A 1933 proposal to resolve the Polish Corridor dispute

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Steve,

As I mentioned earlier, Hitler had already broken the Versailles Treaty in multiple ways, the 1933 Reichskonkordat with the Vatican, the 1934 Non Aggression Pact with Poland, the 1935 Anglo-German Naval Agreement, the Non-Intervention Agreement on Spain in 1936, and in 1938 an assurance he had given to Austria in 1934, etc., etc.

If foreign leaders were unaware of Hitler's record, they had only themselves to blame.

Cheers,

Sid.

[Futurist]

Hi Steve,

As I mentioned earlier, Hitler had already broken the Versailles Treaty in multiple ways, the 1933 Reichskonkordat with the Vatican, the 1934 Non Aggression Pact with Poland, the 1935 Anglo-German Naval Agreement, the Non-Intervention Agreement on Spain in 1936, and in 1938 an assurance he had given to Austria in 1934, etc., etc.

If foreign leaders were unaware of Hitler's record, they had only themselves to blame.

Cheers,

Sid.

How did the 1934 pact violate the Versailles Treaty?

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Futurist,

It didn't, as far as I am aware.

Cheers,

Sid.

[Futurist]

Hi Futurist,

It didn't, as far as I am aware.

Cheers,

Sid.

Then why did you mention it here as an example of such?

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Futurist,

I didn't.

I gave a list of some of the international agreements Hitler had already broken by 1938-39, which included both Versailles and the non aggression pact with Poland.

I couldn't think of anything for 1937 - any ideas?

Cheers,

Sid.

[Steve]

Sid, ending the British naval agreement and ending the 1934 pact with Poland came after the British guarantee to Poland of March 31st. The guarantee completely changed the situation. Very likely even without the guarantee Hitler would have eventually broken the naval agreement. I recall reading somewhere that the Germans were cheating on it anyway. However, it is likely that if the Poles had come to an agreement he would not have ended the 1934 pact or at least not for a while.

[Futurist]

Sid, ending the British naval agreement and ending the 1934 pact with Poland came after the British guarantee to Poland of March 31st. The guarantee completely changed the situation. Very likely even without the guarantee Hitler would have eventually broken the naval agreement. I recall reading somewhere that the Germans were cheating on it anyway. However, it is likely that if the Poles had come to an agreement he would not have ended the 1934 pact or at least not for a while.

Did the 1934 pact actually forbid Poland from making any new alliances?

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Steve,

From the start virtually every class of surface vessel the Germans built exceded the tonnage they declared to the British. In very early 1939 they even stopped the provision of any tonnage details. This was apparently an attempt to get the British to withdraw from the agreement. The Z Plan; which massively exceeded the agreement, was launched before the Germans withdrew from it.

The British Guarantee to Poland did not contravene the terms of the naval agreement, which was purely bilateral.

It is worth pointing out that in reaching the agreement in the first place, both the UK and Germany were breaking the Versailles Treaty.

Cheers,

Sid.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Futurist,

No.

It explicitly did not, for either party.

Cheers,

Sid.

[Steve]

Hello Futurist, having read the text of the 1934 agreement the only thing I can think of that Hitler could have used as a justification for breaking it is this “Both Governments announce their intention to settle directly all questions of whatever sort which concern their mutual relations”.

Clearly no matter what was said the British guarantee given to Poland was aimed at Germany. Britain now stood behind Poland in its negotiations over Danzig and the corridor but the 1934 agreement said Poland and Germany would settle directly all questions of mutual relations.

Did Poland break the 1934 agreement by accepting the British guarantee or perhaps only break the spirit of the agreement or did not break the agreement at all.

Something to cheer everyone up in these interesting times
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D90AjwmQlag

[Futurist]

Hello Futurist, having read the text of the 1934 agreement the only thing I can think of that Hitler could have used as a justification for breaking it is this “Both Governments announce their intention to settle directly all questions of whatever sort which concern their mutual relations”.

