared war because of its commitments to a previous alliance they had with Poland & France. It was not out of humanities sake. It was not peacekeeping. Otherwise, Russia would have been the enemy aswell as Germany in 1939.

Also, many in Britain were pro-Soviet in 1939, particularly in the press. As it turns out, a few of these were actually Soviet agents or being bribed by Stalin's intelligence community in Britain. So the German invasion of Poland was focused on more in the papers and the public's ire stirred accordingly. Also, Britain and France knew of Hitler's plans and warned him openly prior to the invasion that they would declare war if he attacked Poland.

I agree that they didn't declare war out of humanitarian concerns, but neither was it simply because of their treaty with Poland - both Britain and France could have simply ignored it to suit their purposes. As it was, they were completely unable to tangibly halt the German offensive in Poland. However, even those in the British government previously open to working with Hitler or following the policy of appeasement finally realised: Hitler was merely emboldened by appeasement and they were continually weakening their hand by allowing him to grab more and more land in Europe. They declared war to try to put a stop to his aggression - so 'peacekeeping' isn't too far off the mark I think.