Why did Britain go to War over Poland in 1939?

[Rigby5]

are you a German/Nazi lover?

The Nazis did not exist until the Allies abused Germany so badly that they created the Nazis.

 

[Rigby5]

Did you write that, or is it plagiarized from an unmentioned source?



That's new and interesting perspective.

What people also should be told is that the Old Polish Empire was hated.
It was the Scythians, Cimmerians, etc., who had resisted the Asian invasions by the Mongols, Moghuls, Turks, and Cossacks.
The Old Polish Empire is where descendants of Vlad the Impaler went.
You can see what they were like by watching the movie, "Taras Bulba" with Yul Brenner and Tony Curtis as Cosssacks.

Finally around 1700, all the other Europeans ganged up on the Poles and defeated them.
They were absorbed into the Holy Roman Empire of Germany.
They did not reappear until the Treaty of Versailles wanted to punish Germany.

This is currently relevant because the western half of the Ukraine are descendants of the Old Polish Empire failed invasion attempt from around 1700.

 

[Rigby5]

If they had not gone to war with Germany what do you think happens to them as Hitler proceeds to take over the world country by country?

Just curious.

The reality is that Germany just wanted Prussia back.
They had no intent to take any other country.
But when they took back Prussia, it was the Allies who attacked them.
And it was defensive ever since then.

The proof is that Germany had just captured France in the 1870 Franco Prussian war, and gave it back.
Germany did not care to invade or occupy anyone.

 

[Rigby5]

I don't think there's much of a parallel at all. Russia had no valid complaint regarding Ukraine, whereas Germany had a valid complaint regarding Poland (the Danzig Corridor). Plus, Poland was ruled by a virulently anti-Semitic military junta, whereas Ukraine was a thriving and growing pro-Western democracy. Two very different situations.

Sorry, but I disagree.
What you are forgetting is that not only was the Ukraine Russian at one time, but Kyiv used to be the capital of Russia.
Russia not only has a very valid complaint against the Ukraine being illegally taken from it by the Treaty of Versailles, but the Ukraine was so sacred to Russia, that it put is radar defense grid around the Ukraine and Russia, with nothing between the Ukraine and Russia.
And the 2014 Maidan Coup ended the democracy in the Ukraine, creating a racist/fascist military dictatorship that murdered over 30k ethnic Russian natives.
It was Hunter Biden who was the bagman for the bribes that caused the coup.

So then no, the two situations were not at all different.
In both, the Poles were the bad guys.

 

[Rigby5]

Because it wears fulfilling a legally binding promise made to Poland as an ally

Poland was never an ally to anyone, but was taken from Germany just to harm Germany.
Just like the same Treaty of Versailles took the Ukraine from Russia to harm Russia.

 

[Rigby5]

Poland had no obligation to make any deals whatsoever about the Danzig corridor, and not one single demand made by Nazi Germany can ever be called “reasonable”

Poland had disappeared around 1700 for very good reasons.
There likely was no more evil, aggressive, racist, fascist, etc., government than the Old Polish Empire.
Everyone hated it and ganged up on it.
So then yes, after the Treaty of Versalles illegally took so much of Germany, Poland did have a moral and legal obligation to accommodate Germany better.

What you are doing is blaming Germany for WWII when in reality it was the Allies that started WWI, were evil, and that caused WWII.

 

[Rigby5]

I think he realized that to keep appeasing Germany by giving Hitler chunks of neighboring countries would not stop him from seeking more.

It’s not as if had Britain and France let Hitler take the corridor, he would have stopped there.

He didn’t stop with the sudentenland, even though he said he would. He didn’t stop with the Anschluss, even though he said he would.

Only a fool would’ve believed he’d then stop with Danzig.

But you miss the point, which is that Poland and Czechoslovakia should not have existed.
They were parts of Germany illegally stolen by the Allies in WWI.

 

[Rigby5]

The time to stop Hitler was when he sent troops into the Rhineland in 1936. France alone could have smashed Hitler's army at that point and easily deposed Hitler.


Maybe. Maybe not. Hitler was very hesitant about invading Poland. He got cold feet once and cancelled it. If the Poles had accepted his offer on the Danzig Corridor, he may have at least held off on invading for several months or a bit longer. Poland's acceptance of Germany's Danzig offer would have put political pressure on Hitler to leave Poland alone, at least for a while.


Agreed.


Well, I don't know. Poland was a different situation than the Sudentenland and the Anschluss.

On the other hand, it is entirely possible that Hitler's Danzig offer was just posturing to give him an excuse to invade Poland. Hitler had already made a pact with Stalin (August 1939), and Stalin swooped in and took half of Poland 16 days after Germany invaded.

Would Hitler have told Stalin to stay out of Poland if Poland had agreed to Hitler's Danzig Corridor offer? Maybe. Maybe not. Hitler told Stalin to stay out of Hungary and Romania while they were allies, and he did.

