122 thoughts on “Two Minutes to Midnight”

1. A question involved was whether the British were influenced by Mr. Roosevelt to make the guarantees.

   Ambassador Joseph P. Kennedy later informed me that he was instructed to “put a poker up Chamberlain’s back and to make him stand up.” In confirmation is a passage from the diary of James Forrestal, then Under Secretary of the Navy, as follows: . . .

   I asked him [Kennedy] about his conversations with Roosevelt and Neville Chamberlain from 1938 on. He said Chamberlain’s position in 1938 was that England had nothing with which to fight and that she could not risk going to war with Hitler. Kennedy’s view: That Hitler would have fought Russia without any later conflict with England if it had not been for Bullitt’s . . . urging on Roosevelt in the summer of 1939 that the Germans must be faced down about Poland; neither the French nor the British would have made Poland a cause of war if it had not been for the constant needling from Washington. Bullitt, he said, kept telling Roosevelt that the Germans wouldn’t fight, Kennedy that they would, and that they would overrun Europe. . . . In his telephone conversation with Roosevelt in the summer of 1939 the President kept telling him to put some iron up Chamberlain’s backside. Kennedy’s response always was the putting iron up his backside did no good unless the British had some iron with which to fight, and they did not. . . .

   Nash, George H.. Freedom Betrayed: Herbert Hoover’s Secret History of the Second World War and Its Aftermath (pp. 129-130). Hoover Institution Press. Kindle Edition.

2. After the Germans had invaded Poland on September 1, 1939, and seized the Polish Foreign Office records, they released a mass of documents which certainly indicated that the American Ambassador to France, William C. Bullitt, who could act only on Mr. Roosevelt’s authority, in January, 1939, had made a profusion of oral assurances to officials of Poland and France which they could only interpret as a promise of assistance of some kind of force from the United States. These statements by Bullitt were contained in numerous dispatches from Polish Ambassadors abroad to their Foreign Ministers in Warsaw. 10 When published, these documents were denounced as fabrications by Ambassador Bullitt, the Polish Ambassador to Washington, Count Jerzy Potocki, and by our State Department. But subsequently, the Polish Ambassador in Washington informed me that the documents were genuine and that he had denied their authenticity at the request of the State Department.

   Nash, George H.. Freedom Betrayed: Herbert Hoover’s Secret History of the Second World War and Its Aftermath (pp. 131-132). Hoover Institution Press. Kindle Edition.

   • so Roosevelt thought that a bloody war in Europe would be helpful in dealing with all of those out of work Americans who were becoming restive and rebelling against his socialist policies. Hmmm.

     • Roosevelt’s motives are extremely difficult to uncover. Not for nothing was he known as The Sphinx.

   • So perhaps William C. Bullitt was recruited by soviets during 1933-1936 in Moscow?
     Or even as early as 1920’s?
     And was actually speaking according to Stalin’s plans when promising assistance to Poland?

3. Germany, and in particular Hitler, told anybody and everybody whatever was opportune at the time. Hitler always had plans for Poland. Always. While a glib reordering of events, the very basis of this article is a stunning misunderstanding or misrepresentation of events. Not at all what one expects from the Gates of Vienna.

   • This is the occasional insinuation through these hallowed gates of those who collect Waffen SS memorabilia and rewrite history.

     • As for “insinuation”, yours is a slander against Nick, who is no Naziphile. He is actually a devotee of Sir Winston Churchill, among other things.

       • Isn’t it interesting though, to see the knee-jerk reaction of some people whenever the official, surface-level narrative is exposed to a few unhappy – but well documented – facts?

         Very interesting.

       • ..”the official, surface-level narrative is exposed to a few unhappy – but well documented – facts?”..’Reading this make me sick…
         Nobody heard about Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact from August 1939 ?
         https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact

         • Read it more carefully — Nick is describing what happened SIX MONTHS before the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.

         • Neville Chamberlain certainly hadn’t heard about the Nazi-Soviet Pact on 31st March, for it wasn’t signed until the early hours of 24th August.

           Please familiarise yourself with this. It’s called a calendar.

           https://www.timeanddate.com/calendar/?year=1939&country=9

       • ..”Nick, who is no Naziphile “…
         There was no Nazi Land..There was No Nazi Nations…
         All of them were mostly GERMANS and ..AUSTRIAN,Norwegians,Dutch,Belgians…
         How dare you !

     • Which event mentioned in the article above has been “rewritten”?

       Be specific.

   • “a glib reordering of events” … which events mentioned in the article have been “reordered”?

     Be specific.

     “a misrepresentation of events” … explain what you mean by this. Which events mentioned in the article have been “misrepresented”?

     Be specific.

   • …”Hitler always had plans for Poland”…
     That’s correct. Hitler as a “Richtige Deutsche” just follow Bismarck “the road map”..
     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitteleuropa
     Like Kohl,like Merkel..That’s why we are ,where we are right now in Europe..
     Crazy ,German “Ubermensch” mentality and “cultural superiority” creating “feeding ground” for 3 World War..
     Bashing and beating Jews in Germany already started..just like 80 years ago..
     But author ,Nick the “nonaziphile” bashing Poles for lack of wisdom to join Hitler in 1939 for their “Ubermensch” quest…sickening..

     • Please take a moment to re-read the article & follow-up comments. I realise that you have missed the point entirely, possibly because English is not your first language. If you make a little effort here, I’m sure you will understand it a little better. And do check out the calendar for 1939. Remember: 31st March comes before 24th August – every time!

     • So according to what you’re saying & doing, whenever one is studying history, one must disregard respected historians like Ian Kershaw, Alan Bullock, Noakes and Pridham, and Basil Liddell Hart. And one mustn’t rely on source documents in the National Archives. That would never do …

       But Wikipedia is just fine …

       LOL

4. The dim bulb is not interested in history. Her job is to keep the bright lights away from her agenda, and if it all goes wrong, well, she has no children to suffer the consequences. We are just so fortunate that the alternative to this pygmy is too busy posturing and baiting the Jewish community to take advantage of her foolishness.

   • She wants everyone to stop using plastic knives and forks though. That’s super important, apparently.

   • And let’s not forget this:

     “Theresa May has declared without hesitation that she would order a nuclear strike to kill hundreds of thousands of people if she thought it was necessary.

     Ms May was challenged by the SNP’s George Kerevan, who asked: “Are you prepared to authorise a nuclear strike that could kill hundreds of thousands of men, women and children?”

     Ms May replied with one word: “Yes.””

     https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-trident-debate-nuclear-bomb-yes-live-latest-news-a7143386.html

5. Nick McAvelly’s narrative makes no mention at all of the Japanese. Prior to the Nazi invasion of Poland, the Japanese had colonised Manchuria and had occupied much of China. The only discussion taking place there was whether they should strike north at Russia or south at the soft underbelly of the European colonies and the American pacific. Whatever the Germans or Russians did in Europe would have made no difference to Japanese ambitions.

6. Turning to “May’s gamble” and Syria, a slightly more relevant conflict to peace in our time. The complete failure of a Russian response to the caning of it’s vassal Assad is stunning and largely overlooked by the media. Equally stunning is the complete failure of Syrian air defences, surely under Russian direction. After the sabre rattling talk of the Russian Navy there was no retaliation attack was made on US or European Navy ships. It all looks like Putins’ bluff has been called and he wouldn’t risk a full blown war with the US over Syria. The strongman is looking weak this week.

   • This week.

7. Blaming Poland for Hitler’s moves and Stalin’s duplicity is mad. Offering a road to East Prussia wasn’t going to satisfy Germany. Suggestions that Poland join with Germany are cuckoo. Hitler had little use for the Slavic peoples and HATED Marxists who had torn Germany apart in the 1920’s…at the behest and direction of Lenin.

   The German-Russian treaty to gobble up Poland was its death notice and subjected it to communist tyranny for a half century, starting in the Katyn Forest massacre, with Polish Marxists taking out clergy and all opposition. Lest we forget, Six million Poles would be killed, 3 million Jewish, 3 million Roman Catholic.

   An ironic ending is that when the Iron Curtain fell, communists moved in to take over the EU. A main target? The nation-state of Catholic Poland again!

   • 1. “Blaming Poland for Hitler’s moves and Stalin’s duplicity is mad.”

     Straw man.

     2. Offering a road to East Prussia wasn’t going to satisfy Germany.

     i) How do you know this? It would be appreciated if you could present an argument in support of the conclusion you have reached. Remember though – no question begging.

     ii) At what point – precisely – did this situation come about? Was it before or after 31st March 1939?

     3. Suggestions that Poland join with Germany are cuckoo.

     Define your terms. Then argue for this.

   • “The German-Russian treaty to gobble up Poland was its death notice and subjected it to communist tyranny for a half century, starting in the Katyn Forest massacre, with Polish Marxists taking out clergy and all opposition. Lest we forget, Six million Poles would be killed, 3 million Jewish, 3 million Roman Catholic.”

     1. Note that Chamberlain’s unsolicited war guarantee was made on 31st March 1939. When Hitler learned what Chamberlain had done, he is said to have flown into a rage and said, “I’ll cook them a stew that they’ll choke on!” (Bullock, Hitler, p. 499.)

     2. According to the usual sources, Ribbentrop was the one who pursued a deal with Russia, & Hitler took a while to come round to the idea. (Bullock, Hitler, p. 515; Kershaw, Nemesis, loc. 4703.)

     3. This is not surprising, for as early as December 1932, in a letter to Colonel Walther von Reichenau, the Chief of Staff of the Commander of the military district of East Prussia, Hitler had explained his view of the Soviet Union:

     “Russia is not a state but an ideology which at the moment is restricted to that territory, or rather dominates it, but which maintains sections in all other countries which not only pursue the same revolutionary goal, but are also organisationally subordinate to the Moscow headquarters . […] For this reason I regard Soviet diplomacy not only as unreliable but as not comparable with the diplomatic leadership of other nations and, therefore, as ineligible to undertake negotiations and sign treaties. “Treaties” can only be signed with combatants who are on the same ideological plane.” (Noakes & Pridham, Nazism 1919-1945, Volume 3, pp. 11-12.)

     4. The Nazi-Soviet Pact was dated 23d August but apparently, it was not signed until the early hours of the morning on 24th August 1939, after a bit of drinking had been going on. (Kershaw, Nemesis, loc. 5081)

     5. That’s nearly six months after Chamberlain gave his unsolicited war guarantee.

     Some further reading:

     https://gatesofvienna.net/2016/05/dirty-hands-past-present-and-future/

   • “Suggestions that Poland join with Germany are cuckoo.”

