De Gaulle and French betrayal of Poland in Semptember 1939

[ljadw]

1 Germany declared war on Russia on 1 August 1914 and attacked Russia already on 2 August 1914 ( attack on Kalisz ),while France remained neutral .

Not true.
Kalisz, a border town, was set on fire by the Russian Army and abandoned. The German Army subsequently entered the undefended town.
Anyway, the point is that it's not true that "France looked the other way."

And I disagree totally with Adamthwaite : incoherent informality and rampant bureaucracy existed also in Russia,Britain and France . The French foreign policy in the Summer before the war was the same policy as in the past : France was isolationist,insular and did not trust other countries.

Unsupported opinions.

1 Kalisz was set on fire by the Germans who murdered dozens of its inhabitants And the same day Germany attacked other cities .
2 While the Germans invaded Russia on 2 August, France remained neutral: it looked the other way .
3 Liebau was bombarded by the Augsburg on TWO August 1914, France remained neutral and did nothing . The Germans were very annoyed that the French remained neutral.
4 The opinions of Adamthwaite are unsupported and debunked by the facts : France refused to help Russia in its war against Japan (Germany was the only who aided Russia ), France refused to support Russia in the Bosnian crisis of 1908 and in the Liman von Sanders crisis off 1914 .France was isolationist

[ljadw]

And of course Poland knew that Hitler was bluffing ,because
1 the diplomatic conditions for an attack did not exist
2 if Hitler was serious, he would have ordered a mobilization and Poland would know this :there were no evidences for a German mobilization which means that there were proofs that Germany did not mobilize .And this means that Hitler was bluffing as he did a year before in the Summer concerning Czechoslovakia .

So no evidence just idle speculation.

Evidence, not speculation .
If a treaty with Russia was not needed for an attack on Poland in March ,why was it needed in August ?
For an attack, mobilization was needed and would be known by Poland, Britain and France and they would mobilize .They mobilized in October 1938 because the German mobilization was known . They did not do it in March,because there was no German mobilization, thus no intention to attack Poland .
Nothing happened in March 1939,thus there was no intention to attack Poland in March 1939 .

[wm]

1 Kalisz was set on fire by the Germans who murdered dozens of its inhabitants

Not true.
That happened later in reprisals for alleged francs-tireur activity.

2 While the Germans invaded Russia on 2 August, France remained neutral: it looked the other way .

Not true, and not evidence.
The treaty didn't require declaring war on the same day.
Especially because of some highly obscure and confusing events.

3 Liebau was bombarded by the Augsburg on TWO August 1914, France remained neutral and did nothing . The Germans were very annoyed that the French remained neutral.

That's Libau, another abandoned by the Russians town.

4 The opinions of Adamthwaite are unsupported and debunked by the facts :

Actually his entire fat monography is dedicated to that subject and full to the brim with facts.

[gebhk]

Evidence, not speculation .

You clearly don't know the difference, since you are insisting your theories and speculation are 'evidence'.They are not.

[wm]

That's a strawman anyway.
It wasn't about: "the diplomatic conditions for an attack", "he would have ordered a mobilization", "treaty with Russia", or "bluffing."

The Poles detected a shift in Hitler's attitude and, considering (massive) German revanchism (especially in the border areas), came to the conclusion that war was possible in some distant future.
So they started to plan for the war and sought allies.
It was the usual: plan for the worst but hope for the best.

The factless reasoning "if a treaty with Russia" really looks like those old "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" debates anyway. Pure reason can't replace facts.

[Gorque]

"4 The opinions of Adamthwaite are unsupported and debunked by the facts:"

and...

"Alexander and Dutailly have a lot of imagination"


and...

"What Hochman is saying is unproved"

and...

"NYT nonsense"

and...

"I am not convinced that Calles and Cardenas were democrats"

and...

"1 What De Gaulle and Churchill said before the war,was given their position,totally irrelevant ."

and...

"About Vansittart : he did not represent HMG and was fired by Eden in 1938 and what he said were only assumptions,without any proof ."

and...

"This proves that R-S was an imbecile who did not know what he was talking about :"

and...

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

and...

