The Polish Campaign

[Fredd]

Since we know that Beck did neither of these things it can be argued, with considerable correctness, that Becks stubborness led to the eventual clash with Germany for which Poland and most of Europe had to suffer considerable agony.

Yeah, the two peace - loving nations the Germans and Bolsheviks lived peacefuly. While they thought only about cultural and economical development Polish warmongers started a vast program of militarisation. Such an action left no choice to both and they started to do the same, only as a pretective measure. The arms race caused by Beck and his henchmans led eventually to the WWII. Which, by the way started on Polish ofensive to unprepared German villages. Eventually Poland was defeated, and all of its most important statesmans was tried in Nuremburg. All but Beck himself who committed a suicide in his bunker in Warsaw.

BTW why Americans caused Japan to attack Pearl Harbour. Stubborness of FDR made Japans to do it. All they wanted was "Lebensraum" in China and some oil resources...

[4444]

So, in essence, are you suggesting that, regardless of the lack of usefulness to another contracting party or the number of casualties to be endured to no purpose, a state has an absolute obligation to commit national suicide simply because at some time in the past it has undertaken to do something that changed circumstances have made completely redundant?

Sid, I am very happy that after so many loops we have eventually got to the point.

I am suggesting that not delivering what has been committed is a breach of an obligation. I am also suggesting this is exactly what happened to the French obligations versus Poland.

Now, there is a number of other questions you have raised and which you are still confusing with honouring or breaking of an obligation: Was it useful or useless for the French to keep their word? Was it to no or to some valid purpose for the French to keep their word and to endure potential casualties? Was it a national suicide or a national salvage for the French to keep their word and to attack Germany? Have the circumstances changed so much for the French that keeping their word would have been completely redundant, or not really? Does a state have to stick to its obligations regardless of the circumstances?

Unlike you, I have not even tried to answer any of these questions here. But maybe some time in the future I will (probably leaving out the last one; I am afraid it is a bit too heavy for me).

[BullsEye]

Dear Der Untermensch,

I guess that a good way to respond would be to use the point by point system that you employed, so here goes.

BullsEye wrote:
much of the trouble was caused by Poland herself

De Untermensch wrote:
yes, by the very fact of its existence.

Poland was seen by Hitler as a buffer between Germany and the Soviet Union and said so when Beck visited Berchtesgaden on 5 January 1939. During their conversation Hitler made it abundantly clear that he desired for there to be a strong Polish state, that his attitude towards Poland had not changed since the pact of 1934, and that all that had been discussed between Ribbentrop and Josef Lipski (Polish Ambassador to Berlin) on 24 October 1938 had not changed. So, in effect, at this moment in time it was in Hitler's interest for there to be a viable Polish state and, if one considers that if Poland had joined the Anti-Commintern Pact Hitler would have treated with Poland as he did with Italy, Romania, Spain, Vichy France, and Hungary then Poland would not have had to fear Germany unless it was in the process of switching sides.

BullsEye wrote:
Its pursuit of a "third way", that of not favoring either Germany or Soviet Russia, was itself a counterproductive proposition, being that Poland was not sufficiently powerful to deter either of these two potential adversaries from forcing Polands hand if they so desired

Der Untermensch wrote:
Sir, it takes little to imagine where “favouring” one or another would lead to. Option A: Germany takes over the Corridor, Wartheland and Silesia, reducing Poland to a buffer state. Option B: Poland ehtusiastically joins the free family of Soviet nations

My goodness. It seems as if you have forgotten that by pursuing a "Third Way" Poland ended up under Nazi occupation until it was "liberated" by the Red Army, then spent the next 45 years under the Soviet Unions thumb.

BullsEye wrote:
antagonize possible allies by pursuing an aggressive foreign ploicy

Der Untermensch wrote:
aggressive foreign policy… you mean Poland had designs on Dresden, Hamburg and Munich? Or maybe it planned an offensive against the USSR and intended to capture Moscow?