     May I take a moment to address this point. I trust you will not regard me as “cuckoo” if I point out to you that I merely report that it was in fact suggested – by the Germans – that Poland “join with Germany” (against the Soviet Union.)

     1. It is well documented that Halifax visited Berchtesgaden in November 1937 and met with the top Nazis. As Halifax wrote later: “He had encountered friendliness and a desire for good relations.” (National Archives, CAB 23/90A/5) In his typical mealy-mouthed way, Halifax let Hitler, Goering and Goebbels know that Britain had no problem with them going after Austria, Czechoslovakia and Danzig. (Noakes and Pridham, Nazism 1919-1945, Volume 3, pp. 81-82; Andrew Roberts, The Holy Fox, loc. 1565; Basil Liddel Hart, A History of The Second World War, loc. 297.)

     2. Poland signed a non-aggression pact with Germany in January 1934, soon after Hitler came to power. According to Noakes and Pridham, Hitler made this happen despite opposition from some members of his own Foreign Ministry. (Noakes and Pridham, Nazism 1919-1945 Volume 3, p. 53.)

     3. In October 1938, Ribbentrop met with Jozef Lipski, the Polish Ambassador, and told him that Germany wanted a) Danzig to be returned to Germany, and b) to build a road and railway link across the Polish corridor to East Prussia. In return, Germany would extend the 1934 non-aggression pact and guarantee the existing borders with Poland. Ribbentrop also suggested that the two countries adopt “a joint policy towards Russia on the basis of the anti-Comintern Pact.” (Alan Bullock, Hitler: A Study in Tyranny, pp. 492-493.)

     4. In January 1939, Hitler met with Jozef Beck, the Polish Foreign Minister, and made Germany’s position quite clear: “On the part of Germany he [Hitler] could state emphatically that there had not been the slightest change in Germany’s relations with Poland as based on the non-aggression declaration of 1934. Germany would under all circumstances be interested in maintaining a strong nationalist Poland.” However, Hitler wanted Danzig to be placed under German rule, and he wanted a road and railway line to be built to East Prussia. (Noades and Pridham, Nazism 1919-1945: Volume 3, pp. 125-126.)

     5. At this meeting, Hitler made it clear to the Poles that he saw the Soviet Union as a long-term enemy which may have to be taken on militarily. Hitler told Beck that he was “decidedly interested in seeing Poland’s position preserved. Purely from the military point of view the existence of a strong Polish Army meant a considerable easing of Germany’s position; the divisions stationed by Poland at the Russian frontier saved Germany just so much additional military expenditure.” (Noakes and Pridham, Nazism 1919-1945, Volume 3, p. 126.)

     6. “Hitler was inclined to accept Poland as a junior partner for the time being, on condition that she handed back the German port of Danzig and granted Germany a free route to East Prussia through the Polish ‘Corridor’. On Hitler’s part, it was a remarkably moderate demand in the circumstances. But in successive discussions that winter, Hitler found that the Poles were obstinately disinclined to make any such concession, and also had an inflated idea of their own strength. Even so, he continued to hope that they would come round after further negotiation. As late as March 25th he told his Army Commander-in-Chief that he ‘did not wish to solve the Danzig problem by the use of force’.”

     Hart, B. H. Liddell. A History of the Second World War (Kindle Locations 324-329). Pan Macmillan. Kindle Edition.

   • ..”Offering a road to East Prussia wasn’t going to satisfy Germany”..
     Of course NOT !!
     “Nick” “nonaziphile” just forgot to mention about August 1939 Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact..
     This “pact” explicitly ” and in details lay down the “future of the Poland and Polish Nation”.. branded by Chamberlain as a “Bastard of the Treaty of Versailles”.
     Nick the “nonaziphile” adorer of Churchill see the history post 1-st World War Europe from 1939 to September 1939..There was Historical vacuum between 1928-1939 for Him..
     Polish sovereignty existed only 18 years after almost 200 years of nonexistence.. Thanks to Germans and Russians..and partially Brits who actively supported all ” Partitions of Poland”and political map of Europe from 18 to 20 Century..
     British politics ( beside Germans and Russians) are one of the main reason why we have a such a mess in Europe right now ..

     • 1. Please familiarise yourself with the months of the year. […]

       https://www.timeanddate.com/calendar/?year=1939&country=9

       2. Chamberlain made his unsolicited war guarantee on 31st March 1939.

       3. The Nazi-Soviet Pact was signed in the early hours of the morning on 24th August 1939.

       4. “This “pact” explicitly ” and in details lay down the “future of the Poland and Polish Nation”.. branded by Chamberlain as a “Bastard of the Treaty of Versailles”.” I believe it was Molotov (not Chamberlain) who said that Poland was “the monstrous bastard of the Peace of Versailles.” (Laurence Rees, Behind Closed Doors: Stalin, the Nazis and the Rest, loc. 397.) Just to clarify that point …

     • “..”Offering a road to East Prussia wasn’t going to satisfy Germany”..
       Of course NOT !!”

       i) How do you know this? It would be appreciated if you could present an argument in support of the conclusion you have reached. Remember though – no question begging.

       ii) At what point – precisely – did this situation come about? Was it before or after 31st March 1939?

     • Wasn’t it Molotov who used that language to describe Poland?

       Wasn’t the “laying down of the future of Poland,” as you have put it, not an “explicit” part of the Nazi-Soviet Pact at all? – Wasn’t that part of the “secret protocol”?

       Didn’t Chamberlain’s unsolicited guarantee of 31st March – made without prior agreement with the Soviet Union – actually help to push Hitler towards making an agreement with the Soviets?

       After all, if Germany closed that door, then the Brits would be on their own – and the British couldn’t actually do anything to prevent a German invasion of Poland. If the Brits were forced to admit that their war guarantee to Poland was worthless, then their best option would be to persuade Poland to relent over Danzig and the road to East Prussia. (Source: Bullock.)

       So: It cannot be argued that the Nazi-Soviet Pact of 23d/24th August, which did not “explicitly” lay out the future of Poland, was a reason why Chamberlain should have issued his war guarantee on 31st March.

       But it can be argued that Chamberlain’s unsolicited war guarantee of 31st March was one of the reasons why the Germans and the Soviets ended up signing the Nazi-Soviet Pact on 24th August!

       Food for thought …

8. Well, Herr Hitler didn’t go to fight Russia together with the “hard-necked” Poles… but he went to crush the Russians with the might of all continental Europe’s economy plus hundreds of thousands troops (regular army or volunteer units) from almost every European nation, from Spain’s “Blue Division” to Albanian SS Division “Skenderbeg”, from Pure Nordic Scandinavians (SS-Panzergrenadier Regiment 24 “Danmark”, SS-Freiwilligen-Legion “Norwegen”) to the swarthy and hairy Bosnian Muslims (https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/muslim-waffen-ss-13th-division-1943/)…

   • What if the Poles had joined this happy band? They were offered – more than once.

     As I pointed out in the article, Stalin wrote to Churchill and said the Red Army would have been in trouble if the Wehrmacht had started their invasion in June 1941 at the eastern borders of Poland instead of halfway back inside the country. (Churchill appears to have appreciated this point of view.) What would the outcome have been on the Eastern Front if “The Great Patriotic War” had started half a country to the east (and that much closer to Moscow) and the Polish divisions had joined in as well?

     Would the Wehrmacht have reached Moscow under those circumstances? They very nearly made it as it is – if they’d been half of Poland closer to Moscow when they started their invasion, would that have made a difference at that point?

     • ..”What if the Poles had joined this happy band? They were offered – more than once.”..
       Dear Nick, “nonaziphile”…Sources…sources !! supporting this uneducated and Sci-F opinion…SVP

       • If you’re not even going to bother reading what has already been written (25 minutes earlier) then I’m afraid I cannot take you seriously. Of course, even when you do appear to have read what has been written, the same applies. Here’s that calendar of 1939 again. I suggest you study it for a while, before revisiting your own comments.

         https://www.timeanddate.com/calendar/?year=1939&country=9

         There’s always one, isn’t there … sigh.

         • Laughable !
           Just British an interpretations of the events..
           I ask for credible and non-partisan sources..Are there any, than British interpretation of History ..

         • ..”I’m afraid I cannot take you seriously”..
           Oh my God !! Please..!!! Take me seriously !!..
           Other ways, my complex of Inferiority imposed on me by “Nick The Nonaziphile” will deepen greatly..
           My dear friend …wake up to the Reality..
           Your Interpretation of the History and Propagandist twist doesn’t make any impression on me..
           I/m Pole..you are Britt..Your grandfathers Betrayed My Grammy and Grandpa what else to say ..

         • Then don’t say anything.

   • Outstanding photo btw. Thanks for that link.

9. The existing UK commitments are to who though ?

   There are no formal official middle eastern commitments of the above nature that I know of, though certain ones are implied by existing geopolitical and economic alignments.

   In fact the recent blatant participation by UK seems either home grown or part of a “F-UK-US” (as one commentator put it) axis.

   From a legal perspective

   https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/04/the-british-governments-legal-justification-for-bombing-is-entirely-false-and-without-merit/

   Though clearly the UK has always upheld that the decision to wage war is a unilateral sovereign choice and ability that is not bound by international convention.

   I understand the latest move much better from the point of grandstanding, needing distraction, using up outdated missiles, a test of Russian/Syrian capability, its own false flag even designed for own regime change.. the possibilities are endless…

   BUT

   As a statement of humanitarian resolve or ” honouring the international community ” as Macrotte put it – that is to say any sort of effective message beyond ” look what we can do ” …. well I don’t find one.

   Reckless at best, and no matter how devised it may have been, even if including Russia, still reckless for overstepping the most basic international norms of civility – the boring ones that are firebreaks and that are designed to stop wider escalation and conflagration, not to mention abuse of a humanitarian theme.

10. SEVENTY NINE YEARS LATER and you are STILL negotiating with an imaginary Hitler and working with an imaginary Stalin that never existed. At this late date in 1939 Poland was already on the butcher’s block and the Nazis and Soviets were busy sharpening their knives. Boil away everything you said and this article comes down “Give Hitler Danzig and whatnot and we could have stalled him a little longer.” [Redacted].

    • You appear to have misunderstood the article. If one “boils everything away” that is certainly not what one is left with. May I suggest a careful re-read.