"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 ?"

Anybody else seeing a trollish pattern here?

[ljadw]

Is it to troll to say that the positions from Churchill and De Gaulle before the war,made what they said,totally irrelevant ?
De Gaulle was a discredited colonel of the French Army (you know how many colonels there were in France in 1939 ? )and I see that you have no notion of the opinions of the political parties about Churchill :
for the Tories he was a traitor and an intriguer:they had not forgotten what he had done between 1929 and 1931
for Labour he was only a disguised fascist ( he had supported Mussolini ) and had ordered the police to shoot on strikers
for the Liberals he was an old fashioned racist imperialist
for the intellectuals he was a warmonger
the public opinion had not forgotten his role in the abdication crisis.
Is it to troll to say that Mary Heaton Vorse was an ultra left American journalist whose writings about the situation in Europe were determined by her political opinions ?
Is it to troll to say that Vansittart was fired at the demand of Eden ?
And what was the opinion of Eden about his POSS ?
Eden said : "he is not balanced and in such a continual state of nerves that he will end up making would-be aggressors think the more of us as a potential victim. '' (source is Rhodes James )

[ljadw]

That's a strawman anyway.
It wasn't about: "the diplomatic conditions for an attack", "he would have ordered a mobilization", "treaty with Russia", or "bluffing."

The Poles detected a shift in Hitler's attitude and, considering (massive) German revanchism (especially in the border areas), came to the conclusion that war was possible in some distant future.
So they started to plan for the war and sought allies.
It was the usual: plan for the worst but hope for the best.

The factless reasoning "if a treaty with Russia" really looks like those old "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" debates anyway. Pure reason can't replace facts.

There is no proof that there was a shift in Hitler's attitude in March 1939 : in March 1939 he wanted the same what he wanted in November 1938 :the return of Danzig and the other lost territories .
And, I like to see an evidence for the claim that Poland sought allies in March 1939 : the only country that could prevent a German attack and could prevent a Polish defeat if there was an attack was the USSR and for the obvious reasons we all know an alliance with the USSR was excluded .
Britain and France ( the other two ''allies '' ) could only be/become allies IF there was a war and IF there was a war,they could not prevent the defeat of Poland .
The conclusion is thus that it was a wast of time to look for allies .Britain and France would be automatically allies if there was a war.

[ljadw]

1 Kalisz was set on fire by the Germans who murdered dozens of its inhabitants

Not true.
That happened later in reprisals for alleged francs-tireur activity.

2 While the Germans invaded Russia on 2 August, France remained neutral: it looked the other way .

Not true, and not evidence.
The treaty didn't require declaring war on the same day.
Especially because of some highly obscure and confusing events.

3 Liebau was bombarded by the Augsburg on TWO August 1914, France remained neutral and did nothing . The Germans were very annoyed that the French remained neutral.

That's Libau, another abandoned by the Russians town.

4 The opinions of Adamthwaite are unsupported and debunked by the facts :

Actually his entire fat monography is dedicated to that subject and full to the brim with facts.

About Libau : the fact remains that the Germans attacked a Russian town,thus a hostile act,and that its ally France remained idle and did nothing .And that Libau was abandoned by the Russians is irrelevant,as this gives the Germans not the right to attack it .

[Gorque]

Is it to troll to say that the positions from Churchill and De Gaulle before the war,made what they said,totally irrelevant ?
De Gaulle was a discredited colonel of the French Army (you know how many colonels there were in France in 1939 ? )and I see that you have no notion of the opinions of the political parties about Churchill :
for the Tories he was a traitor and an intriguer:they had not forgotten what he had done between 1929 and 1931
for Labour he was only a disguised fascist ( he had supported Mussolini ) and had ordered the police to shoot on strikers
for the Liberals he was an old fashioned racist imperialist
for the intellectuals he was a warmonger
the public opinion had not forgotten his role in the abdication crisis.

Considering Churchill's past posts held and his current posting as a long-term MP, calling his opinion "irrelevant" borders upon ignorance. As far as De Gaulle is concerned, he was a forward thinking staff officer in the 30's who was also promoting, much like Guderian, the use of tanks and mechanization for the French Army. Once again, to render his opinions within the defense establishment "irrelevant," borders on ignorance.