Clearly no matter what was said the British guarantee given to Poland was aimed at Germany. Britain now stood behind Poland in its negotiations over Danzig and the corridor but the 1934 agreement said Poland and Germany would settle directly all questions of mutual relations.

Did Poland break the 1934 agreement by accepting the British guarantee or perhaps only break the spirit of the agreement or did not break the agreement at all.

Something to cheer everyone up in these interesting times
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D90AjwmQlag

I'd argue that "directly settles" means (or at least should mean) that an issue should be decided in bilateral negotiations. So, unless Poland actually made Britain a party to these bilateral negotiations (and it didn't), I really don't see how exactly Poland actually broke this agreement. By this logic, we can say that Pakistan and India both break the 1972 Simla Agreement (which explicitly states that Kashmir is a bilateral issue between these two countries) whether they seek foreign support for their position on Kashmir even when they are not actually inviting foreign countries to be participants in negotiations over Kashmir's future status. If Hitler got, say, Italian support for the return of Danzig to Germany but without actually advocating that Italy be made a part of negotiations between Germany and Poland over Danzig's status, would he (Hitler) have actually believed that he was breaking his 1934 pact with Poland?

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Guys,

The British Guarantee to Poland was specifically directed at Germany, but this was only made clear in a secret protocol, not the published text.

One wonders if or when the Germans learnt of this secret protocol?

Either way, this was not a breach of the German-Polish non aggression pact and might even be regarded as a reinforcement of it, because both were purely defensive and so should not have been in conflict.

Cheers,

Sid.

[Futurist]

Hi Guys,

The British Guarantee to Poland was specifically directed at Germany, but this was only made clear in a secret protocol, not the published text.

One wonders if or when the Germans learnt of this secret protocol?

Either way, this was not a breach of the German-Polish non aggression pact and might even be regarded as a reinforcement of it, because both were purely defensive and so should not have been in conflict.

Cheers,

Sid.

Agreed with your analysis here, Sid. Also, if Nazi Germany actually believed that Poland had broken the 1934 pact, why not raise this issue with Poland in negotiations as opposed to outright breaking the 1934 pact itself? At the very least that way Poland would have actually had an opportunity to explain itself.

[Steve]

Chamberlain would have been careful with his choice of words and there is nothing in his March 31st speech that taken at face value could cause Hitler to denounce the 1934 agreement. When Beck came to Britain in April discussions took place and a Summary of Conclusions of his talks was drawn up and signed on the evening of April 6. In the summary Germany is mentioned several times but not Danzig and the corridor. It would seem that as long as Germany did not use force to settle the dispute with Poland and in the 1934 agreement it says both countries would not there is nothing for Hitler to complain about.

In the secret protocol signed on August 25 Danzig is mentioned by name. If the Germans took action in Danzig that the Poles not the UK thought threatened their independence then the British would support the Poles. How it came about that the Polish Government would decide what was vital to resist without conferring with the UK over the matter is interesting by itself. If the secret protocol had been signed in April then perhaps this would have breached the 1934 agreement but the agreement was history by then.

The Simla analogy is interesting. As Futurist says if the two parties to the agreement ask for foreign support it does not mean they are inviting foreign countries to participate in negotiations. China is a friend of Pakistan and more supportive of the Pakistani stand on the issue than India’s. Let us now suppose Xi Jinping announces that in the event of any action which clearly threatened Pakistan’s independence, and which the Pakistan government accordingly consider it vital to resist with their national forces China will at once give the Pakistani government all support in their power. India is the only country with which Pakistan is engaged in a military stand off. Would India be right in seeing such a guarantee as aimed at them and a warning against taking military action in Kashmir? If yes then would the guarantee be a breach of the Simla Agreement?

[Futurist]

I don't see why a defensive guarantee of the sort that you're thinking of here, Steve, actually violate the 1972 Simla Agreement.