      • There is NO misunderstanding !!
        For YOU Brits, giving up to Hitler ,what was never yours, was easy and “good deal”..
        First you give up Jews in Germany (Munich Treaty) than on Jews in Austria ,Czechoslovakia,Hungary…France ,Holland,Belgium follow..There was NO permission running for life from Germany Jews immigration to England ..
        There was No help for Poles ether..6 millions slaughtered by Germans and their ” comrades”https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walloon_Legion
        That’s why nowadays in England “you rip what you sow ” …
        No friends ,no future..accept race replacement and brown people in the once upon Christian and Proud Albion..
        Your “Hero” Churchill was your curse and Beginning of the Dead End Street..

        • “There is NO misunderstanding !!”

          Clearly, there is a misunderstanding here, for your original summation of the article missed the point entirely. The point of the article can, perhaps, be best expressed by the direct quote from the military historian Basil Liddell Hart (who I believe was poisoned by the Germans in WWI) which was included in the article. May I suggest that you read that quote again.

          Or not, the choice is yours.

11. If Britain enters the war now, this will only play into the hands of radical islamists and other unsavoury characters of which there is not shortage in the Middle East.

    Assad, whether we like him or not, is the only man in Syria who is willing and able to save the Christians, Yazidis and other minorities of his country from slaughter.

    This is why the leaders of Syrian Christians have passionately condemned the US attack against their country: https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/syrian-patriarchs-condemn-unjust-aggression-of-friday-allied-airstrikes-ask-for-prayers-26889

    British Christians, please, be aware of the fact that by joining the war in Syria your country will aid and abet those who are committing a genocide of your coreligionaries there. Do you approve of this holocaust?

    • Putin lays it out for Dopey Dave Cameron.

    • Indeed, whatever else you say, he is the last survivor of Obama and Hillary’s abominable ‘Arab Spring’.

12. The article is nothing more than an excuse for the author to prate on about his WWII hobby horse.
    It is very much a stretch to link the events from 80 years ago to what’s happening today.
    Any other number of conflicts could have been invoked with equal relevance as human motivations change little such as Asquith leading the UK and thence Empire into war in WWI which set the stage for the collapse of the Empire and knock on effects like the loss of the gold standard and the spread of the Spanish Flu.

    What should be discussed in better detail is not the past, but why the west toady is so hell bent on supporting anti-Assad groups that are almost exclusively islamic extremists in nature?

    • Go ahead and write your own article then, my friend. There’s nothing stopping you.

      • wow,wow !!
        How some integrity!! and present Historical facts ,instead yours propagandist ‘WASP” twist on British Betrayal of Europe and European Nations.
        We Poles will remember your British Elite “nazi” sentiment”
        Betrayal of European Jews..Betrayal of Czechs,Betrayal of Poles..
        Betrayal the European Spirit..
        Perhaps you will have as much guts to write what you “Brits” and personally you ,doing right now to preserve the White Race,Christianity and European Culture in England ?
        We Poles “Bastard of Versailles Treaty” (according to your politicians) together with Czechs,Hungarians,Romanians at least have some guts to fight for Europe..Will your grandchild will come up with such acrimonious Propaganda piece in years from now ,blaming others for your sand your generation “inepties” ?
        I don’t think so..Because in 30 years there will be no England…

        • Bitter much?

          1. It was Molotov who used that language to describe Poland (not Chamberlain.)

          2. If you are unhappy about what happened to your country during the war, I suggest you a) re-read the original article & try to understand what it says, b) follow that up by reading this one, and c) look to your own leaders’ failings:

          Half a decade later, Hitler wanted Poland in his Anti-Comintern Pact. The fiercely anti-Bolshevik, anti-Russian, Catholic Poles seemed natural allies in a crusade to eradicate Communism. As an Austrian, Hitler did not share the Prussian bias against Poles. The role he had in mind for Poland was that of partner in his New Order in Europe. Italy, and eventually Hungary and Rumania, would accept this role. To Hitler’s astonishment, Poland refused.

          “In the early days of 1939,” writes U.S. historian Charles Callan Tansill, “Hitler believed that [Polish Foreign Minister] Beck was so well versed in the principles of Realpolitik that he would be glad to go hand in hand with the Nazi leaders in a joint search for plunder that was weakly guarded by the broken-down states of Europe.” Hitler believed Beck was a man he could do business with. So it would seem, for, as Manchester writes,

          No one questioned Jozef Beck’s ability. His remarkable diplomatic skills had led to his appointment, at the age of thirty-eight, as Poland’s foreign minister. Respected for his intellect and powerful will, he was also distrusted—even detested—for his duplicity, dishonesty, and, in his private life, depravity. In Rome, where he had spent an extended visit-cum-vacation, the Princess of Piedmont had said of him that he had the “sort of face you might see in a French newspaper as that of a ravisher of little girls.”

          But Beck rebuffed Ribbentrop’s offer. For, after their 1920 victory over the Red Army, the Poles considered themselves a Great Power. They were not. Writes A.J.P. Taylor,

          [T]hey … forgot that they had gained their independence in 1918 only because both Russia and Germany had been defeated. Now they had to choose between Russia and Germany. They chose neither. Only Danzig prevented cooperation between Germany and Poland. For this reason, Hitler wanted to get it out of the way. For precisely the same reason, Beck kept it in the way. It did not cross his mind that this might cause a fatal breach.

          Buchanan, Patrick J.. Churchill, Hitler, and “The Unnecessary War”: How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World (p. 244). Crown/Archetype. Kindle Edition.

          At the greatest cross roads in all history, [Colonel Beck] rejected a ride in the German war machine that promised Poland power and plunder as a satellite state. Instead, he and the Polish Cabinet followed the lead of Chamberlain and chose the road that led to war with Germany and the consequent destruction of the Polish State. (Charles C. Tansill.)

          Buchanan, Patrick J.. Churchill, Hitler, and “The Unnecessary War”: How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World (p. 276). Crown/Archetype. Kindle Edition.

          3. I don’t even live in England.

          4. Here’s that calendar again. Note that 24th August 1939 comes almost six months after 31st March 1939.

          https://www.timeanddate.com/calendar/?year=1939&country=9

          • All mentioned are British and American “Historian”…no much credibility just story tellers…and confabulations..like in present time..Truth for our time will surface ..How precisely it was in the Blair and Bush statement and British Historians” follows..
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
            Your “sources” are not credible..

          • How opinion of Lloyd George who stated that Poland did not deserve help as a reactionary country fit in your essay ?. Lord Halifax wants to recreate the Curzon Line in Poland..How you will comment on this SVP ?

          • No dates. No sources. Sci-fi.

        • “How some integrity!! and present Historical facts ,instead yours propagandist ‘WASP” twist on British Betrayal of Europe and European Nations.”

          May I take this opportunity to point out to you that I have been writing about Chamberlain’s “betrayal” of the Polish people, if I may use your term for a moment, when he made them a promise on 31st March 1939, which he had to know he could never keep – and which he did not keep.

          And obviously, you have indeed been presented with historical facts. Alan Bullock, Ian Kershaw, Basil Liddell Hart, the National Archives, etc. These are solid sources.

          I cannot help it if you do not fully understand what has been put before you. I will be generous here and suggest that you have misunderstood what has been written in the article and on this thread because English is not your native language. In that case, may I suggest you take some time to go back through the article & follow-up comments again. If you do that, then perhaps you will get a little more out of it all.

          Kind Regards,

          NM.

          P.S. Wasn’t “WASP” a heavy metal band in the ’80s?

          • When Britain and France assured Poland that they would respond if Germany retailated against them, the Brits and French thought a war by Germany against Poland would last six months – it lasted about two weeks.

13. I want to interject some history. After meeting Hitler, PM Chamberlain knew war was coming. And the UK was unprepared, with the notorious 10-year budget rule and cheese-paring politicians being responsible.

    The air defenses of the UK took first place in urgencies. The Royal Navy was still the mightiest fleet in the world, with seemingly good technology and sound leaders in place. The French Army was regarded as needing only little help from the BEF and the British Army. But the RAF was weak.

    The roof of the UK was open to attack by an over-hyped Luftwaffe. So PM Chamberlain played for time to build up Fighter Command and the radar / sector base air defenses of the UK. He just made it. He was a strong supporter of Air Chief Marshal Dowding. ACM Dowding won the Battle of Britain.

    I will note that in the darkest days of May 1940, former PM Chamberlain was supportive of PM Churchill in several vital areas.

    • Indeed. You will note that in the article, I cite the work of Captain G.C. Wynne:

      In the years immediately prior to Chamberlain’s unsolicited war guarantee, the first priority in the British government’s military plan had been to create a defensive air force to protect the country from German bombers. The second priority, according to the British government, had been to develop the Navy in order to protect Britain’s trade routes. The third priority had been to maintain an Army for “Imperial Police Duties” overseas. Last on the list of British priorities was “co-operation in the defence of the territories of any allies we may have in war.”[5]

      Hitler salutes German troops on their way to Poland, 1939

      So Britain did not have the military capability to stop the Wehrmacht from invading Poland. As the British Chiefs of Staff had reported as early as 1937, a war with Germany would have to be “a long war”. Britain would have to resist an initial German attack (on Britain, not Poland), then use the industrial and economic power of the Empire to build up British forces, before finally launching a counter-attack. As the Chiefs of Staff stated, the military intervention of Russia, and material assistance from America “would go far towards making the Allied counter-offensive possible.”[6]

      5. Captain G.C. Wynne, Stopping Hitler: An Official Account of How Britain Planned To Defend Itself In The Second World War (Barnsley, Frontline Books, 2017) pp. 11-12.
      6. Captain G.C. Wynne, Stopping Hitler, p. 11.

      Here is the link to the book on Amazon dot uk.

      I find it incredible that as early as 1937, the British government knew/were planning for a “long war” against Germany, and they knew they needed the Russians and the Americans to join in if they were going to end up on the winning side.

      The thing is – what on earth was Chamberlain thinking making promises to the Poles he knew he could not keep? As Lloyd George told Chamberlain on 3d April – Britain could do nothing to help Poland in the event of an invasion. And when the Wehrmacht invaded Poland in September of that year, that’s exactly what Britain did – nothing.

      • Nick,
        I really appreciate your bringing in so much historical fact into the article and discussion. There are some 85 comments so far, and unlike some commentators, I don’t wish to insult those who contributed facts and logic by not considering their contributions until I make a comment of my own.

