De Gaulle and French betrayal of Poland in Semptember 1939

[ljadw]

The Pact
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File ... ast%3F.jpg

Poland Agony
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File ... n_1939.jpg

The results
https://www.bing.com/images/search?view ... t=0&sim=11

https://www.bing.com/images/search?view ... ajaxserp=0

If Hitler could have attacked Poland without a deal with Stalin, he would have done it without a deal with Stalin .
And the West was the last person to to have the right to blame Stalin for his pact with Hitler, as the West had had the opportunity for a deal with Stalin .

[gebhk]

The Poles did not trust France,thus they had no reason to accuse the French of betrayal .

Complete and self-evident nonsense. In the same vein, if you suspect someone may stab you in the back (or anywhere else for that matter) and they stab you, does that mean you have no reason to accuse them of stabbing you? Perrrlease.

(Not that I am arguing or hinting here that France stabbed Poland in the back, to obviate any outraged Francophile outcry lasting another 16 pages. That honour, of course, goes to the Soviet Union)

As for the rest, I can only repeat with scant hope of a reply, what actual evidence is there that

Poland was convinced/convinced itself that Hitler was bluffing.

?

[ljadw]

The Poles did not trust France,thus they had no reason to accuse the French of betrayal .

Complete and self-evident nonsense. In the same vein, if you suspect someone may stab you in the back (or anywhere else for that matter) and they stab you, does that mean you have no reason to accuse them of stabbing you? Perrrlease.

(Not that I am arguing or hinting here that France stabbed Poland in the back, to obviate any outraged Francophile outcry lasting another 16 pages. That honour, of course, goes to the Soviet Union)

As for the rest, I can only repeat with scant hope of a reply, what actual evidence is there that

Poland was convinced/convinced itself that Hitler was bluffing.

?

Beck said to Noel that he did not trust the alliance with France .
And about Hitler bluffing : SIGH : Hitler could not attack Poland without the fiat of Stalin ,and he only had this fiat at the end of August 1939 . Thus, til the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was signed,Hitler was bluffing .And Poland knew this .As did everyone in Europe .
Other point : the British guarantee to Poland (which started the crisis ) was an answer on a disinformation campaign of anti-appeasement elements in MI 6 .
In March 1939,Hitler had no intention to attack Poland,because he was still fighting against the Russian ''advisers '' in Spain and could thus not have a deal with Stalin .
This guarantee,also signed by France ,was totally meaningless and did not oblige Britain and France to declare war on
Germany .
Last point : Stalin did not stab Poland in the back : he had no obligation at all to help Poland .
Mussolini also did not stab France in the back in June 1940 .
The argument of stabbing in the back is a woke one,that does not have any place in a serious discussion .There is nothing wrong to stab someone in the back : it is an intelligent tactic used by intelligent people .Turkey declared war on Germany in February 1945 : a stab in the back ? The Czechs demanded in 1920,when the Red Army was at the suburbs of Warsaw,that Poland would abandon Teschen . A stab in the back ? Poland did the same for Teschen after the conference of Munich : a stab in the back ?
Britain and France did not declare war on Germany to help Poland, they had no obligation to do it, but to punish Germany ,because this had attacked another country .
Britain and France knew very well that if they defeated Germany, the result would be that Poland would become a Soviet satellite .
Certain people in Poland are still convinced that the whole world was obliged to fight for them in September 1939 . Reality is that no one was obliged to fight for Poland .And no one fought for Poland in September 1939,but Britain and France fought against Germany .

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi ljadw,

With almost the entire Polish Army facing the Germans, Stalin's attack on Poland was almost literally "a stab in the back". A similar rationale applies to Italy against France in 1940. That such "stabs in the back" are pragmatic, advantagous opportunism to the attacker is true, but these examples remain "stabs in the back"!

Cheers,

Sid.

[gebhk]

Last point : Stalin did not stab Poland in the back : he had no obligation at all to help Poland .
Mussolini also did not stab France in the back in June 1940 .

