De Gaulle and French betrayal of Poland in Semptember 1939

[wm]

That the US intervened against Iraq despite no treaty obligation is a non sequitur against "states do not fight for alliances."

If the Soviets had attacked Poland in 1923, France would have helped Poland but wouldn't send an army to Warsaw through Germany for the simple reason the Franco-Polish alliance didn't require it.

[ljadw]

And, how would France have helped Poland in 1923 ?
In 1920, the small French arms deliveries were blocked by the German dockers .Even if in 1923 the alliance had required a French military intervention, it would not happen, because it was impossible .It was the same in 1939 : the only way to save Poland was if a French army could march before September 15 to Berlin .
And about the US and Iraq : states fight for their interests (when Iraq attacked Iran, US helped Iraq ), or for moral reasons ( which is bad ).

[wm]

You're constantly erecting strawmen.
The alliance or the 1939 protocol didn't promise to save Poland. It wasn't an insurance policy.
France and Poland offered each other as much help as was possible and prudent to offer. That's all.

The point is that in 1939 France manipulated Poland into committing suicide, that France was dishonest, that didn't provide Poland with vital strategic information which Poland was entitled to as a long-term French ally.

In 1923 Poland would occupy Danzig and teach those communist German dockers a valuable lesson. 1920 wouldn't happen again.

[ljadw]

France did not manipulate Poland into committing suicide : the Polish decision to refuse Hitler's demands was made independently of what the French were saying and doing .And the ''strategic information '' that France did not give to Poland had no influence at all on the Polish decision .
Poland knew that it was on its own .
The only way to prevent Hitler from attacking and occupying Poland, was for Poland to become a Soviet satellite ,which Poland refused for obvious reasons .

[ljadw]

You're constantly erecting strawmen.
The alliance or the 1939 protocol didn't promise to save Poland. It wasn't an insurance policy.
France and Poland offered each other as much help as was possible and prudent to offer. That's all.

The point is that in 1939 France manipulated Poland into committing suicide, that France was dishonest, that didn't provide Poland with vital strategic information which Poland was entitled to as a long-term French ally.

In 1923 Poland would occupy Danzig and teach those communist German dockers a valuable lesson. 1920 wouldn't happen again.

Being an ally does not give you the right on so-called ''vital strategic information .''
You have only the right on specific,detailed information,if your ally has promised to give you vital strategic information ,and if he and you agree what are ''vital strategic information .''
Otherwise : you have no rights .
The French meaning of the alliance was that Poland would help France if she was attacked by Germany . For Poland, the meaning was that France would help Poland if it was attacked by Germany .
After the French decision to construct the Maginot Line, it was obvious for Poland that France would not/could not help Poland if Poland was attacked by Germany .And, Poland was accommodating itself to this situation .
That means that the whole theory of the Western Betrayal is hypocrisy : it is only a way to make the Wallies responsible for Poland's defeat .If on September 15 the Polish Army was in Berlin, no one would talk about the Western betrayal . And, even if Poland defeated the Germans, it would become a Soviet satellite .
Between 1919 and 1939 Poland survived only because of the hostility between Germany and the USSR, because of the weakness of Germany and the USSR .
Poland was not entitled to anything .

[wm]

The ''strategic information'' had no influence at all on the Polish decision because it wasn't given. As simple as that.
That the Poles made a decision early didn't mean they couldn't have changed their minds later.

The alliance required that information was made available on "all current affairs."
It's hardly believable that an ally has the right to conceal their plans, to lie about them, to deceive.
Such thinking is distinctively of the Stalin/Mao flavour. Even Hitler in his dealings was above that.

[ljadw]

Politics is lying and deceiving .
And, Poland did not inform France of its plans to recapture Teschen . Thus,they are not in a position to complain that France did not give them enough information .
Allies had/have the power to conceal their plans, to lie about them , to deceive . Thus, they have also the right to do it .In politics might makes right .
Mussolini did not tell Hitler about his plan to attack Greece .Because it was not the business of Hitler .
In his Weisung 24 Hitler forbade explicitly to inform the Japanese of Barbarossa .Because it was not the business of Japan .
Hitler did not inform Japan about his intention to sign a treaty with the USSR,and Japan did not tell him about the coming attack on Pearl Harbour .Because it was not Hitler's business .
Did Poland tell France in 1920 about its intention to march to Kiev ?

