17 september 1939 - Page 18




 
--
 
June 8th, 2010  
lljadw
 
an "uneducated" reply:
1)I know the figures from Jentz and Hahn:but,that the German losses in the 2nd week of september were high (and an impartial reader will note that I am writing "that' not 'if'),does not proove that there was any chance of stale-mate:in the 2nd phase of the German attack in the West(Fall Rot:5 to 25 june )the German losses were the double of the losses of Fall Gelb(10 may-5 june):Fall Gelb:16000 a week,Fall Rot:32000 a week,but,no serious historian will claim that,after Dunkirk,the French had any chance for a stale-mate .
2)If,on 15 september,the Polish army did so well,was there any need for a French attack in the first days of september?
3)If the opposite was true(Poland having lost strategically the war in the first days),would a French offensive not have been to late ?
4)last uneducated point n the treaty between Britain and Poland:a question that an educated person will easely be able to answer:who took the initiative for the treaty ? And why ?
If it was Britain,why were they proposing a treaty ?Had they any indications of an imminent German attack?And if not,why a treaty ?
My assumption is:it was only roaring of the British lion,for home consumption(elections were nearing ),the treaty was very vague:nothing concret:no number of divisions that would be engaged on a specific day,the same for the RAF.The consequence was that Hitler was not impressed,it was all bluffing .
To compare with the NATO treaty(1949):if there were in 1950 no US divisions in Europe,no air squadrons,no military assistance,Stalin would not be impressed .
That Poland was considering the treaty as a promise of an immediate attack in the west,is a Polish interpretation .
5)about the figures given by Pipes :the origin was an unreliable Polish source from september 1939 (the figures appeared in French and Swiss newspapers);why unreliable? Because a retreating army is not able to count the number of enemy casualties;it had other things to do .
June 9th, 2010  
Naddođur
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lljadw
4)last uneducated point n the treaty between Britain and Poland:a question that an educated person will easely be able to answer:who took the initiative for the treaty ? And why ?
If it was Britain,why were they proposing a treaty ?Had they any indications of an imminent German attack?And if not,why a treaty ?
My assumption is:it was only roaring of the British lion,for home consumption(elections were nearing ),the treaty was very vague:nothing concret:no number of divisions that would be engaged on a specific day,the same for the RAF.The consequence was that Hitler was not impressed,it was all bluffing .
I totally agree with you

Even if British and French leaders had taken a more active line, powerful domestic lobbies pushed for pacifism. When a center-left government was elected in France in 1936 under the slogan of the Popular Front, a million Frenchmen marched through Paris demanding peace. In 1934 British citizens founded the Peace Pledge Union, which over the next five years became a mass movement that campaigned against war. Not until Nazi Germany seemed a very real threat in 1939 did public opinion swing more clearly in favor of confronting fascism by violent means.

None of the two wanted to risk a major war so soon after the last, but none of them wanted to let the world order slide into chaos. There were powerful pressures against an active foreign policy. The British and French empires were menaced by anticolonial nationalism in India, Indochina, the Middle East, and Africa.

Poland regained independence after World War One. While the victorious Western allies supported the idea of independent Poland, their main reason for it was to weaken Germany and Russia. Therefore their support was limited; for example, many French and British politicians considered that the industrial region of Silesia should remain with Germany, so that Germany would have an easier time paying off the war debts and contributions to France and its allies. The German interpretation was that the majority of people in Silesia had chosen Germany and so all of Silesia should remain with Germany. The German view was supported by Britain. In fact, Versailles did clearly state that Silesia was to be partitioned by districts after the plebsitice.

In the years immediately after World War One, it was French policy to weaken Germany as much as possible, and through the French did not champion the border that the Poles wanted in Silesia, the French attitude to the Polish cause in regards to the Silesian dispute was markly pro-Polish and anti-German. Indeed, it was a ultimatum from Paris that compelled the Germans to withdraw their forces from Silesia in June 1921.

Ostensibly, the British view that all of Silesia ought to remain with Germany was based on the belief that Germany could pay reparations to France easier; by 1921 London had largely abandoned any claims against Germany and was strongly pressuring both France and Belgium to lower their reparations claims against the Germans as much as possible. The British argument about reparations was mostly a bid to influence French public opinion; the real reason for London's pro-German stance was the belief that if Germany were to lose too much territory, this could undermine the fragile WeimarRepublic and lead to extremists taking power in Germany.

In the late 1920s and early 1930s a complicated set of alliances was established amongst the nations of Europe, in the hope of preventing future wars (either with Germany or Soviet Russia). With the rise of Nazism in Germany this system of alliances was strengthened by the signing of a series of "mutual assistance" alliances between France, Britain, and Poland (Franco-Polish Alliance and Anglo-Polish Alliance).

On March 30, 1939, the government of the United Kingdom pledged to defend Poland, in the event of a German attack, and Romania in case of other threats. The British guarantee of Poland was only of Polish independence, and pointly excluded Polish territorial integrity. The reasons for the guarantee policy are nowhere more clearly stated than in a memorandum by the Foreign Office, composed in the summer of 1939, which submitted “that it was essential to prevent Hitler from expanding easterwards, and obtaining control of the resources of Central and Eastern Europe, which would enable him to turn upon the Western countries with overwhelming force”. (quotation from the book The New Central Europe by Stephen Borsody).

The declaration was further amended in April, when Poland's minister of foreign affairs Colonel Józef Beck met with Neville Chamberlain and Lord Halifax. In the aftermath of the talks a mutual assistance treaty was signed. On August 25 the Polish-British Common Defence Pact was signed as an annex to Polish-French alliance. Like the guarantee of March 30, the Anglo-Polish alliance committed Britain only to the defence of Polish independence. It was clearly aimed against German aggression.

The basic goal of British foreign policy between 1919-1939 was to prevent another world war by a mixture of carrot and stick. The stick in this case was the guarantee of March 1939, which was intended to prevent Germany from attacking either Poland or Romania. At the same time, the Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain and his Foreign Secretary Lord Halifax hoped to offer a carrot to Hitler in the form of another Munich type deal that would see the Free City of Danzig and the Polish Corridor returned to Germany in exchange for a promise by Hitler to leave the rest of Poland alone.
July 19th, 2010  
allias
 
war distory everything, we should aviod it as possible as we can.



-------------------------------------
Life was like a box of chocolates, you never know what you’re gonna get. 24 season 8 dvd
Stupid is as stupid doesgreys anatomy dvd
--
July 19th, 2010  
COFindus
 
War can always be avoided as long as one side wants to avoid it.

Is the french army still the best world?
July 19th, 2010  
LeEnfield
 
 
CiFindus
You asked is the French Army the best in the world, well ask any Frenchman that question and you should a postive reply
July 20th, 2010  
COFindus
 
-,-' and what would the not french people say? US Americans would say its the USA? Russians that its Russias Army? Hmm, i was hoping there was something more official.