What would have happened if Hitler seized Danzig and only Danzig?

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi ljadw,

What treaty with Japan are you referring to?

The fact that there was a treaty between the USA and Taiwan does not necessarily mean that Nixon broke it by visiting Peking.

I am not sure why you have moved on to lack of treaty obligations, but here goes:

NATO was the result of the failure of pre-war European countries to have mutual defensive obligations as a consequence of which they were all vulnerable to the aggression of much bigger countries like Germany. It was designed in the wake of the Berlin crisis, the fall of Nationalist China and the outbreak of the Korean War to prevent the USSR similarly picking off isolated European countries. It would appear to have been successful as it outlived the USSR. So far, the USA has stood behind NATO, even under a sceptic like Trump..

Certainly the USA has no treaty obligations to Israel, which leads me to question why US administrations repeatedly refer to it as a close ally. Whenever, the USA feels it necessary to intervene militarily in the Middle East it is never able to call on the Israeli military for physical support. It is almost as if the Israeli tail is wagging the US dog!

I go back to my original point - if countries did not feel that treaty obligations were of importance, they would not bother to sign any treaties.

Certainly some countries renege on some treaty obligations on occasion, but on the whole countries continue to find them of mutual advantage.

Cheers,

Sid

[Robert Rojas]

Greetings to both citizen ljadw and the community as a whole. Howdy ljadw! Well sir, in light of your postings of Tuesday - October 09, 2018 - 5:46am and Tuesday - October 09, 2018 - 5:49am, old yours truly was wondering if the preponderance of your topical examples might be better suited for extensive discussion on the adjacent OTHER ERAS section of the forum. You are covering a great deal of meandering territory which, in some cases, far exceeds the twenty year rule for WHAT IF creations. To illustrate, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization was inaugurated on April 04, 1949 and following your apparent train-of-thought, at what point between April 04, 1949 and April 04, 1969 will the United States of America find it in its "interest" OR "interests" to let Europe down? The same would also apply to the State of Israel. The State of Israel gained its independence on May 14, 1948 and its twenty year time line would terminate on May 14, 1968. The Arab-Israeli War of year 1973 obviously falls beyond that time parameter. In terms of the relationship between the Republic of China and the United States of America, you had the TAIWAN RELATIONS ACT which was inaugurated on April 10, 1979 and that time line would terminate on April 10, 1999. Incidentally, there is no formal military commitment to the defense of the Republic of China within the TAIWAN RELATIONS ACT. Your example of the animosity between the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the Islamic Republic of Iran vis-à-vis the United States of America is clearly an ongoing contemporary issue of contention. It is ALL just some friendly food for thought regarding DUH RULES of the house. Well, that's my initial two Yankee cents worth on this hypothetical exercise into the trials and tribulations of GDANSK - for now anyway. As always, I would like to bid you an especially copacetic day no matter where you just might happen to find yourself on Terra Firma.

Best Regards,
Uncle Bob

[ljadw]

Germany,Italy and Japan had signed the Anti Komintern Pact ;Japan claimed that it was fighting in China against the communists and that the SU supported the KMT and protested against the German military mission and the German deliveries of weapons to the KMT .Hitler promised to stop these deliveries ,but at the day of the British DoW (September 3 1939 ) a German cargo was sailing to China .

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi ljadw,

I) I can find no prohibition on arms sales to China in the very brief text of the Anti-Comintern Pact, which was directed against the USSR.

2) Japan withdrew from it on 23 August August 1939.

3) 3 September 1939 therefore falls outside it.

4) What was on this German ship? You do not specify.

5) What is your source on this ship?

Cheers,

Sid.

[ljadw]

An answer to the always interesting replies from Robert Rojas.
A treaty is not necessary to become allies : in 1914 and 1939, Britain and France became allies although they had no treaty with each other .
But, a treaty does not mean that one will become allies : in 1914 and 1939, Italy had a treaty with Germany but remained neutral and in 1939 while Japan was fighting against the SU, Germany violated the Anti Comintern Pact by its treaty with the SU .
No treaty does not mean that one will remain neutral or not neutral :
in 1904 Japan attacked Russia and Britain,who had no treaty with Russia, remained neutral .10 years later, Germany attacked Belgium and Britain who had no treaty with Belgium did not remain neutral .
These examples prove that treaties have no value, treaties have as meaning to impress the lawyers who are swarming parliaments and who think that treaties/declarations who regulate private law ,can also regulate international law, something everyone knows is wrong.Treaties are for keeping up appearances .
In 1926 Britain, France, Italy,Germany signed the Pact of Locarno , Chamberlain got the Garter, and with Briand and Streseman the Nobelprice for Peace . Less than 10 years later, Germany started to violate the Pact ,and we know it never had the intention to honour its signature, the others did nothing, proving that they never had the intention to honour their signature . The whole thing was only theatre .

