De Gaulle and French betrayal of Poland in Semptember 1939

[wm]

The French did not need Poland,Poland did not exist in 1914 . Thus , why would they need that the Poles would sacrifice themselves for the glory of France .
If the Poles thought that the French would save them if Germany attacked them , they were incapables . But they did not think this, because they knew ( as everyone in and outside Europe ) that
A The French never had the intention to save Poland .
B That the French had not the means to save Poland .
For the French, the treaty with Poland had only one aim : if France was attacked, Poland would help her .The opposite was impossible .
For Poland ,the reality was that If Germany/or the USSR attacked her, Poland would cease to be a sovereign state, even if the attacker was defeated .
Germany was defeated and Poland became automatically a Soviet satellite for more than 40 years .
If the USSR was defeated ,the future of Poland would have been even worse .
What you are calling ,wrongly, French lies ,was irrelevant : France could not and would not save Poland .

The Poles didn't ask for any of these.
You are constantly creating strawmen: that the French had no means to save Poland or some reality was needed. Who cared?

The Poles didn't ask for vigorous air actions or major offensives.
The fact is the French invited the Poles to France, told them a bunch of lies, even put the lies down on paper, and then sent the Poles home. That's all.

[ljadw]

If it were lies, which they were not, the Poles had no objection to these lies ,which invalidate your point .

[ljadw]

The French did not need Poland,Poland did not exist in 1914 . Thus , why would they need that the Poles would sacrifice themselves for the glory of France .
If the Poles thought that the French would save them if Germany attacked them , they were incapables . But they did not think this, because they knew ( as everyone in and outside Europe ) that
A The French never had the intention to save Poland .
B That the French had not the means to save Poland .
For the French, the treaty with Poland had only one aim : if France was attacked, Poland would help her .The opposite was impossible .
For Poland ,the reality was that If Germany/or the USSR attacked her, Poland would cease to be a sovereign state, even if the attacker was defeated .
Germany was defeated and Poland became automatically a Soviet satellite for more than 40 years .
If the USSR was defeated ,the future of Poland would have been even worse .
What you are calling ,wrongly, French lies ,was irrelevant : France could not and would not save Poland .

The Poles didn't ask for any of these.
You are constantly creating strawmen: that the French had no means to save Poland or some reality was needed. Who cared?

The Poles didn't ask for vigorous air actions or major offensives.
The fact is the French invited the Poles to France, told them a bunch of lies, even put the lies down on paper, and then sent the Poles home. That's all.

WM: you have a weird idea of what is a lie : even if in May Gamelin said A,and did in September B (which is not true ) ,that does not mean that what he said was a lie .It would only be a lie if he had decided in May to do B in September but told the Poles that he would do A .
Lie depends on the intention,and as an intention is almost impossible to prove ......

[ljadw]

About the protocol Gamelin-Kasprzycki,one can read the following on P 832 0f ''Contre-Témoignages sur une catastrophe ''par P.E.Caton
1 : La France execute immédiatement une action aérienne d'áprés un plan fixé a l'ávance .
France will execute immediately an aerial action following a plan made in advance .
One will note that Gamelin did not say when this would happen : he said : immediately, he did not say : on 1 September, or 2 days after the Declaration of war , or 10 days ,etc ..And no one in Poland objected .
One will also note that Gamelin did not say what would mean this aerial action : he did not say that it would mean air attacks on Germany .
Thus, there is no justification for the claims that he lied and betrayed Poland .
For Gamelin ( who was educated by the Jesuits ) and his political masters ( who were not educated by the Jesuits ) France was only obliged to do what it said it would do ,nothing more .Gamelin did not say that the French air force would attack targets in Germany, thus one can not say that he lied when the French air force did not attack targets in Germany .

[RG]

About the protocol Gamelin-Kasprzycki,one can read the following on P 832 0f ''Contre-Témoignages sur une catastrophe ''par P.E.Caton
1 : La France execute immédiatement une action aérienne d'áprés un plan fixé a l'ávance .
France will execute immediately an aerial action following a plan made in advance .
One will note that Gamelin did not say when this would happen : he said : immediately, he did not say : on 1 September, or 2 days after the Declaration of war , or 10 days ,etc ..And no one in Poland objected .

Meaning of immediately according to Cambridge dictionary:

now or without waiting or thinking:

[gebhk]

It would only be a lie if he had decided in May to do B in September but told the Poles that he would do A .
Lie depends on the intention,and as an intention is almost impossible to prove ......

