What would have happened if Hitler seized Danzig and only Danzig?

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today.
User avatar
Robert Rojas
Member
Posts: 2542
Joined: 19 Nov 2002 04:29
Location: Pleasant Hill, California - U.S.A.

RE: In Fond Memory Of Henry John Temple Palmerston - (Well Sort Of).

Post by Robert Rojas » 12 Oct 2018 00:32

Greetings to both citizen ljadw and the community as a whole. Howdy ljadw! Well sir, in respect to your posting of Wednesday - October 10, 2018 - 11:13am, old yours truly would like to convey my appreciation for your illustrative examples of Twentieth Century state craft between year 1914 and year 1939. Speaking purely for myself, in terms of either formal treaties OR informal understandings, I would more likely place my faith in my local Mafia Don over that of any self-promoting politician. To illustrate, the history of Nineteenth Century America is strewn with the wreckage of abrogated treaties and understandings between Washington, D.C. and those unfortunate indigenous peoples who unhappily found themselves in the relentless path of Manifest Destiny. I believe Chief Red Cloud of the Ogallala Sioux gave one of the better summations of treaties and understandings: "They made us many promises, more than I can remember, but they kept only one; they promised to take our land, and they did". Crass generalities notwithstanding, all too often, "agreements" are invariably not worth the paper they are written on. It's just some sobering food for thought. Well, that is my latest two tangential cents or pfennigs worth on this topic "gravitating" upon GDANSK - for now anyway. As always, I would like to bid you an especially copacetic day no matter where you just might happen to find yourself on Terra Firma.

Best Regards,
Uncle Bob :idea: :|
"It is well that war is so terrible, or we should grow too fond of it" - Robert E. Lee

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 6480
Joined: 12 Jun 2008 11:19

Re: What would have happened if Hitler seized Danzig and only Danzig?

Post by Sid Guttridge » 12 Oct 2018 10:47

Hi Uncle Bob,

Blind cynicism notwithstanding, this still leaves open the question as to why, if they have no value, countries continue to agree treaties?

On an empirical level, you may soon find out how a "local Mafia boss" acts when in the role of a politician - did not ex-FBI Director Comey liken Trump to a Mafia boss, "untethered to the Truth"?

Cheers,

Sid.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 9398
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: What would have happened if Hitler seized Danzig and only Danzig?

Post by ljadw » 12 Oct 2018 12:28

As I had already said twice, treaties are superfluous for an efficient foreign policy : treaties are words from lawyers and politicians,= people who are paid to talk, not to act : a civil/religious wedding is not needed for a happy marriage ;it is the same for relations between states .

ljadw
Member
Posts: 9398
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: What would have happened if Hitler seized Danzig and only Danzig?

Post by ljadw » 12 Oct 2018 12:46

Sid Guttridge wrote:
11 Oct 2018 21:05
Hi ljadw,

Britain was obliged to do everything within its power to support Poland. A declaration of war was definitely within its power. We know this for a fact, because that is what actually happened.

If, as you say, "Treaties are not about mutual interests", why do countries sign them with each other?

What are your sources that the Japanese considered Germany supplying Nationalist China was a breach of the Anti-Comintern Pact, rather than just an unfriendly act?

There is certainly nothing in the pact itself that would support such an interpretation.

Cheers,

Sid.
About the Anti Comintern Pact (which was directed against the SU ) : Japan claimed that its war in China had as mission to protect Japan and the Chinese from the communist danger and Japan said that the German military help to the KMT was in reality a help to the communists, as the KMT collaborated with the communists .
Source : Memorandum from von Weiszäcker about a meeting with the Japanese ambassador on July 28 1937, cited by Jacques Benoist-Méchin in 'Histoire de l'Armée allemande ''Part IV P 79 .
Benoist-Méchin writes the following:

Mushakogi ( Japanese ambassador ) se plaint amerement au ministere des affaires étrangeres allemand '' du manque total de compréhension dont fait preuve le Reich, á l'egard du caractere foncierement anticommuniste des opérations engagées par les Japonais contre le gouvernement de Nanking.''
Mushakogi said that the Japanese operations against the KMT were anti communist .

User avatar
Robert Rojas
Member
Posts: 2542
Joined: 19 Nov 2002 04:29
Location: Pleasant Hill, California - U.S.A.

RE: In Fond Memory Of Henry John Temple Palmerston - (Well Sort Of).

