Chamberlain REFUSES to declare war on September 3 1939

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
ljadw
Member
Posts: 15472
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Chamberlain REFUSES to declare war on September 3 1939

Post by ljadw » 27 Jul 2022 11:26

Takao wrote:
27 Jul 2022 09:45
Neither Hitler or Stalin determined Polish Foreign policy.

Hitler and Stalin affected Polish foreign policy, but they did not determine it.
Without Poland being encircled between a hostile Germany and a hostile USSR,its foreign policy would have been different .
And initially Hitler was ''better '' for Poland than Streseman, because Hitler's domestic policy (anti-communism ) determined his foreign policy ( at least,this was what everyone outside Germany believed,and what the Polish leaders believed,or better :what they decided to believe ).
Everyone refused to believe that Hitler would sign a second Rapallo .
Thus Poland considered itself in 1933 in less danger /or :more secure than in 1922

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 3776
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 19:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: Chamberlain REFUSES to declare war on September 3 1939

Post by Takao » 27 Jul 2022 12:06

ljadw wrote:
27 Jul 2022 11:26
Takao wrote:
27 Jul 2022 09:45
Neither Hitler or Stalin determined Polish Foreign policy.

Hitler and Stalin affected Polish foreign policy, but they did not determine it.
Without Poland being encircled between a hostile Germany and a hostile USSR,its foreign policy would have been different .
No shite Sherlock. That is what I said. Hitler and Stalin AFFECTED Polish foreign policy.

You ERRONOUSLY stated Hitler and Stalin DETERMINED Polish Foreign policy...
If Hitler determined Polish Foreign policy, the Poles would have aligned with Germany...But, they did not.
If Stalin had determined Polish Foreign policy, the Poles would have aligned with the Soviet Union...But, they did not.

The Poles DETERMINED Polish Foreign policy.


ljadw wrote:
27 Jul 2022 11:26
And initially Hitler was ''better '' for Poland than Streseman, because Hitler's domestic policy (anti-communism ) determined his foreign policy ( at least,this was what everyone outside Germany believed,and what the Polish leaders believed,or better :what they decided to believe ).
Everyone refused to believe that Hitler would sign a second Rapallo .
Thus Poland considered itself in 1933 in less danger /or :more secure than in 1922
The Poles did not, which is why they pursued a middle ground foreign policy with Germany and the Soviet Union.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15472
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Chamberlain REFUSES to declare war on September 3 1939

Post by ljadw » 27 Jul 2022 14:09

From The Instytut Zachodni
Poland-German History
The Treaty of Rapallo ( 1922 )

''The Rapallo Pact caused particular concern in Poland where the return to cooperation between the two signatory states brought back sinister parallels .This was the worst-case scenario for Poland's security . ''
" One of the leaders of the Polish Socialist Party ( Ignacy Daszynski ) said in parliament :
''There is no doubt that (...) the Rapallo Treaty is fraught with dangers for Poland ( ...) that could materialize very soon ( .. ) leaving us crushed . ''
It is obvious that without this worst-case scenario, ( the German danger was bigger than the Soviet one )the situation for Poland would have been very different ,thus also its foreign policy .
On January 1933 the spectre of Rapallo had disappeared ( hoped Polish politicians ) and thus its foreign policy could change .
No Polish politician said on January 1933 that the advent of Hitler was fraught with dangers for Poland that could materialize very soon and crush Poland .

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 3776
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 19:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: Chamberlain REFUSES to declare war on September 3 1939

Post by Takao » 27 Jul 2022 14:26

Polish foreign policy did not change.

In 1933, the advent of Hitler was fraught with dangers for Poland.
Which is why they signed this.
https://www.dziennikustaw.gov.pl/DU/1934/s/16/124

historygeek2021
Member
Posts: 641
Joined: 17 Dec 2020 06:23
Location: Australia

Re: Chamberlain REFUSES to declare war on September 3 1939

Post by historygeek2021 » 27 Jul 2022 16:26

Steve wrote:
27 Jul 2022 05:11
“Right, so if a leader in a country says their people will fight to resist an invader, and their people do in fact fight, he is clearly exaggerating.”