[Volyn]

The whole thing was only theatre.

Interesting - remember theatre is used to "buy time".

Germany used their time to prepare for war, it seems the other nations used their time to remain at peace. Germany had a motive that the other nations lacked - revenge; they wanted it since 1918 and that is why the German populace was more or less receptive to the ideas of the Nazis. They did not have to agree with everything the Nazi Party stood for, just the parts about getting revenge against the victors of WW1.

The euphoria of Germany after the fall of France was a kind of psyche release that their inter-generational rage had been "worth it" and now the national despondency was finally over. They just did not realize how far Hitler was going with his plans and they got sucked into a catastrophe because they were mentally locked into the idea that they needed revenge.

Do not forget that treaties can also create allies, and that there are generational "time limits" for treaties and alliances as well. Just because one generation of political leaders decide something, it does not mean that the next generation will agree to continue or uphold the policy.

[ljadw]

Hi ljadw,

I) I can find no prohibition on arms sales to China in the very brief text of the Anti-Comintern Pact, which was directed against the USSR.

2) Japan withdrew from it on 23 August August 1939.

3) 3 September 1939 therefore falls outside it.

4) What was on this German ship? You do not specify.

5) What is your source on this ship?

Cheers,

Sid.

The point is that Japan objected to the presence of the German military mission in China , which left at the end of June 1938 only, saying that it was a violation of the Anti Comintern Pact . Japan objected also to German armament deliveries to the KMT,which officialy were stopped in April 1938, but, of course continued :On November 24 1938, the Chinese Press reported the arrival in Mandalay of a German ship carrying 6000 tons of ammunition for China . ( source :Escape to Shanghai 1938-1940 P 6 ).
And this corrobates the story of the German ship that in September 1939 was sailing to China .( Source : Irving ) I know that the reliability of Irving is questionable, ,but the story 9= the continuation of the German-Sino weapon trade after it was officialy stopped ) is confirmed by
Journey to the East The German-Military Mission in China 1927-1938 by Robyn L. Rodriguez.
P 276 : ''Germany's share of North China's imports dropped from 18 % in 1937 to 6 % in both 1938 and 1939 . German industries continued to send arms and munitions to China in exchange for war materials .''
This means that the Anti Comintern Pact did not stop Germany to send weap[ons to the KMT to kill Japanese soldiers .
P 277 : '' A new agreement was even signed in October 1938 ensuring continued Sino- German Trade .While the start of the European War in the fall of 1939,complicated matters, it was not until 1941 that Sino- German relations and trade were completely cut off,with the German invasion of the SU and the Chinese DoW on Germany ."
And even this was more theory than reality, as during WWII there were secret contacts between China and Germany .
Source : Back-Channel diplomacy and the Sino- German relationship 1939-1945 . ( Nele Friederike Glang )
Thus after PH , Japan and Germany were at war with China, but Germany had secret contacts with China, without the knowledge of Japan ,although both countries had after PH signed a treaty .

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi ljadw,

Interesting stuff, but none of it supports your proposition that, in sending armaments to Nationalist China, Germany broke the Anti-Commintern Pact, the text of which follows:

German-Japanese Agreement and Supplementary Protocol, Signed at Berlin, November 25, 1936
Translation, in Department of State, Foreign Relations of the United States: Japan, 1931-1941, II, 153

Agreement Guarding Against the Communistic International

The Imperial Government of Japan and the Government of Germany,

In cognizance of the fact that the object of the Communistic International (the so-called Komintern) is the disintegration of, and the commission of violence against, existing States by the exercise of all means at its command,

Believing that the toleration of interference by the Communistic International in the internal affairs of nations not only endangers their internal peace and social welfare, but threatens the general peace of the world,

Desiring to co-operate for defense against communistic disintegration, have agreed as follows.

Article I

The High Contracting States agree that they will mutually keep each other informed concerning the activities of the Communistic International, will confer upon the necessary measure of defense, and will carry out such measures in close co-operation.

Article II

The High Contracting States will jointly invite third States whose internal peace is menaced by the disintegrating work of the Communistic International, to adopt defensive measures in the spirit of the present Agreement or to participate in the present Agreement.

Article III

The Japanese and German texts are each valid as the original text of this Agreement. The Agreement shall come into force on the day of its signature and shall remain in force for the term of five years. The High Contracting States will, in a reasonable time before the expiration of the said term, come to an understanding upon the further manner of their co-operation.

In witness whereof the undersigned, duly authorized by their respective Governments, have affixed hereto their seals and signatures.

Done in duplicate at Berlin, November 25th, 11th year of Showa, corresponding to November 25th, 1936.

Cheers,

Sid.

[South]

Good morning Sid,

A review of NATO is required.

