De Gaulle and French betrayal of Poland in Semptember 1939

[ljadw]

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.

International politics are not a question of right, but of might .
Hitler had the power to renounce prematurely his non-aggression pact .Thus to say that what he did was illegal is to tell a fairy tale .

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi ljadw,

No, it is not true that "France declared war on Germany, because Germany attacked another European country." It declared war because Germany attacked a specific European country with which France had agreements - Poland.

You post, "Hitler had the power to renounce prematurely his non-aggression pact." No, he had the power to ignore its provisions. To say that what he did was illegal is a fact. Read the text.

Hitler breaking what you describe as a "fairy tale" led ultimately to Nazi Germany's fall, so perhaps it had a bit more substance than you allow!

Cheers,

Sid.

[wm]

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

Hitler says:
The pact only allowed to recurse to other measures if "agreement [hadn't been] reached by direct negotiation."
Even more, the measures were required to be "on the basis of mutual agreement."
Poland didn't do it and violated the pact.

Should any disputes arise between them and agreement thereon not be reached by direct negotiation, they will in each particular case, on the basis of mutual agreement, seek a solution by other peaceful means, without prejudice to the possibility of applying, if necessary, those methods of procedure in which provision is made for such cases in other agreements in force between them.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi wm,

Like I said, there was absolutely nothing in the agreement that precluded either party from concluding defensive agreements with other powers.

Nor, it should be said, was there anything in the British or French guarantees to, and agreements with, Poland that precluded Poland from undertaking "direct negotiation" with Germany and reaching a "mutual agreement" or " by other peaceful means".

The non-aggression pact between Germany and Poland still had five years to run when Germany attacked Poland without a declaration of war.

That was the real betrayal Poland faced in 1939.

Nor was this an exception.

Remember, 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.)

Cheers,

Sid.

[ljadw]

Hi ljadw,

No, it is not true that "France declared war on Germany, because Germany attacked another European country." It declared war because Germany attacked a specific European country with which France had agreements - Poland.

You post, "Hitler had the power to renounce prematurely his non-aggression pact." No, he had the power to ignore its provisions. To say that what he did was illegal is a fact. Read the text.

Hitler breaking what you describe as a "fairy tale" led ultimately to Nazi Germany's fall, so perhaps it had a bit more substance than you allow!

Cheers,

Sid.

France did not declare war because it had an agreement ,which was meaningless, with Poland : there was no mention of France declaring war in the agreement, neither was there such a mention in its agreement with CZ .
It was not illegal, as there was no international law/court for this question . Besides, that it was illegal is totally irrelevant : legality has no place in international politics .Hitler had the power to do what he did, and he did not care if foreigners called illegal what he did .It was not on France to determine what was legal/illegal .And, most of the world ( including the US ) did not call it a crime, because most of the world remained neutral in 1939 .
In international politics,states are not bound by their signatures .
Before 1914 the situation was different : states started wars to defend their interests,not for vague treaties .Politicians were realistic.
B + F did nothing when Japan attacked Russia, when Italy and the Balkan States attacked the Ottoman Empire,when Germany attacked Russia and AH attacked Serbia .
But when 20 years later Italy attacked Ethiopia, it was as if the end of the world was coming : a moralizing and hypocritical howl .A year before ,France had just finished the ''pacification '' of Morocco. :roll:
And, yes : it was a fairy tale : the Wallies did not declare war because Hitler did not honor his signature, but because he did something their media called a crime .
Hitler violated Versailles with conscription , France did not declare war .Neither did Poland or CZ.
Hitler violated Versailles with reoccupying the Rhineland . France did not declare war .Neither did Poland or CZ.
Hitler took back Memel land . France did not declare war.Neither did Poland or CZ .
Hitler went to Austria . If the Austrians had opposed him, France would have fought .
If the Czechs had fought, France would have fought .
But in all these cases, including Poland, what France would have done, was totally unimportant .

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi ljadw,

If international agreements had absolutely no force, why would anybody sign them in the first place?

And is that really true? (https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/hague01.asp)

Remember, 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.)

Cheers,

Sid.

[ljadw]

International agreements are empty promises .Why do people make promises ? To have some publicity , to keep them ,to throw dust in the eyes of the other ....
And, why was the IMT charging Germany with trivialities as breaching assurances,etc ?Had the IMT no serious things to do ?
US also violated/did breach countless of treaties : those with the native tribes . It abandoned Taiwan....
US condemned in 1956 the attack by Israel, France, Britain on Egypt but sent 2 years later marines to Lebanon,and later to Somalia,...and a lot of other countries .
The Soviets invaded Afghanistan, the Chinese Vietnam, India Pakistan , and all had signed treaties promising not to attack these countries .
Clausewitz said : war is the continuation of politics by other means .Would you believe what politicians are saying in time of peace ? Carter said : I will never lie to the American people .This was his first lie .
Churchill said : in a war the truth is that important that he must be protected by a bodyguard of lies .It is the same in peacetime .
Iraq had a treaty with Iran and abrogated it unilaterally in 1980.Those in the West who always talked about sanctity of treaties remained silent and were queuing at the embassies of Iraq and Iran to sell weapons .