My post referred to Rydz exaggerating the importance of Danzig to Poland It said nothing about resisting Germany. Perhaps I should have said I was only referring to the situation with regard to Danzig.

“But if a British person makes a statement about another country after a short visit, then clearly the British person is all knowing and should be trusted 100%. Makes sense.”

This “British person” was not a tourist on a fishing holiday or whatever it was a senior British General who talked to the Polish General Staff. You would expect him to have a good idea of what the Polish position on Danzig was after talking to the countries military leadership. Of course it is a possibility that General Ironside spent most of his time either drunk or in the flesh pots of Warsaw and on his return made up what he reported,
Your reasoning is pure Anglophilia. The all wise British general knows the Poles better than the Poles know themselves. How strange that the Poles in fact did what they said they would do and not what their betters in London told them to do.

User avatar
wm
Member
Posts: 8747
Joined: 29 Dec 2006 20:11
Location: Poland

Re: Chamberlain REFUSES to declare war on September 3 1939

Post by wm » 27 Jul 2022 19:55

A week before the war, Chamberlain signed a comprehensive alliance with Poland (Agreement of Mutual Assistance), where he promised to die for Poland and for Danzig.
So what, did he experience buyer's remorse a few days later?
Without the treaty, he simply needed to do nothing to avoid the war.

User avatar
Steve
Member
Posts: 982
Joined: 03 Aug 2002 01:58
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Chamberlain REFUSES to declare war on September 3 1939

Post by Steve » 28 Jul 2022 03:14

I assume we are discussing Danzig and not the entire German campaign. Ironside did not say that the Poles would not defend Poland he said they would not defend Danzig. As far as I am aware if Hitler had only moved against Danzig there were no Polish plans to launch an offensive to recapture Danzig. If there was any Polish military planning about what to do if Hitler only seized Danzig perhaps it could be shared. Ironside was complementary about the Polish army. I am curious what did “their betters” in London tell the Poles to do.

Nowhere in the agreement signed on August 25 does Chamberlain promise to die for Poland. Presumably there exists another agreement in which Chamberlain promises to die for Poland. Is there any chance of reading this agreement?

historygeek2021
Member
Posts: 641
Joined: 17 Dec 2020 06:23
Location: Australia

Re: Chamberlain REFUSES to declare war on September 3 1939

Post by historygeek2021 » 28 Jul 2022 14:24

"Recognizing that the Germans were likely to attempt a coup against Danzig, the Polish Ministry of Military Affairs had decided to form an Intervention Corps (Korpus Interwencyjny) to pre-empt any such effort. Generał Brygady Stanisław Skwarczyński was put in charge of the corps and assigned the 13 and 27 DP, as well as the 1st Light Tank Battalion (1 BCL) and a few other support units. By 25 August, the units of the corps were deployed within 40km south of Danzig and Skwarczyński was ordered to be prepared to mount a hasty attack to seize the city if Forster’s SA troops conducted further provocations." - Robert Forczyk, Case White

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15472
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Chamberlain REFUSES to declare war on September 3 1939

Post by ljadw » 28 Jul 2022 15:51

That would mean that Poland would start the fighting and that Britain would have the ideal excuse to not to intervene .
Preempting something for which there is no proof ( there is no proof for a German coup against Danzig ) is a suicidal strategy .

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15472
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Chamberlain REFUSES to declare war on September 3 1939

Post by ljadw » 28 Jul 2022 15:59

wm wrote:
27 Jul 2022 19:55
A week before the war, Chamberlain signed a comprehensive alliance with Poland (Agreement of Mutual Assistance), where he promised to die for Poland and for Danzig.
So what, did he experience buyer's remorse a few days later?
Without the treaty, he simply needed to do nothing to avoid the war.
He did not promise to die for Poland and for Danzig .
He only said that if Germany attacked Poland and if Poland fought back, he would give the aid he could give .
And, it is Chamberlain who decided what was possible, not Poland .
If someone is telling you that he will do what he can to help you, that means that he will do nothing .

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 3776
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 19:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: Chamberlain REFUSES to declare war on September 3 1939

Post by Takao » 28 Jul 2022 20:03

ljadw wrote:
28 Jul 2022 15:51
That would mean that Poland would start the fighting and that Britain would have the ideal excuse to not to intervene .
Well, that would depend on the Germany "provocations" would it not?