Post by Robert Rojas » 13 Oct 2018 04:55

Greetings to both Sid Guttridge and the community as a whole. Howdy Sid! Well sir, in respect to your posting of Friday - October 12, 2018 - 1:47pm, , blind cynicism notwithstanding, old yours truly is of the school of thought that formal treaties AND informal understandings are nominal VEHICLES OF CONVENIENCE usually between two parties that have a mutual interest OR interests. As long as the formal treaty OR informal understanding is mutually advantageous to both parties, then the "agreement" holds and subsequently remains in force. By and large, formal treaties OR informal understandings tend to go right out of the window when the "agreement" is NO longer mutually advantageous to one party or another. The infamous Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact of August 23, 1939 would be just one of many historical examples where a formal treaty of informal understanding has vaporized into thin air under the weight of a pre-emptive strike. There are any number of learned thinkers who have expounded on this very matter - Karl von Clausewitz, Niccolo Machiavelli and Vladimir Ulyanov just to name a few. I hope that thumbnail sketch addresses the essence of your inquiry. Now, if that thumbnail sketch does NOT address the essence of your inquiry, then I will approach citizen Jesk and request that the equivalent of a Doctoral Thesis be written up on your behalf. SOUND LIKE A PLAN!? Oh, and by the way, at least on an empirical level anyway, during my tenure as a resident of the City of Chicago, I had the very distinct pleasure to observe how a "LOCAL MAFIA BOSS" acts when in the role of a politician. When the time avails itself, you might want to acquaint yourself with the life and times of the City of Chicago's thirty eighth mayor - RICHARD JOSEPH DALEY, SENIOR. Untethered to the truth indeed! Well, that is my latest two Yankee cents worth on this tangential topic that once centered upon the municipality of GDANSK - for now anyway. As always, I would like to bid you an especially copacetic day no matter where you just might happen to find yourself on Terra Firma.

Best Regards,
Uncle Bob :idea: :|
"It is well that war is so terrible, or we should grow too fond of it" - Robert E. Lee

MarkN
Member
Posts: 2147
Joined: 12 Jan 2015 13:34
Location: On the continent

Re: What would have happened if Hitler seized Danzig and only Danzig?

Post by MarkN » 13 Oct 2018 18:50

ljadw wrote:
12 Oct 2018 12:28
As I had already said twice, treaties are superfluous for an efficient foreign policy : treaties are words from lawyers and politicians,= people who are paid to talk, not to act : a civil/religious wedding is not needed for a happy marriage ;it is the same for relations between states .
Another post of utter nonsense... :roll:

It's been over 24 hours since you last said it, so why not say it a fourth time? Go on, you know you want to....

PS. Do you think that repetition makes yout words more credible or believable or relevant?
PPS. A 'wedding' is essential to 'marriage': happy or otherwise. Without a wedding, there is no marriage.

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 6480
Joined: 12 Jun 2008 11:19

Re: What would have happened if Hitler seized Danzig and only Danzig?

Post by Sid Guttridge » 13 Oct 2018 21:26

Hi Robert Rojas,

Your position is similar to mine. Treaties last as long as they are mutually convenient. This is usually recognized by putting time limitations on them or providing mechanisms for withdrawal.

However, for really cynical regimes, like that of Nazi Germany, they are just part of the tools available for deceiving an opponent.

Cheers,

sid

ljadw
Member
Posts: 9398
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: What would have happened if Hitler seized Danzig and only Danzig?

Post by ljadw » 14 Oct 2018 11:09

Not only by Germany :all countries did/do the same :
The Agreement of St Jean de Mauroenne and the Sykes-Picot Agreement promised Italy parts of the Ottoman Empire ,Greece and of future Yugoslavia, but Britain and France did not keep their promises.
The promises by Lawrence of Arabia were also not kept .
Treaties are promises from politicians to other politicians .

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 6480
Joined: 12 Jun 2008 11:19

Re: What would have happened if Hitler seized Danzig and only Danzig?

Post by Sid Guttridge » 14 Oct 2018 14:21

Hi ljadw,

No, treaties are between countries, not politicians.

Regimes change, but Treaties usually outlast the politicians precisely because they are between nations, not individuals. The oldest still valid treaty, between the UK and Portugal, is over 600 years old. It has endured, like all treaties, because it is mutually convenient that it should do so.

This is something that Donald Trump, for example, doesn't agree with in the Iran case. He seems to see treaties in purely personal, rather than national, terms and feel no obligation to abide by agreements made by the USA prior to his administration. The consequence of this is likely to be that other countries will in future give less credibility to the USA's signed adherence to anything, its word will become less its bond, and its influence will be diminished.

Hitler had a similar disregard for any agreement reached by previous German regimes and, worse, was perfectly willing to break his own international agreements, such as his 10-year, 1934 non-agression pact with Poland.

Cheers,

Sid

ljadw
Member
Posts: 9398
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: What would have happened if Hitler seized Danzig and only Danzig?

