When the USSR invaded Poland, Britain was silent

[Reinhard]

The treaty with Poland was to 'defend it against ALL 'aggression'

Well, not really:

»Agreement of Mutual Assistance between the United Kingdom and Poland, August 25, 1939.

THE Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Polish Government:

Desiring to place on a permanent basis the collaboration between their respective countries resulting from the assurances of mutual assistance of a defensive character which they have already exchanged:

Have resolved to conclude an Agreement for that purpose and have appointed as their Plenipotentiaries:

The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland:

The Rt. Hon. Viscount Halifax, K.G., G.C.S.I., G.C.I.E., Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs;

The Polish Government:

His Excellency Count Edward Raczynski, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the Polish Republic in London;

Who, having exchanged their Full Powers, found in good and due form, have agreed following provisions:-


ARTICLE I.

Should one of the Contracting Parties become engaged in hostilities with a European Power in consequence of aggression by the latter against that Contracting Party, the other Contracting Party will at once give the Contracting Party engaged in hostilities all the support and assistance in its power.

ARTICLE 2.

(1) The provisions of Article I will also apply in the event of any action by a European Power which clearly threatened, directly or indirectly, the independence of one of the Contracting Parties, and was of such a nature that the Party in question considered it vital to resist it with its armed forces.

(2) Should one of the Contracting Parties become engaged in hostilities with a European Power in consequence of action by that Power which threatened the independence or neutrality of another European State in such a way as to constitute a clear menace to the security of that Contracting Party, the provisions of Article I will apply, without prejudice, however, to the rights of the other European State concerned.

[...]

Secret Protocol attached to the Agreement of Mutual Assistance between the United Kingdom and Poland signed on the 25th August 1939

The Government of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland and the Polish Government are agreed upon the following interpretation of the Agreement of Mutual Assistance signed this day as alone authentic and binding.

1. (a) By the expression "a European Power" employed in the Agreement is to be understood Germany. (b) In the event of action within the meaning of Article 1 or 2 of the Agreement by a European Power other than Germany, the Contracting Parties will consult together on the measures to be taken in common.

2. (a) The two Governments will from time to time determine by mutual agreement the hypothetical cases of action by Germany coming within the ambit of Article 2 of the Agreement. (b) Until such time as the two Governments have agreed to modify the following provisions of this paragraph, they will consider: that the case contemplated by paragraph (1) of the Article 2 of the Agreement is that of the Free City of Danzig; and that the cases contemplated by paragraph (2) of Article 2 are Belgium, Holland, Lithuania. [...]»

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Agreement ... %281939%29


At the End of September 1939 the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs, R. A. Butler, declared in the House of Commons that the British guarantee for Poland had only been binding Britain in case of a German aggression [Heinz Lehmann, »Englands Spiel mit Polen. Die englisch-polnischen Beziehungen seit dem Weltkrieg«, p. 7].

[Hannover]

Reinhard, good try with:

1. (a) By the expression "a European Power" employed in the Agreement is to be understood Germany. (b) In the event of action within the meaning of Article 1 or 2 of the Agreement by a European Power other than Germany, the Contracting Parties will consult together on the measures to be taken in common.

The obvious conclusion is that the British and Poles in signing this 'secret protocol' were deceiving the public and world in general about their desires for peace. Revisionists have known this long ago.

You are then saying that it was acceptable to the Poles and more so to the British to sit back and allow the Soviets to invade Poland, occupy 60% of Polish territory, deport masses of Jews to the interior of the USSR, and murder thousands of POW Polish officers (Katyn is just one example) . All that position does is confirm what so many already know; the British were not interested in peace, but simply in aiding and abetting communism and their violations of international law.

Will you please show me the original 'secret protocols'?

- Hannover

[Reinhard]

Reinhard, good try with:

1. (a) By the expression "a European Power" employed in the Agreement is to be understood Germany. (b) In the event of action within the meaning of Article 1 or 2 of the Agreement by a European Power other than Germany, the Contracting Parties will consult together on the measures to be taken in common.

