De Gaulle and French betrayal of Poland in Semptember 1939

[gebhk]

So basically, your evidence for yor claim that every person in Poland did not believe that Hitler would attack is the fact that she did not ask to become the Polish Soviet Socialist Republic of the USSR and otherwise only partially conformed to what she should have done in your opinion (as you know Poland did hane an Alliance with France, she did ask units of the RAF and the L'Armee de l'Air to be stationed on Poland and part of the army was mobilised). Not exactly convincing is it? I am afraid your opinions are not evidence.

[gebhk]

Why is that? Wasn't the projects badly managed and that promising aircraft designer killed climbing some stupid mountain?

I think this was done to death in "Why Polish Air Force kept old parasol fighters up to 1939?".

To be pedantic, Nowkunski was an engine designer rather than an aircraft designer per se, abeit his main contribution was in aircraft engine design. However, I don't see how even if he had lived, thast would have materially led to the miraculous development of a latest-generation fighter aircraft.

[ljadw]

So basically, your evidence for yor claim that every person in Poland did not believe that Hitler would attack is the fact that she did not ask to become the Polish Soviet Socialist Republic of the USSR and otherwise only partially conformed to what she should have done in your opinion (as you know Poland did hane an Alliance with France, she did ask units of the RAF and the L'Armee de l'Air to be stationed on Poland and part of the army was mobilised). Not exactly convincing is it? I am afraid your opinions are not evidence.

Poland knew that the only way to prevent war (IF Hitler's threats were serious ) were counter threats from the West and the Soviets ,NOT that they would help Poland,but that they would attack Germany AFTER the defeat of Poland .For Hitler, these threats were only bluff .And ,was he wrong ?
The West,nor the Soviets could prevent war .
Poland knew that if there was war with Germany, she would be defeated, unless she would have the help of the West and the Soviets .
The West could and would not prevent the defeat of Poland .
Neither could /would the Soviets,as Poland refused any Soviet intervention and as the Soviets had no reason to intervene .The West told the Soviets : we (allies of Poland ) will not fight and you (enemy of Poland ) will do the fighting against POLAND and against Hitler to prevent Hitler from occupying Poland ,while Hitler told the Soviets : you can have Eastern Poland for free .
And the Soviet Union could and would not prevent the defeat of Poland .
No wonder that the Poles convinced themselves that Hitler was bluffing and that he would not risk a war with the Soviet Union to get back Posen and West Prussia .
The only one who could prevent war and prevent a Polish defeat if there was war,was Stalin and he had NO reason at all to do it .And if he had any reason to do it, he could not as Poland would refuse any help from Stalin .
And :what happened between November 1938 and August 1939 ? NOTHING, NOTHING at all .
The only thing that happened was Hitler yelling that he wanted back what Germany lost in 1918 and Poland saying : NO and the West yelling : if you attack Poland we will destroy Germany and the Soviets will help us and the Soviets remaining silent .
And : NO ONE did anything : the West continued to bluff, Poland continued to bluff,Hitler continued to bluff and Stalin remained silent,waiting on the arrival of someone with a serious offer.And someone came : Ribbentrop . Not Beck, not Halifax,not Bonnet .
Reality is that Poland had the choice between becoming a German satellite or a Soviet satellite . It refused both choices and the result was that it first became a German colony and later a Soviet satellite .

[ljadw]

Other reason why no one believed the tabloid stories of Hitler attacking Poland : Stalin's position was much better than Hitler'position, but still, Stalin did nothing, although no one could prevent him from attacking Poland/although no one could help Poland if he attacked her, but Stalin did nothing .
If Stalin did nothing ( Molotov did not go to Berlin ),why would Hitler attack,as Hitler.s position was more perilous than that of Stalin ?
And, other proof : we KNOW that in March 1939 Hitler did not have the intention to attack Poland .

[ljadw]

So basically, your evidence for yor claim that every person in Poland did not believe that Hitler would attack is the fact that she did not ask to become the Polish Soviet Socialist Republic of the USSR and otherwise only partially conformed to what she should have done in your opinion (as you know Poland did hane an Alliance with France, she did ask units of the RAF and the L'Armee de l'Air to be stationed on Poland and part of the army was mobilised). Not exactly convincing is it? I am afraid your opinions are not evidence.

