De Gaulle and French betrayal of Poland in Semptember 1939

[ljadw]

Oh yes : since 100 year or more do the Western powers try to impose their political system on the rest of the world, this has been recognized by Theresa May in January 2017,when she said that the days where over when Britain and US could intervene in sovereign states to remake the world in their own image .
100 Years before, Wilson said the opposite :the aim of the war was to make the world safe for (liberal ) democracy .
About dictators : a dictator can only survive if the population supports him .
For this he needs 3 things
1 a secret police to eliminate (potential ) opponents and this can be done only with the help of the people :the Gestapo would have been powerless without its informants .The same for the Cheka .
2 an efficient propaganda service to highlight the successes and hide the failures .
3 SUCCESSES : in the social and economic sector as people are always willing to exchange their freedom for food and work .
The communist regime collapsed because of its economic failure . The Putin regime will also collapse if the Russian economy will collapse,otherwise the Russians will continue to support Putin , not because of his foreign policy,in which most Russians are not interested,but because they will have work,food and social security .
The millions of Germans who had voted for the socialists and communists supported Hitler, not because they were Nazis,but because Hitler gave them work .
And we may assume that the % of Russians who support Putin is greater than the % of Americans who support Biden .

[ljadw]

About the media : how was the March crisis created ?
Because the Romanian ambassador in London came with the sensational and absurd and stupid news that Germany was planning an invasion of Romania,news for which he had no proofs and for which no proofs were later found .

What do you propose, that the media not report on this? Isn't this one of the raison d'etre of news organizations?

Let's recount some of the recent events of 1939. Germany annexes the Memelgebiet in March 1939, Germany intimidated the Czech President to accept a German Protectorate in March 1939, Germany secretly encourages the secession of Slovakia headed by a German friendly government in March 1939. In light of the above, I can understand the panic regarding Romania, especially when one considers that Hungary, which does border on Romania, has very friendly relations with Germany, especially after the first Vienna accord and has a large minority population inside of Romania, (second Vienna accord).

Not only did Germany and Romania not have a common border ( I suspect that the majority of the journalists could not show Romania on a map ),but the peace German army had not the needed divisions to invade Romania,a mobilisation would be needed and ,most important, an invasion in April of Romania would make an invasion of Poland in September impossible .
Than there was the primordial question of WHY Germany would invade Romania .And the British ambassador in Romania debunked the whole story .
Whatever, a lot of imbeciles in Whitehall were leaking this nonsense from the imbecile Tilea (ambassador ! )to the Tabloids and the crisis was created .
The whole story was on the same level as the story from Orson Welles about the invasion of the Martians .It proves only that you can tell people what you waGermanynt .

I believe Göbbels was having quite a field-day with the above and milked it for all that he could.

There was no need for panic in March 1939,no need for a guarantee to Poland and Romania .

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that the Polish government, prior to British involvement end of 1938 early 1939 were more amenable to reaching an accommodation regarding transit through the Corridor.

About the French and Mein Kampf :how many French could read German and how many of them were interested in the content of Mein Kampf ?The overwhelming majority of the Germans did also not read Mein Kampf .

That's a good question and since you asked, do you know? I don't, however what is relevant here is that A.H. put down his thoughts into words for all who were interested to read about the new Chancellor of Germany and what his intentions were.

And it is a very great mistake to think that Mein Kampf told what Hitler would do : Mein Kampf was written in 1925 and Hitler's foreign policy was not depending on what he said between 1920 and 1925 .
Mein Kampf was not the new Das Kapital,and most Russians were not interested in Das Kapital.

I disagree, A.H. hewed rather close to what he had written in Mein Kampf.

About Romania : the Romanian government denied,debunked the story of Tilea .
About the media : the story of Tilea was on the same level of the story from Orson Welles .There was no reason for Germany to invade Romania . There was nothing in Romania that was needed by Germany in March 1939 .
And, there is the still not resolved question of who was the person/were the persons who leaked deliberately the story to the tabloids .
Or Tilea was lying because he was stupid,or he lied on purpose with hidden intentions .
And why was he not fired by the Romanian government ? That he was stupid was not a reason (if all stupid ambassadors were fired,not many would remain ),maybe there were powerful groups behind him in Romania and Britain .

[gebhk]

Good morning gentlem,en

Sid - I am glad you are back and in form, I was beginning to be worried... a sign of the times, I'm afraid.

Alas - both you and Ijadw seem to be locked in a debate which has no likely conclusion - because you are trying to identify single-factor explanations for things which are patently multi-factorial. Thus you can quote examples all day without ever coming to a conclusion. I would suggest every one of them has to be considered separately on its own merits.

