A 1933 proposal to resolve the Polish Corridor dispute

[Steve]

A Chinese military guarantee for Pakistan would clearly be aimed at India over the issue of Kashmir. It would be a clear warning to India not to try and settle the matter using its superior military. The Simla agreement said the Kashmir issue was a bilateral one but if the Chinese are now backing Pakistan militarily over Kashmir has this not brought a third party into the dispute even if only on the sidelines?

Not saying I would bet the house on such a scenario breaking the Simla agreement but I think it is a possibility.

[Futurist]

A Chinese military guarantee for Pakistan would clearly be aimed at India over the issue of Kashmir. It would be a clear warning to India not to try and settle the matter using its superior military. The Simla agreement said the Kashmir issue was a bilateral one but if the Chinese are now backing Pakistan militarily over Kashmir has this not brought a third party into the dispute even if only on the sidelines?

Not saying I would bet the house on such a scenario breaking the Simla agreement but I think it is a possibility.

Considering that the Simla Agreement also stated (to my knowledge) that the Kashmir issue should not be resolved through force, I actually think that such a Chinese military guarantee for Pakistan would be perfectly compatible with this agreement considering that Pakistan would merely be getting insurance from a third party in the event that India were to breach the Simla Agreement and try using force to conquer Pakistan's part of Kashmir.

[Futurist]

BTW, do you know if a German move to seize Danzig and only Danzig by military force would have been a violation of the 1934 German pact with Poland?

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Futurist,

Yes.

The text is on line.

Sid.

[Futurist]

Hi Futurist,

Yes.

The text is on line.

Sid.

To clarify--I am talking about the 1934 German-Polish Pact, not the 1939 Anglo-Polish Pact.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Futurist,

So am I.

I am on an old phone so I can't copy the link. Google "polish german non aggression pact text" and it should come up on the first page in English.

Cheers,

Sid.

[Steve]

You are probably right futurist. The issue of Kashmir is settled for the foreseeable future but I don’t think the Simla agreement has played any part in the manner of its settlement.

Text of 1934 German Polish Agreement. https://avalon.law.yale.edu/wwii/blbk01.asp

To quote from the agreement “Each of the two governments, therefore, lays it down that the international obligations undertaken by it towards a third party do not hinder the peaceful development of their mutual relations”

During Jozef Beck’s visit to London in April talks started on what would become the Agreement of Mutual Assistance between the United Kingdom and Poland. On April 6 a summary of conclusions was drawn up and approved by Beck. Article 11 a states ………………… the formal agreement should provide that if the United Kingdom and France went to war with Germany to resist German aggression in Western Europe (the Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland, Denmark) Poland would come to their help (M. Beck appreciated the vital importance of this question for the United Kingdom, and undertook that the Polish Government would take it into serious consideration).

So, if there was no German attack on Poland but instead Germany attacked in the west Poland would seriously consider attacking Germany. Can this be squared with the quote taken from the 1934 agreement?

In his April 28 Reichstag speech Hitler gave these reasons for breaking the 1934 pact. “Germany’s intention to attack was a sheer invention of the international press.This, as you know, led to an offer of so called guarantees and to an obligation on the Polish government for mutual assistance. Under certain circumstances Poland would also be compelled by this to take military action against Germany in the event of a conflict between Germany and any other power, if such conflict involved England.

This obligation is contradictory to the agreement which I made with Marshall Pilsudski some time ago, seeing that in this agreement reference is made exclusively to existing obligations, which meant at that time the obligations of Poland towards France, of which we were aware. The subsequent extension of these obligations is contrary to the terms of the German-Polish Non-aggression Pact”.

You have the impression that Hitler knew what Britain and Poland were signing up to. Did Hitler have a valid point?

[Sid Guttridge]

Poland might be obliged to support the UK or France if any other power attacked them.

If this power was Germany, (which was what the secret protocol specified), then the Poles might be faced with conflicting choices.

However, in any event, Hitler could not legally renege on the non-aggression agreement with Poland in under ten years and with six months notice thereafter. (I.e. not before mid 1944).

Sid.

[Futurist]

You are probably right futurist. The issue of Kashmir is settled for the foreseeable future but I don’t think the Simla agreement has played any part in the manner of its settlement.

Text of 1934 German Polish Agreement. https://avalon.law.yale.edu/wwii/blbk01.asp

To quote from the agreement “Each of the two governments, therefore, lays it down that the international obligations undertaken by it towards a third party do not hinder the peaceful development of their mutual relations”

During Jozef Beck’s visit to London in April talks started on what would become the Agreement of Mutual Assistance between the United Kingdom and Poland. On April 6 a summary of conclusions was drawn up and approved by Beck. Article 11 a states ………………… the formal agreement should provide that if the United Kingdom and France went to war with Germany to resist German aggression in Western Europe (the Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland, Denmark) Poland would come to their help (M. Beck appreciated the vital importance of this question for the United Kingdom, and undertook that the Polish Government would take it into serious consideration).

