De Gaulle and French betrayal of Poland in Semptember 1939
-
- Member
- Posts: 10158
- Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 12:19
Re: De Gaulle and French betrayal of Poland in Semptember 1939
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
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
Re: De Gaulle and French betrayal of Poland in Semptember 1939
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.
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.
-
- Member
- Posts: 10158
- Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 12:19
Re: De Gaulle and French betrayal of Poland in Semptember 1939
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
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
Re: De Gaulle and French betrayal of Poland in Semptember 1939
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:
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:
If the Poles had a problem they should have talked to me first. It was in the pact.Both Governments announce their intention to settle directly all questions of whatever sort which concern their mutual relations.
Re: De Gaulle and French betrayal of Poland in Semptember 1939
Hi Sid.
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.
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.
As I said earlier, probably high time it was put to rest.
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.Or are you suggesting that France would have been at war with Germany in 1939, had Poland not been attacked?
Let me clarify it. Poland do like Czechoslovakia. Poland no have war with Germany and USSR. Poland no have 5 million killed.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?
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.not only its own misery but everyone else's misery could have been avoided?
.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.
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.Well, there is no question mark about the word "betrayal" in the title,
As I said earlier, probably high time it was put to rest.
Last edited by gebhk on 10 May 2021, 12:49, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Member
- Posts: 8251
- Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
- Location: Teesside
Re: De Gaulle and French betrayal of Poland in Semptember 1939
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 .Sid Guttridge wrote: ↑04 May 2021, 23:09Hi 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.
Re: De Gaulle and French betrayal of Poland in Semptember 1939
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.
Re: De Gaulle and French betrayal of Poland in Semptember 1939
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.
Re: De Gaulle and French betrayal of Poland in Semptember 1939
Really? Please point out where, because I can't find it.It has been answered just not answered the way that is palatable to the poster.
-
- Member
- Posts: 10158
- Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 12:19
Re: De Gaulle and French betrayal of Poland in Semptember 1939
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.
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, 14:27, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Member
- Posts: 10158
- Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 12:19
Re: De Gaulle and French betrayal of Poland in Semptember 1939
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.
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.
Re: De Gaulle and French betrayal of Poland in Semptember 1939
NO : I am not suggesting that without a German attack on Poland, France would have declared war on Germany anyway .Sid Guttridge wrote: ↑10 May 2021, 14:02Hi 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.
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 .