Now you're being silly. I was referring to countries which could have helped Poland remain neutral by minimizing the risks of possible confrontation with Germany or Soviet Russia. Countries like Lithuania and Czechoslovakia. In fact, Poland had an excellent opportunity of joining the Little Entente of Yoguslavia, Czechoslovakia, and Romania but thought itself a big player with aspirations of being the dominant power in eastern Europe. That was a mistake, of course.

BullsEye wrote:
If Poland had followed a path of gaining powerful allies

Der Untermensch wrote:
It actually had. Do you doubt that France and the UK were “powerful”, or do you rather doubt they were “allies”?

What does history tell you?


BullsEye wrote:
If Polish Foreign Miniter Jozef Beck had adopted a more conventional approach in protecting his countries interest it might have been possible for Poland to have tilted the balance of power in Europe

Der Untermensch wrote:
Poland tilting the balance of power… gosh, and they say we the subhumans have a grandeur mania.

Not Poland alone, of course.

BullsEye wrote:
Let's take the possible position that Beck had allowed the USSR access to Czechoslovakia through Polish territory when Hitler was threatening the Czechs and Slovaks prior to Munich

Der Untermensch wrote:
The Soviets were not prepared and acutally unwilling to help CSRS, and the Poles knew that. The Poles would have never allowed the Soviets through, and Moscow knew that. The whole offer was nothing more that a Soviet marketing. Pretty much efficient, since your post proves how long some myths can hold

Why not post the entire paragraph so that our readers can better grasp my message.

"Let's take the possible position that Beck had allowed the USSR access to Czechoslovakia through Polish territory when Hitler was threatening the Czechs and Slovaks prior to Munich. If this access had been granted, or even if Beck had hinted that the Soviets would be permitted to use Polish territory to allow their honoring their defense pact with Czechoslovakia, then Czech president Eduard Benes would have not permitted Czech territory from being taken without a fight, and this might have had the deterrence effect on Hitler."

Now we can see that it was not necessary for actual passage of Soviet troops need have been granted, but the mere possibility of this happening could have had a deterrent effecton Hitler's actions against Czechoslovakia. But what history has really shown us is that Poland took advantage of Czech weakness to grab back Teschen, not an entirely bad thing since that's what the young Czech government did in 1920. So, it can be argued, it was in Polands best interest then for Czechoslovakia to be kept looking one way (Germany) while she (Poland) snuck up from behund and grabbed what she could. So, maybe this argument that Russia was only bluffing is, in fact, a Polish smokescreen designed to hide their real intentions.

BullsEye wrote:
Or let's be more realistic…

Der Untermensch wrote:
Hard to believe that knowing all we know about the Nazis, their designs and their attiture, some people still seem to live in 1939 and believe that just this one concession (Rheinland, Memel, Sudetenland, Bohmen, Corridor) and Mr Hitler and his boys would eventually settle down.

Hitler was not demanding the Polish Corridor. The fact is that an extra-territorial highway and railroad through the Polish Corridor and the return of Danzig, which was not even necessary for Poland since the new port of Gdansk had overtaken Danzig in importance, where easily negotiable and the terms offered were really quite generous.

BullsEye wrote:
Since we know that Beck did neither of these things it can be argued, with considerable correctness, that Becks stubborness led to the eventual clash with Germany for which Poland and most of Europe had to suffer considerable agony

Der Untermensch wrote:
Yes, it really takes a fool to defend your country against an aggression, instead of handing a half of it to the aggressor for the sake of suiting European interests, even if these interests had been indeed about feeding Mr Hitler with one meal after another

That's not even an argument, but an emotional outburst. Let's see if one last attempt at perspective will get a reasoned argument in response.
Before relations between Poland and Germany significantly cooled there were numerous attempts by both Ribbentrop and Hitler to negotiate a peaceful solution to the extra-territorial access to East Prussia issue and the Danzig issue. There were no demands made and there where even public announcements by Hitler of the good relations that existed between Germany and Poland. Yet, when the subject was brought up for discussion Beck would not flinch from his obdurate stance. No negotiation. The honor of Poland is not negotiable, was his public posture. Yet, privately, he knew that Danzig would eventually return to Germany.

