pugsville wrote:Relying on some other nation being motivated to step in, like international treaties helped Ethiopia, or China, or that France and England were so keen to help Czechoslovakia or Poland?
Indeed, why create extra friction when it only increases the chance you'll have to step in? Unless having a permanent friction point in order to provide an excuse to step in is the goal.
As to a country's major river flowing out to sea through another country, we have the Meuse, Rhine, and Colorado river as easy examples of major rivers that exit through a different country than that of origin. Not to mention Saint Lawrence, which drains the major agro-industrial area of the US (Great Lakes) and Danube that drains all of the Central Europe through Romania.
Poland would have had also the Grodno river port on Nemunas for alternative exit, and access to Tisa and Pruth for exit to Danube, and access to Dniester for exit to Black Sea. So no, the Corridor was nonsense.
You appear to be forgetting that pro-Polish parties won a majority of the vote in the northern part of the Polish Corridor (the part with access to the sea) in every German Reichstag election between 1871 and 1912, though. For instance, here are the results of the 1912 German Reichstag elections:https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... 912_en.png
Also, please take a look at this map:https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... f_1910.jpg
Indeed, even if Germany would have demanded a land connection between East Prussia and the rest of Germany (through Bromberg and Thorn), Poland would have still had very legitimate grounds to demand the northern part of the Polish Corridor.
In fact, I wonder if Germany would have been less offended had it received Danzig and a land bridge between East Prussia and the rest of Germany but if Poland would have retained the northern part of the Polish Corridor and had an extraterritorial road or tunnel or two to connect the northern part of the Polish Corridor with the rest of Poland.