De Gaulle and French betrayal of Poland in Semptember 1939

[Gorque]

I am not a NY Times subscriber.
From post 474, can anyone post the articles from 31 March 1933 and 21 Aug 1933?

Here's the second one requested, 21 August 1933:

Duranty Augist 1933-1.PNG

Duranty Augist 1933-2.PNG

Duranty Augist 1933-3.PNG

[Gorque]

Just prior to Duranty's report of 21 August 1933 is the following:

8-21-33-1.PNG

8-21-33-2.PNG

[ljadw]

So basically what you are saying is that you have no evidence to counter the fact that Drax was chosen as a member of a military delegation to seek a deal with the Soviets despite my having provided proof to you. Good to know!

The military delegation had not as aim to seek a deal with the Soviets .

And your evidence to support your position is....where?

C'mon Ludo, I've provided three articles and you've provided....ZERO.

Articles from the NYT are not proofs, but claims .

Articles from ANY newspaper consist of observations of the events unfolding as seen/heard by the reporter as well as verbatim statements i.e. quotations, made to the reporter.

PS: I never stated that the articles are "proofs" only that I had PROVIDED three articles to your none.

The difference is that I know enough about the media to know that articles of newspapers are mostly worthless ,especially from American newspapers about events outside the US..
And ,it is not so that articles from any newspaper consists of observations of the events seen/heard by the reporter /quotations made to the reporter : what Duranty, Fischer, Dale and countless others were writing were not such things : a reporter does not write what he heard or saw or what one told him,but what his boss WANTS to read, thus NOT the truth .
Reporters are not better than politicians .
And I have provided already the following article you can find on Wiki by googling :Reginald Drax
'' The Soviets did not take the delegation seriously,because Drax did not have ANY POWER (my emphasis ) to negotiate without the approval of the British government,rendering him next to powerless.''
And when Stalin asked how many divisions Britain could commit,the answer was TWO .
Do you think that Stalin was that stupid ?
Besides,even with 20 divisions,the answer would be negative,because of the existence of Poland .
And even if Poland did not exist, the answer would remain negative ,as there was no reason for Stalin to prevent/to intervene in a capitalist civil war .
Every serious historian knew that there would be no Grand Alliance and that the mission was only Keeping up Appearances .And Chamberlain knew this also : why do you think that the mission consisted of second rang persons?

[Gorque]

The military delegation had not as aim to seek a deal with the Soviets .

And your evidence to support your position is....where?

C'mon Ludo, I've provided three articles and you've provided....ZERO.

Articles from the NYT are not proofs, but claims .

Articles from ANY newspaper consist of observations of the events unfolding as seen/heard by the reporter as well as verbatim statements i.e. quotations, made to the reporter.

PS: I never stated that the articles are "proofs" only that I had PROVIDED three articles to your none.

The difference is that I know enough about the media to know that articles of newspapers are mostly worthless ,especially from American newspapers about events outside the US..
And ,it is not so that articles from any newspaper consists of observations of the events seen/heard by the reporter /quotations made to the reporter : what Duranty, Fischer, Dale and countless others were writing were not such things : a reporter does not write what he heard or saw or what one told him,but what his boss WANTS to read, thus NOT the truth .
Reporters are not better than politicians .
And I have provided already the following article you can find on Wiki by googling :Reginald Drax
'' The Soviets did not take the delegation seriously,because Drax did not have ANY POWER (my emphasis ) to negotiate without the approval of the British government,rendering him next to powerless.''
And when Stalin asked how many divisions Britain could commit,the answer was TWO .
Do you think that Stalin was that stupid ?
Besides,even with 20 divisions,the answer would be negative,because of the existence of Poland .
And even if Poland did not exist, the answer would remain negative ,as there was no reason for Stalin to prevent/to intervene in a capitalist civil war .
Every serious historian knew that there would be no Grand Alliance and that the mission was only Keeping up Appearances .And Chamberlain knew this also : why do you think that the mission consisted of second rang persons?