Regards,

Oscar

[BullsEye]

Dear Sid,

It's good to see that a well reasoned argument can still be used when discussing a touchy issue. Unfortunatelly for those of us who are not Poles, this issue is not as self-evident as it must appear to them. I frankly do not see this issue as a clear black and white, but in a very gray way. I have come across many times as appearing pro-Nazi becuase I dare to question what's held as the common and acceptable view and I'm afraid that these two posters of Polish extraction are trying to paint anyone who thinks differently than what common wisdom allows as pro-Fascist, or worse. Now that I have said my peace there's something that needs to be cleared up in my mind. Take the following quote;

Sid wrote:
Thus, by the time Hitler illegally renounced the 1934 treaty in early 1939, Poland had not only alienated Germany and the USSR, but Lithuania and Slovakia as well.

Why was it illegal? I believe that Hitler only announced the revocation of the Polish-German Pact after Poland had agreed to the British announcement of Polish sovereignty with a reciprocal announcement. This, I believe, did constitude grounds for revocation since it was clear that the British and Polish declaration was aimed at Germany.

Regards,

Oscar

[BullsEye]

Since we know that Beck did neither of these things it can be argued, with considerable correctness, that Becks stubborness led to the eventual clash with Germany for which Poland and most of Europe had to suffer considerable agony.

Yeah, the two peace - loving nations the Germans and Bolsheviks lived peacefuly. While they thought only about cultural and economical development Polish warmongers started a vast program of militarisation. Such an action left no choice to both and they started to do the same, only as a pretective measure. The arms race caused by Beck and his henchmans led eventually to the WWII. Which, by the way started on Polish ofensive to unprepared German villages. Eventually Poland was defeated, and all of its most important statesmans was tried in Nuremburg. All but Beck himself who committed a suicide in his bunker in Warsaw.

BTW why Americans caused Japan to attack Pearl Harbour. Stubborness of FDR made Japans to do it. All they wanted was "Lebensraum" in China and some oil resources...

Ha, ha, ha, ha...I bet we have a standup comedian as one of our forum members. Tell us something, Fredd. Was the Poland of 1939 very different from the Germany of 1939?

Regards,

Oscar

[Der Untermensch]

Dear Der Untermensch

Fredd, please be so kind and do not deny me the pleasure to deal with this piece. I will leave the other one for you. Enjoy!

[sid guttridge]

Hi Der Untermensch,

(Whilst I appreciate the irony of your chosen nomme de plume, could you not find a title that doesn't oblige correspondents to apparently insult you every time they address you?)

Yup. It is true that Poland only concluded a ten-year non-aggression treaty with Germany in 1934 after France had rejected Polish suggestions for a pre-emptive strike against Germany. But what were the proposed legal grounds for such a war in 1934? Hitler had not yet denounced the Versailles Treaty.

You are correct that most of the examples I gave had limited impact, but they do illustrate that Poland, while steadfastly standing up to Germany over March-September 1939 in its own self interest, had not been a farsighted Allied team player for much of the 1930s and had had its own role in dismantling the international system that emerged from WWI.

From memory, the border between Poland and Lithuania over 1926-1938 was a de fact one, not de jure. The Lithuanians refused to recognise it as final because they claimed Vilnius, then in Poland, as their capital. In about 1930 (give or take a year) the League of Nations largely found in favour of the Lithuanian case. By issuing an ultimatum to Lithuania demanding recognition of the de facto border as de jure in March 1938, Poland was not only taking advantage of the Anschluss to divert international attention, but undermining the League of Nations - something Mussolini and Hitler were also engaged in.

I take your point about Poland not "alienating" Germany and the USSR. It was sloppy sentence construction on my part. Germany and the USSR would have resented Poland at the time even if the Poles had been much more accommodating towards them. I should have said something to the effect that Polish actions had added to its existing German and Polish foes by unecessarily alienating Slovakia and Poland. Slovakia invaded Poland with three divisions in September 1939 and provided transit to about ten German divisions. Lithuania partially mobilised but held back from attacking Poland.