[OscarTango]

Under the French Guarantee to Poland France could not sign a separate peace. It didn't.

i'm sure you're specialist enough to know that an armistice is NOT a separate peace.

[OscarTango]

The point is the French made and executed a plan to use the Poles as a human shield protecting their military and political designs.

no the point is the Poles believing that France's fate was at stake, threatened by germany and needed mighty Poland protection.

Hitler had renunced Alsace-Lorraine so there was n't any territorial dispute between the country, ad therefor, no real reason for France to enter in war. they gave this warranty over Poland in order to give a clear signal to Hitler. After Munich, he tought that was just empty word and so they had to declare a war they didn't want, neither were prepared for. That's all.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi OscarTango,

You post, "Hitler had renunced Alsace-Lorraine so there was n't any territorial dispute between the country....."

I would remind you of my earlier point on this thread:

"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]

The point is the French made and executed a plan to use the Poles as a human shield protecting their military and political designs.

no the point is the Poles believing that France's fate was at stake, threatened by germany and needed mighty Poland protection.

Hitler had renunced Alsace-Lorraine so there was n't any territorial dispute between the country, ad therefor, no real reason for France to enter in war. they gave this warranty over Poland in order to give a clear signal to Hitler. After Munich, he tought that was just empty word and so they had to declare a war they didn't want, neither were prepared for. That's all.

I doubt that the Poles believed this : they were realist enough to know that the French guarantee was meaningless,as France could not prevent Hitler to attack them ,and could not save them if Hitler attacked them .
They were also realist enough to know that there was no reason for Hitler to attack France and that France did not need Poland .
And, why would it be wrong if the French used the Poles as a human shield ?
It would be bad for Poland, but would it be bad for France ?

[ljadw]

Hi OscarTango,

You post, "Hitler had renunced Alsace-Lorraine so there was n't any territorial dispute between the country....."

I would remind you of my earlier point on this thread:

"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.

Breaking assurances,treaties,conventions, agreements, is something all countries do .
Thus ....

[OscarTango]

Gamelin was a politician who had become French chief of staff by giving meaningless promises to the other politicians .

In the French armyn, politicians don't become commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces Gamelin was a very talented officer, he was chief of staff of Joffre at the beginning of WWI and played a role in the miracle of the Marne in september 1914.

the fact he rose - like any other military chief in any country - by political support doesn't change that fact.

and your delusions about the role polan d could have to 'protect France' (from what , since France wasn't threatened) is comical. Same for WWI where France had to mobilize because its ally Russia was threatened.

[wm]

I doubt that the Poles believed this

They didn't believe that then but believe that today. Because it is true.

What was less laudable was his deeply cynical outlook on the strategic plight in which Poland would find itself in the event of this war. Gamelin knew that Polish resistance could do no more than succumb bravely. Nor did he think there was anything that France and Britain would be able to do, militarily, to make a significant impact on a German-Polish outcome.
But, as has been shown, he passed over the chance to spell this out to Polish leaders during the meetings in May with Kasprzycki.
In accompanying this guidance with the promise of major offensive action after the seventeenth day of French mobilization, against western Germany, Gamelin was, however, committing a deceit.
This was none the more excusable just because the British were party to it — their chiefs of staff having concurred during the Anglo-French military conversations in April and early May that Poland's defeat was not an eventuality that the western powers would be able to prevent but one that they would undo through final Allied victory in the war.
The Republic in Danger: General Maurice Gamelin and the Politics of French Defence by Martin S. Alexander

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi ljadw,

Yes, it is possible that, sooner or later, "Breaking assurances,treaties,conventions, agreements, is something all countries do."

However, how many other regimes do you know of that signed and breached at least 13 assurances, 8 treaties, 6 conventions, 3 solemn assurances, 2 agreements and one declaration with 12 different countries" in only eight years?

"Thus ...." you ask? Thus Hitler was exceptionally unreliable!

Cheers,

Sid.