Now that is a somewhat dangerous path to follow because the fact is that France had agreed with Britain in March-May that in the event of war, the Western Front would remain, basically, passive. This was the intention at the time of the talks with Kasprzycki and there is not the slightest hint that that intention changed after the talks (ie the plans remained the same). This was not communicated to Kasprzycki and was not known in Poland, so at the very least the French were being very economical with the truth. At what point passive 'economy with the truth' becomes active mendacity has perplexed philosophers since the dawn of time, so I have no wish to continue that ageless debate here - albeit, since we will probably never know what was said in private, the possibility of the latter cannot be excluded entirely. It does, again, highlight the counterpoductivity of bringing emotive anthopomorhic language into discussions about political history.

Regarding

La France execute immédiatement une action aérienne d'áprés un plan fixé a l'ávance .

I think you are both focussing on the wrong part. The vital words are not 'immédiatement' but 'd'áprés un plan fixé a l'ávance'. Since the 'plan fixé a l'ávance' was, to put it bluntly, to do nothing, there can be little doubt that it was executed 'immédiatement'.

[gebhk]

If it were lies, which they were not, the Poles had no objection to these lies ,which invalidate your point .

Ermm, do I understand your argument right here? If I lie to you and you believe me that means I haven't lied? Or perhaps it makes it morally OK? That's a new defence against an accusation of fraud I've never heard of. I'm surprised the layers haven't cottoned onto that one....

And vide my above post, we will probably never know what was said in private so unless you have the gift of second sight, you are not in position to categorically say there were no lies.

As for your assertion that the Poles had no objection to 'these lies' (your words not mine), where is the evidence? Presumably the reason that the negotiations on the political treaty dragged on was not because the Poles were unhappy with the terms but because the participants were so deliriously happy at their work that they couldn't bear to put an end to it?

[ljadw]

About the protocol Gamelin-Kasprzycki,one can read the following on P 832 0f ''Contre-Témoignages sur une catastrophe ''par P.E.Caton
1 : La France execute immédiatement une action aérienne d'áprés un plan fixé a l'ávance .
France will execute immediately an aerial action following a plan made in advance .
One will note that Gamelin did not say when this would happen : he said : immediately, he did not say : on 1 September, or 2 days after the Declaration of war , or 10 days ,etc ..And no one in Poland objected .

Meaning of immediately according to Cambridge dictionary:

now or without waiting or thinking:

The text is in French ,not in English .And, Gamelin avoided to write a date, because no one knew when France would declare war on Germany . It declared war two days after Germany attacked Poland, thus, such an aerial action could start at the earliest on September 3 .

[ljadw]

It would only be a lie if he had decided in May to do B in September but told the Poles that he would do A .
Lie depends on the intention,and as an intention is almost impossible to prove ......

Now that is a somewhat dangerous path to follow because the fact is that France had agreed with Britain in March-May that in the event of war, the Western Front would remain, basically, passive. This was the intention at the time of the talks with Kasprzycki and there is not the slightest hint that that intention changed after the talks (ie the plans remained the same). This was not communicated to Kasprzycki and was not known in Poland, so at the very least the French were being very economical with the truth. At what point passive 'economy with the truth' becomes active mendacity has perplexed philosophers since the dawn of time, so I have no wish to continue that ageless debate here - albeit, since we will probably never know what was said in private, the possibility of the latter cannot be excluded entirely. It does, again, highlight the counterpoductivity of bringing emotive anthopomorhic language into discussions about political history.

Regarding

La France execute immédiatement une action aérienne d'áprés un plan fixé a l'ávance .

I think you are both focussing on the wrong part. The vital words are not 'immédiatement' but 'd'áprés un plan fixé a l'ávance'. Since the 'plan fixé a l'ávance' was, to put it bluntly, to do nothing, there can be little doubt that it was executed 'immédiatement'.

NO: there is no proof that the plan ''fixé a l'avance ''was to do nothing . There is even no proof that there was such a plan .
Gamelin said : we will start an aerial action ,which meant nothing,as everything could be an aerial action, following a plan made in advance .
He did not say what this aerial action could be,and the Poles did not ask what it would be ,because they did not care about this aerial action,or because they refused to hear the truth .
It was on the Poles to demand three things :
a what would be this aerial action
b when would it be executed : immediately in a military agreement means manana in Spanish .
c to have the text of the plan made in advance .
The Poles did not ask proofs, did not ask clarifications , although they knew the reputation of Gamelin .
Thus, they had no reasons to complain .

[ljadw]

If it were lies, which they were not, the Poles had no objection to these lies ,which invalidate your point .