        However, the fact that stands highlighted is that Poland was screwed from beginning to end. It began with Chamberlain and Roosevelt making promises and commitments they knew they couldn’t keep, thus encouraging Poland to put itself in danger. It continued through the war, when the Allies clearly threw Poland to the wolves (Russians). These actions included downplaying the substantial contribution of the Polish Exile army, downplaying the Katyn Forest massacres, when they had clear evidence of the real, Russian murderers, and allowing Russian assassins to kill members of the Polish government on British soil. Of course, the Russians were given free rein to occupy Poland, turn it into a communist police state, and oppress its people for 35 years.

        So, obviously any Polish leader who trusts the West more than absolutely necessary is acting the fool.

        As a descendant of Jewish refugees from the Nazis, and an anti-Communist, I still get no pleasure at the retroactive prospect of German and Russian soldiers killing each other with abandon. As I will detail later, a better move for Poland would have been to take the Spanish model. Accede to the (somewhat reasonable) German demands, build up the Polish Army as a defensive force, and decline to throw Polish soldiers into the meat grinder of the German imperial war. It would be interesting to speculate what would have happened had Poland acceded to Hitler’s demands, but then denied access to Hitler’s military when they wished to cross Polish territory to attack the USSR.

        • @RonaldB,

          Thanks for your comment. Thoughtful and well put together, as always. It’s been quite surprising to find that a short throwaway essay, written in haste in response to an article in the Daily Mail (!!) has triggered so many responses.

          However, numbers don’t mean much at the end of the day. I have spent most of the previous 100 or so comments doing away with one straw man after another, and explaining what the article actually says. It’s been instructive in a way – but of course a tremendous waste of my time. All that – just to get to a point where some actual discussion of the issues can take place!

          Your comment asking why NC would even spend time trying to persuade the Poles to deal with the Germans over Danzig & the road/rail link prior to 31st March is a good one. I will take that point on board.

          As for your comment about the Polish leaders adopting a different approach along the Spanish model: If you develop that idea, I for one will be a very interested reader.

14. One aspect in all this that may not have been considered is the existence of Nazis amongst Britain’s peerage. Known as the Cliveden Set, and portrayed in “The Remains of the Day” and several other fictional works that I have read, they were an existential threat to England, and the Monarchy in a Fifth Column sort of way, much like the Copperheads who plagued Abraham Lincoln (and probably arranged for his demise).

    It is now known that Edward VI didn’t abdicate because of his marriage to Wallis Simpson, but rather because he was a Nazi and was concerned about being outed. He and his ilk were biding their time hoping for a Nazi victory which they almost had (Battle of the Bulge eg.).

    George VI most likely lived in fear of his life and was only too grateful to see his daughter Elizabeth become Britain’s new beginning after the long nightmare, just as her namesake had been. It is quite possible that Chamberlain also lived in fear of his life especially as Roosevelt had other ideas for Britain and was also a bit of a Nazi sympathizer (study his “New Deal” sometime, it stinks of fascism).

    It was only when Hitler showed himself to be the megalomaniacal rabid dog that he was that the world powers decided that it would be best to put him, and Tojo, out of their misery and re-tool socialism into something that was more amenable and governable. The result of their re-tooling was consumerism, and George Orwell saw it coming as did Ray Bradbury. It’s a pity that the ‘gods’ treated them in the same way that they treated Cassandra.

    I rather think that Chamberlain did the best that he could, as did Hoover, under the very trying circumstances of the time and deserve approbation instead of recrimination.

    • “It is quite possible that Chamberlain also lived in fear of his life especially as Roosevelt had other ideas for Britain and was also a bit of a Nazi sympathizer (study his “New Deal” sometime, it stinks of fascism).”

      I think you would find “Freedom Betrayed” by Herbert Hoover to be very interesting. It’s a bit pricey, but there are a couple of videos of George Nash talking about the book on youtube btw. Check them out & see what you think.

      In the alternative, a significantly cheaper book, & a much racier & emotional read altogether, is: FDR WWII: It Took Sixty Years for Historians to Catch Up With Him, by Richard Trattner.

15. If you all don’t learn to control yourselves, I’m going to close this thread to further comments.

    • I did expect, and indeed hoped for, a bit of a response to this one. But I did expect a debate of the actual issues. It’s an interesting subject – well worth studying.
      However, if an obvious troll masquerading under different aliases repeatedly makes slanderous comments on an internet forum, then it’s inevitable that there will be a response of some kind. In light of that, I do think that I’ve been fairly polite, all things considered. Obviously, the root problem is that the original comments, which were actually labelled as slanderous at the time by the owner of the website, were allowed to stand in the first place. That should have been nipped in the bud. But it wasn’t.

      Ah well, you live and learn.

      • [Baron here, using Dymphna’s computer]

        Yes, the comment was borderline slanderous. I probably should have just deleted it.

        You’re getting emotional reactions from Poles, which is kind of understandable. But they don’t seem to comprehend that you’re in fact pointing out that, yes, the British government betrayed them, but when it didn’t have to. It could have said: No, we can’t protect you from a German invasion. You should do whatever is in your best interests, but without relying on that.

        I think there must be a deeper reason, an internal political reason, for the (worthless) guarantee of Poland’s security. But I don’t know what it was.

        • [replying to the Baron]

          I have obtained a copy of the Cabinet meeting records for April 19th 1939 from the National Archives. These state that, in the opinion of the British government, the optimal course of action at that point would be for the Poles to undercut the Germans by offering to negotiate (over Danzig & the road/rail link to East Prussia.)

          However, those records also state that the Poles hadn’t done so because of Chamberlain’s unsolicited guarantee on 31st March.

          So the fact that the British government had poisoned the Polish decision making process by making negotiations less likely – which meant that war was more likely – was recognised at the highest levels.

          It is not well known that Chamberlain went on to provide similar war guarantees to Romania and Greece. He’d gone guarantee crazy.

          And as you say, Britain couldn’t do what Chamberlain was promising to do. It really is that simple – Lloyd George was correct.

          As the recently published research of Captain G.C. Wynne shows, the priority for Britain in the years leading up to the war was to build up a close defence air force, and keep the Navy in good shape to protect Britain’s trade routes. It’s right there in black and white, that the very notion of providing military help to a far-away ally was at the bottom of the British government’s priorities.

          So when Chamberlain made his unsolicited guarantee to Poland on 31st March, then followed it up with similar guarantees to Romania and Greece, he was leading those countries down the garden path.

          The Poles were in a tough spot, there’s no question about that. Stuck between two ravenous beasts, with no clear way of escape. But the British government had no vital interests in Eastern Europe, and Chamberlain had no business making an unsolicited war guarantee when he must have known that Britain could not honour it. Whose interests did Chamberlain’s actions serve? Certainly not the Polish people!

          As you say, if Chamberlain had told the Polish leaders the truth, instead of making a promise to them that he must have known he could not keep – and he did not keep – at least the Polish leaders would have been able to make a fully informed decision about what to do.

          • @Nick

            Yes, and I wonder why Chamberlain did that. Was it just a loony, personal, idealistic decision? Or were there domestic political pressures of some sort that propelled him in that direction? Or, did he and the Cabinet think that giving these worthless guarantees would make the countries involved feel more secure, and thus enhance Britain’s strategic position somehow?

            Very mysterious.

        • [replying to Baron]

          There’s also the matter of the Soviet Union.

          When Chamberlain made his unsolicited guarantee on 31st March, he was criticised at the time for not having obtained a military agreement with the Soviet Union beforehand. For it was generally accepted that Britain needed the military backing of the Soviets for the guarantee to be meaningful. (Bullock, p. 505, Liddell Hart, loc. 356.)

          Britain did enter into discussions with the Soviet Union – after Chamberlain had made his guarantee – but those discussions did not bear fruit. Not surprising, since Stalin had said he had no intention of pulling Britain’s chestnuts out of the fire, etc. This was another error on the part of the British government – if they had an agreement with the Soviets before Chamberlain made his unsolicited guarantee on 31st March, then Chamberlain’s so-called “guarantee” would have carried more weight. But they didn’t have that agreement. So they shouldn’t have made the guarantee.

          In the event, as we all know now, the Germans outbid the British with their secret protocol, and obtained an agreement with the Soviet Union. It was all downhill from there – for everyone, and that obviously includes but is not limited to, the Polish people.

          Poles marched in the streets of Warsaw on 3d September, when Chamberlain declared war on Germany. They waved banners saying “Long Live England!”

          See link.

          But there would be no help forthcoming from Britain, not because Britain could help Poland but chose not to – but because there was no possibility of providing that military help in the first place!

        • “I think there must be a deeper reason, an internal political reason, for the (worthless) guarantee of Poland’s security. But I don’t know what it was.”

          Andrew Roberts argues in “The Holy Fox” that Halifax was, to a large extent, behind the change in British attitude, & the subsequent unsolicited war guarantee of 31st March 1939.

          Something else worth thinking about: Apparently the Brits were led astray (willingly, it would appear) by a so-called journalist named Ian Colvin on 29th March. This fellow, who (according to Roberts) was the Berlin correspondent for the News Chronicle, claimed that the Jerries were about to invade Poland – upon hearing this, Halifax stirred the broth pot & told Chamberlain that he had to meet with the guy. Two days later, Chamberlain made his unsolicited war guarantee to Poland.

          I’ll tell you what, the more you read about this, the more difficult it is to escape the conclusion that Chamberlain made a right dog’s breakfast of the whole affair!

          And you can’t help but get the sinking feeling that one of the “deeper reasons” for what happened is that Chamberlain wanted to get one over on AH, after he’d gotten a black eye over the whole Czechoslovakia deal.

          Chamberlain’s feelings were hurt, in other words. Is is really possible that Chamberlain’s pride is one of the “deeper reasons” for the unsolicited war guarantee of 31st March – and consequently, for the entire second world war?

          The very thought is enough to make you nauseous. Interestingly, according to BLH, the Poles were also at fault in that regard.

          “The Polish Guarantee was the surest way to produce an early explosion, and a world war. It combined the maximum temptation with manifest provocation. It incited Hitler to demonstrate the futility of such a guarantee to a country out of reach from the West, while making the stiff-necked Poles even less inclined to consider any concession to him, and at the same time making it impossible for him to draw back without ‘losing face’.