You forgot to add that you are also expert in tooting your own horn. More blah, blah.

[ljadw]

Why did the mission consist of insignificant second rang persons ?

[Terry Duncan]

Please stop the bickering as per David's warning from earlier.

As for 'second rank people', as the Foreign Secretary would be the 'first rank' and it would be highly unusual for such a person to take a trip abroad to discuss the possibility of a deal, it is somewhat common for others to be sent to sound out other governments on what the chances of an agreement are and what form they might take. Until that point, diplomatic agreements had very seldom been arranged so quickly as the Nazi-Soviet pact.

[ljadw]

A year before ,the PM went to Munich .In 1939 he did not go to Moscow ,the civilian leader of the delegation was a man of whom the Foreign Secretary said : ''he is not balanced ''and of whom the PM said that he was hostile to his policy .
The military leader of the British delegation to discuss a land war,was an unknown admiral who had not the power to make decisions without the approval of London .One can easily imagine the deplorable effect in Moscow of the news that a British delegation of second rang people would go by boat to Moscow .

The Germans ,OTOH,sent their foreign secretary to Moscow . In 1936 the French sent their PM to Moscow : Laval .But the deal he made with Stalin remained meaningless as Poland refused the help of the USSR .
And Whitehall knew very well that if the Soviets were willing to intervene, they could not intervene and that if they could intervene,they would not intervene .

[Gorque]

The difference is that I know enough about the media to know that articles of newspapers are mostly worthless ,especially from American newspapers about events outside the US..

I see, you only believe those newspapers that trumpet your own worldview. Are you truly serious with this remark?

The last two snippets I provided regarding the famine, were reported from two differing viewpoints, one from a reporter stating travel restrictions and reports of hardships from the effected areas and the other from Moscow, reporting what the official state organs were saying as well as his own observations. My understanding is that within the grain-producing areas, famine conditions existed as the grains were shipped either to the cities or abroad in exchange for machinery and equipment. If the above is correct, then both reports should be fairly accurate due to their differences in locations.

And ,it is not so that articles from any newspaper consists of observations of the events seen/heard by the reporter /quotations made to the reporter : what Duranty, Fischer, Dale and countless others were writing were not such things : a reporter does not write what he heard or saw or what one told him,but what his boss WANTS to read, thus NOT the truth .
Reporters are not better than politicians .

You'll need to provide documentary evidence to support the above position. Without any proof, the above is just an unsupported opinion.

And I have provided already the following article you can find on Wiki by googling :Reginald Drax
'' The Soviets did not take the delegation seriously,because Drax did not have ANY POWER (my emphasis ) to negotiate without the approval of the British government,rendering him next to powerless.''
And when Stalin asked how many divisions Britain could commit,the answer was TWO .

Until Drax arrived, the Soviets did not know if Drax was granted plenipotentiary powers, otherwise they would not have asked if he did. Therefor, your statement "The Soviets did not take the delegation seriously" is logically false.

Besides,even with 20 divisions,the answer would be negative,because of the existence of Poland .
And even if Poland did not exist, the answer would remain negative ,as there was no reason for Stalin to prevent/to intervene in a capitalist civil war .

I can think of a great reason to intervene, keeping a buffer country between two powerful states with diametrically opposed ideologies. There was no love lost between the governments of the Third Reich and the Soviet Union.

Every serious historian knew that there would be no Grand Alliance and that the mission was only Keeping up Appearances .And Chamberlain knew this also : why do you think that the mission consisted of second rang persons?

Terry Duncan has answered this one.

[Gorque]

A year before ,the PM went to Munich .In 1939 he did not go to Moscow ,

Also in attendance at Munich was Benito Mussolini, the leader of Italy, Adolf Hitler, the leader of Germany, and Édouard Daladier, the Prime Minister of France. I believe the reason for the dispatching of three high-ranking military officials was to lay the groundwork for military cooperation as far as the British were concerned.

the civilian leader of the delegation was a man of whom the Foreign Secretary said : ''he is not balanced ''and of whom the PM said that he was hostile to his policy .