[ljadw]

An example of a British PM who did not keep his promise : in 1999 Robin Cook said : there will be no European Constitution .
In 2004 Blair signed the treaty about a European Constitution .
The IMT condemned Germany for its attacks on Poland, Belgium,etc, but no one condemned Iraq for its attack on Iran.
If Saddam Hussein had the right to attack Iran, why had Hitler not the right to attack the USSR ? They both had signed treaties promising not to attack Iran /the USSR .
Was there an international court condemning the Soviets for their invasion of Afghanistan ? NO . Thus we can throw away what the IMT said .

[ljadw]

The conclusion is very simple : France (and also Britain ) did not betray Poland in September 1939 . It did what it promised : nothing, or almost nothing, and the Poles did not ask specified questions .
The reason is that the aim of the French promises was to prevent a German attack and that,if there was war, France could do nothing .
Both France and Poland knew this unpleasant truth and both preferred to hide it .There was no benefit in making it public.

[wm]

That's not true and a string of nihilistic and groundless assertions can't replace facts.

And the fact is that on 19 May 1939 the French represented by General Gamelin committed themselves to a detailed plan of military cooperation with Poland - in bad faith and without any intention to carry the plan out.

This was evidenced by the directive issued by Gamelin on 31 May 1939 for the land war against Germany (to be executed by the commander in chief of the North-East Front Alphonse Georges) that directly contradicted the plan agreed with the Poles.

[ljadw]

Gamelin promised (!) to start an offensive ,14 days after the beginning of the war,with the majority of his available forces : this is totally meaningless,and the Poles knew it , because it would be Gamelin, not Poland, who would determine the number of available forces annd Gamelin did not specify the meaning of ''the majority '' : would it be an absolute or a relative majority ?
Gamelin was a politician who had become French chief of staff by giving meaningless promises to the other politicians .
The French would attack with only small forces, because there intention was to have only small forces and because an attack with big forces implied big losses .
And the meaning of their ''alliance '' with Poland against Germany ( they had also an alliance with Poland against the USSR ) was that Poland would help France if France was attacked by Germany,not that France would help Poland if Poland was attacked by Germany .It was the same in 1914 with the alliance with Russia .

[gebhk]

So after 7 pages of 'beating the froth' about irrelevant semantics, does anyone have an answer to the question

Was de Gaulle a supporter of giving Poland a full and effective military aid in September 1939?

????

[ljadw]

De Gaulle was a colonel in September 1939 and it is unlikely that he was thinking about and giving his opinion on the strategy France should follow and that his superiors would care about what he would say .
Besides : no one can say what a full and effective military aid was .

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi ljadw,

You post, "International agreements are empty promises." If not kept, certainly. That was certainly true of Hitler and the non-aggression pact with Poland.

However, it was not true of France, which declared war on behalf of Poland even though not directly attacked itself.

You post, "Why do people make promises? .....to throw dust in the eyes of the other...." Yup, again certainly true of Hitler, but not necessarily all others.

You ask, "And, why was the IMT charging Germany with trivialities as breaching assurances,etc? Had the IMT no serious things to do?" (1) breaching multiple (over 30) international agreements is no trivial matter and (2) although you may not be aware of it, the IMT was engaged in a lot of other business.

The rest of your post, while often accurate, is essentially "Whataboutism" not immediately relevant on this thread.

Cheers,

sid.

[ljadw]

Breaching international agreements is something trivial : give me one state that is not breaching international agreements : Britain did it, US did it, France did it, everyone did it and does do it .
Why ? Because breaching international agreements is a part of international politics .
Weimar violated Versailles, Hitler did the same . And everyone knew it .
In November 1937 Halifax, visiting Germany, told Hitler : you can have the whole of Europe east of the Rhine,as long as this is not causing war , otherwise we will have to intervene .
Halifax proposed Hitler to violate Versailles, to change the status quo of Versailles !!!
Everyone knew on January 1933 the foreign policy of the new German regime ,a foreign policy that was essentially that of the Weimar regime .
In 1914 Germany started a war to defeat France and have the domination of Europe . It lost this war .
What are doing countries that have lost a war ? They try to undo this defeat .
In 1814/1815 France was defeated and occupied . 15 years later ,it tried to undone its defeat and to change the territorial status quo of the conference of Vienna : it incited a revolt in the Netherlands and when the Dutch king tried to reconquer what he had lost, France sent an army to defeat the Dutch and to transform the new Belgian state in a French satellite .All this in violation of the treaty of Vienna .
Hitler did the same in Austria and CZ .
Nothing new under the sun .
In 1954 there was a conference in Geneva about the future of Vietnam . And an agreement . And the agreement was violated by all parties.