          Why did Poland’s rulers accept such a fatal offer? Partly because they had an absurdly exaggerated idea of the power of their out of date forces – they boastfully talked of a ‘cavalry ride to Berlin’. Partly because of personal factors: Colonel Beck, shortly afterwards, said that he made up his mind to accept the British offer between ‘two flicks of the ash’ off the cigarette he was smoking. He went on to explain that at his meeting with Hitler in January he had found it hard to swallow Hitler’s remark that Danzig ‘must’ be handed back, and that when the British offer was communicated to him he saw it, and seized it, as a chance to give Hitler a slap in the face. This impulse was only too typical of the ways in which the fate of peoples is often decided.”

          Hart, B. H. Liddell. A History of the Second World War (Kindle Locations 362-371). Pan Macmillan. Kindle Edition.

        • “I think there must be a deeper reason, an internal political reason, for the (worthless) guarantee of Poland’s security. But I don’t know what it was.”

          Roosevelt had changed tack in a major way on 5th October 1937, when he made his “quarantine” speech:

          “. . . The peace, the freedom and the security of ninety percent of the population of the world is being jeopardized by the remaining ten percent who are threatening a breakdown of all international order and law. Surely the ninety percent who want to live in peace under law and in accordance with moral standards that have received almost universal acceptance through the centuries, can and must find some way to make their will prevail [. . .] It seems to be unfortunately true that the epidemic of world lawlessness is spreading. […] When an epidemic of physical disease starts to spread, the community approves and joins in a quarantine of the patients in order to protect the health of the community against the spread of the disease.”

          FDR, quoted in Nash, George H.. Freedom Betrayed: Herbert Hoover’s Secret History of the Second World War and Its Aftermath (p. 111). Hoover Institution Press. Kindle Edition; see also FDR Library, Master Speech File, Box 35.

          In light of that, there’s always this to think about …

        • Again, commenting before reading all 85 comments: Nick has talked about lessons for the present. While we can rightfully pillory Chamberlain for giving guarantees he couldn’t and wouldn’t fulfill, one must assign a considerable amount of blame to the Polish government for not being more skeptical about basing their policies on such a flimsy base.

          It’s not a matter of being vindictive, but the lesson is for countries to pursue a clearheaded policy of following their own interests. If we blame the British government for impossible promises, why not the Polish government for not taking better care of its own people when it had the ability to do so?

          Hungary has learned the lesson well: no other country or international body has your interests in mind.

          I think Theresa May is closer to the Polish Prime Minister than she is to Chamberlain. Chamberlain apparently made some sort of calculation, throwing Poland and perhaps Romania and Greece to the wolves to buy time for Britain. This was an immoral decision, but at least had a glimmer of rationality. But jumping in with British missiles to increase the probability of a totally unproductive and catastrophic war with Russia, May is not displaying the faintest glimmer of reason or rationality.

16. I wonder if there is any word about Czechoslovak war industry? Because not many westerners realise that when Chamberlain came back from the Munich conference, he effectively gave up on Czechoslovakia, which at the time had war machinery equal to that of Germany, and thus the real result of the Munich conference was doubling Germany’s strength in terms of military hardware.

    The Czechs didn’t fight, but only because France and Britain told them that they will not open second front from the west in case of Germany’s attack.

    Well, at least Prague is still a nice historic city 😉

    • Read ‘Hitler’s reply to Roosevelt’ regarding Czechoslovakia

      • Selling any of Hitler’s epistles to FDR would be a hard go. For that matter, anything Hitler said to anyone is questionable given how he had his acolytes killed off as he was rising to power.

        Hitler was a tyrant and like all tyrants, he lied to get to power and to maintain it.

      • quote form Hitlers reply: ‘Entirely aside from the German economic life in the Sudeten German territory, for 20 years systematically destroyed by the Czech Government, which already shows all the signs of ruin, which you anticipate as the result of an outbreak of war these are the facts which compelled me in my Nuremberg speech of September 13th to state before the whole world that the deprivation of rights of the three and one-half millions of Germans in Czechoslovakia must be stopped and that these people if they of themselves cannot find justice and help, must receive both from the German Reich.’

        did you mean this, anonymous? because from all that I can gather, the Germans in Czechoslovakia were not hungry like the Germans in the Reich at that time, and they were thriving economically because they were not under Versailles Treaty nor were they forced to work for war.

        • That is a VERY long sentence, right up there with William Faulkner. Or is it normal to have sentences of such length – this one being ninety-eight words – in German? The sheer verbiage makes it hard to follow the meaning.

          • Can you imagine sitting there listening to it, patiently waiting for all the verbs to arrive at the end of the sentence, LOL

    • “The Czechs didn’t fight, but only because France and Britain told them that they will not open second front from the west in case of Germany’s attack.”

      This idea was also in AJP Taylor The Origins of the Second World War.

      But here is the dilemma. If Britain and France were unprepared for a war at the time of the Polish crisis, they were unprepared at the time of Munich. Even if Czechoslovakia was democratic, and much better prepared to fight than Poland, and its defenses in much better shape, the fact remains that Britain and France could not credibly threaten to invade Germany. You can’t have it both ways.

17. “It is possible that the situation would have stabilised enough to avoid a world war. ”

    Sure, and if we just let Islamists have [insert whatever country they want at the time], the same would hold true.

    This is exactly the defeatist logic that leads us into problems.

    THIS BEING SAID, at this point in time, much as I despise the Syrian regime, I’m not in favour of overthrowing it, because (a) they have no serious ambitions beyond their borders (I think that they’ve given up on their Lebanese ambitions) and (b) whatever would replace them would be worse.

    Just for the record, I’m all in favour of screwing up Islamists, generally.

    • “What would have happened if the British government had not issued an unsolicited war guarantee on 31st March 1939, but had instead pressured the Poles to do two things: Live up to the principle of self-determination and allow the people of Danzig to choose which flag flew over their town, and let the Germans build a road to East Prussia? It is possible that the situation would have stabilised enough to avoid a world war.

      The Poles may have realised that taking on the Wehrmacht in order to prevent the people of Danzig from choosing the form of government under which they were to live was not a rational course of action. And if the Germans wanted to build a road to East Prussia, then there was no good reason to refuse permission for such a project. If the Poles had relented on these two points, then the German invasion of Western Poland on 1st September and the Soviet invasion of Eastern Poland on 17th September may never have happened. Britain and France would not have been in the position where they had to declare war on Germany in September 1939. Hitler could have ignored Western Europe altogether, and sent the forces of the Wehrmacht to the East, in pursuit of the ultimate goal of achieving Lebensraum for the German people.” – NM

      “Sure, and if we just let Islamists have [insert whatever country they want at the time], the same would hold true. This is exactly the defeatist logic that leads us into problems.” – “Mike”

      1. We need to remember that the British actually did let Hitler have [whatever country he wanted at the time]. That is to say, when the Wehrmacht invaded Poland, the best the British could do was send the jolly old RAF over to Deutschland to drop a few leaflets. All the while, the Luftwaffe were dropping real bombs on Poland left, right and centre, and Heydrich’s newly created Einsatzgruppen were marching into Poland right behind the Wehrmacht.

      We must also remember that the Soviet Union participated in the occupation of Poland, after invading that country from the east on 17th September 1939 – now that was a day that will live in infamy! Where were the British then? They let Stalin have [whatever countries he wanted] as well.

      2. It is not “defeatist logic” to say, “You know what? That really didn’t work out too well. Maybe we should have done something else.”

      3. If you wish to use a quote from the article, that’s fine, but it would be appreciated if you could put the quote in the proper context. The quote you used is part of a larger response to the question: What would have happened if Chamberlain had not done a surprising about-face, and provided an unsolicited guarantee of military assistance to Poland on 31st March 1939?

      Well, what would have happened? Britain wouldn’t have been obliged to declare war on Germany, for a start.

      4. If Chamberlain had not issued an unsolicited guarantee to provide military assistance to Poland on 31st March, after receiving false information from a so-called journalist on 29th March, and instead, he had tried to persuade the Poles to allow the people of Danzig to exercise their right to self-determination and choose the form of government under which they wished to live, and to allow the Germans to build the proposed road & rail links to East Prussia, and the Poles had relented on those two points, then it is indeed possible that the situation could have stabilised enough that the second world war as we know it did not happen.

      That is not to say there would not have been a war. Please re-read Hoover’s words to Chamberlain in 1938, which I took care to include in the article.

      5. It is possible that Hitler could have gone after the Soviet Union earlier than June 1941 – sent the Wehrmacht east to capture Lebensraum for the German people. And now that we know how the Soviets refused to back down – and how they eventually “tore the guts out of the Nazis” (as Churchill put it) – we can see that the Great Patriotic War, aka the war on the Eastern Front, had the potential to be the ultimate war of attrition. Obviously, that would have been their war – not ours.

      If the war on the Eastern Front had started in 1940 instead of 1941, and Germany had started half a country farther east, and they had the Polish military on their side, and they didn’t need to leave any of the Wehrmacht behind in Western Europe, then the two most evil regimes on the face of the planet could have fought one another for even longer than they did, and killed even more of one another than they did. And it bears repeating: that would have been their war, not ours.

      The war on the Eastern Front could have been Hitler’s only war.

      We could all have sat back in our Lazy-Boys, opened up a nice cool beer, and let them get on with it – we could have adopted the position of then-Senator Harry Truman, who said on 23d June 1941, the day after that war actually started:

      “If we see that Germany is winning we ought to help Russia and if Russia is winning we ought to help Germany and that way let them kill as many as possible, although I don’t want to see Hitler victorious under any circumstances. Neither of them think anything of their pledged word.”

      Harry Truman, quoted by Nash, George H.. Freedom Betrayed: Herbert Hoover’s Secret History of the Second World War and Its Aftermath (p. 239). Hoover Institution Press. Kindle Edition.

      • “What would have happened if the British government had not issued an unsolicited war guarantee on 31st March 1939, but had instead pressured the Poles to do two things:”

        And why would the British have a reason to pressure the Poles to do anything? Britain had the obligation to provide accurate information concerning its intentions to the Polish government (and the Polish government had the greater obligation to verify any information from the British government), but other than that, why would one sovereign government put pressure on another for a matter not concerning them?

        • Excellent point. Me likey.

18. Greetings Baron

    I am no ‘Naziphile’ but I am opposed to Histortians!

    • I used to live in Histortia, before I moved to Jibrovia!

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9nnnM-__JQ

19. Why You so-called Westerners hate so much the Slavic People from Central and Eastern Europe ?… I wonder
    Over 1000 years Bloody Wars to conquer this part of Europe and erase Nations and their Cultures…

    Will you stop or there will be Third World War.

