If Germany gained the alliance with Poland it wanted in the mid-1930s

The Czechs agreed to return Teschen to Poland five days before the Munich Agreement.
Even more, the British were assuring the Poles for weeks that their demands would be satisfied. And they kept their words. The Munich Agreement contained a guarantee that the disputed territories would be returned to Poland and to Hungary. Because it wasn't only Poland, Hungary was there too.
So there was no need for any wars.

At that time Europe was quite a peaceful place. On two different occasions, all European countries renounced the use of war to resolve "disputes or conflicts of whatever nature or of whatever origin they may be, which may arise among us".
Actually, the ww2 started because Germany thought that wasn't a good idea.
And Poland as other countries believed in that, and wasn't going to endure hostility of Western countries, especially France (which would certainly repudiate Franco-Polish alliance) for a piece of land smaller than Manhattan. Poland had enough enemies already.

Even more, it wasn't "the least likely quarters imaginable". Poland proposed to the Czechs a common defensive agreement a few times, even promised to forget Teschen to boot. And the proposals were always rejected by Czechoslovakia.
So it wasn't that unimaginable. The Czechs never asked the Poles for help. They put their faith in France, and actually in the Germans - they thought they would be nice to them forever.

 

With all due respect what that has to do with anything.

And the Soviet Union didn't even exist then, it was Soviet Russia lead by an internationally boycotted, illegal rebel government.
A criminal government which committed numerous war crimes, acts of aggression and even genocide, conquered many countries in Asia and in Eastern Europe.

When the Great War ended the new emerging countries fought many border wars among themselves, simply because their borders didn't exist. It was regrettable but nothing could be done about it.
And that with Soviet Russia wasn't any different.

Soviet Russia/the USSR was by far the greatest Russian calamity ever. Because of that in that war, Russian/Ukrainians fought on the Polish side.

Really to be a fanboy of the communists, not nice...

 

It is there, that "Great Britain had no obligation toward Czechoslovakia".
And that was true, Britain was just a passerby trying to defuse a dangerous conflict. Not especially skilfully but better that than nothing.

 

I never said the Poles would actually take military action against Czechoslovakia, I merely said they had a motive too, there is a huge difference between attacking someone, and having a reason to attack someone. Europe was not at peace in the late 1930's, the Spanish Civil War was raging, and guess who provided arms to the Republicans and Nationalists rather than formulate some sort of peace agreement....Britain, France, Germany, Italy, the USSR. While none of these countries got involved officially, they were supporting war, not ending it. Italy had invaded Albania and Abyssinia, that doesn't sound like they were trying to avoid war to me.

The Polish invasion of Russia shows that just 17 years before Munich, Poland was more than alright with invading another country to get rid of a threat, the rest of Europe remembered that, especially the Soviets and Germans. What did I say to make you believe I'm a "communist fan boy"? I merely spoke the truth that Poland did in fact begin hostilities with another nation, the Soviet Union, which gave the Soviets the right to fight back. I'm no fan of what the Soviet Union did, not at all, I've never been a fan of corruption, mass starvation, mass murder, and overall evil. To suggest I support such things by relaying facts is ludicrous and immature.

 

Please, a hundred years earlier Polish borders were close to Moscow. In 1772 Poland was attacked, dismembered by Russia/Germany/Austria, and enslaved for over a hundred years.

Poland was trying to recover lands which were rightfully hers and eventually was able to recover only a small part of the occupied by Russia Polish territories.
Post-1918 was much smaller than pre-partition Poland.

And, as I said the USSR was created in 1922, it didn't exist in 1919.

Below Poland in 1772 (black+blue), between wars (blue), and today, see the difference?
The black part Poland was unable to recover.

That was a civil war, international law didn't apply to civil wars, because well - it was international law.
And yes in 1939 two countries decided to wage wars and paid for that dearly later.

btw France and Britain didn't supply weapons, they and other countries enacted an embargo which was quickly violated by Germany, Italy, the USSR.

 

Little bit of false advertising there don't ya think?

One...It's 1772...It's not Poland, but the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.

Two...It had been more Lithuanian than Poland. So, the land was not really Poland's to begin with.


Three...Poland was much smaller in the 900s. Again, the land was not really Poland's to begin with.
[/QUOTE]

 

It does not matter if Poland was fighting the communists, anarchists, Tsarist's,or whoever, what matters is that they willfully began a war and invaded another countries soil, that will not be easily forgotten by the nation invaded. The Spanish Civil War created new tensions and issues that made the European diplomatic scene anything but Tranquil. While France and Britain did not supply weapons, (that was my mistake), thousands of volunteers from both nations joined the fight, and the two countries didn't stop them from going. France, Great Britain, and a few other smaller powers in the west were the only nations wanting to wholly evade war, Germany, Italy, and the USSR had all shown signs, or actively fought in conflicts leading up to the war. So saying the rest of Europe was trying to avoid war is false, many of the nations I mentioned wanted to avoid war with certain nations (Germany wanting to avoid conflict with Great Britain, Italy wanting to avoid fighting Great Britain and France).