Re "NATO...appear...successful...outlived the USSR";

US Secretary of Defense Robert MacNamara sought a centrally controlled NATO. Omitting the reasons here for France's withdrawal from military NATO, I will mention that France never fully returned to military NATO. Recall DeGaulle's le force de frappe. President Sarcozy can explain.

Even in your neck of the woods, PM Macmillan had resentments when MacNamara cancelled British acquisition of Skybolt.

Much of above relates as to why DeGaulle vetoed the British entry into the Common Market.

The US does have treaties with Israel. Much is not public but what is not displayed with neon signs can be gleaned by inductive reasoning. Recall Madrid, Oslo, Shepard town, West Virginia.....all these meetings and agreements were loaded with secret annexes and secret sidebars. Again: inductive reasoning and not Aristotelian logic.

I can't prove it but am confident to say that US military aircraft are packed with Israeli manufactured products just like the foreign manufactured high quality 40mm Bofors cannon on the Hercules gunship (AC-130H model). All this relates to "agreements" - and not necessarily "treaties" which require US Senate involvement. My suggested thought here is to consider "agreements" replacing treaties because of the obvious - at least to us historians - reasons.

The NATO-related Mediterranean Dialogue of 1994 involves Israel.

I'm still trying to figure out why NATO relocated from city A to city B. My 2 pfennigs would have recommended the Canadian Rockies for summer meetings and the Dutch Caribbean for winter ones...factoring in November hurricanes and then perhaps California.

Meanwhile, there's a NATO naval type of headquarters near here. For best attendance, look at their meetings held in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii.

Back to researching SEATO..........

~ Bob
eastern Virginia, USA

Foot Note: "To keep the Soviets out, the Americans in and Germans down."

[ljadw]

Hi ljadw,

Interesting stuff, but none of it supports your proposition that, in sending armaments to Nationalist China, Germany broke the Anti-Commintern Pact, the text of which follows:

German-Japanese Agreement and Supplementary Protocol, Signed at Berlin, November 25, 1936
Translation, in Department of State, Foreign Relations of the United States: Japan, 1931-1941, II, 153

Agreement Guarding Against the Communistic International

The Imperial Government of Japan and the Government of Germany,

In cognizance of the fact that the object of the Communistic International (the so-called Komintern) is the disintegration of, and the commission of violence against, existing States by the exercise of all means at its command,

Believing that the toleration of interference by the Communistic International in the internal affairs of nations not only endangers their internal peace and social welfare, but threatens the general peace of the world,

Desiring to co-operate for defense against communistic disintegration, have agreed as follows.

Article I

The High Contracting States agree that they will mutually keep each other informed concerning the activities of the Communistic International, will confer upon the necessary measure of defense, and will carry out such measures in close co-operation.

Article II

The High Contracting States will jointly invite third States whose internal peace is menaced by the disintegrating work of the Communistic International, to adopt defensive measures in the spirit of the present Agreement or to participate in the present Agreement.

Article III

The Japanese and German texts are each valid as the original text of this Agreement. The Agreement shall come into force on the day of its signature and shall remain in force for the term of five years. The High Contracting States will, in a reasonable time before the expiration of the said term, come to an understanding upon the further manner of their co-operation.

In witness whereof the undersigned, duly authorized by their respective Governments, have affixed hereto their seals and signatures.

Done in duplicate at Berlin, November 25th, 11th year of Showa, corresponding to November 25th, 1936.

Cheers,

Sid.

Why do you think that Japan was objecting against the presence in China of a German and Italian military mission ,and why do you think that til September 3 1939 secret German ammunition transports were going to China via Hanoi with French agreement ?
For Japan this was a violation of the Anti Comintern Pact .
For Japan the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was also a violation of the Anti Comintern pact .
The fact is that the Anti Comintern Pact had no influence on the foreign policy of Germany /Japan : when Germany was at war with Britain and France, Japan remained neutral, Japan remained also neutral when Germany attacked the SU,but when in December 1941 Japan attacked and the US and Britain, Germany also declared war on the US .But the German DoW had nothing to do with the Anti Comintern Pact :it is obvious that even without this pact Germany would have declared war on the US .
Countries do not declare war/join war because of treaties/pacts .
As far as I know, there was no obligation for the US and the other countries to be involved in the Korean war ,as there was no obligation for Germany to join the war between Japan and the US .Italy was not obliged to declare war on Britain and France,but when it remained neutral, this was not because it was not obliged:it declared war in June 1940 although it was not obliged .It was the same for Britain ,that had no obligation to declare war on Germany in September 1939 .

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi South,

A review of NATO is, indeed, required. The Europeans, who are under greatest threat, need to pull their collective fingers out and start spending reasonable money. The kleptocratic state of ramshackle Russia is only a threat because NATO's European end has not faced up to it while the USA has pivoted to the Pacific.