    • @Max,

      I fear I have been unable to explain my position clearly enough. First of all, may I assure you that the opening assertion in your most recent comment is simply not true, so if that issue vexes you, then please do set your mind at rest. Again: it is not true.

      The question I have been examining is this: Was Neville Chamberlain’s unsolicited guarantee on 31st March 1939 the best possible course of action? Related to that: Did Chamberlain do the people of Poland a disservice?

      It is notable that when Chamberlain made his guarantee in the House of Commons on Friday 31st March 1939, he was immediately taken to task by Arthur Greenwood MP, who asked:

      “I would like to ask him [Chamberlain] whether the statement which he has now read is to be regarded as the first step in a developing policy to deter or restrain aggression, and, if so, will the Government take immediate, active and energetic steps to bring into this arrangement other Powers? Will he especially think of the value of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics together with other Powers, large and small? Will he do so with the wider object of obtaining the maximum amount of co-operation in the defence of peace? Will he consider now the advisability of an immediate conference of those Powers who might be prepared to range themselves on the side of peace as against aggression? […] Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether in his view he would welcome that maximum co-operation from all Powers, including the U.S.S.R.?” (Link.)

      So when Chamberlain made his unsolicited guarantee, the issue of military co-operation with the Soviet Union was immediately brought up. David Lloyd George made his position on this issue very clear indeed. I included his views on the matter in the original article, and I encourage you to re-read those comments, which were made during the subsequent debate in the House of Commons on Monday 3d April 1939.

      As the recently published research of Captain G.C. Wynne clearly shows, the underlying problem with making a war guarantee to Poland was that Britain simply had not prepared her military to engage in a far-away conflict in support of her allies. In the years leading up to what we now call the second world war, Britain’s priority had been the creation of a close defence air force. Second was the maintenance of the Navy, so that Britain could protect her trade routes. Third was the maintenance of an imperial police force. Last on the list of British military priorities in 1937 and 1938 was the notion of sending troops to help an ally defend themselves against the Wehrmacht. As the British military historian Basil Liddell Hart put it: “… the guarantee was impossible to fulfil except with Russia’s help, yet no preliminary steps were taken to find out whether Russia would give, or Poland would accept, such aid.”

      If Chamberlain and Halifax had managed to reach some form of agreement with the Soviet Union before 31st March, then Chamberlain’s guarantee would have carried more weight. But there was no such agreement. So they should not have made the guarantee.

      The British did attempt to recruit the Soviet Union after Chamberlain made his guarantee, but that was always going to be difficult to do. After all, what did Britain have to offer the Soviets? The British could hardly say that if Germany attacked the Soviet Union, then Britain would attack Germany – if Germany came through Poland to attack the Soviet Union, then Britain was already obliged to give it to Hitler through the back door! And when Britain and France sent a military delegation to the Soviet Union in August 1939, let by the superbly named Admiral The Honourable Sir Reginal Aylmer Ranfurly Plunkett-Ernle-Erle-Drax and Général Joseph Doumenc, the Soviet negotiators forced the Admiral to admit that the British could only put four divisions into the field anyway! When it came to what Timothy Snyder has called the “bloodlands” of Eastern Europe, the British were a toothless tiger.

      As we know, the Germans were negotiating with the Soviets during the summer and autumn of 1939 as well – Hoover’s analysis of the situation portrays this as a bidding war, and the Soviets decided that Germany had the better offer. As you know, the Nazi-Soviet Pact, which was eventually signed in the early hours of 24th August 1939, five and a half months after Chamberlain made his verbal guarantee in the House of Commons, had a secret protocol which split Poland in two and handed the Soviets control of the Baltic States. The prospect of Germany fighting Britain and France in a second world war would also have appealed to Stalin, who could have sat back and let the capitalist nations get on with it, while he constructed a buffer zone in eastern Poland and waited to pick over the bones of a ruined Europe.

      At this stage in the proceedings, Poland’s immediate future looked grave. It is well known that the Einsatzgruppen operated on the Eastern Front after June 1941, but the excellent research of the American historian Alexander Rossino shows that Heydrich’s Einsatzgruppen were established prior to the invasion of Poland, and that they followed the Wehrmacht into Poland in September 1939. I know you distrust British and American historians, but I have to tell you that many respected historians, such as Martin Gilbert, Richard Evans and the aforementioned Alexander Rossino, have documented the atrocities committed not just by the Einsatzgruppen, but by regular Wehrmacht troops as well, in Poland in 1939/40.

      So, was Chamberlain’s unsolicited guarantee of 31st March 1939 the best course of action for Britain? Well, it obliged the British government to declare war on Germany, and when that war ended, Britain did not have a pot to urinate in, and half of Europe – including Poland – was under Soviet rule. Britain had been knocked off their global pedestal, and the Yanks and the Reds ran the show for the next half a century. And this was supposed to be “victory” in a “good war”?

      So far as the Poles were concerned, the British guarantee on 31st March only made the Polish leaders less likely to negotiate with Germany over Danzig and the road/rail link to East Prussia. The Poles were in a very tough spot indeed, there is no question about that. But if Chamberlain and Halifax had not done a spectacular about-face after years of appeasement after receiving false information about an imminent invasion of Poland from a “journalist” on 29th March 1939, and suddenly and inexplicably issued an unsolicited guarantee of military assistance to Poland on 31st March, and they had instead told Poland the truth – that in principle they agreed that the people of Danzig should not be denied the right to self-determination, and that they should be allowed to choose the form of government under which they lived – and in the event of an invasion by Germany, the Poles could not expect any military assistance from Britain – then at least the Polish leaders would have been able to make an informed decision about what they needed to do. By influencing the Polish decision-making process as he did – by making a promise to them which he had to have known he could never keep – Chamberlain certainly did the Poles a disservice.

      In conclusion, may I take the opportunity to address your earlier assertion that my grandfather “betrayed” your own granda & granny. Obviously this is not the case. As it happens, one of my grandfathers was a devout Christian fellow, and was a CO during the war. My other grandfather was a seafaring man & served in the merchant navy – the most dangerous of all the services during WW2 (according to the IWM). It’s difficult to see how those two fellows could ever be said to have “betrayed” anybody. In fact, each in their own way, they were honourable and deeply principled men.

      I had other family members who served in the merchant navy, and the RAF, and who fought in North Africa. (My late uncle had shrapnel in his legs, and had been in a tank which was “brewed up” by Rommel’s Afrika Korps.)

      https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-27299199

      When the war ended all of my family – those who survived the war at least – were pretty much penniless, and my mother’s family lived in a “prefab” near the beach. My late grandmother had to carry fish on her back for a round trip of 12 miles to sell in the nearest town every day, and my grandfather had no choice but to go off to sea & leave the family to fend for themselves for long periods of time.

      The point I’m making is that for fellows like you & me, it is not right for either of us to point the finger of blame at our grandparents for anything that happened during the war – for people like us, it’s politicians who lead our people one way or another, and we just have to try to do the best we can every day, & hope we can get through it in once piece.

      With that, I can only hope that my overall position about Chamberlain’s actions on 31st March 1939 is a little clearer. And with the above in mind, I hope that you and I can both see a slight disagreement on an internet forum as what it is – a fairly irrelevant matter in the grand scheme of things – and that you will accept my sincere best wishes for yourself, and for your family.

      Kind Regards,

      NM.

20. My vague comment wasn’t aim on you.
    I read and herd similar interpretations or suppositions on this subject to many time.
    As one person punted straight forward “Give Hitler Danzig and whatnot and we could have stalled him a little longer.”
    What i really object is your “horse view” of the History
    Unfolding events have a context…much earlier context and have to be view from this oint.
    Choosing Selective dates ,dosen’t help to understand what’s happened

    • @Max,

      I couldn’t figure out what you meant by “horse view” but after a moment, it came to me. I think the expression you’re after is “blinkered” view – so far as I am aware this expression came from the way blinkers were put on race horses so they could not see to the side, and would not be distracted by the other race horses. So it’s a “blinkered” view, should you wish to use that expression again. A little bit of TESOL there from a native English speaker – no charge 😉

      Your point about not trying to put historical events in their proper context is well taken. I would certainly agree with you there.

      For example, I tried to put the British decision to ally themselves with the Soviet Union during the war in a broader context, in an earlier essay for GoV. In that article, I tried my best to shed a little light on what went on in Poland during WW2.

      In this one, I tried to put Chamberlain’s surprising about-face on 31st March into a broader context, to try and get a better understanding of what happened, & maybe figure out just how Poland ended up in the clutches of not one but two evil regimes, and how Britain ended up involved in a world war.

      As to how far back one must go to put any specific event in its proper historical context … can I suggest you read the opening passage in a rather magnificent book, which I listened to while driving about in my car, many years ago. It is the astonishingly brilliant “English Passengers” by Matthew Kneale … if you go on to the Amazon page and use the “Look Inside” feature you will be able to access the beginning of the book, and read the musings of one Captain Illiam Quillian Kewley, who discusses the issue in a rather unique way …

      NM.

21. Related: When the official narrative is questioned, dissenting voices are discredited.

    https://www.infowars.com/uk-gov-guardian-newspaper-says-syrian-girl-a-russian-bot/

    QUESTION EVERYTHING

    TWO WORLD WARS IS ENOUGH!

22. Dear Nick.
    I understand your narrative and sources where is coming from..
    I also understand ,there will be no agreement between us ,on the subject you wrote so eloquently and in good intentions also i guess in attempted objectivity … .
    Gates of Vienna…Historical symbol of great importance..Two type of different mentality,spirituality, set of mind get united for the same purpose…greater Good..
    Now let’s come back to your essay in which you trying to prove if Poland join Hitler side there was no Second World War …
    Poland in the time of Ottoman Empire expansion on West Europe had a choice..
    Very comfortable choice .Turks wants Peace Treaty with Poland for ANY cost..
    Poland could take step back and be a passive observer of Osmanian Empire onslaught on West Europe…That would just strengthen already Strong and Powerful Kingdom..
    We didn’t do it.Future of Christendom and Europe,loyalty and HONOR where most important than obvious political and economical gain…
    Different spirituality,mentality,historical experiences and Humility are the reason why we are so apart..
    We Poles,Hungarians,Czechs,Romanians don’t carry burdens of the past in our Souls..
    This is a very reason why contemporary Europe is broken in the half..and West Europe destine to be wiped out from History.