I have no obligation to defend you either, so presumably you will not complain if I stab you in the back. Presumably that's OK on planet IJADW? However, it's not OK on planet Earth where the rest of us live!
As for the rest, I can only repeat with scant hope of a reply, what actual evidence is there that

Poland was convinced/convinced itself that Hitler was bluffing.

?

[Linkagain]

Only a combination of France; british Empire and Czeckodlovia could have chekmated Hitler in the West.....But that required firm resolution...France..wasin choas....British Empire was more ingrossed...in protecting Inida and the Oil Field in the Middle east...and the Czechl well...their own actions speak for themselves....the only way might have won is to keep a blockade of Hiter....in the west....as for Poland in the East ....Polond and USSR come to blows.....or Peace????? I dont know.....let the experts speak....

[Linkagain]

Western Europes view of the The Pact
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File ... ast%3F.jpg

Poland Agony
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File ... n_1939.jpg

Western Europes view of The results of the pact ex post facto
https://www.bing.com/images/search?view ... t=0&sim=11

https://www.bing.com/images/search?view ... ajaxserp=0

If Hitler could have attacked Poland without a deal with Stalin, he would have done it without a deal with Stalin .
And the West was the last person to to have the right to blame Stalin for his pact with Hitler, as the West had had the opportunity for a deal with Stalin .

France political/military leadership should not have made bargins they could not keep

[ljadw]

Last point : Stalin did not stab Poland in the back : he had no obligation at all to help Poland .
Mussolini also did not stab France in the back in June 1940 .

I have no obligation to defend you either, so presumably you will not complain if I stab you in the back. Presumably that's OK on planet IJADW? However, it's not OK on planet Earth where the rest of us live!
As for the rest, I can only repeat with scant hope of a reply, what actual evidence is there that

Poland was convinced/convinced itself that Hitler was bluffing.

?

''Stabbing in the back'' is a moral judgement by people as FDR .
Why should stabbing in the back be wrong and stabbing in the chest be correct ?
In 1915, Italy, after being convinced that Germany and AH could not win, decided to chose the side of the Entente .
In June 1940,the same Italy,after being convinced that France and Britain had lost, decided to chose the side of Germany .
If the second one was a stab in the back, so was the first one .
And, was the Polish occupation of Teschen not a stab in the back? Or the US DOW on Germany in 1917 ? Or the Italian DOW on Germany in 1943 ?

[ljadw]

Western Europes view of the The Pact
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File ... ast%3F.jpg

Poland Agony
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File ... n_1939.jpg

Western Europes view of The results of the pact ex post facto
https://www.bing.com/images/search?view ... t=0&sim=11

https://www.bing.com/images/search?view ... ajaxserp=0

If Hitler could have attacked Poland without a deal with Stalin, he would have done it without a deal with Stalin .
And the West was the last person to to have the right to blame Stalin for his pact with Hitler, as the West had had the opportunity for a deal with Stalin .

France political/military leadership should not have made bargins they could not keep

Why not ?
If they could not keep them, the Poles knew it .

[gebhk]

''Stabbing in the back'' is a moral judgement by people as FDR .

No, it is self-evidently an act that is used as an analogy for certain types of behaviour. What the Soviets did to Poland in 1939 fits perfectly to the analogy. Lets leave the whataboutism out of it and FDR was not a linguist who coined the phrase in this context as far as I know (it dates to the early 19th century according to etymologists), so I don't see the relevance.

Why should stabbing in the back be wrong and stabbing in the chest be correct ?

Only in your world can stabbing in the chest be seen as correct. It is not. It is just that stabbing in the back is generally considered more cowardly and more ignoble. For obvious, I should think, reasons.

[gebhk]

And, was the Polish occupation of Teschen not a stab in the back?

Hardly. The Poles took over a piece of territory, unilaterally offered by the Czechoslovaks, accepted and peacably agreed upon between the two nations. The Chechoslovaks were informed of the Polish decision to accelerate the takeover timetable in response to the Munich Agreement and acceded to it. There was no stabbing; in the back or anywhere else. But what does this whataboutism got to do with the subject?