Danzig was not the cause of WWII, but it was a plausible pretext used by Hitler that could have been denied him. Danzig was not in Poland, it was almost entirely German in population and Poland had rendered it increasingly redundant as a port by building Gdynia. It was difficult to justify denying the will of its population to be part of Germany, especially as it was no longer strategically vital to Poland as its main access to the Baltic. Offering Danzig to Hitler would not have stopped his assault on Poland, but it would have undermined his charge of Polish intransigence and made Franco-British support more robust. Attitudes such "Je suis decide a me planquer et a ne pas aller me faire tuer pour Danzig" might then not have been in vogue.

It is clear to me that Hitler intended to take over Poland one way or the other and that war was virtually unavoidable. However, I would suggest that Polish policy was often short sighted during the 1930s and that the country could have played its hand better.

I would also suggest that some people with strong Polish nationalist inclinations today are too full of the righteousness of Poland's cause to recognise that a more pragmatic policy in the 1930s might have been advisable and that Poland made some mistakes of its own. (You are not amongst these.)

Cheers,

Sid.

[sid guttridge]

Hi Oscar,

Surely, Britain giving Poland a defensive guarantee, whether it was explicitly against Germany or not, does not negate a non-aggression treaty between Germany and Poland?

There is no conflict between the two treaties because, if all parties kept to the two agreements, war should, in theory, have been impossible. The two treaties were not mutually contradictory. On the contrary, they could be regarded as complementary.

I have the Polish-German text in English somewhere. I will check.

Cheers,

Sid.

[Pirx]

Hi guys,

I have found a photocopy of French deployments on 12 September 1939 taken from a Polish book "Wojna Polska" by Moczulski.

I'm not sure that mr Moczulski is a good source. He has opinion of hardliner in Poland. Totally anticommunist, antisocialist, real right-winger, but not ultras.
In my opinion that really doesn't matter what was written in Franco-Polish treaty, was Poland good or bad state in 1939 ect. France was never ready for II WW. Wasnt ready in september 1939 and in may 1940. Look at the Greit Brittain! With peacefull PM, their propaganda, and HQ tried to prepare Brittons as good as possilble.
In polish opinion from 1939 France was main ally. Britain had opinion of cold neutral.

Oscar from USA asked did Poland was different from Hitlers Germany?
Don't You know? are u addult? or maybe You are child?

Even if in Poland was no real democracy, it was independent state, like Greece, Yugoslawia, so there is NO SINGLE EXCUSE for Germans when they attack Poland, as well there is NO SINGLE EXCUSE for USSR, when they attack. And if you do quotation from Molotov or Goebels you never find truth.

[Der Untermensch]

Poland was seen by Hitler as a buffer between Germany and the Soviet Union and said so when Beck visited Berchtesgaden on 5 January 1939. During their conversation Hitler made it abundantly clear that he desired for there to be a strong Polish state, that his attitude towards Poland had not changed since the pact of 1934, and that all that had been discussed between Ribbentrop and Josef Lipski (Polish Ambassador to Berlin) on 24 October 1938 had not changed. So, in effect, at this moment in time it was in Hitler's interest for there to be a viable Polish state and, if one considers that if Poland had joined the Anti-Commintern Pact Hitler would have treated with Poland as he did with Italy, Romania, Spain, Vichy France, and Hungary then Poland would not have had to fear Germany unless it was in the process of switching sides

buhahaha…. In his numerous writings, speeches and other pieces Mr Chancellor Hitler made it abundantly clear what he intends to do with us, the subhumans, also in terms of how many calories per day we should be entitled to and how many letters from the alphabet we might need to use in the future. Do you know what was the difference between the countries you have listed and Poland? Please let me tell you, Sir. Mr Chancellor Hitler did not intend to take away Friuli from Italy, Transilvania from Romania, Catalunia from Spain and Zalaegerszeg from Hungary. The French might consider themselves happy that Elsace and Lothringen were only a minor fraction of France. Without the Corridor, Wartheland and Silesia, Poland would have been reduced to a buffer puppet state. And this was the only “strong and viable” Polish state Mr Chancellor wanted. Plus a few hundred tons of kanonfutter, still alive! I wonder what Laszlo Nemedi and Victor Nitu think about this.

