About CZ : no one needed the help of CZ and no one could save CZ .Sid Guttridge wrote: ↑18 May 2021 12:54Hi gebhk,
You ask, "I am a little perplexed why you believe that Czechoslovakia was 'betrayed' but Poland was not. In my view either both were or neither was, though this is, perhaps, somewhat academic. After all, at least the Czechoslovaks were told that they were on their own from the start by the British and soon thereafter by the French. This allowed the Czechoslovak government to make fully informed decisions and, in my opinion, make the right ones - in the teeth of furious objections from their countrymen who mostly wanted to fight, one might add."
I would suggest that neither were betrayed, though the argument is somewhat semantic.
The French did not have to follow through on their defence obligations to Czechoslovakia because they strong armed the Czechs into conceding to German demands. Had the Czech refused to make these concessions and the Germans attacked and France had not gone to war on behalf of them, then betrayal would be a reasonable accusation.
However, the French did follow through on their central obligation to Poland by declaring war when it was attacked. Had Poland been attacked by Germany and France not declared war, then that would undoubtedly have been a betrayal. However, that is not what happened.
Had Poland just conceded to Germany's demands, then the French would presumably not have been at war in 1939. However, for what seems to me good reasons of national sovereignty and quite possibly of national existence, the Poles decided to stand and fight on the issue of the Corridor.
I would suggest that, with hindsight, a lot of countries, including both France and Poland, had waited too long to present a united front against Nazi Germany. I also think that everyone else was too reliant on a France with significant internal problems that could train only half the number of conscripts that Germany could. Germany was a giant in continental Europe, having twice the population of any other state outside the USSR. Only a powerful combination could contain it and this was not forthcoming until both the USSR and USA were in the war.
About the ''alliance '' between France and CZ : France would only act if the disappearance of CZ (which France knew would be the result of Munich ) was a danger for France .
What was in it for France in the alliance with CZ ? The answer is : NOTHING .
When Germany was weak, CZ was not needed . When Germany was strong, the intervention of CZ would not save France .
What was the benefit for CZ to have France as ally ?
If Germany was weak, the help of France was not needed . If Germany was strong, the intervention of France would not save CZ.
It was the same for Poland .
France would have fought in 1938 if Germany attacked CZ,although it would not be in the interest of France : France had mobilized to prevent a war .If there was a war, France would not demobilize and return to business as usual : the influence of the snowflakes was too strong .
It was the same a year later for Poland .
The French DOW in September 1939 had nothing to do with its ''alliance '' with Poland, but was caused by snowflake, moral reasons .
It would have been the same in 1938 .
There was almost a war in 1935 when Italy invaded Ethiopia which had no alliance with France .
In 1914 Britain had no alliance with France but still helped France .
Countries do not declare war /do not fight because of treaties/alliances,which are only pieces of paper, but if it is in their interest or for moral reasons .
Britain had no alliance with SK in 1950 and Australia had no alliance with South Vietnam , but still they sent troops to fight .