Was the Anglo-Polish alliance of 1939 purely defensive?

[waldzee]

Thanks wm. But we are talking of the Free City of Danzig, not Arthur Greiser the man. If he was loyal to his "Führer" is totally irrelevant.

It means that actions of that socket puppet cannot be defended on moral grounds. He made demands or kissed Poland's ass - as ordered. His actions were for the best interest of Hitler not the Free City.
Anyway, leaving aside the moral issues, according to the law his loyalty was supposed to be to the Free City and to Poland.

Oh, oh... but what actions are you talking about wm?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Boby, could you advise us , before we go deeper, if you are simply trying to have another Danzig thread locked?

[LWD]

An example is the Polish Post Office building that had extraterritorial status.

Wow! 1 building! But Danzig was 1.894 km2. ...

The size either porportional or absolute is of only marginal relevance. The point is that Poland had Internationally reccognized rights in Danzig. Germany did not.

[Boby]

An example is the Polish Post Office building that had extraterritorial status.

Wow! 1 building! But Danzig was 1.894 km2. ...

The size either porportional or absolute is of only marginal relevance. The point is that Poland had Internationally reccognized rights in Danzig. Germany did not.

In the whole of Danzig, or just in some specific places?

[waldzee]

An example is the Polish Post Office building that had extraterritorial status.

Wow! 1 building! But Danzig was 1.894 km2. ...

The size either porportional or absolute is of only marginal relevance. The point is that Poland had Internationally reccognized rights in Danzig. Germany did not.

In the whole of Danzig, or just in some specific places?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Poland had the rights to commercial transit of trade through the free city of Danzig. From 1920 to 1932 this arrangement actually worked well for Danzig.
I'm still waiting for you to respond to my proofs that the price of grain. internationally, was not a burden for Germany in the 1930's. If fora members are reluctant to 'answer your questions', pls check your recent posts.

[LWD]

An example is the Polish Post Office building that had extraterritorial status.

Wow! 1 building! But Danzig was 1.894 km2. ...

The size either porportional or absolute is of only marginal relevance. The point is that Poland had Internationally reccognized rights in Danzig. Germany did not.

In the whole of Danzig, or just in some specific places?

Without some reasonable explanation of why it's significant I'll just take this as another attempt at diversion.

[Boby]

An example is the Polish Post Office building that had extraterritorial status.

Wow! 1 building! But Danzig was 1.894 km2. ...

The size either porportional or absolute is of only marginal relevance. The point is that Poland had Internationally reccognized rights in Danzig. Germany did not.

In the whole of Danzig, or just in some specific places?

Without some reasonable explanation of why it's significant I'll just take this as another attempt at diversion.

It is not any attempt at diversion. It was a very reasonable question: did Poland have economic rights only in the city itself, i.e, concentrated around the free port, or it covered all Danzig territory, even Mariensee?

[Boby]

I'm still waiting for you to respond to my proofs that the price of grain. internationally, was not a burden for Germany in the 1930's. If fora members are reluctant to 'answer your questions', pls check your recent posts.

I'am not an expert in the field. I can't judge.

[waldzee]

I'm still waiting for you to respond to my proofs that the price of grain. internationally, was not a burden for Germany in the 1930's. If fora members are reluctant to 'answer your questions', pls check your recent posts.

I'am not an expert in the field. I can't judge.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I believe I'll follow LWD's message & place you on' ignore'

[wm]

The Polish rights were as follows:

The Principal Allied and Associated Powers undertake to negotiate a Treaty between the Polish Government and the Free City of Danzig, which shall come into force at the same time as the establishment of the said Free City, with the following objects:

To effect the inclusion of the Free City of Danzig within the Polish Customs frontiers, and to establish a free area in the port;
To ensure to Poland without any restriction the free use and service of all waterways, docks, basins, wharves and other works within the territory of the Free City necessary for Polish imports and exports;
To ensure to Poland the control and administration of the Vistula and of the whole railway system within the Free City, except such street and other railways as serve primarily the needs of the Free City, and of postal, telegraphic and telephonic communication between Poland and the port of Danzig;
To ensure to Poland the right to develop and improve the waterways, docks, basins, wharves, railways and other works and means of communication mentioned in this Article, as well as to lease or purchase through appropriate processes such land and other property as may be necessary for these purposes,
To provide against any discrimination within the Free City of Danzig to the detriment of citizens of Poland and other persons of Polish origin or speech;
To provide that the Polish Government shall undertake the conduct of the foreign relations of the Free City of Danzig as well as the diplomatic protection of citizens of that city when abroad.