My goodness. It seems as if you have forgotten that by pursuing a "Third Way" Poland ended up under Nazi occupation until it was "liberated" by the Red Army, then spent the next 45 years under the Soviet Unions thumb

Difficult to forget, I can tell you. In the Warschau area where I live, almost every second corner is dotted with plaques reading how many were shot dead here (does this qualify as “victimhood olympics”?). It is very kind of you to bother. So, which option would you rather wanted us to go, with the Nazis or with the Soviets? Please make your pick and I will tell you what this would have implied; I will try to quantify this in milions of dead.

Now you're being silly

Sir, we the subhumans are silly by definition, this goes without saying. Our brains are simply underdeveloped. Just as we had problems understanding simple German commands in 1939, I have a problem understanding your simple logic today.

I was referring to countries which could have helped Poland remain neutral by minimizing the risks of possible confrontation with Germany or Soviet Russia. Countries like Lithuania and Czechoslovakia

could you please advise how on Earth Lithuania or Czechoslovakia could have helped Poland to become neutral when confronted with the Nazi demands? Probably what you mean is when the Nazis decided they would fancy the Czech Sudetenland and the Lithuanian Memel? Because my impression is that an alliance with Czechoslovakia and Lithuania would have dragged Poland into the war even earlier. And when counting the balance of forces, you can hardly overestimate the Lithuanian contribution of an elite Iron Wolf division, of course.

In fact, Poland had an excellent opportunity of joining the Little Entente of Yoguslavia, Czechoslovakia, and Romania but thought itself a big player with aspirations of being the dominant power in eastern Europe. That was a mistake, of course

When was this excellent opportunity, Sir? Little Entente was an anti-Hungarian alliance driven by fear of Budapest reclaiming its former territories, and nothing beyond this. Can you imagine Poland joining Little Entente and persuading Czechoslovakia (not to mention Yugoslavia and Romania) to form a defensive pact against the Germans? I presume the Romanians and the SHS would have been really thrilled. And Czechoslovakia made it a foundation of their policy not to be dragged into any alliance with Poland. They considered Poland a potential German prey and were desperate to avoid involvement in an expected German-Polish conflict. The poor guys just did not imagine that following your advice of being polite to Mr Whoever Rules Unter den Linden would not help, and that they would be served first.

What does history tell you?

A very good question. I will be polite not to answer it in public.

Not Poland alone, of course

oops… you mean Poland forming a perfectly balanced political mechanism in-between the Nazis and the Soviets? I am afraid Mr Chancellor Hitler and Mr The Sun of the Working Peoples did not need these small bastards to help them form a friendly alliance.

Now we can see that it was not necessary for actual passage of Soviet troops need have been granted, but the mere possibility of this happening could have had a deterrent effecton Hitler's actions against Czechoslovakia

Oh really? There was only one measure which “could have had a deterrent effect” on Mr Chancellor Hitler, the one he had used himself on a gloomy April day. He made it clear to his boys that he had decided to finish Czechoslovakia off. Much more solid alliances with much more powerful countries failed to have “a deterrent effect” on him. The only tangible effect of this “mere possibility” would be a reality of the Soviets banging at the Polish door.

So, maybe this argument that Russia was only bluffing is, in fact, a Polish smokescreen designed to hide their real intentions

The Poles did not care much about Czechoslovakia, and that was downright suicidal (though understandable, given the 20-year record of Czechoslovakia not caring much about Poland). Whatever our intention versus Czechoslovakia was, it mattered nothing compared to our intention versus ourselves, which was keeping our Soviet friends at bay.