 

No. You really need to look at who states what. I complained it was a wall of text, and wondered where it was from.

Takao explained where the quote came from, and then noted you'd done a hack job of providing proper context, iow, cherry picked.

Believe it or not, there are more than two people on this internet thing.

 

Actually, it's not there. What you quoted stated:

"Newton said he did not know, but he thought that Great Britain had no obligation toward Czechoslovakia."

Which is not synonymous at all. You need to read more carefully.

Which when combined with your statement:

and the rather derogatory emotions ascribed by the author to the representatives of France and the UK, make for a text that appears to want to be more sensationalist, than truthful. I'd rather have facts. It's the same reason I can't stand reading Anthony Beevor.

If you grant the fact that the Soviets were actively trying to get the Western Allies embroiled in a conflict against Germany by leveraging Czechoslovakia, then it is a much bigger stake at hand, and minor nations will always get crushed in the middle.

Anyway, this thread has completely derailed, as it is no longer discussing German-Polish alliance, but everything else but.

 

The Soviets under Stalin weren't even Communist, they were oligarchal collectivists. Stalin and his class of bureaucrats became the new ruling hierarchy and the rest of the population lived in squalor. There was no dictatorship of the proletariat. They ruled by totalitarian means and yes the Stalin government controlled all aspects of the economy but as long as it benefited the new oligarchs/bureaucrats aka Stalin and his clique, that's not the definition of Communism. They were Red/Slavic Fascism with more control over the economy. The Nazis and Italy still allowed private enterprise and competition.

 

Kind of depends on how you want to define things. Certainly Marx wouldn't have considered them Communist on the other hand they became the working definition of the word. Most nominally communist governments have ended up pretty close to the USSR model as well so in practice it looks like that's what you can expect a communist government to evolve into (and hopefully through).

 

I read that Hitler wished he named the party the National Revolutionary Party instead of National Socialist after the fact. Stalin certainly invited American businesses and companies in to help him start, and then took them over when they were on their way. He did collectivize the farms and industry, but he collectivized the wealth, hierarchy, and power to his clique and himself. Mussolini called it Slavic Fascism and Hitler said he was starting a Russian National Socialism, but of course Hitler would say that because he signed the pact with him.

 

What soil?
The Soviets repudiated all the three partition treaties, as result Polish borders reverted to the year 1772.
The Poles "invaded" their own territory. Russians didn't live there. They never entered Russian territory.
Why are you trying to hand over others' lands to people who invaded them just over 100 years earlier?

The Polish Army advanced East, the Soviet West. Contact was made, fighting started, followed by failed negotiations, the fighting resumed, and the Polish Army won. End of story.
Nobody invaded anybody.

Are you aware Mr. Wilson that on the Polish territories handed over by Poland to the USSR the Soviets subsequently would murder 110,000 Poles just in two years - in so-called Polish Operation NKVD?

Are you aware that on the Polish territories handed over by Poland to the USSR most of the Holodomor was carried out? That was a few million murdered in cold blood people.

Why are you supporting that genocidal country?
The Soviets were no different from the Nazis. The differences are superficial.

In 1921 Poland saved millions of people from genocide. Don't forget that ever.

 

btw it wasn't Poland by a Polish-Ukrainian coalition.

Under the Treaty of Warsaw Poland recognized the Ukrainian People's Republic as a legitimate, independent state.
One of the goals of the operation was securing the territory of the Ukrainian Republic.
This is why the Ukrainian Army and its 15,000 soldiers took part in it.

 

Just over 150 years ago significant parts of the US were parts of Mexico. Are you saying it would be fine if the Mexicans invaded now?

 

That conquered land is an effective conquest, i.e. recognized by all major powers. The Mexicans have no rights to it whatsoever.

But it will be fine if Mexico invades and achieves its own effective conquest.

 

I'm not supporting the USSR, for the last time! I'm pointing out the simple fact that Poland started the hostilities. You're drawing conclusions and making assumptions that make absolutely no sense whatsoever. Just ask anyone else on this forum if they think I support Genocide and tyrannical governments, or ask me........I don't.......

 

Ummm...The Mexican land was not conquered...It was bought and paid for. $15 million.

 

Texas was a rebel province which was eventually annexed by the US.
Theoretically, annexation is bloodless conquest, and that one was bloodless only at the time of the annexation.

The rebels were supported by the US, and a major war (the Mexican–American War (1846 to 1848)) was fought as result.

That the conflict ended up in a negotiated settlement doesn't change the fact it was an effective conquest.
It only changes the reason why it was effective.

 

Which is not true.
The Soviet Army was advancing into the Polish territory, bringing their revolution with them.
Poland won the initial engagement between both armies and then advanced as common sense and military theory demand it.

By the same reasoning, the Allies after winning at Falaise should have stopped and waited for the Germans to pick up themselves from the floor.

You fight the war mercilessly, until the enemy surrenders or returns to the negotiation table.
As simple as that.

But please, "why you supporting" is just a rhetoric device like "well". Used on CNN and others all the time