One of the biggies is the idea that people living under democracies 'do better' and by that folk usually mean economically. That is probably true. However, a common fallacy is to assume that a corelation means that the relationship is a causative one. And even if it is, we often assume that the direction of the causation is the one we would like to think it is. In this case, I would suggest that it is at least as likely that liberal democracies grow out of stability and economic wellbeing rather than the other way around. It is probably not a concidence that pretty much all the most monstrous dictatorships grew out of periods of economic and/or social woe. The point is that it is not the delivery of 'good times' that puts dictators in power - it is the promise of better times when times are bad that gets them there plus, like as not, a simple way to get there. Once they are there, it matters little whether they deliver or not, so long as they can keep the armed force on their side. While some like AH delivered (even if by sleight of hand) and became wildly popular because of it, at least for a time, others did the opposite and equally remained in power regardless.

I would also question a number of the assumptions:
Dictators do not need the support of the population to rule. All they need is armed strength. In short they need the armed forces on their side. Nazi Germany did not need the consent of the majority of Poles to rule Poland - if they had not lost the war they would in probability be ruling there still. The Czeka and Gestapo did not need an army of informers to function. The use of informants was just one tool, one of many. Mass murder seems to have been at least as effective a tool to terrorise the population into submission as anything else.

Much of the time we are talking about the unverifiable. We don't know what the real level of support for V Putin is in the Russian Federation because there is no reliable way of gauging it. While there is some truth in that you get the government you deserve, that is not the same as saying that you get a choice in the matter. Its is not just 'their business' if a country has a dictatorship that is bent on bullying/abusing/ invading its neghbours or the world community.

Sid - you said that Under our system, the rulers have to be more responsive to the priorities and needs of the population, by virtue of periodically facing relatively free and fair electoral processes.. I would agree with the sentiment in general, albeit with a subtle but significant difference. It is not the needs of the population that democratic rulers have to respond to, but the wishes and desires. In the context of this thread and the Forum, it might be interesting to consider how the British and French handling of AH might nhave been different if both countries were ruled by well-entrtenched and secure dictatorships that did not have to worry about their respective populace's aversion to war!?

[Gorque]

Take The Express (Lord Beaverbrook dictated the foreign news content ) .After having tried with Churchill and Rothermere to unseat Baldwin as leader of the Tories in 1930, he changed course and supported almost unconditionally the appeasement policy of McDonald,Baldwin and Chamberlain .
Suddenly ,after Munich,he changed course again and propagated the absurd stories of the Germans planning to attack the Netherlands, Switzerland,Romania and planning to Copenhague ,or to use a modern word,to Pearl Harbor the Royal Navy .
NOTHING of all this was true,everything was absurd .
Why gave he the order to spread these stories ?
Dawson censored anti German articles in the Times ,but,he also,changed course after Munich .

Hi ljadw:

I have no idea as to their motivations. What do you opine that their motivations for shifting their stances were?

Motivations : money ?,ideology ?

Hi ljadw:

What was the point of your post then? To broad-brush an entire industry based upon the examples of two news outlets? As of recently, there are 104 daily newspapers, 653 radio stations, 228 television stations and, 467 non-daily newspapers just in the United Kingdom. That's 2 out of 1,452 news outlets or .13774% of the total news outlets. http://www.pressreference.com/Sw-Ur/The ... ngdom.html

And judging from your answer, I do not believe that you have a supportable answer to your question, meaning your question was purely rhetorical in nature.

[ljadw]

The concerted attacks (better witch-hunting ) on the current British PM by the media proves the opposite of what you are saying .
And the motivations are the same of those before 1940: ideology (a lot of the media are hating the PM because of Brexit ) and money : British and foreign media are dying,agonizing and are totally dependent for their survive on the money (by publicity ) of big industries who are anti Johnson . .
How much costs the production of the Times and what is the selling price of the Times ? Media can not survive without publicity ,thus the power behind the media are not journalists,or Lord Thomson or Lord Rothermere,but those who give the media the money without it they could not survive .
That there are 1,452 news outlets in Britain is irrelevant .What is relevant is how many people control these news outlets,and their number is less than 1,452 and,what is also relevant is who are these people .

