Why non-agression pacts after the Kellogg–Briand Pact?

Discussions on all aspects of Poland during the Second Polish Republic and the Second World War. Hosted by Piotr Kapuscinski.
RedRight
Member
Posts: 93
Joined: 18 Mar 2017 12:30
Location: Poland

Why non-agression pacts after the Kellogg–Briand Pact?

Post by RedRight » 01 May 2021 18:03

Why did Poland sign non aggression with Soviet Union and Germany after the Kellogg–Briand Pact that prohibited war was signed?

Was it supposed to be a better guarantee the same way a written agreement is better than an oral one? Was it to weaken the Kellogg–Briand Pact, to shift from collective to bilateral security agreements? Did the Poles make a pact with the Soviets to force the Germans to abandon the trade war and sign a corresponding treaty? Therefore realizing the Polish policy of equal distance between Berlin and Moscow? Or maybe to show the West that Poland is not at their mercy when it comes to relations with the USSR and the III Reich?

Maybe both USSR and Germany intended it to be a basis for war against Germany/USSR?
The Kellogg–Briand Pact may be interpreted to disallow not only aggression but defensive war as well. In that case the non-aggression pact with the Soviets prevented them from joining Germany in an aggressive war against Poland. The same holds true after the German-Polish declaration for a defensive Polish war against the USSR.

User avatar
wm
Member
Posts: 6377
Joined: 29 Dec 2006 20:11
Location: Poland

Re: Why non-agression pacts after the Kellogg–Briand Pact?

Post by wm » 01 May 2021 18:58

The Poles (after observing for years the antics going on in Geneva under the auspices of The League of Nation) came to the conclusion that common security didn't work. That only bilateral agreements showed any promise.
After all so what that signatories of the Kellogg–Briand Pact renounced war in disputes among them. Who was going to enforce that?
Hitler would say Germany was attacked by Poland so he acted in self-defence anyway. Stalin that he protected people after Poland had ceased to exist.

OpanaPointer
Member
Posts: 4760
Joined: 16 May 2010 14:12
Location: United States of America

Re: Why non-agression pacts after the Kellogg–Briand Pact?

Post by OpanaPointer » 01 May 2021 19:04

Heap big look-see pidgeon.
Come visit our sites:
hyperwarHyperwar
World War II Resources

Bellum se ipsum alet, mostly Doritos.

Futurist
Member
Posts: 3436
Joined: 24 Dec 2015 00:02
Location: SoCal

Re: Why non-agression pacts after the Kellogg–Briand Pact?

Post by Futurist » 02 May 2021 01:41

wm wrote:
01 May 2021 18:58
The Poles (after observing for years the antics going on in Geneva under the auspices of The League of Nation) came to the conclusion that common security didn't work. That only bilateral agreements showed any promise.
After all so what that signatories of the Kellogg–Briand Pact renounced war in disputes among them. Who was going to enforce that?
Hitler would say Germany was attacked by Poland so he acted in self-defence anyway. Stalin that he protected people after Poland had ceased to exist.
Sounds reasonable. Makes sense to have as much insurance as possible if one can actually afford this.

User avatar
wm
Member
Posts: 6377
Joined: 29 Dec 2006 20:11
Location: Poland

Re: Why non-agression pacts after the Kellogg–Briand Pact?

Post by wm » 02 May 2021 08:55

The essential weakness of the doctrine of collective security [was] the assumption that all nations, and at a minimum all the potential victims, have the same interest in resisting aggression.
Henry Kissinger

Return to “Poland 1919-1945”