Hitler was not demanding the Polish Corridor. The fact is that an extra-territorial highway and railroad through the Polish Corridor and the return of Danzig, which was not even necessary for Poland since the new port of Gdansk had overtaken Danzig in importance, where easily negotiable and the terms offered were really quite generous

Of course he was not demanding the Polish Corridor. He was demanding Lebensraum ranging to the Arkhangelsk - Astrakhan line (what a moderation, he left the rest of Russia for the Russians). And as to the “new port of Gdansk” suggest you check your map, Sir.

That's not even an argument, but an emotional outburst

Pretty much right, Sir! This was an outburst. Of laughter. Trying to match your sense of humour.

Let's see if one last attempt at perspective will get a reasoned argument in response. Before relations between Poland and Germany significantly cooled there were numerous attempts by both Ribbentrop and Hitler to negotiate a peaceful solution to the extra-territorial access to East Prussia issue and the Danzig issue. There were no demands made and there where even public announcements by Hitler of the good relations that existed between Germany and Poland. Yet, when the subject was brought up for discussion Beck would not flinch from his obdurate stance. No negotiation. The honor of Poland is not negotiable, was his public posture

I am afraid you missed the last garbage-collection roundup in your neighbourhood and there is still some left at your place. WWII has not broken out because of Danzig, the Corridor, Gleiwitz, autobahn or German minority. WWII has broken out because Mr Chancellor Hitler, his boys and all these who supported this nice band wanted more Lebensraum, more power, and more everything.

Yet, privately, he knew that Danzig would eventually return to Germany

for the time being, Danzig is still under the temporary Polish administration; I have been there three weeks ago, please trust me! Could you please advise when this “eventually” is going to come?

[Der Untermensch]

Whilst I appreciate the irony of your chosen nomme de plume, could you not find a title that doesn't oblige correspondents to apparently insult you every time they address you?

Absurd names for absurd discussions. Besides, some people might find it easier to spell out their thoughts when instructing der Untermensch. I was pretty much surprised you did decide to take part in this boxing session, but since you did, I had to answer. Please do not worry, this is war (the Eastern Front, not the Danish campaign!), for feeling offended you face the martial court. And finally, some Russian nicks I saw are even more funny.

But what were the proposed legal grounds for such a war in 1934? Hitler had not yet denounced the Versailles Treaty

none, I believe. Just raison d’etre.

You are correct that most of the examples I gave had limited impact, but they do illustrate that Poland, while steadfastly standing up to Germany over March-September 1939 in its own self interest, had not been a farsighted Allied team player for much of the 1930s and had had its own role in dismantling the international system that emerged from WWI

Unfortunately, I have no option but to subscribe to the above. Of course given you do not claim Poland attacked Germany in 1939.

From memory, the border between Poland and Lithuania…

This is very much correct, but has nothing to do with the 1938 crisis. During this one, the League was not involved at all. The only wrong information you give is that the League “largely found in favour of the Lithuanian case”. The League has never ever pronounced in favour of the Lithuanian claims to Vilnius, be it 1930 or whenever. It has also never ever officially and straightforwardly pronounced in favour of the Polish claims, but by a number of other actions it did recognise the Polish rule there.

I take your point about Poland not "alienating" Germany and the USSR

Thanks Sir. Glad you have mercy as to my English gaffes.

Danzig was not the cause of WWII, but it was a plausible pretext used by Hitler that could have been denied him

What for? If not this one, it would have been another.

Danzig was not in Poland, it was almost entirely German in population and Poland had rendered it increasingly redundant as a port by building Gdynia. It was difficult to justify denying the will of its population to be part of Germany, especially as it was no longer strategically vital to Poland as its main access to the Baltic

Sir, you have two neighbours quarelling about a plot in-between their gardens. The court decides in odd years there is one using the plot, in even years there is another. One of them is so upset about this that he spends lots of money to buy a plot he needs at the opposite side of his garden. Does his effort and his money entitle the other guy to say “OK, you do not need this bordering plot any more, give it to me”?

