De Gaulle and French betrayal of Poland in Semptember 1939

Discussions on all aspects of Poland during the Second Polish Republic and the Second World War. Hosted by Peter K
User avatar
wm
Member
Posts: 6219
Joined: 29 Dec 2006 20:11
Location: Poland

Re: De Gaulle and French betrayal of Poland in Semptember 1939

Post by wm » 08 May 2021 12:56

Hitler says:
The following circumstances can deem a contract voidable:
...
- A breach of contract occurred.
...

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 9170
Joined: 12 Jun 2008 11:19

Re: De Gaulle and French betrayal of Poland in Semptember 1939

Post by Sid Guttridge » 08 May 2021 16:35

Hi wm,

Well, of course you could accept the word of Hitler, whose regime, at the IMT after the war, was charged with breaching 13 assurances, 8 treaties, 6 conventions, 3 solemn assurances, 2 agreements and one declaration against 12 different countries by 11 December, 1941. (The list is not comprehensive even then, as it doesn't, for example, include the Reichskonkordat with the Vatican, or other breaches after that date, often against fellow Axis countries.)

Or you could look up the text of the non-aggression pact yourself.

Cheers,

Sid

User avatar
wm
Member
Posts: 6219
Joined: 29 Dec 2006 20:11
Location: Poland

Re: De Gaulle and French betrayal of Poland in Semptember 1939

Post by wm » 08 May 2021 19:48

Hitler says:
I haven't done any of those things (at least yet, till April 1939).
Anyway, pacta sunt servanda - agreements must be kept. The pact mandated to settle directly all questions first.

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 9170
Joined: 12 Jun 2008 11:19

Re: De Gaulle and French betrayal of Poland in Semptember 1939

Post by Sid Guttridge » 09 May 2021 06:15

Hi wm,

You post, "Hitler says:" Where?

You post "I haven't done any of those things (at least yet, till April 1939)." I think the Austrians, the Vatican, the Czechs and the Versailles signatories might disagree.

You post, "Anyway, pacta sunt servanda - agreements must be kept." Yup, but this was not something Hitler subscribed to in practice,

You post, "The pact mandated to settle directly all questions first." I can't find any such reference in it. "First" before what?

Cheers,

Sid

User avatar
wm
Member
Posts: 6219
Joined: 29 Dec 2006 20:11
Location: Poland

Re: De Gaulle and French betrayal of Poland in Semptember 1939

Post by wm » 09 May 2021 20:57

It's Hitler's ghost who has become sentient lately.
And he says:
You yourself wrote it wasn't possible to "legally get out of the non-aggression pact until ten years after its signature."

In 1939 nobody claimed that treaties signed by Germany were invalid because I had supposedly misbehaved sometimes.
The Munich Agreement was still valid (actually till 1942) and the Anglo-German Naval Agreement was too. Nobody doubted that - so the Poles had no right to violate the pact, especially in secret.
And especially because of this part of the pact:
Both Governments announce their intention to settle directly all questions of whatever sort which concern their mutual relations.
If the Poles had a problem they should have talked to me first. It was in the pact.

gebhk
Member
Posts: 1594
Joined: 25 Feb 2013 20:23

Re: De Gaulle and French betrayal of Poland in Semptember 1939

Post by gebhk » 10 May 2021 00:04

Hi Sid.
Or are you suggesting that France would have been at war with Germany in 1939, had Poland not been attacked?
More than likely if Hitler had settled matters to his liking on his eastern front ie in Poland. If anything he would have felt more secure than he did in 1940, because he would have had a buffer between himself and the USSR ans I am sure he was not stupid enough to believe Stailn was any more trustworthy than himself.
I am not sure what your point here is exactly. That WWII and all its attendant casualties could have been avoided if everyone had had the foresight to see its course and outcome and just let the Soviet Union peaceably occupy Eastern Europe in September 1939?
Let me clarify it. Poland do like Czechoslovakia. Poland no have war with Germany and USSR. Poland no have 5 million killed.
not only its own misery but everyone else's misery could have been avoided?
With respect, that's your own invention. I have no reason to either defend it or to engage with it as my only point here is that Poland likely could have avoided the sacrifice it made.
This opens up a whole new historical vista for me, though not one I see reason to seriously entertain
.
Since it is one that you have created for yourself it is entirely up to you. I have no reason to entertain it at all, seriously or otherwise. However you will be in plentiful (if not necessarily good) company since many voices beginning with Mssrs Hitler and Stalin have come up with that specious argument.
Certainly not itself, and if it couldn't shield itself effectually, it certainly couldn't shield anyone else. Poland provided France with a diversion, not a shield. This is not to blame the Poles, but to tell it like it was.

The shield analogy was not mine so I do not feel the need not make any apology for that. In any event, whether we call it a shield or a diversion or a pink panther is immaterial. If you employ a shield or diversion or pink panther that you know to be weak and do nothing effective to strengthen it, then it is the height of hypocrisy to blame it when it gives way.
Well, there is no question mark about the word "betrayal" in the title,
None whatsoever. There is also no question mark that neither in the title nor in the posting by RedKnight is there any suggestion that the thread is about the Poles complaining about French Betrayal or anything else. It is about the opinions of Charles De Gaulle on the subject. And while Michael's and your derailments of the topic have predictably generated reams of off topic argument and semantics about all sorts of things, no one has given any relevant answer to RedRight's question which is, I expect, why he has given up further involvement in his own thread.