The Versailles Treaty June 28, 1919

A lof of free stuff that would otherwise be pricey.

[ljadw]

1)The OP is biased:it is giving the impression that the "alliance" was not defensive
2)As there was till the end of august no" alliance",the discussion is superfluous
3)As the "alliance" had no influence on the events,the discussion is superfluous

[Boby]

I'm still waiting for you to respond to my proofs that the price of grain. internationally, was not a burden for Germany in the 1930's. If fora members are reluctant to 'answer your questions', pls check your recent posts.

I'am not an expert in the field. I can't judge.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I believe I'll follow LWD's message & place you on' ignore'

You are free to do it. But before please explain why.

[Steve]

The question being put is was the Anglo Polish alliance of April 6 purely defensive.

As to whether the alliance was a defensive action for the Poles surely the answer is yes. If there had been no pressure put on Poland over Danzig prior to April then quite likely there would have been no alliance with England. I know of no evidence that the Poles were planning to attack Germany but there is plenty of evidence they were worried about German intentions towards them.

The question of whether the alliance was a defensive measure by Britain is not so clear. It is known from the British cabinet discussions leading up to the guarantee that there was no intention to start a general European war in order to destroy Germany. Just prior to the guarantee being issued the British cabinet was told that there had been no military talks with the French about a possible French offensive against Germany.

The British in 1939 decided Hitler was seeking European domination and that was a threat to Britain. They were not against peaceful border changes but German aggression would now be resisted. It was believed that there was a good chance Poland would do a deal with Germany and become a German ally. Alternatively, if Germany attacked Poland and Britain did nothing all the small states of Eastern Europe would fall under German influence. Both of these options were inimical to Britain’s policy of preventing German domination of Europe.

The British reasoning for the guarantee was that it would stiffen Polish resistance to Germany if they had been thinking of giving way. Poland would be brought over to the allied side and could be part of an Eastern Front if war came. It would send a message to Germany that a line was now being drawn in the sand regarding future German expansion. Chamberlain hoped the Poles would make concessions but even if they did not Hitler was unlikely to risk a general European war over Danzig. It was even suggested by Halifax the British Foreign Secretary (maybe as a joke) that the guarantee should be given without consulting the Poles.

Chamberlain intended that whether the March 31 guarantee was implemented or not would be decided by Britain not Poland. Because there was so much distrust of his intentions after Munich he had to make a statement in the Commons saying that Poland would decide if its independence was threatened. Whatever the wording of the April treaty it should be remembered that the British are masters at semantics as the Russians found out with the Libya UN resolution. If they had decided to look for a way out of supporting a Polish action I am sure they would have found one.

It is very difficult to imagine Chamberlain trying to form an offensive alliance intended to destroy Germany and looking for an excuse to start a war. He did intend to prevent Germany dominating Europe and he hoped that could be achieved without war. Chamberlain can be accused of going to far in trying to prevent war but not of forming an offensive alliance against Germany. However Hitler was intending to achieve his aims the treaty was like a red rag to a bull.

[waldzee]

".....It is very difficult to imagine Chamberlain trying to form an offensive alliance intended to destroy Germany and looking for an excuse to start a war. He did intend to prevent Germany dominating Europe and he hoped that could be achieved without war. Chamberlain can be accused of going to far in trying to prevent war but not of forming an offensive alliance against Germany. However Hitler was intending to achieve his aims the treaty was like a red rag to a bull.[/quote]


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
thank you Steve for bringing some sanity to this debate!
Neille Chamberlain as 'war monger plotter of Europe!' What 's next......

[ljadw]

England winning the finale of the football championship ?

[Boby]

The British in 1939 decided Hitler was seeking European domination and that was a threat to Britain. They were not against peaceful border changes but German aggression would now be resisted. It was believed that there was a good chance Poland would do a deal with Germany and become a German ally.

Steve. Just imagine if Germany would had formed an independent economic bloc in east/southeast europe by peaceful means (i.e, Slovakia, Poland, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria and Yugoslavia freely agree to enter such economic community). Do you think Britain would be sitting happily around a table because there was no german agression?