To return to the actual subject of our discussion, what evidence is there that

Poland was convinced/convinced itself that Hitler was bluffing.

as you claim?

[ljadw]

Hitler was bluffing, we know it and everyone knew it in 1939 . Thus the Poles knew it .And that was one of the reasons why they refused his demands and why did not ask concrete help from France and Britain .
If they thought that he was serious,they would,could have asked the arrival of French and British soldiers in Poland . They did not ask this,because there was no need .And there was no need because he could not attack Poland without a treaty with Stalin . And, FYI :this treaty was signed the last week of August only .
About the stab in the back : YOU said that there was a stab in the back from the Soviets,while arguing, from a jingoistic POV that when Poland occupied Teschen, there was no stab in the back ,but that there was one when the Soviets occupied Eastern Poland .
Poland occupied Teschen,because otherwise Hitler would have done it,Stalin occupied a part of Poland for the same reasons .

[ljadw]

Only in your world can stabbing in the chest be seen as correct. It is not. It is just that stabbing in the back is generally considered more cowardly and more ignoble. For obvious, I should think, reasons.

Machiavelli would disagree with you : in domestic politics,in international politics,in business, in private life :it is always a question of survival.Epstein was surrounded, not by friends, but by people who wanted to take advantage to him .When he was in trouble and was losing,they abandoned him .
Realist ( people you call cowards ) stab in the back, fools stab in the chest .
Besides, an other attitude from Stalin would not have helped Poland : Poland did not lose against Hitler because the intervention of Stalin, but Stalin intervened because Poland was losing .

[gebhk]

Hitler was bluffing, we know it and everyone knew it in 1939 .

Since I do not have your power of chanelling the late herr Hitler, I certainly don't 'know' and I would suggest that no one else other than you 'knows' it. Nor for that matter did the general staffs of France and Britain who concluded in March/April 1939 that war would break out that year (and, irnically, correctly). Be that as it may I still await your evidence that

Poland was convinced/convinced itself that Hitler was bluffing.

. Your assumptions, I'm afraid, I do not consider evidence especially when thay are based on false premises. The stationing of British and French troops was in fact requested, specifically air force units, with the French as early as 1936 and February 1939. Also with the British beginning in May 1939.

Since Machiavelli was long-dead when the phrase 'stab in the back' in its modern context was invented, I can't see what any of that has to do with the subject of our discussion. What the tribulations of the late Mr Epstein have to do with any of this I fail to see either.

The fact that you can't see the difference between party A giving something to Party B and Party B invading Party A militarily and taking something without consent and without warning, suggests dicussion is futile. And I would suggest leaving jibes of jingoism for the playpen.

[ljadw]

If Hitler was not bluffing in March, why did he sign a treaty with Stalin at the end of August only ?
And , no : Teschen was not ''given '' away by CZ :the Czechs abandoned Teschen, to prevent a Polish invasion .
1 In 1920 the Czechs used the Soviet invasion of Poland to take Teschen .
2 In 1919,Poland used the civil war in Russia to invade and occupy territories that did not belong to the general government .
3 In 1938, Poland used the treaty of Munich to take back Teschen.
4 In 1938 Hungary used the treaty of Munich to take back parts of Slovakia.
5 In 1939 Hungary used the collapse of the Czech state to take back an other part of Slovakia .
6 In 1939 the Soviets used the German invasion of Poland to take back territories that they had lost 20 years before .
7 In 1940 Mussolini used the French/British defeat to attack French and British possessions .
8 In 1920 Poland used a favorable opportunity to take a part of Lithuania .
If 6 was a stab in the back, so were 1,2, 3, 4, 5 7, 8 .
And there are countless other examples .
Saying that what Poland did was not a stab in the back, but what the others did was a stab in the back, is a typical example of jingoism.
And, there is not much difference between a stab in the back and Macchiavellism .
States have no friends or enemies, only interests .