The absence of evidence of military treaties between the USA and Israel cannot be used as evidence of their existence, inductive reasoning or not.

Clearly the USA has an intelligence understanding with Israel, but that seems to be the only part of Israel's defence apparatus that is deployable in US interests, largely because it is unaccountable, unlike direct military means.

You are describing trade, not defence treaties. If Israel is really so frightened for its existence, why does it not ask the USA for a formal alliance? If Israel is such a valuable US "ally", why does it not extend similar formal protection to Israel as it does to dozens of other countries?

For some reason, perhaps to do with internal US politics, the same norms do not seem apply to US relations with Israel as they do to other US fellow travelers. The US has no obvious need of Israel, yet acts as if it does. Very strange!

Cheers,

Sid.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi ljadw,

I have given you the full text of the Anti-Comintern Pact. Which clause were the Germans contravening by supplying munitions to Nationalist China?

I have no doubt that the Japanese would have been pissed off by such an action by an apparent ally, but they could hardly use the pact itself in objection.

The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact is another matter.

You write, "Countries do not declare war because of treaties/pacts." So why do they sign them?

Treaties are concluded where there are mutual interests at stake. They provide some measure of mutual security. However, these mutual interests may diverge over time, which naturally calls the treaties into question. That is why they have time limitations or mechanisms for withdrawal with notice by any party to them.

I am still not sure why you are moving on to the absence of treaties not stopping wartime alliances. It has nothing to do with your original starting point.

Cheers,

Sid.

P.S. And the UK was obliged to do everything in its power to support Poland against Germany. A declaration of war was clearly within the UK's power. Read the agreement and its first secret protocol.

[ljadw]

That a DoW was in Britain's power does not mean that Britain was obliged to declare war . A DoW was not mentioned .
Treaties are not about mutual interests "the Briand-Kellogg pact which outlawed war ( we have seen the results ) was only blahblah to reassure the population ,hoping that there would be sufficient naive people wo would believe that declarations from politicians are the same as acts ,but ,that is not so : words are not acts,opposite to what were saying people as politicians and lawyers who are paid to talk, not to act .
About the Anti Comintern Pact : it was the opinion of Japan that the German military help to the KMT was violating the Pact, and the Germans agreed ,because the military advisers were withdrawn and Germany said that the weapon deliveries were stopped;we know that this was not true ,but the fact remains that Germany said that they would be stopped .
Although the Anti Comintern Pact was also only blahblah ( as most pacts/treaties ),Germany plied to the Japanese demands,because it did not want to risk a rupture with Japan : if Japan said that Germany violated the Pact (justifiedly,or not justifiedly , that's not important ); there were only two possibilities :
a Germany would continue to do what Japan considered as a violation and there would be a diplomatic rupture
or
Germany would stop to do what Japan considered as a violation of the Pact .
In reality, Germany did both .

[ljadw]

Hi South,

A review of NATO is, indeed, required. The Europeans, who are under greatest threat, need to pull their collective fingers out and start spending reasonable money. The kleptocratic state of ramshackle Russia is only a threat because NATO's European end has not faced up to it while the USA has pivoted to the Pacific.

The absence of evidence of military treaties between the USA and Israel cannot be used as evidence of their existence, inductive reasoning or not.

Clearly the USA has an intelligence understanding with Israel, but that seems to be the only part of Israel's defence apparatus that is deployable in US interests, largely because it is unaccountable, unlike direct military means.

You are describing trade, not defence treaties. If Israel is really so frightened for its existence, why does it not ask the USA for a formal alliance? If Israel is such a valuable US "ally", why does it not extend similar formal protection to Israel as it does to dozens of other countries?

For some reason, perhaps to do with internal US politics, the same norms do not seem apply to US relations with Israel as they do to other US fellow travelers. The US has no obvious need of Israel, yet acts as if it does. Very strange!

Cheers,

Sid.

Why does Israel not ask for a treaty with the US ? Maybe because it is convinced that it would not receive such an alliance,given the hostility to Israel and the antisemitism which is prevailing in the US .Also because in such an alliance, Israel would give up a considerable part of its indepence,and because the US are refusing to ally themselves with Israel,to not hurt the Muslim world .
It is also not correct to say that the US do not need Israel.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi ljadw,

Britain was obliged to do everything within its power to support Poland. A declaration of war was definitely within its power. We know this for a fact, because that is what actually happened.

If, as you say, "Treaties are not about mutual interests", why do countries sign them with each other?

What are your sources that the Japanese considered Germany supplying Nationalist China was a breach of the Anti-Comintern Pact, rather than just an unfriendly act?

There is certainly nothing in the pact itself that would support such an interpretation.

Cheers,

Sid.