Offering Danzig to Hitler would not have stopped his assault on Poland, but it would have undermined his charge of Polish intransigence and made Franco-British support more robust. Attitudes such "Je suis decide a me planquer et a ne pas aller me faire tuer pour Danzig" might then not have been in vogue

I am afraid France paid such a horrific tribute in WWI that they had problems deciding to go to war “pour anything”

It is clear to me that Hitler intended to take over Poland one way or the other and that war was virtually unavoidable. However, I would suggest that Polish policy was often short sighted during the 1930s and that the country could have played its hand better

hard not to agree.

I would also suggest that some people with strong Polish nationalist inclinations today are too full of the righteousness of Poland's cause to recognise that a more pragmatic policy in the 1930s might have been advisable and that Poland made some mistakes of its own. (You are not amongst these.)

I really do not know why you wrote this here. On this forum we are not discussing the Polish politics of today. Of course this statement is correct, but I can not help the feeling the reason you put it is to give some toys to the readers who are not entirely happy how this thread develops.

[Der Untermensch]

I have come across many times as appearing pro-Nazi becuase I dare to question what's held as the common and acceptable view and I'm afraid that these two posters of Polish extraction are trying to paint anyone who thinks differently than what common wisdom allows as pro-Fascist, or worse

Does this mean I am allowed to say I represent "common wisdom", "common view" and "acceptable view", which you dare to question? In my humble opinion, apart from being an independent and daring thinker, it is also useful to be a sensible thinker from time to time.

And do not flatter yourself by saying I bothered to paint you as pro-Fascist.

[sid guttridge]

Hi Bullseye/Oscar,

I have a copy of "The Major International Treaties, 1914-1973" by J. A. S. Grenville before me.

The Declaration of Non-Aggression between Germany and Poland of 26 January 1934 is on pages 169-170.

The Agreement of Mutual Assistance between Britain and Poland, London, 25 August 1939, is on pages 190-191.

There is no conflict between them.

There is nothing in the German-Polish Declaration of Non-Aggression to prevent either party concluding agreements of mutual assistance with other parties.

It should be noted that the Polish-German Non-Agression Agreement was for ten years and could not be denounced by either party until six months before its due expiry date in 1944.

Furthermore, it explicitly stated: "IN NO CIRCUMSTANCES, however, will they proceed to the use of force in order to settle such disputes."

There is no doubt that the German-Polish Declaration of Non-Aggression was still legally in force on 1 September 1939 and that the German attack on Poland was therefore not only in breach of wider international law but of the German government's specific undertakings to Poland.

Furthermore, there is not even the excuse that a previous German regime had signed the Non-Aggression Declaration. It was concluded by Hitler's regime.

Finally, it is clear from private conversations recorded at the time in the diary of Count Ciano, the Italian Foreign Minister, that the Germans had no intention of negotiating with Poland in August 1939. Ribbentrop is quite explicit in private conversation with Ciano that war had already been decided upon.

Cheers,

Sid.

[BullsEye]

Hi Oscar,

Surely, Britain giving Poland a defensive guarantee, whether it was explicitly against Germany or not, does not negate a non-aggression treaty between Germany and Poland?

There is no conflict between the two treaties because, if all parties kept to the two agreements, war should, in theory, have been impossible. The two treaties were not mutually contradictory. On the contrary, they could be regarded as complementary.

I have the Polish-German text in English somewhere. I will check.

Cheers,

Sid.

G'Morning Sid,

What I do question is the reference to the illegality of Hitler's action concerning his renouncing Germanys treaty obligations. I don't see why it would be illegal.

Regards,

Oscar

[sid guttridge]

Hi Bullseye,

International treaties are legal documents.

Leaving aside the generalities of international mutual obligation that give any and all treaties their binding nature, the following should be noted:

1) The Polish-German Declaration of Non-Aggression gave a specific MINIMUM term for its duration: 10 years.

2) Within its own terms it contained the only circumstances under which it could be denounced: By either party with six months notice a minimum of 9 years and six months into its term. This could not be earlier than the second half of 1943. If neither party renounced it, the Declaration could still have been in force today!

3) Hitler renounced the Non-Aggression Declaration in the first half of 1939. He therefore broke its terms illegally.

Cheers,

Sid.