Basically passive does not mean that there would be no local offensive (Saar offensive ).gebhk wrote: ↑15 May 2021 13:46Now that is a somewhat dangerous path to follow because the fact is that France had agreed with Britain in March-May that in the event of war, the Western Front would remain, basically, passive. This was the intention at the time of the talks with Kasprzycki and there is not the slightest hint that that intention changed after the talks (ie the plans remained the same). This was not communicated to Kasprzycki and was not known in Poland, so at the very least the French were being very economical with the truth. At what point passive 'economy with the truth' becomes active mendacity has perplexed philosophers since the dawn of time, so I have no wish to continue that ageless debate here - albeit, since we will probably never know what was said in private, the possibility of the latter cannot be excluded entirely. It does, again, highlight the counterpoductivity of bringing emotive anthopomorhic language into discussions about political history.It would only be a lie if he had decided in May to do B in September but told the Poles that he would do A .
Lie depends on the intention,and as an intention is almost impossible to prove ......
RegardingI think you are both focussing on the wrong part. The vital words are not 'immédiatement' but 'd'áprés un plan fixé a l'ávance'. Since the 'plan fixé a l'ávance' was, to put it bluntly, to do nothing, there can be little doubt that it was executed 'immédiatement'.La France execute immédiatement une action aérienne d'áprés un plan fixé a l'ávance .
If Gamelin said to Gort that in the event of war ,France would remain passive and if he said to Kasprzycki that he would execute a local offensive (WHAT HE DID ) ,you can't say that he lied to Kasprzycki,but you could say that he did not tell the truth to Gort in March/May , but ,if he told Gort later of his intentions to start a local offensive,everything was OK .And, that he did not tell the Poles what he said to Gort,is not relevant, as it was not the business of the Poles what he said to Gort .The reason of what he said to Gort was that Gort could not help him : Britain could send only two divisions,who arrived when the war in the east was already decided .
Gamelin promised more to Kasprzycki than he told Gort . And he did it . Thus,the Poles can not complain .