The Poles probably would not send their QRF, if say, the SA were parading around in shirts that said "POLES SUCK!". The Poles probably would send their QRF if the SA attempted something akin to the Battle of Westerplatte.
ljadw wrote:
28 Jul 2022 15:51
Preempting something for which there is no proof ( there is no proof for a German coup against Danzig ) is a suicidal strategy .
There is German proof that the Danzig Germans had plans to capture key Polish positions in Danzig. This would be a "coup" would it not? Then, the question becomes, did the Poles know of these plans? Or was the Polish hasty attack just contingency planning.

User avatar
wm
Member
Posts: 8747
Joined: 29 Dec 2006 20:11
Location: Poland

Re: Chamberlain REFUSES to declare war on September 3 1939

Post by wm » 28 Jul 2022 20:50

Steve wrote:
28 Jul 2022 03:14
Nowhere in the agreement signed on August 25 does Chamberlain promise to die for Poland. Presumably there exists another agreement in which Chamberlain promises to die for Poland. Is there any chance of reading this agreement?
He promised in writing:
give ... all the support and assistance in its power
give ... support and assistance immediately on the outbreak of hostilities


not conclude an armistice or treaty of peace except by mutual agreement



And promised to regard any attack on Danzig as a casus belli.
All the points were extensively discussed in direct negotiations, and there was no disagreement about their meaning.

All that - a week before the war and two days after the devastating Hitler-Stalin Pact.

Considering Poland's military weakness. Considering French relative demographic, economic, and military weakness.
Chamberlain must have been quite determined to wage war; he could have easily lost it and, as a result, died for Poland.

User avatar
Steve
Member
Posts: 982
Joined: 03 Aug 2002 01:58
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Chamberlain REFUSES to declare war on September 3 1939

Post by Steve » 29 Jul 2022 01:01

You live and learn, apparently the Poles did create a force for a possible intervention in Danzig, and this link tells you all about it:-
https://pl-m-wikipedia-org.translate.go ... _tr_pto=sc
On August 30 the Intervention Corps was dissolved.

On August 16 the British Ambassador in Berlin Henderson sent a report to London about his meeting with State Secretary Weizsacker. In the course of the conversation Weizsacker “admitted the militarisation of Danzig, but said that its object had been entirely defensive in order to protect the town against what should have been its protector.”

On August 18 the SS Heimwehr Danzig paraded through Danzig, see link below.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8MC5baxH-k

By mid August the Germans had driven a coach and horses through the treaty that set up the Free City. The Poles did not intervene though the conditions for an intervention existed. By September 1st Danzig was de facto already in the Reich. If Hitler had stopped at the end of August he would only have had the problem of the corridor which a humiliated Poland may have been prepared to compromise on.

historygeek2021
Member
Posts: 641
Joined: 17 Dec 2020 06:23
Location: Australia

Re: Chamberlain REFUSES to declare war on September 3 1939

Post by historygeek2021 » 29 Jul 2022 01:10

By August 30 it was clear that Germany was going to mount a full scale invasion of Poland. The intervention corps didn't get disbanded back to their homes, it was sent to reinforce other units resisting the imminent German invasion. Unlike the British (and present day ATL buffs), the Poles weren't dense. They knew that if they gave Hitler Danzig, he would come back for more in a few months.

User avatar
Gorque
Member
Posts: 1662
Joined: 11 Feb 2009 18:20
Location: Clocktown

Re: Chamberlain REFUSES to declare war on September 3 1939

Post by Gorque » 29 Jul 2022 01:49

I'm a little confused here: Wasn't Danzig like 80% German and wasn't Gdansk a fully operational port by then? If so, then what does it matter if Danzig gets incorporated into the Reich if Poland has a equally viable and much friendlier alternative?

Someone kindly correct me as to my error in logic. :)

Good riddance to Danzig and good luck to your economic future without the trade from the Vistula, which is now being redirected to Gdansk. The term "wither on the vine" comes to mind.
Last edited by Gorque on 29 Jul 2022 01:52, edited 1 time in total.

Return to “What if”