The obvious conclusion is that the British and Poles in signing this 'secret protocol' were deceiving the public and world in general about their desires for peace. Revisionists have known this long ago.

You are then saying that it was acceptable to the Poles and more so to the British to sit back and allow the Soviets to invade Poland, occupy 60% of Polish territory, deport masses of Jews to the interior of the USSR, and murder thousands of POW Polish officers (Katyn is just one example) . All that position does is confirm what so many already know; the British were not interested in peace, but simply in aiding and abetting communism and their violations of international law.

Will you please show me the original 'secret protocols'?

- Hannover

I don't understand your question.

All what I was saying is that it was never planned to »defend Poland against ALL aggression«, as you had said.
All what the British (and in the background Roosevelt (see Chamberlains quotation »the United States and World Jewry have forced us into war«) wanted was war with Germany. For that purpose this secret protocol. The Anglo-Polish treaty was only directed against Germany. An aggression of any other power didn't oblige Britain to provide assistance. Poland was only a pretext as was Belgium in WW I. And of course, the British once again have deceived the world about that.

Moreover this treaty allowed the Poles to decide that any German action against a third party (i.e. the free city of Danzig - not part of the Polish territory!) was vital to their interests and thus start a big war in which Britain could step in and declare war on Germany in accordance to its "obligations".

Some time ago I posted here the telegram of the US ambassador to Moscow to the State Department, reporting that a German traitor had shown a member of the US embassy the secret amendment to the German-Soviet non-aggression pact, dividing Poland in a German and a Soviet sphere of interest. Roosevelt had this treaty as fast on his desk as Hitler. Roosevelt gave order NOT to notify the Poles about that, because he wanted the war to start and it was quite possible, of course, that the Poles might have been prepared to negotiate with Germany on Danzig and the Korridor, if they had known that the Germans and the Soviets had agreed upon a demarcation line in Poland.

[Hannover]

My only question was about seeing the 'secret protocol'. I am curious about it. You may be entirely correct, it may exist, but I would like to see the actual protocol anyway. Can you show it? If not, just say so & we'll move on.

It does provide a back door argument for why Britain didn't declare war on the USSR, but it also exposes them as lying propagandists and the ultimate hypocrites.

I would also like to see the "telegram of the US ambassador to Moscow to the State Department, reporting that a German traitor had shown a member of the US embassy the secret amendment to the German-Soviet non-aggression pact, dividing Poland in a German and a Soviet sphere of interest."
Your point about it make sense at first glance, but I want to see it. Did you post an actual copy here?

Take note that I do not necessarily disagree with you on these, but I am a stickler for actually viewing documents that are claimed, regardless of where the chips may fall.

Thanks, Hannover

[Reinhard]

My only question was about seeing the 'secret protocol'. I am curious about it. You may be entirely correct, it may exist, but I would like to see the actual protocol anyway. Can you show it? If not, just say so & we'll move on.

No, I have no facsimile of the secret protocol. But as far as I know it isn't disputed by the British that it exists - and as Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs R.A. Butler confirmed at the end of September 1939 in the house of Commons that Britain wasn't obliged to declare war on the USSR, I think there is no doubt about its existence.

I would also like to see the "telegram of the US ambassador to Moscow to the State Department, reporting that a German traitor had shown a member of the US embassy the secret amendment to the German-Soviet non-aggression pact, dividing Poland in a German and a Soviet sphere of interest."
Your point about it make sense at first glance, but I want to see it. Did you post an actual copy here?

Yes, I did post a copy some years ago, but the posting got deleted, because it had nothing to do with the Holocau$t.

The German traitor was → Hans-Heinrich Herwarth von Bittenfeld, then aide to the German ambassador to Moscow, Friedrich Werner Graf von der Schulenburg (1875 - 1944), and after the war he became the West-German ambassador to London (1955 - 1961).
During his time at the German embassy in Moscow he was in contact with → Charles E. Bohlen, → Charles W. Thayer (after the war head of the OSS in Austria) and → Fitzroy MacLean (MI6 operative).