    We Poles don’t carry burdens of the past in our Souls..

    • Hi Max,

      Thanks for your response. It’s much appreciated. Just to be clear, I should say that I have not been arguing that the Poles should have signed the Anti-Comintern Pact along with Japan and Italy, or that they should have joined with Germany in their long-anticipated war against the Soviet Union.

      I merely point out that they could have done so – that agreeing to join with Germany, Japan and Italy against the Soviet Union in some form or another was one of three levers of influence which the Polish leadership could have employed at any point after Ribbentrop met with Lipski in October 1938 (see above.)

      What would have happened if the Polish leadership had decided to stop standing in the way of the people who lived in the so-called “free city” of Danzig, and to let them exercise the right to self-determination?

      What would have happened if the Polish leadership had agreed to let the Germans build a road and rail link to East Prussia?

      Why risk a war – over either of those two issues?

      Ribbentrop told Lipski in October 1938 that if Poland agreed to the German proposals, then the non-aggression pact of 1938 would be extended and Poland’s borders would be guaranteed. And Hitler told Beck in January 1939 that if Germany were to build the proposed road and rail link to East Prussia, then Poland must have, and still would have, access to the sea.

      I argued only that if the Poles had chosen to do one or all of those things, then it was possible that the political situation could have stabilised just enough to avoid a world war.

      And I argued that Chamberlain blundered when he made his unsolicited guarantee on 31st March – not least because he handed control of Britain’s destiny to another country. If the Poles decided to make a principled stand, and go down in a blaze of glory, then that was their business, and there was nothing that Britain could do to help them, militarily speaking. But thanks to Chamberlain’s unsolicited offer of military assistance of 31st March, Britain would have to go to war anyway.

      When you put the unsolicited guarantee made by Chamberlain in the House of Commons on 31st March 1939 into its proper historical context, it’s difficult not to reach the conclusion that Chamberlain really didn’t do the British or the Polish people any favours that Friday afternoon. He would have been better off holding his tongue, as the saying goes.

      • Dear Nick..You missed my point and purpose of Gates of Vienna metaphor i used..
        You are trying to prove that British interest demand NO action on Hitlers action in Europe..This way in your very own opinion ,Britain woldn’t be dragged into War…
        No doubts ,Polish People has different set of mentality than Brits..
        That’s why we show up at the Gates of Vienna,that’s why we stand up to Hitler…From the same reason in nowadays we standing up against the “culture of Death” ,Cultural Marxism and Globalist…and We will WIN like in the past… because The Almighty is on our side…ende

        • “Dear Nick..You missed my point and purpose of Gates of Vienna metaphor i used..You are trying to prove that British interest demand NO action on Hitlers action in Europe..This way in your very own opinion ,Britain woldn’t [sic] be dragged into War…” = max

          “If the Poles decided to make a principled stand, and go down in a blaze of glory, then that was their business, and there was nothing that Britain could do to help them, militarily speaking. But thanks to Chamberlain’s unsolicited offer of military assistance of 31st March, Britain would have to go to war anyway.”

          I don’t believe I missed your point. (See above.)

          And presenting the following conditional statement:

          If

          Chamberlain had not made an unsolicited war guarantee to Poland on 31st March

          then

          Britain would not have been obliged to declare war against Germany on 3d September

          endif

          … is not a matter of personal opinion, it is a matter of straightforward logic.

          If the Polish leaders wanted to deny the people of Danzig the right to self-determination, and they wanted to fight a war against the Wehrmacht rather than let the Germans build an Autobahn to East Prussia, then that was their choice to make.

          If the Polish leaders refused to bend on those two straightforward issues, which they could have done whilst maintaining Polish independence – simply because Josef Beck wanted “a chance to slap Hitler in the face” – then that was their business.

          “No doubts ,Polish People has different set of mentality than Brits..”

          Well you said it, not me.

          To quote BLH:

          “The unqualified terms of the guarantee placed Britain’s destiny in the hands of Poland’s rulers, men of very dubious and unstable judgement.”

          Hart, B. H. Liddell. A History of the Second World War (Kindle Locations 355-356). Pan Macmillan. Kindle Edition.

          And to get back to the point of the original article:

          The Polish Guarantee was the surest way to produce an early explosion, and a world war. It combined the maximum temptation with manifest provocation. It incited Hitler to demonstrate the futility of such a guarantee to a country out of reach from the West, while making the stiff-necked Poles even less inclined to consider any concession to him, and at the same time making it impossible for him to draw back without ‘losing face’.

          Hart, B. H. Liddell. A History of the Second World War (Kindle Locations 362-365). Pan Macmillan. Kindle Edition.

      • ..”I merely point out that they could have done so – that agreeing to join with Germany, Japan and Italy against the Soviet Union”.

        [opinion with which I do not agree]

        Hungarians, Romanians, Slovaks, Italians, Ukrainians, Dutch, Belgians share view you are proposing…You know the rest and their fate and what price was paid by those Nations. Whole Romanian Army was obliterated in Hitler War on Slavic Russians.

        I was touched to tears during my travel last year in Romanian countryside. There was an old monument in the front of an old house. On the monument was a picture of young 22 years Romanian boy who was called by the country to serve in the Romanian Army. Under the picture, a short notice by the boy’s parents…”In memory of our Son, we Love so much, who never returned from Russia…God heal our wounds”…

        …”There’s so many different worlds So many different suns
        And we have just one world But we live in different ones
        Now the sun’s gone to hell And the moons riding high
        Let me bid you farewell Every man has to die
        But its written in the starlight And every line on your palm
        We’re fools to make war
        On our brothers in arms”…
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wu4oy1IRTh8

        • ..”Hitler War on Slavic Russians.”..
          I should write :” Germans War on Slavic Russians”..

        • “..”I merely point out that they could have done so – that agreeing to join with Germany, Japan and Italy against the Soviet Union”.

          [opinion with which I do not agree]”

          It is not a matter of opinion.

          Here is the complete quote, in its proper context, once again:

          Just to be clear, I have not been arguing that the Poles should have signed the Anti-Comintern Pact along with Japan and Italy, or that they should have joined with Germany in their long-anticipated war against the Soviet Union.

          I merely point out that they could have done so – that agreeing to join with Germany, Japan and Italy against the Soviet Union in some form or another was one of three levers of influence which the Polish leadership could have employed at any point after Ribbentrop met with Lipski in October 1938. (see above)

23. It is very difficult to predict the past. The article is an example of speculation about what might have happened if other events that never happened might have happened, causing other hypothetical actions that might have, but did not, occur. If Chamberlain had (or had not) said this, that or the other, and if the Poles had done something different, and Stalin felt otherwise, and Hitler listened to his general staff, then maybe the result would have been X. Or maybe Y. Or maybe (X + Y)/Z. Any of the possibilities, including those that actually came to fruition would make a great novel. Or maybe not.

    • Unfortunately, if WW3 kicks off in the Middle East because of Trump and May’s meddling, that won’t be a fictional event. It’ll be all too real.

      So if human beings are capable of learning from history … then maybe that awful scenario can be avoided.

24. …”Unfortunately, if WW3 kicks off in the Middle East because of Trump and May’s meddling”
    O Dear..there we are..Dialectic set of mind i suspect…

    • Max,

      I think the surest way for a leader to get his countrymen killed is to throw away logic and go by emotion. You can recite all the poems you want, but real is real.

      • Hmmm.I can see Nick […] is not the only one living in abstract and surrealistic World […]

        “You can recite all the poems you want, but real is real”
        Hmmm.I am just wondering what that means. No more polemics with me. SVP

        • Max, if you’re going to stay on this site, you’ll have to rein in the name-calling. AGAINST the rules.

          I am not cleaning up after you.

          • Im having sometime a just a little bit ,some sort of …another words a Wild Heart…Madame ..excuse me..
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CF7XRH8DJzU&list=PLnsGU5cUF-lrdzYY3B0BqK9kqbv32WgbN&index=2

          • If you hang around here for very long, Max, you’ll find that once the comment thread passes a hundred responses, it’s not very interesting.

      • Oh dear. Surely you’re not saying, Ronald B., that poetry is somehow not real??

        • When you want inspiration, you go to poetry.

          When you want to decide how to affect the fates of your people, you use logic. You can’t decide policy through emotion, or you have a mess.

          • Not only logic, RonaldB, but cunning and wisdom and patience and discernment. Not to mention humility and leadership. Thus, logic is necessary but not nearly sufficient. Studying poetry is a good way to learn wisdom, patience and discernment. Not the only way, but a good one.

          • Hi Dymphna,

            What comes to mind when reading RonaldB’s comment is the passage from Basil Liddell Hart, quoted above, which asserts that Josef Beck hadn’t liked it much when Hitler said during their January 1939 meeting that Danzig would have to be given over to German control – oh dearie me – and he
            [Beck] wanted to give Hitler a slap in the coupon.

            Not exactly a sound basis for conducting business, eh! As for Halifax & Chamberlain – they only handed the destiny of their country over to some Polish gadgie who fancied giving Hitler a slap!

            This was obviously a well thought out strategy on their part, eh – I mean, what could go wrong there?

            Apart from a pesky little world war?

            And we’re supposed to trust politicians today? Politicians like Theresa May? That woman is so utterly inept – she’s actively dangerous. What a state the world’s in, really.

            I was talking to an elderly relative yesterday, and they said they were glad they were an old fart, because there was a pretty good chance they’d be off to the happy land before the SHTF down here.

25. ..” As for Halifax & Chamberlain – they only handed the destiny of their country over to some Polish gadgie who fancied giving Hitler a slap!”..
    Hmmm…”Some Polish gadgie”…
    We have here full disclosure …sickening..
    And you mentors allow this to appere on GoV ??
    ps.gadgie (plural gadgies) .. (Scotland, especially Dundee, pejorative) A person who is poorly educated and engages in hooliganism, petty criminality or loutish behaviour
    Urban dctionary:”A tinker word for a non-tinker. Gadgie is to tinker, as gentile is to Jew.”…

    • Sorry, max — I wasn’t familiar with that particular piece of Scottish slang. It should not have been allowed.

      Nick: Control yourself.

      Max: You can call him “haggis-breath” if you like. But just the once, please.

      • Dear Baron..Slang is not that offensive …but context in which was used.After all we own a respect to those slaughtered millions…
        Philosophically speaking “All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.” Regards and Thank you for Today..