Post by ljadw » 14 Oct 2018 19:10

This is not correct : a GOP president is not bound by an agreement made by his Democratic predecessor: Trumo tried to undo Obamacare, but he failed, Trump refused to sign the Climate Treaty of Paris ansd undid the nuclear agreement with Iran, but, if Trump is succeeded by a Democrat, the Democratic president can activate again the Climate Treaty and the agreement with Iran .
No president is forced to abide by agreements made by his predecessor(s).The predecessors of Nixon had declared that the government of Taiwan was the legal government of China, Nixon said that the government of Peking was the legal government of China.
And, it is even so that no president is bound by an agreement that he signed himself .Trump said that Jeruzalem was the capital of Israel, but, he is totally free to change his opinion and to say that Jeruzalem is not the capital of Israel.The treaty of St Jean de Maurienne was signed when Lloyd George was PM and repudiated/violated when the same Lloyd George was PM.
Treaties are promises made by politicians to other politicians and valid til they will be violated .

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 6480
Joined: 12 Jun 2008 11:19

Re: What would have happened if Hitler seized Danzig and only Danzig?

Post by Sid Guttridge » 14 Oct 2018 19:25

Hi ljadw,

Any legitimate head of government is bound by the treaties made by his predecessors on behalf of his country, except in so far as he can withdraw from them legally.

The arrival of a new head of state by legitimate means does not automatically mean that all previous agreements are nul. They are part of his inheritance and he has to abide by them until he can legally abrogate them or the other party breaches them.

International treaties are made between and on behalf of countries, not individuals.

Cheers,

Sid.

South
Financial supporter
Posts: 3590
Joined: 06 Sep 2007 09:01
Location: USA

Re: What would have happened if Hitler seized Danzig and only Danzig?

Post by South » 14 Oct 2018 22:12

Good evening Sid,

You had written words to the effect that NATO outlived the USSR.

I presented the matter that France withdrew from military NATO 16 Oct 1967 (the integrated military structure) and never returned to the NATO nuclear planning group.

Current events are verbotten but you do remember recent matters of history such as "Iran-Contra".

Do you know that the Israelis built the airfield in Irbil, Iraq. Guess who funded this.

You also neglected to respond to my mention of the 1994 Mediterranean Dialogue.

ALL US-Israel relations ARE ACCOUNTABLE - - - to the selected senior members of Congress (mostly Senate) and the President and selected confidants.

When it's no longer current events we can discuss the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter matter.

Much has been going on and much is not available to the public.

~ Bob
eastern Virginia, USA

South
Financial supporter
Posts: 3590
Joined: 06 Sep 2007 09:01
Location: USA

Re: What would have happened if Hitler seized Danzig and only Danzig?

Post by South » 14 Oct 2018 22:30

Good evening Mark,

Ref "pps";

Although being phased out, in various parts of the US - the south especially - there's still the "common law" marriage.

No wedding or any other rite or ritual is required; just holding out to the public as being wed and presto.

The above occasionally shows up when the the US Department of Veterans Affairs ("VA") can only give medical records to a family member and there's some sort of contest as to whether partner is married to veteran. (Money just might be involved.)

~ Bob
eastern Virginia, USA

South
Financial supporter
Posts: 3590
Joined: 06 Sep 2007 09:01
Location: USA

Re: What would have happened if Hitler seized Danzig and only Danzig?

Post by South » 14 Oct 2018 22:36

Good evening all,

I've noticed a "problem" that's easy enough to correct.

Re treaties - focused to US treaties - 2 words are being used in this thread as being synonyms. They are not.

The 2 words are 1. Treaty and 2. Agreement.

In US - traditional - practice a treaty is developed by the President and approved ("ratified") by Congress (to include any funding requirements).

An "agreement" does not require Congressional approval.

~ Bob
eastern Virginia, USA

User avatar
Robert Rojas
Member
Posts: 2542
Joined: 19 Nov 2002 04:29
Location: Pleasant Hill, California - U.S.A.

RE: In Fond Memory Of Henry John Temple Palmerston - (Well Sort Of).

Post by Robert Rojas » 14 Oct 2018 23:29

Greetings to both brother South and the community as a whole. Howdy Bob! Well sir, in respect to your posting of Sunday - October 14, 2018 - 1:36pm, old yours truly is confounded with your attitude. Are you trying to ruin every ones fun WITH ANNOYING FACTS!? Boy oh boy, the damned nerve of some people! Well, that's my latest two questionable cents worth on this hopelessly meandering topic that once gravitated upon GDANSK - for now anyway. As always, I would like to bid you an especially copacetic day over in your corner of the Old Dominion that is the Commonwealth of Virginia.


Best Regards,
Uncle Bob :idea: :) :P :lol: :wink: 8-) :thumbsup:
"It is well that war is so terrible, or we should grow too fond of it" - Robert E. Lee

Return to “What if”