Are you quoting Anthony Eden or Lord Halifax?

The military leader of the British delegation to discuss a land war,was an unknown admiral who had not the power to make decisions without the approval of London .One can easily imagine the deplorable effect in Moscow of the news that a British delegation of second rang people would go by boat to Moscow .

Admiral Sir Reginald Aylmer Ranfurly Plunkett-Ernle-Erle-Drax was certainly not an unknown admiral, if just for his last name alone!

[wm]

Munich was a last-ditch effort when hours mattered - so obviously, heads of governments had to take care of that.
The usual everyday negotiations were conducted by ambassadors or (sometimes) special envoys, as in this case.

The pre-ww2 newspapers, British, American, or Polish, were impressively informative, and even more impressive was the clarity of writing.
We don't have that today.
Today's NYT is a useless politicized swamp compared to its pre-war predecessor.

[ljadw]

A year before ,the PM went to Munich .In 1939 he did not go to Moscow ,

Also in attendance at Munich was Benito Mussolini, the leader of Italy, Adolf Hitler, the leader of Germany, and Édouard Daladier, the Prime Minister of France. I believe the reason for the dispatching of three high-ranking military officials was to lay the groundwork for military cooperation as far as the British were concerned.

the civilian leader of the delegation was a man of whom the Foreign Secretary said : ''he is not balanced ''and of whom the PM said that he was hostile to his policy .

Are you quoting Anthony Eden or Lord Halifax?

The military leader of the British delegation to discuss a land war,was an unknown admiral who had not the power to make decisions without the approval of London .One can easily imagine the deplorable effect in Moscow of the news that a British delegation of second rang people would go by boat to Moscow .

Admiral Sir Reginald Aylmer Ranfurly Plunkett-Ernle-Erle-Drax was certainly not an unknown admiral, if just for his last name alone!

It was Eden who said that Vansittart was not balance as Vansittart was fired before Halifax become Foreign Secretary .
And, an other thing about the Mission to Moscow in 1939 :
The British representatives had been instructed to ''go very slowly ......Agreement on the many points raised may take months to achieve.''
Source : Instructions to British military representatives,August 1939.British Foreign Policy,VI,appendix V .
Quoted by A.Taylor on P 546 of English History 1914-1945 .
And Taylor continues on the same page :'' The British Government in fact were still chalking a Red bogey on the wall in the hope that Hitler would then run away .''
Britain and France wanted no alliance with the Soviets .
Poland wanted no alliance with the Soviets .
The Soviets wanted no alliance with Poland,Britain, France
On Page 548 Taylor wrote the following
'' The British Government failed to secure alliance with Soviet Russia .They failed to convince Hitler that they would convince him .They failed to win him with plans of appeasement .''
And '
'' Hitler blundered in supposing that he could attack Poland without provoking Britain and France .''
And :
'' The Soviets blundered in imagining that Britain and France were strong enough to hold the balance against Germany and that therefore they were free to choose w'hether to come in or to stay out . ''

[ljadw]

Munich was a last-ditch effort when hours mattered - so obviously, heads of governments had to take care of that.
The usual everyday negotiations were conducted by ambassadors or (sometimes) special envoys, as in this case.

The pre-ww2 newspapers, British, American, or Polish, were impressively informative, and even more impressive was the clarity of writing.
We don't have that today.
Today's NYT is a useless politicized swamp compared to its pre-war predecessor.

Did these impressively informative newspapers knew that Drax had received the instruction to go very slowly ?
Why did they not say that there were no proofs that the chief of the Tcheka and the commander of the army did conspire against Stalin .
Clarity of writing ??
On March 30 1933 the NYT wrote :
'' There is no actual starvation or deaths from starvation,but there is widespread mortality from diseases due to malnutrition .''
I do not call this clarity of writing .
The pre-ww2 newspapers were as bad as the present ones : the British Times censured articles that were critical to Germany . The NYT articles that were critical to the USSR .