Wrong.
If the Allies had not illegally stolen the Rhineland from Germany, then Hitler would never have been in power.
It is all the fault of the WWI Allies and their illegal starvation blockade, combined with the outright theft of the Treaty of Versailles.
And Poland should never have been resurrected.

 

[Rigby5]

Um, no, guy, I hold the standard historical view about Chamberlain and the origins of WWII.

Unlike guys who claim the Bankers started it.

Actually it is well documented that the bankers started WWII.
Who do you think spent millions putting on those outdoor sporting arena events for Hitler, to make him so well known and popular?
We see the money pouring in from US companies, like GM, Std Oil, Firestone, US Steel, etc., but the reality is the bankers made huge profits from WWI, and they wanted a remake of that.
Hitler had no particular skill or charisma, he just has a lot of US money.

 

[GLASNOST]

Why did Britain go to War over Poland in 1939?​

Britian didn't go to war over Poland. Britian declared war but I don't recall a single British soldier going to Poland. Instead, they coward behind the Maginot Line in France.

​

 

[braalian]

But you miss the point, which is that Poland and Czechoslovakia should not have existed.
They were parts of Germany illegally stolen by the Allies in WWI.

Bullshit

They were mostly parts of Austrian/Hungarian and Russian empires. Not Germany

And the central powers lost the war that they started

Don’t start something you can’t finish

 

[AZrailwhale]

Unz has a good column here. The True History of World War II
You might read his entire series on WWII. Every well documented, showing the narrative the state professes about WWII is mostly fiction.

It doesn’t matter when Chamberlain resigned.

Had the UK and France not had that ridiculous pact with Poland, WWII might have been avoided.

Have you asked yourself why they didn’t also declare war on the USSR too? Rather strange that they didn’t. Had they bombed Stalin’s oil fields as was considered, the war might have been very different.

Delayed, not avoided. Hitler was going to keep pushing until he forced a war. He was convinced that the WAllies wouldn’t fight him.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Unz has a good column here. The True History of World War II
You might read his entire series on WWII. Every well documented, showing the narrative the state professes about WWII is mostly fiction.

It doesn’t matter when Chamberlain resigned.

Had the UK and France not had that ridiculous pact with Poland, WWII might have been avoided.

Have you asked yourself why they didn’t also declare war on the USSR too? Rather strange that they didn’t. Had they bombed Stalin’s oil fields as was considered, the war might have been very different.

Anybody who writes a book eighty years after an event when most participants are dead entitled the “True” story of anything is trying to change history. He didn’t write it sooner because he didn’t want participants calling him out on his lies.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Unz has a good column here. The True History of World War II
You might read his entire series on WWII. Every well documented, showing the narrative the state professes about WWII is mostly fiction.

It doesn’t matter when Chamberlain resigned.

Had the UK and France not had that ridiculous pact with Poland, WWII might have been avoided.

Have you asked yourself why they didn’t also declare war on the USSR too? Rather strange that they didn’t. Had they bombed Stalin’s oil fields as was considered, the war might have been very different.

Wars are always stumbled into. No one just decides that he will conquer his neighbor without consequences. Wars start after harvest season and always are intended to be over by the onset of winter in Europe or the Monsoon season in Asia. Then the winner lives of the harvest of the loser, and the loser starves.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Its actually a lot more complicate than that.

First of all, you have to forget the WWI propaganda.
Like the claims Germany started the war and was barbecuing Belgium babies to eat.

The reality is that England, France, and Russia deliberately started WWI, and Russia selected, trained, and armed Prinzip to assassinate Archduke Ferdinand and his wife.
France started it by invading southern Germany.
The Allies never defeated the German or got them out of France.
The war ended by the US illegally sinking enough food ships to cause massive starvation in Germany.
And the Treaty of Versailles was a joke, stealing half of Germany, and all its ships and colonies, while making them repay for a war the Allies started.

Wrong

There were no such claims about germans and babies

Your claims about france england and russia are bald faced lies

Your entire post is revisionist fiction

 

[braalian]

Lol. He cites legitimate sources. Something you failed to do.

His sources include Wikipedia, the encyclopedia Britannica, the library of congress and every history textbook in existence

 

[gipper]

His sources include Wikipedia, the encyclopedia Britannica, the library of congress and every history textbook in existence

I’ll take Ron Unz’s sources over those everyday of the week.

 

[gipper]

Wars are always stumbled into. No one just decides that he will conquer his neighbor without consequences. Wars start after harvest season and always are intended to be over by the onset of winter in Europe or the Monsoon season in Asia. Then the winner lives of the harvest of the loser, and the loser starves.

No. The elite love war. That’s why we have wars. If only you could understand this simple fact.

PS. We’re discussing war in the 21st century, not the 10th century.

 

[gipper]

Anybody who writes a book eighty years after an event when most participants are dead entitled the “True” story of anything is trying to change history. He didn’t write it sooner because he didn’t want participants calling him out on his lies.

So dumb. His sources are impeccable. Your conclusions are ignorant.

 

[braalian]

I’ll take Ron Unz’s sources over those everyday of the week.

And that’s why you’re an uninformed crackpot