Ermm, do I understand your argument right here? If I lie to you and you believe me that means I haven't lied? Or perhaps it makes it morally OK? That's a new defence against an accusation of fraud I've never heard of. I'm surprised the layers haven't cottoned onto that one....

And vide my above post, we will probably never know what was said in private so unless you have the gift of second sight, you are not in position to categorically say there were no lies.

As for your assertion that the Poles had no objection to 'these lies' (your words not mine), where is the evidence? Presumably the reason that the negotiations on the political treaty dragged on was not because the Poles were unhappy with the terms but because the participants were so deliriously happy at their work that they couldn't bear to put an end to it?

The evidence is that the Poles did not complain and did not ask for clarifications, although the text was written in that way that one could interpret him like you will .Which is the custom in international diplomacy .
When Kasprzycki was going to France , the reality was that the wrong-called French-Polish alliance was dead, dormant, in abeyance,moribund,..since 1929 ,when the French had decided hat this alliance was too dangerous, not helpful for France and that they did not need allies to survive .
The alliance of 1921 was a defensive alliance and said that an attack on Poland ( by Russia ?) would make France to keep lines of communications free and Germany in check but not require it to send troops or to declare war .About the Convention of 1939 :
from the same souce P 833
III :A línverse, si le gros des forces allemandes attaque sur la France,en particulier par la Belgique ou la Suisse,ce qui provoquerait l'éntrée en action des armées francaises,l'armée polonaise s'efforcera de maintenir devant elle le maximum possible de forces allemandes,dans les conditions générales envisagées entre les deux Commandements .
Rough translation : if the majority of the German forces attacks France, especially through Belgium or Switzerland,with as result start of the fighting by France,the Polish army will try to hold as much as German forces,in the general conditions and terms examined by both general staffs .
If France was attacked Poland would try to hold as much as possible German forces !
And who would say how many German divisions the Poles could tie ? Poland .Not France .
If Poland was attacked, France would do what it could do to help Poland . And who would say what France could do ? France, not Poland .
Poland promised to do a little, but would do nothing .
France promised to do a little , but did a little .
Who lied ?
NO ONE .
Both countries gave each other all latitude to do as little or as much as they wanted .

[RG]

About the protocol Gamelin-Kasprzycki,one can read the following on P 832 0f ''Contre-Témoignages sur une catastrophe ''par P.E.Caton
1 : La France execute immédiatement une action aérienne d'áprés un plan fixé a l'ávance .
France will execute immediately an aerial action following a plan made in advance .
One will note that Gamelin did not say when this would happen : he said : immediately, he did not say : on 1 September, or 2 days after the Declaration of war , or 10 days ,etc ..And no one in Poland objected .

Meaning of immediately according to Cambridge dictionary:

now or without waiting or thinking:

The text is in French ,not in English .And, Gamelin avoided to write a date, because no one knew when France would declare war on Germany . It declared war two days after Germany attacked Poland, thus, such an aerial action could start at the earliest on September 3 .

So meaning of immédiatement based on Larousse:
Sans intermédiaire, de quelque ordre que ce soit ; directement : Dépendre immédiatement du directeur.
Sans intervalle dans l'espace ou dans le temps : Vous devez tourner immédiatement après le prochain feu.
À l'instant même, sans délai, sur-le-champ : Partez immédiatement.

[RG]

[/quote]

The Poles did not ask proofs, did not ask clarifications , although they knew the reputation of Gamelin .
Thus, they had no reasons to complain .
[/quote]

Gamelin was not a plumber, but a general who represented French military forces. The fact he was not reliable and trustworthy person does not justify him, nor the fact he deceived Poles. If we accept such an approach then the international agreements become worthless since it will be evaluated not their meaning but “reputation” of persons who signed it.

[ljadw]

About the protocol Gamelin-Kasprzycki,one can read the following on P 832 0f ''Contre-Témoignages sur une catastrophe ''par P.E.Caton
1 : La France execute immédiatement une action aérienne d'áprés un plan fixé a l'ávance .
France will execute immediately an aerial action following a plan made in advance .
One will note that Gamelin did not say when this would happen : he said : immediately, he did not say : on 1 September, or 2 days after the Declaration of war , or 10 days ,etc ..And no one in Poland objected .

Meaning of immediately according to Cambridge dictionary:

now or without waiting or thinking:

The text is in French ,not in English .And, Gamelin avoided to write a date, because no one knew when France would declare war on Germany . It declared war two days after Germany attacked Poland, thus, such an aerial action could start at the earliest on September 3 .