[wm]

Poland wanted no alliance with the Soviets .

Cable from the Minister of Foreign Affairs to the Embassy in London on possible Polish-Soviet military cooperation
Warsaw, 23 August 1939
Cipher cable No. 230
Secret
[...]
I declared that the Polish government did not believe in the effectiveness of these tactical interventions, but we worked out a formula to make the situation of the French-English delegation easier.
With this I repeated, for internal use, our reservations about Soviet troops marching through Poland.
The formula would be that the French and English staffs are certain that, in the event of common action against aggressors, cooperation between the USSR and Poland, on conditions that remain to be defined, cannot be ruled out.
Given this, the staffs consider it necessary to conduct an analysis of all hypotheses with the Soviet staff.
[...]
I reiterated once again the indecency of the Soviets discussing our affairs with France and England without turning to us.
Beck

[wm]

On March 30 1933 the NYT wrote :
'' There is no actual starvation or deaths from starvation,but there is widespread mortality from diseases due to malnutrition .''
I do not call this clarity of writing .

Double false + creative citation.
It wasn't the NYT but their correspondent.
And it wasn't according to the NYT but "according to the Russians and foreign observers."

[Gorque]

A year before ,the PM went to Munich .In 1939 he did not go to Moscow ,

Also in attendance at Munich was Benito Mussolini, the leader of Italy, Adolf Hitler, the leader of Germany, and Édouard Daladier, the Prime Minister of France. I believe the reason for the dispatching of three high-ranking military officials was to lay the groundwork for military cooperation as far as the British were concerned.

the civilian leader of the delegation was a man of whom the Foreign Secretary said : ''he is not balanced ''and of whom the PM said that he was hostile to his policy .

Are you quoting Anthony Eden or Lord Halifax?

The military leader of the British delegation to discuss a land war,was an unknown admiral who had not the power to make decisions without the approval of London .One can easily imagine the deplorable effect in Moscow of the news that a British delegation of second rang people would go by boat to Moscow .

Admiral Sir Reginald Aylmer Ranfurly Plunkett-Ernle-Erle-Drax was certainly not an unknown admiral, if just for his last name alone!

It was Eden who said that Vansittart was not balance as Vansittart was fired before Halifax become Foreign Secretary .

Eden wasn't the FS in 1939. His opinion of Vansittart, after he stepped down, was then rendered meaningless as the current FS didn't share it.

And, an other thing about the Mission to Moscow in 1939 :
The British representatives had been instructed to ''go very slowly ......Agreement on the many points raised may take months to achieve.''
Source : Instructions to British military representatives,August 1939.British Foreign Policy,VI,appendix V .
Quoted by A.Taylor on P 546 of English History 1914-1945 .
And Taylor continues on the same page :'' The British Government in fact were still chalking a Red bogey on the wall in the hope that Hitler would then run away .''

This was already supplied. See my post # 460

Britain and France wanted no alliance with the Soviets .

I disagree. Britain and France, without Soviet assistance, could not assure Poland's territorial integrity.

Poland wanted no alliance with the Soviets .

Poland wanted no alliance whereby Soviet troops entered their territory, however they would have accepted Soviets armaments and other aid.

The Soviets wanted no alliance with Poland,Britain, France

I disagree. If the Soviets didn't want an alliance why did Maisky visit London in May and why did the Soviets agree to meet with Drax and company in August? Stalin knew he had a winning hand with Poland and was seeing who would provide him with the better offer.

On Page 548 Taylor wrote the following
'' The British Government failed to secure alliance with Soviet Russia .They failed to convince Hitler that they would convince him .They failed to win him with plans of appeasement .''
And '
'' Hitler blundered in supposing that he could attack Poland without provoking Britain and France .''
And :
'' The Soviets blundered in imagining that Britain and France were strong enough to hold the balance against Germany and that therefore they were free to choose w'hether to come in or to stay out . ''

No argument with the above assessment.