[ljadw]

A dictatorial regime does not need the support of the army /the Cheka to survive,and if it needs this support the result is the end of the regime .
Take the USSR :after the death of Stalin, the Cheka lost most of its power, the Gulag was shut down,the army was not used to stop the liberalization of the regime and what was the result ?
No revolts .
Why ?
Because the population was satisfied with its economic/social situation and this was more important than having more freedom .
Take Germany : when Hitler became dictator there were 6 million people without a job . Five years later there were 600000 people without a job ,and,that is the most important reason why the regime was still there in 1938 and why Hitler was that popular .If in 1938 there were still 6 million people out of work,the regime would disappear,very quickly,as did that of Schuschnigg.
It was the same for Stalin : he was very popular in 1953 because the majority of the population was convinced that its social situation was better than thirty years before . The regime could announce proudly that communism worked .
Thirty-six years later ,it was no longer possible to say that communism worked : it was obvious for everyone in the SU that it was corrupt and did not work .
And what did the army hen the leaders of the USSR liquidated communism ? It remained also neutral,because no one was willing to fight and die for communism .
That applies for all dictatorships : if the majority no longer wants to fight and die for the system, it is over .
You can't force people to fight and die for you .

[Gorque]

The concerted attacks (better witch-hunting ) on the current British PM by the media proves the opposite of what you are saying .
And the motivations are the same of those before 1940: ideology (a lot of the media are hating the PM because of Brexit ) and money : British and foreign media are dying,agonizing and are totally dependent for their survive on the money (by publicity ) of big industries who are anti Johnson . .
How much costs the production of the Times and what is the selling price of the Times ? Media can not survive without publicity ,thus the power behind the media are not journalists,or Lord Thomson or Lord Rothermere,but those who give the media the money without it they could not survive .
That there are 1,452 news outlets in Britain is irrelevant .What is relevant is how many people control these news outlets,and their number is less than 1,452 and,what is also relevant is who are these people .

Hi ljadw:

You make a lot of insinuations without providing a shred of evidence in support. How about backing up some of your wild-eyed insinuations with bona-fide evidence for a change?

[gebhk]

Because the population was satisfied with its economic/social situation and this was more important than having more freedom .

And exactly how do you know this? Reliable opinion polls? A free election was held? Illustrates perfectly my point about the usefulness of opinions and debate based on zero reliable data. Did the army oppose the changes? Was the regime changed? What do you think would have happened if, say, the Ukrainian SSR decided to exit the USSR and elect to have a liberal democratic regime? We know what happened in Czechoslovakia in 1968 and that was hardly that...

It remained also neutral,because no one was willing to fight and die for communism

Or rather it continued to obey the leadership. Pretty much supports my point. The leadership of a dictatorship remains the leadership while the armed forces support it. Again my point about fallacious assumptions about cause and effect.

[ljadw]

The concerted attacks (better witch-hunting ) on the current British PM by the media proves the opposite of what you are saying .
And the motivations are the same of those before 1940: ideology (a lot of the media are hating the PM because of Brexit ) and money : British and foreign media are dying,agonizing and are totally dependent for their survive on the money (by publicity ) of big industries who are anti Johnson . .
How much costs the production of the Times and what is the selling price of the Times ? Media can not survive without publicity ,thus the power behind the media are not journalists,or Lord Thomson or Lord Rothermere,but those who give the media the money without it they could not survive .
That there are 1,452 news outlets in Britain is irrelevant .What is relevant is how many people control these news outlets,and their number is less than 1,452 and,what is also relevant is who are these people .

Hi ljadw:

You make a lot of insinuations without providing a shred of evidence in support. How about backing up some of your wild-eyed insinuations with bona-fide evidence for a change?

Insinuations ?
You know as well as I that without publicity the media will disappear .That means that those who buy publicity in the media are the bosses. A copy of the Times costs 2,5 Pound . How much cost it to print ans sell this copy ?
And, about partygate ( without taking position ) it is obvious that there has been /is a concerted attack on Johnson .
Officials leaked information to the media (why ? ) and the media published this information ( why ?).And, don't tell me that it was from concern about democracy in the UK .
If things are leaked and published in December 2021 which happened in May 2020,one can ask the question why they were not leaked and published in June 2020 .
The media are commercial businesses whose aim it is not to tell the truth but to make money,but those who secretly control the media are also people with a political opinion .

[ljadw]

Because the population was satisfied with its economic/social situation and this was more important than having more freedom .

And exactly how do you know this? Reliable opinion polls? A free election was held? Illustrates perfectly my point about the usefulness of opinions and debate based on zero reliable data. Did the army oppose the changes? Was the regime changed? What do you think would have happened if, say, the Ukrainian SSR decided to exit the USSR and elect to have a liberal democratic regime? We know what happened in Czechoslovakia in 1968 and that was hardly that...

It remained also neutral,because no one was willing to fight and die for communism

Or rather it continued to obey the leadership. Pretty much supports my point. The leadership of a dictatorship remains the leadership while the armed forces support it. Again my point about fallacious assumptions about cause and effect.