        • Beside..A own you a lot for Jack Vance..
          Most delicious American English i read in my entire Life.
          Mind of Jack is a deference Universe..Plainly and simply Cosmos and Prophet.

          • ..different Universe”..sorry

        • And here is the context:

          “The Polish Guarantee was the surest way to produce an early explosion, and a world war. It combined the maximum temptation with manifest provocation. It incited Hitler to demonstrate the futility of such a guarantee to a country out of reach from the West, while making the stiff-necked Poles even less inclined to consider any concession to him, and at the same time making it impossible for him to draw back without ‘losing face’.

          Why did Poland’s rulers accept such a fatal offer? Partly because they had an absurdly exaggerated idea of the power of their out of date forces – they boastfully talked of a ‘cavalry ride to Berlin’.

          Partly because of personal factors: Colonel Beck, shortly afterwards, said that he made up his mind to accept the British offer between ‘two flicks of the ash’ off the cigarette he was smoking.

          He went on to explain that at his meeting with Hitler in January he had found it hard to swallow Hitler’s remark that Danzig ‘must’ be handed back, and that when the British offer was communicated to him he saw it, and seized it, as a chance to give Hitler a slap in the face.

          This impulse was only too typical of the ways in which the fate of peoples is often decided.”

          Hart, B. H. Liddell. A History of the Second World War (Kindle Locations 362-371). Pan Macmillan. Kindle Edition.

          If you find the behaviour of your country’s political leaders during the run-up to the war to be unprofessional, or you dislike reading certain things about your country’s political leaders, then that is neither here nor there.

          Because the facts are what they are.

          “The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is.” – Winston Churchill

        • Indeed, we should all respect the “slaughtered millions” and act accordingly.

          Read this:

          https://gatesofvienna.net/2016/05/dirty-hands-past-present-and-future/

          What this means in this context, is telling the truth about what our political leaders have said and done.

          It does not mean intentionally misrepresenting (to use the legal terminology) what other people say, in order to fallaciously support libelous ad hominem assertions.

          If one refuses to acknowledge the motives and actions of the political leaders of your country – or of any country – in 1939 is the proper way to go, then that would be a rather funny way of respecting “the slaughtered millions”.

          “Colonel Beck, shortly afterwards, said that he made up his mind to accept the British offer between ‘two flicks of the ash’ off the cigarette he was smoking.

          He went on to explain that at his meeting with Hitler in January he had found it hard to swallow Hitler’s remark that Danzig ‘must’ be handed back, and that when the British offer was communicated to him he saw it, and seized it, as a chance to give Hitler a slap in the face.

          This impulse was only too typical of the ways in which the fate of peoples is often decided.”

          Hart, B. H. Liddell. A History of the Second World War (Kindle Locations 367-371). Pan Macmillan. Kindle Edition.

          The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is. – Winston Churchill.

      • What can I say? He’s wrong. Again.

        See link. (In particular, meaning number one.)

        I have to say, this fellow has done nothing but cast about borderline slanderous insults, make demonstrably false and/or fallacious assertions, ignore obvious fact-checks provided by both the author of the article and the website owner: It was Molotov who described his country as the illegitimate offspring of the Versailles Treaty, the Nazi-Soviet Pact was not signed until 24th August 1939, the two signatories’ plans for Poland was not explicitly laid out at all, but were included in the “secret protocol”, etc …

        [redacted], and despite my best efforts to engage with the fellow – and I feel I have gone above and beyond in that regard – the best that he can do now, despite being [not being as knowledgeable as I am] on the subject of Scottish dialects, and the way those different dialects are used around the country, is to try to pull a “Sabaditch-Wolff” on one of the long term contributors to your website – which is a pretty low move.

        Apparently the word “gadgie” – which I can assure you, is not offensive at all, and simply means a non-young male person who you do not know personally – can sometimes be used differently in Dundee.

        Well, whoop-di-do! I don’t live in Dundee, so what do I care?

        So: The fellow is either pulling a “Sabaditch-Wolff” and claiming that because the word is sometimes used in another context to mean something else, that is good enough to justify his rather unsavoury ad hominem attacks upon a long-term contributor to your website.

        Rather like that judge at ESW’s trial, who discovered that the P word had a different meaning in another context halfway through the procedure, so they pretended that that was the meaning ESW had assigned to the word when she used it, when this was clearly not the case, just to get a PC-driven conviction.

        The fellow is either doing that. Which is pretty low, and not something you’d expect to be hit with when you contribute to a site like GoV.

        Or he is calling me a Dundonian. Which is definitely not on, because if you care to use the source he’s relying on (the urban dictionary) you will see that this can sometimes be used as a term of abuse. Check it out.

        And what’s good for the goose, is good for the gander. Okay, I’m having a bit of fun here with that. But you see my point: The urban dictionary? Really?

        Using that as a source, this fellow is trying desperately to do what he did right at the beginning, when he came upon some facts he couldn’t handle, and cast about the R word, or even the N word, at someone he cannot engage with rationally, who has happened to lay before him a few facts which, if he was capable of understanding them, would cause him to re-think his understanding of the world. And that will never do!

        Quite frankly, I would expect that sort of anti-intellectual behaviour elsewhere, given the way things are in the world nowadays, but as a long term, occasional contributor to your website, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect a little protection from such blatant ad hominem antics.

        We’ve seen it many times, this anti-intellectual behaviour from people who quite frankly, have never been taught how to think properly – this is how it goes, as you know: I can’t understand what you just said, I can’t refute anything you just said, but I know I don’t like what you just said, so I’m going to call you a racist and a Nazi, so there!

        And this is how I’m treated – at GoV of all places? When all I’m trying to do is provide you with a (hopefully) interesting essay to put on your website (gratis, too)?

        I’ll tell you what, I feel as if I’ve just been completely wasting my time here. And my time’s as valuable as the next person’s. The bottom line: If I’m going to be attacked as a racist and a Nazi here, of all places, then the world really is going to hell in a handbasket.

26. I did read Dymphna’s comment that once a thread passes a hundred responses, it becomes uninteresting.

    Some articles on Fox and other news websites, when they’re on the topic of race, Trump, or other controversial topics, can generate thousands of comments. Obviously, I’m not going to scroll down and read a thousand…or even a hundred. But, I notice ,even comments from the minute or two I looked at the article, often have interesting content. Same for the articles at Unz.com, which are almost uniformly upbrow and often generate hundreds of comments; the comments have a high proportion of ones well worth reading. It kind of becomes a question of what one wants to do with one’s time.

    So, with the proviso in mind that I might be costing someone valuable time better spent in other pursuits, I’ll post a response I actually wrote immediately after reading the article.

    I have a somewhat different perspective from Nick. But first might I add some information
    AJP Taylor The Origins of the Second World War that not only did England and France give an ill-considered guarantee of military assistance to the Polish government, but that they had second thoughts right afterwards, and tried to persuade the Polish government to make reasonable concessions to Hilter’s demands, which were in themselves not particularly outlandish. This actually is another instance of unintended consequences, where it’s not nearly as easy to get out of foreign entanglements as it is to get into them.

    I personally think it would have been a mistake for Poland to ally itself with Germany, especially in the matter of sending troops to fight in the invasion of Russia. Why not follow the Spanish model, and stay neutral? Spanish dictator Franco was considering allying himself with Hitler, but Hitler’s chief of military intelligence, Admiral Canaris, persuaded Franco to stay neutral. Franco was so grateful to him, he offered Spanish citizenship and assistance to Canaris’ family after the defeat of Germany.

    There is another consideration, which is that there was an active resistance to Hitler in Germany, including the military. Hitler’s early successes with Czechoslavakia, Poland, France, and the Balkans kept them from making a move for years. It would have been better, for both countries actually, if the resistance had toppled Hitler before the tragedy of Stalingrad, and pulled German troops back into defensive positions. The German military would have been at full strength, and the cost of invasion might have been too high, even for Stalin. This would have saved millions of lives, both German and Russian, not to mention Jewish, as the death camps did the bulk of their work from 1944 onwards.

    • That’s excellent, Ronald. Very interesting, & definitely worth thinking about.

27. @ Ned,

    It is unfortunate that you have permitted an individual who is not a native speaker of the English language, which means they can have no knowledge whatsoever of the many Scottish dialects or the way those dialects are spoken and used in different areas of the country, to use the urban dictionary (of all things) to make libelous ad hominem comments about one of your long term contributors.

    As you are aware, that commentator made assertions regarding the correct usage of a Scottish dialect. The fact of the matter is, this is a subject which the commentator not only does not, but cannot know anything about.

    I note also that as owner and moderator of your website, you have refused to post a response by the long term contributor to your website who was the subject of the aforementioned comments which was written in the dialect in question – (the Doric).

    Why not? Do you not understand the Doric? If you do not understand the dialect in question either, then you are in no position to support the commentator’s assertions.

    It is disappointing to note that not only have you consistently permitted the same commentator on your website to post comments which you yourself have labelled as slanderous, you have added insult to injury by suggesting to that commentator that he use a racial insult against one of you own contributors.

    So a long term contributor to your website is repeatedly labelled as a Nazi and a racist on your website, and it is even suggested that they are evil, and the commentator responsible for making these libellous comments (aka “intentional tort”) on your website is then instructed by the website owner to follow this up by using a racially-based insult?

    That is simply unacceptable.

    If this is what a long term contributor who happens not to be English is going to be exposed to on your website, then please take my instructions in the other unpublished comment as my final word on the matter. That is to say: Please remove my work from your website altogether, and take this as my formal resignation from the unpaid position of occasional contributor to your website.

    Yours Sincerely,

    NM

    • I’m not removing any post. This one, in particular, is very valuable.

      Some of your comments are not being approved for the same reason that some of Max’s are not approved — because they breach the rules of civility, and it would be too much work to redact them. When you write your comments carefully, as you have with this one, I have no trouble approving them.

      I let this thread get out of hand about 70 comments ago, and I regret that. But now I am just trying to let you and Max have your say, while keeping the discourse within the guidelines.

      As for ceasing submitting your essays to Gates of Vienna, that’s entirely up to you. It will be unfortunate if you do, however, and many of us will miss your contributions.

28. …”I have to say, this fellow has done nothing but cast about borderline slanderous insults, make demonstrably false and/or fallacious assertions, ignore obvious fact-checks provided by both the author of the article and the website owner”
    Hmmm.This description suite me very well :-))

Comments are closed.