The First Polish-French Alliance did NOT require France to send troops or to declare war if Poland was attacked .
Source : Piotr Stefan Wandycz : France and her eastern allies 1919-1925 ....
Even Foch was against an alliance with Poland .The Second Alliance was ratified on September 4 1939, only .
Poland did not ask France/Britain for an alliance,treaty with as content that these countries would declare war on Germany ,attack Germany, send troops/aid to Poland if Germany attacked Poland .
The reasons are
1 France and Britain would not sign such an alliance .
2 If they still did,it would not prevent Poland from being defeated .
3 The only one who could prevent war and defeat of Poland,was Stalin .
4 As Hitler (for whom there was only one good communist = a dead one ) would not sign a deal with Stalin (for whom there was only one good Nazi = a dead one ),and as without such a deal Germany could not attack Poland, Hitler was only bluffing and Poland was safe .

[wm]

Even if They Go Alone.png

[gebhk]

I am afraid your opinions and assumptions are not evidence.

The First Polish-French Alliance did NOT require France to send troops or to declare war if Poland was attacked .

It is absurd to claim that the failure of France to give certain specific gurantees proves that Poland had convinced itself that Hitler would not attack. The same goes for what Foch was for or against.

Poland did not ask France/Britain for an alliance,treaty with as content that these countries would declare war on Germany ,attack Germany, send troops/aid to Poland if Germany attacked Poland .

Here you seem to be creating alternative history. What do you think the inter-staff talks were about?

[ljadw]

The inter-staff talks were talks between military and there is no proof that the Polish military asked the French military for a DOW,for attacking Germany,for sending troops/aid . The French military could not promise this .
About the First Polish/French Alliance : the FACT that it did not require France to send troops or to declare war if Poland was attacked,does not indicate a French failure : to prove that there was a French failure, you have to PROVE that Poland asked France to send troops or to declare war and that France refused .
And: the First alliance was not directed against Germany ,but against Germany and he USSR .
Foch was against the alliance because
1 the alliance could involve France in a war which was not in the interest of France : war between Poland and Lithuania, between Poland and the Czechs, between Poland and the Soviets .
2 the aid Poland could give to France if this was attacked by Germany was a joke: Germany had not the force to attack France in 1921 and Poland was to weak to do it and had no interest to do it .
Both treaties and the Guarantee were only meaningless blah blah : the second one was approved by the French politicians only on 4 September 1939 and Gamelin did not start the Saar offensive because there was a( not ratified ) military deal ,but because Germany attacked Poland : he would also have started the Saar offensive without the second alliance,of if Hitler had attacked an other country .
France had no obligations to Poland (thus there was no French betrayal ) and did not fight for Poland,but against Germany .
The same for Britain .

[ljadw]

Even if They Go Alone.png

This proves that R-S was an imbecile who did not know what he was talking about : if Poland started a war because Germany annexed Danzig,the West would not help her. Remember what Austen Chamberlain said about the Polish Corridor .That Danzig was necessary for Poland is also wrong : Poland had its own port : Gdynia. And the Polish marshal knew very well that if there was a war,he could not expect any help from the Soviets.Neither from Romania or Hungary :and the facts proved that he was wrong : Hungary, Romania,the Soviets did not help Poland .
There is also the fact that the NYT proved its total incompetence by publishing a sensational declaration from a man who did NOT decide Poland's policy .
Last point : the article was published on July 17 when there was still no danger for a German attack (Fall Weiss was scheduled for 22 August IF a treaty with the Soviets was possible ).
The Polish marshal should have remained silent instead of keeping declarations for which there was no reason .
And you know who was Mary Heaton Vorse ? Compared to her,Shirer was a genius .

[wm]

That doesn't make what he said untrue.
What he said was factually correct - speculations and name-calling can't change it.

There was nothing wrong with deterrence - all he said could be reduced to this term. It was no different from what the Swiss were doing.
But deterrence comes at a high cost if it fails - he was aware of that and ready to pay the price.

a man who did NOT decide Poland's policy

You really don't know anything about the period judging by that nonsense.

[Gorque]

And you know who was Mary Heaton Vorse ? Compared to her,Shirer was a genius .