For people living in a dictatorship the economic and social situation is always more important than free elections :you can't feed your children with free elections .
The Germans voted for Hitler in 1933 ,knowing very well that there would be a dictatorship,but they did not care,as long that Hitler would solve unemployment .
If Hitler had failed to solve unemployment, an other regime would have taken his place .
In 1970 Gomulka had to resign in Poland because of the economic problems . Those who demonstrated against him were not anti-communist,neither were they communists .
His successor Gierek suffered the same fate in 1980 .
In 1953 the Cheka lost its power ,but there were no demonstrations in Russia. The reason was that the average Russian,who was not communist,was satisfied with his situation .
And, opposite to what happened in Latin America, the armed forces were never used in the SU to crush the opposition .
And CZ 1968 is not a correct argument . What happened in CZ was mainly an attempt to modernize the economy,but the Kremlin feared that there would also be an uncontrolled liberalization of the political system .500000 men were committed ( thus Putin would not be successful with 100000 men in Ukraine ) and there was almost no opposition from the population and no shooting from the invaders .There were no reprisals :no show trials, no on was hanged . The Soviets could not afford a second Budapest .
The opposite happened in Hungary : the secret police was curtailed and the economy almost totally liberalized but the political system remained unchanged and the Hungarians were satisfied .

[ljadw]

You asked : ''a free election was held ? "
People are mostly not interested in politics and elections : how many people do vote in the US and in Britain ?

[ljadw]

About the Gestapo : 80% of its investigations were responding on anonymous/or not denunciations .
It was the same for the Stasi, the KGB,etc..
Without informants,without the help of the population, every secret police is helpless .
And most of these people were not communists or Nazis or denounced other people for political motives :Angela Merkel also worked as informant for the Stasi, but no one has claimed that she was a communist .And her work for the Stasi was well known but did not prevent her to be 4 times German Bundeskanzler .

[wm]

So after tens of thousands were killed, hundreds of thousands were arrested/deported during the communist pacification of Poland 1945-1948.
After experiencing the North-Korea-like totalitarianism - including torture chambers and massacres by hundreds.

After all that the Poles decided that the "economic and social situation is always more important than free elections".
Isn't that cute?

[wm]

A dictatorial regime does not need the support of the army /the Cheka to survive,and if it needs this support the result is the end of the regime .
Take the USSR :after the death of Stalin, the Cheka lost most of its power, the Gulag was shut down,the army was not used to stop the liberalization of the regime and what was the result ?
No revolts .

1958 Grozny riots
1956 Tbilisi riots
Kengir uprising
Vorkuta uprising
Norilsk uprising
Ekibastuz strike
Novocherkassk massacre

Poznań protests of 1956
Hungarian Revolution of 1956

"the Cheka lost most of its power", "the army was not used to stop the liberalization" is as false as it gets.

[Gorque]

The concerted attacks (better witch-hunting ) on the current British PM by the media proves the opposite of what you are saying .
And the motivations are the same of those before 1940: ideology (a lot of the media are hating the PM because of Brexit ) and money : British and foreign media are dying,agonizing and are totally dependent for their survive on the money (by publicity ) of big industries who are anti Johnson . .
How much costs the production of the Times and what is the selling price of the Times ? Media can not survive without publicity ,thus the power behind the media are not journalists,or Lord Thomson or Lord Rothermere,but those who give the media the money without it they could not survive .
That there are 1,452 news outlets in Britain is irrelevant .What is relevant is how many people control these news outlets,and their number is less than 1,452 and,what is also relevant is who are these people .

Hi ljadw:

You make a lot of insinuations without providing a shred of evidence in support. How about backing up some of your wild-eyed insinuations with bona-fide evidence for a change?

Insinuations ?
You know as well as I that without publicity the media will disappear .That means that those who buy publicity in the media are the bosses. A copy of the Times costs 2,5 Pound . How much cost it to print ans sell this copy ?
And, about partygate ( without taking position ) it is obvious that there has been /is a concerted attack on Johnson .
Officials leaked information to the media (why ? ) and the media published this information ( why ?).And, don't tell me that it was from concern about democracy in the UK .
If things are leaked and published in December 2021 which happened in May 2020,one can ask the question why they were not leaked and published in June 2020 .
The media are commercial businesses whose aim it is not to tell the truth but to make money,but those who secretly control the media are also people with a political opinion .

Hi ljadw:

Yes insinuations, just like the one's right above. Where is your proof? Without bona-fide proof, it just an insinuation.