Is it to troll to say that Mary Heaton Vorse was an ultra left American journalist whose writings about the situation in Europe were determined by her political opinions ?

Yes it is. What does her political leanings have to do she quoted Rydzs Smygly?? She was INTERVIEWING Rydzs Smygly and quoted what he SAID. Think about this. Did the New York Times retract her story because she misquoted Rydzs Smygly? The only person whose judgement is clouded by their political beliefs and preconceived notions is you.

Is it to troll to say that Vansittart was fired at the demand of Eden ?
And what was the opinion of Eden about his POSS ?
Eden said : "he is not balanced and in such a continual state of nerves that he will end up making would-be aggressors think the more of us as a potential victim. '' (source is Rhodes James )

There you go again Ludo, moving the goal posts again.

You stated "he did not represent HMG and was fired by Eden in 1938 and what he said were only assumptions,without any proof"

For your information, after his dismissal, Vansitarrt was given a newly created position of "Chief Diplomatic Adviser to His Majesty's Government" in which he served until 1941. Did you conveniently forget the bolded first part of your statement???

[ljadw]

Vansittart did not represent HMG ,his new title was only words, nothing more ,even more hollow than the function of Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster . Because of his Germanophobia he should never have been appointed POSS of the Foreign Office .And, he should also have been put in prison, because in collaboration with groups of MI6 and the FO, he tried to undo secretly the foreign policy of HMG .
Churchill was totally discredited and in Wales hated , even today . In 2010 a Welsh town council opposed the intention of the government to give his name to a military base .
In May 1940 Labour preferred Halifax as PM .
More will follow.

[wm]

About Libau : the fact remains that the Germans attacked a Russian town,thus a hostile act,and that its ally France remained idle and did nothing .And that Libau was abandoned by the Russians is irrelevant,as this gives the Germans not the right to attack it .

Not proof, it's the usual cause-and-effect fallacy.

Pilau happened on August 2.
France mobilized on August 2.
Germany declared war on France on August 3.
It was absurd to demand France (still not mobilized!) declare war in 12+ hours (against mobilized Germany) because of some rumors of shelling of a G-d forgotten town.
Russia didn't request that France declare war on Germany anyway.
News about the German incursions reached the Russian capital on August 6.
Therefore France wasn't aware of them earlier.

[wm]

There is no proof that there was a shift in Hitler's attitude in March 1939

Actually, it could be found in many contemporary Polish diplomatic reports.
And

Germany, has lost its calculability, with which it was endowed even amidst difficult problems.

is one of the weaker ones.

[Gorque]

Vansittart did not represent HMG ,his new title was only words, nothing more ,even more hollow than the function of Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster . Because of his Germanophobia he should never have been appointed POSS of the Foreign Office .And, he should also have been put in prison, because in collaboration with groups of MI6 and the FO, he tried to undo secretly the foreign policy of HMG .
Churchill was totally discredited and in Wales hated , even today . In 2010 a Welsh town council opposed the intention of the government to give his name to a military base .
In May 1940 Labour preferred Halifax as PM .
More will follow.

Oh yes he did. Vansitaartt accompanied Drax to Moscow in 1939. That's twice I debunked your Vansitartt claim.

In regards to Churchill, you're the one who stated he was irrelevant. I pointed out that he was a long-standing MP and former member of a prior government. Whether he is hated in Wales is, in your words, irrelevant to the conversation. You can keep trying to move the goal post again , but I'll just keep highlighting your continuing gaslighting.

[ljadw]

Churchill was a TOTALLY ISOLATED long-standing MP and former member of a prior government and he would no longer be a candidate in the elections of November 1939 . Thus : what he said was totally irrelevant, he only represented himself . His own party disliked him .
Whatever the lies of the Churchillian propaganda,the fact is that before WW 2 the career of Winston Churchill was over : the Tories were in government since 1931 and they refused to make him a cabinet minister .
And about the Drax mission : it was a mission that was totally unimportant : Drax was a no one, so was Vansittart .