When one can't argue against the facts presented, then attack the messenger, eh?

The postman must just love you when you receive your credit-card bill in January!!!

[gebhk]

About the First Polish/French Alliance : the FACT that it did not require France to send troops or to declare war if Poland was attacked,does not indicate a French failure : to prove that there was a French failure, you have to PROVE that Poland asked France to send troops or to declare war and that France refused .

I have no interest in arguing semantics with you, especially when the basis of your argument is reinvention of the English language. On the other hand I don't have to prove anything with regard to declaration of war and the sending of troops. A simple reading of the Polish proposal of 25.11.1920, Sosnkowski's proposal (17 clauses) of 1921 and the final draft of the military convention shows quite explicitly that Poland asked for the sending of troops and DOW and that these requests were either discounted (DOW) or explicitly rejected (troops).

it is documented fact that Poland asked France and Brtiain in 1939 (and even earlier in the case of France) for combat squadrons of their respective air forces to be based in Poland. This time, however, France and Britain agreed and practical arrangements were well in hand when war began. It is therefore absurd to claim that the request was never made.

[gebhk]

The inter-staff talks were talks between military and there is no proof that the Polish military asked the French military for a DOW,for attacking Germany,for sending troops/aid .

There is copious evidence in the minutes of the meetings and accounts of participants. Albeit, I don't know why I am even engaging with this nonsense, because even if the inter-staff talks were about the Man in the Moon and the consistency of squirrel droppings (after all what else would you talk about if you were having meetings called specifically to discuss a war with Germany?) it has little evidentiary bearing on whether

Poland was convinced/convinced itself that Hitler was bluffing.

So, any actual evidence? Or will there be just more pages of unrelated speculation based on faulty premises?

[wm]

24 March. Record of the speech of the Minister of Foreign Affairs made during a political briefing at his office on 24 March 1939
SECRET

MINISTER: The tension of the situation requires an investigation of the whole complex of problems.
The situation is serious and it cannot be ignored. And it is serious because one of the elements hitherto timely for the definition of the state's situation, that is, Germany, has lost its calculability, with which it was endowed even amidst difficult problems.

Therefore a number of new elements have appeared in our politics and a number of new problems in the state. As far as the basic line of action is concerned, a straight and clear line has been established with the top factors in the state. We defined with precision the limits of our direct interests, and beyond this line we conduct a normal policy and undertake action dealing with it as with normal current work.
Below this line comes our Polish non possumus. This is clear: we will fight.
Once the matter is put this way, chaos is overcome by a considerable share of calm, and thinking becomes orderly.

Where is the line? It is our territory, but not only that. The line also involves the non-acceptance by our state, regarding the drastic spot that Danzig has always been, of any unilateral suggestion to be imposed on us. And, regardless of what Danzig is worth as an object (in my opinion it may perhaps be worth quite a lot, but this is of no concern at the moment), under the present circumstances it has become a symbol. This means that, if we join that category of eastern states that allow rules to be dictated to them, then I do not know where the matter will end.
That is why it is wiser to go forward to meet the enemy than to wait for him at home.
Polish Documents on Foreign Policy. 24 October 1938 – 30 September 1939

[ljadw]

That doesn't make what he said untrue.
What he said was factually correct - speculations and name-calling can't change it.

There was nothing wrong with deterrence - all he said could be reduced to this term. It was no different from what the Swiss were doing.
But deterrence comes at a high cost if it fails - he was aware of that and ready to pay the price.

a man who did NOT decide Poland's policy

You really don't know anything about the period judging by that nonsense.

After the Polish defeat, Rydz said :after the death of Pilsudski,the condition of the army was catastrophic.There was no money for fortifications,we could not afford the partial mobilization.The nation hated it .Thousand Silesians deserted to Germany .
If he knew this before the war, he should have kept his mouth shut,instead of doing incendiary declarations who only made him a fool .
And, is it not true that Rydz did not determine Poland's policy and that there was thus no reason for the crypto-communist US journalist to interview him ? Why she did not interview Beck ?Maybe he wanted not to wast his time with answering the questions of a biased and incompetent US journalist ?
The content of the interview was at the level of the first class of a primary school.