As I said earlier, probably high time it was put to rest.
Last edited by gebhk on 10 May 2021 11:49, edited 1 time in total.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 6796
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: De Gaulle and French betrayal of Poland in Semptember 1939

Post by Michael Kenny » 10 May 2021 02:52

gebhk wrote:
10 May 2021 00:04
no one has given any answer to RedRight's question which is, I expect, why he has given up further involvement in his own thread.
It has been answered just not answered the way that is palatable to the poster.
Scotsman, ray of sunshine etc.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 11598
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: De Gaulle and French betrayal of Poland in Semptember 1939

Post by ljadw » 10 May 2021 06:32

Sid Guttridge wrote:
04 May 2021 22:09
Hi wm,

You post, "The point is the French made and executed a plan to use the Poles as a human shield protecting their military and political designs."

If true it failed spectacularly, because the Poles failed to protect themselves, let alone anyone else!

Remember, France declared war on behalf of Poland. Poland did not enter the war on behalf of France. France found herself defeated and humiliated as a result. The French made a great sacrifice for Poland. Poland made no sacrifice for France.

Cheers,

Sid.
Sigh : France did not declare war on behalf of Poland .They did not care about Poland ,they could do without Poland , as before 1918 and as after 1945 .

User avatar
wm
Member
Posts: 6219
Joined: 29 Dec 2006 20:11
Location: Poland

Re: De Gaulle and French betrayal of Poland in Semptember 1939

Post by wm » 10 May 2021 07:02

That was always true. Responsible and rational politicians didn't do "things" for others at great cost for their country (including in human lives) without equally great benefits in return.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 11598
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: De Gaulle and French betrayal of Poland in Semptember 1939

Post by ljadw » 10 May 2021 09:35

wm wrote:
08 May 2021 19:48

Anyway, pacta sunt servanda - agreements must be kept.
I have to disagree : not in the real world, but only in the fictional world of lawyers, politicians (failed journalists ) and journalists ( = failed politicians ) and teachers at Princeton .

User avatar
wm
Member
Posts: 6219
Joined: 29 Dec 2006 20:11
Location: Poland

Re: De Gaulle and French betrayal of Poland in Semptember 1939

Post by wm » 10 May 2021 10:36

Pacta sunt servanda allowed the injured party to be in the right and exit the pacta if desired. The fact that it (and all international laws) was unenforceable changed nothing.

gebhk
Member
Posts: 1594
Joined: 25 Feb 2013 20:23

Re: De Gaulle and French betrayal of Poland in Semptember 1939

Post by gebhk » 10 May 2021 11:41

It has been answered just not answered the way that is palatable to the poster.
Really? Please point out where, because I can't find it.

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 9170
Joined: 12 Jun 2008 11:19

Re: De Gaulle and French betrayal of Poland in Semptember 1939

Post by Sid Guttridge » 10 May 2021 13:02

Hi ljadw,

You post, "France did not declare war on behalf of Poland."

So you are suggesting that had Poland not been attacked by Germany, France would have declared war on Germany anyway?

Sid.
Last edited by Sid Guttridge on 10 May 2021 13:27, edited 1 time in total.

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 9170
Joined: 12 Jun 2008 11:19

Re: De Gaulle and French betrayal of Poland in Semptember 1939

Post by Sid Guttridge » 10 May 2021 13:09

Hi wm,

I didn't realize you are now channeling Hitler directly!

You post that I wrote it wasn't possible to "legally get out of the non-aggression pact until ten years after its signature." Absolutely.

You post, "In 1939 nobody claimed that treaties signed by Germany were invalid because (Hitler) had supposedly misbehaved sometimes." Quite the contrary. They claimed they were still valid. You ought to read Pope Pius XI on the subject - and he died in early 1939.

It is always as well to remember that at the IMT after the war, Hitler's regime was charged with breaching 13 assurances, 8 treaties, 6 conventions, 3 solemn assurances, 2 agreements and one declaration against 12 different countries by 11 December, 1941. (The list is not comprehensive even then, as it doesn't, for example, include the Reichskonkordat with the Vatican, or other breaches after that date, often against fellow Axis countries.)

You post, ".....the Poles had no right to violate the pact, especially in secret." Absolutely true and they did not.

Yup, "Both Governments announce their intention to settle directly all questions of whatever sort which concern their mutual relations." It wasn't Poland that stopped talking. It was Germany when Hitler illegally renounced the non-aggression pact five years prematurely.

There was nothing in the Non-Aggression Pact that precluded either party from concluding defensive agreements with other powers.

Cheers,

Sid.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 11598
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: De Gaulle and French betrayal of Poland in Semptember 1939

Post by ljadw » 10 May 2021 13:59

Sid Guttridge wrote:
10 May 2021 13:02
Hi ljadw,

You post, "France did not declare war on behalf of Poland."

So you are suggesting that had Poland not been attacked by Germany, France would have declared war on Germany anyway?

Sid.
NO : I am not suggesting that without a German attack on Poland, France would have declared war on Germany anyway .
I am saying that France declared war on Germany, because Germany attacked an other European country . That this country happened to be Poland, had nothing to do with the French DOW : if in 1938 Hitler had attacked CZ, France would have declared war,if he had attacked Denmark, France would have declared war .
France declared war because Hitler violated a principle , something very stupid of France, but this is only my personnel opinion .

Return to “Poland 1919-1945”