So meaning of immédiatement based on Larousse:
Sans intermédiaire, de quelque ordre que ce soit ; directement : Dépendre immédiatement du directeur.
Sans intervalle dans l'espace ou dans le temps : Vous devez tourner immédiatement après le prochain feu.
À l'instant même, sans délai, sur-le-champ : Partez immédiatement.

Immediately in a treaty means : as soon as possible .
And,when you tell someone : I will come immediately , that does not mean that you will come immediately ,it means : I will come as soon as possible .
''France will execute immediately an aerial action '' does not specify when France will do this : it is not on September 1 ,as on September 1 there was still no war between France and Germany ,it is even not immediately after the French declaration of war on 3 September,otherwise that would have been specified .It means only: when France will be ready,or when the French air force will be ready,or when both will be ready . . And it was Gamelin who would decide when France would be ready to do something ,which was not specified .
The Poles did not object when Gamelin presented a meaningless text.Thus,later they should not complain that he lied .
The Poles could only complain that Gamelin lied,if he had said :X hours (minutes ) after the French declaration of war ,our air force will attack targets in Germany (AND if he specified which and how many targets ) and will commit X aircraft in these attacks and will continue these attacks with X aircraft during Y days on specified targets AND if he did not do this .
As Gamelin did not say this, there is no reason to claim that he lied .
Gamelin did not specify what he would do .France did not even promise that it would declare war on Germany .
Gamelin said that he would do something,but not much,and he did something,not much .
The reasons are that he would not do more than he promised ,because
there was no obligation to do something (the agreement with Kasprzycki was only signed on 3 September ) the French DOW had nothing to do with its alliance with Poland : countries not only France ) do not fight because of an alliance .
there was no need to do something : the disappearance of Poland would not hurt France
there was no possibility to do more than was promised .

[ljadw]

The Poles did not ask proofs, did not ask clarifications , although they knew the reputation of Gamelin .
Thus, they had no reasons to complain .
[/quote]

Gamelin was not a plumber, but a general who represented French military forces. The fact he was not reliable and trustworthy person does not justify him, nor the fact he deceived Poles. If we accept such an approach then the international agreements become worthless since it will be evaluated not their meaning but “reputation” of persons who signed it.
[/quote]

The French had a treaty with Poland against Russia with as meaning that Poland would prevent the Soviets from invading Europe and France would ''help '' Poland.When there was a war between Poland and Russia in 1920, the French help was limited to a military mission : the French did not send an army to help Poland .
The French had a treaty with Poland against Germany .The French intention was that Poland would help France if France was attacked by Germany,not that France would help Poland if it was attacked by Germany . For Poland : it was the opposite .See the text of the convention :if France was attacked, Poland would try to hold as many German forces as possible on its border .
Observe : Poland would try
Observe : as many as possible .
And Gamelin accepted this : he knew that Poland would do as little as needed,as little as possible .
The reason was that for Poland (as for France )the alliance was only symbolic,with as aim to prevent a war, not to win a war .Poland could not afford to win a war, as if Germany was out , no one would/could stop the Soviets .This happened in 1945 .It was the same for France : it won in 1918 but was now more weak, it won in 1945 and ceased to be a great power .
The Poles were better off without France and the French without Poland .If Poland had accepted Hitler's demands and had become a German satellite , France would not have objected and would not be in danger .

[ljadw]

If it were lies, which they were not, the Poles had no objection to these lies ,which invalidate your point .

Ermm, do I understand your argument right here? If I lie to you and you believe me that means I haven't lied? Or perhaps it makes it morally OK? That's a new defence against an accusation of fraud I've never heard of. I'm surprised the layers haven't cottoned onto that one....

And vide my above post, we will probably never know what was said in private so unless you have the gift of second sight, you are not in position to categorically say there were no lies.

As for your assertion that the Poles had no objection to 'these lies' (your words not mine), where is the evidence? Presumably the reason that the negotiations on the political treaty dragged on was not because the Poles were unhappy with the terms but because the participants were so deliriously happy at their work that they couldn't bear to put an end to it?

When the French made their promises, the Poles did not say that the French lied ,thus,the Poles should not say months later that the French lied .
Not to keep a promise is not a lie . To have the intention not to keep the promise at the moment you make them,proves a lie .
Everything depends on the intention at the moment of the promise, not if the intention changed later .
There is no proof that at the moment Gamelin signed the Convention, he had the intention not to do what he promised . What he did later is totally irrelevant .
And,morality has no place in this thread .
Other point : you are confounding private law and diplomacy .Diplomacy is an alternate world with its own rules .