So, if there was no German attack on Poland but instead Germany attacked in the west Poland would seriously consider attacking Germany. Can this be squared with the quote taken from the 1934 agreement?

In his April 28 Reichstag speech Hitler gave these reasons for breaking the 1934 pact. “Germany’s intention to attack was a sheer invention of the international press.This, as you know, led to an offer of so called guarantees and to an obligation on the Polish government for mutual assistance. Under certain circumstances Poland would also be compelled by this to take military action against Germany in the event of a conflict between Germany and any other power, if such conflict involved England.

This obligation is contradictory to the agreement which I made with Marshall Pilsudski some time ago, seeing that in this agreement reference is made exclusively to existing obligations, which meant at that time the obligations of Poland towards France, of which we were aware. The subsequent extension of these obligations is contrary to the terms of the German-Polish Non-aggression Pact”.

You have the impression that Hitler knew what Britain and Poland were signing up to. Did Hitler have a valid point?

If Germany attacked France in the West and Poland attacked Germany, wouldn't it not be a violation of the 1934 pact because Poland's commitments to its French ally remained intact under the 1934 pact?

Now, if Germany launched an amphibious invasion of Britain without actually attacking France and Poland would have then attacked Germany, then this could possibly be viewed as a violation of the 1934 pact.

[Futurist]

BTW, if Poland attacked Lithuania and Germany subsequently attacked Poland in defense of Lithuania, then this would be considered a violation of the 1934 pact, correct?

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Futurist,

If, if, if.....

Until any of these things happen there is no breach, the non-aggression pact remains in force and neither party can legally withdraw from it in under ten years.

A unilateral withdrawal by Germany before 1944 was otherwise not in Hitler's gift.

Cheers,

Sid.

[Futurist]

Hi Futurist,

If, if, if.....

Until any of these things happen there is no breach, the non-aggression pact remains in force and neither party can legally withdraw from it in under ten years.

A unilateral withdrawal by Germany before 1944 was otherwise not in Hitler's gift.

Cheers,

Sid.

You are correct that unless Hitler would have actually decide to attack either Britain or the British Empire, this question would have been a moot point. We don't know what Poland would have done in such a scenario and frankly, it was irrelevant considering that Hitler had no plans to actually attack either Britain or the British Empire before the British actually declared war on him in September 1939.

[Steve]

In the treaty with Britain signed on August 25 Poland committed to giving “all the support and assistance in its power” if Britain became involved in hostilities with Germany. If Poland had joined the UK in a war against Germany then surely it would have been in clear breach of the 1934 pact. Agreeing to attack someone with whom you have a non aggression pact if they become involved in a war with your new best friend is at the very least a breach of the spirit of a non aggression pact.

Under the old Franco Polish treaty Poland was obligated to come to France’s aid if France was attacked but it was not obliged to come to France’s aid if France attacked Germany. During the Czech crisis the Poles told the French they would not go to war with Germany if France was the aggressor. Presumably if France and Britain had declared war on Germany because of say German aggression against Belgium Poland after signing the agreement would now have joined France.

Negotiations between Germany and Poland had reached the end of the line in late march 1939 but Hitler had not yet taken the decision to attack Poland. The British guarantee pushed him over the edge but the decision to settle matters militarily would have come sooner or later.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Steve,

I would repeat,

"If, if, if.....

Until any of these things happen, there is no breach, the non-aggression pact remains in force and neither party can legally withdraw from it in under ten years.

A unilateral withdrawal by Germany before 1944 was otherwise not in Hitler's gift."

Cheers,

Sid.

[Steve]

“Each of the two Governments, therefore, lays it down that the international obligations undertaken by it towards a third party do not hinder the peaceful development of their mutual relations, do not conflict with the present declaration, and are not affected by this declaration”

Sid, how can agreeing to side with Britain against Germany if there was a war not hinder the peaceful development of mutual relations between Germany and Poland. How could Poland have joined Britain and France in a war against Germany without breaking the non aggression pact with Germany? By agreeing to do so I would contend that Poland broke the non agression pact.

Maybe it could be argued that until Poland signed the final agreement (there were drafts) with Britain on August 25 it had not broken the pact only talked about it. Therefore when Hitler denounced the pact on April 28 he was the one breaking it.

The 1934 agreement seems to have played no part in Polish decision making. It also seems to have played no part in Hitler’s calculations. It would appear that the pact was a dead duck for both sides by the time of the British guarantee.