The day after the signing of the German-Soviet anti-aggression pact von Bittelfeld called Charles E. Bohlen and asked him to come to the German embassy. There he showed Bohlen the secret amendment to the pact:

»On the morning of August 24, 1939, he visited the Third Reich diplomat Hans von Herwarth and received the full content of the secret protocol to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, signed the day before.² The secret protocol contained an understanding between Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin to split Central Europe, the Baltic region, and Finland between their nations. U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt was urgently informed. The United States did not convey this information to any of the concerned governments in Europe.«
2 = Charles Bohlen, »Witness to History: 1929-1969« Norton, 1973, ISBN 0-393-07476-5
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_E._Bohlen

The telegram of the US ambassador to Moscow, Steinhardt, to the State Department is to be found in the National Archives, Washington D.C. (signature 761.62 11/93) according to my source: Prof. Dr. Werner Maser, »Der Wortbruch. Hitler, Stalin und der Zweite Weltkrieg«, Heyne, München 1997, pp. 63/64 (ISBN 3-453-11764-6)

[Hannover]

No, I have no facsimile of the secret protocol. But as far as I know it isn't disputed by the British that it exists - and as Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs R.A. Butler confirmed at the end of September 1939 in the house of Commons that Britain wasn't obliged to declare war on the USSR, I think there is no doubt about its existence.

Until I see an original document I am not going to trust anyone. And someone just saying "that Britain wasn't obliged to declare war on the USSR" means nothing. That is exactly what the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs would be obligated to say. Hardly a reliable source. Why isn't the original available? No document, no acceptance of the claims.

Thanks for the "telegram", but is it the actual telegram or a description of the claimed telegram's contents? Perhaps a telegram about a claimed telegram. A little murky to me.

Another question: Can the secret amendment between Germany and the USSR be shown as well? Some might expect or claim such an agreement, but heretofore I have not seen the actual document.

I'm open to clarification. Thanks.

- Hannover

[Mkk]

Goering said at Nuremberg:

Goering: I was then called to Berlin on very short notice. I arrived in Berlin in the morning and President Hacha arrived in the evening of the same day. I presented orally to the Fuehrer the views which I had already expressed in my letter. The Fuehrer pointed out to me certain evidence in his possession to the effect that the situation in Czechoslovakia had developed more seriously. This state had, for one thing, disintegrated because of the detachment of Slovakia, but that was not the decisive question. He showed me documents from the Intelligence Service which indicated that Russian aviation commissions were present at the airfields of Czechoslovakia, or certain of them, undertaking training, and that such things were not in keeping with the Munich agreement. He said that he feared that Czechoslovakia, especially if Slovakia were detached, would be used as a Russian air base against Germany.

He said he was determined to eliminate this danger. President Hacha had requested an interview, so he told me at the time, and would arrive in the evening; and he wished that I too should be present at the Reich Chancellery.

President Hacha arrived and talked first with the Reich Foreign Minister. At night he came to see the Fuehrer; we greeted him coldly. First he conversed with the Fuehrer alone; then we were called in. Then I talked to him in the presence of his ambassador and urged him to meet as quickly as possible the Fuehrer's demand that trdops be kept back when the Germans marched in, in order that there might be no bloodshed. I told him that nothing could be done about it; the Fuehrer had made his decision and considered it necessary, and there would be only unnecessary bloodshed as resistance for any length of time was quite impossible. And in that connection I made the statement that I should be sorry if I had to bomb beautiful Prague. The intention of bombing Prague did not exist, nor had any order been given to that effect, for even in the case of resistance that would not have been necessary -- resistance could always be broken more easily without such bombing. But a point

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/03-14-46.asp

That is the origin of the claim that there was an intention to bomb Prague. Apparently Goering made some kind of remark that he wouldn't want to do it and it got spun up into an actual intention.

[Hektor]

No, I have no facsimile of the secret protocol. But as far as I know it isn't disputed by the British that it exists - and as Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs R.A. Butler confirmed at the end of September 1939 in the house of Commons that Britain wasn't obliged to declare war on the USSR, I think there is no doubt about its existence.

Until I see an original document I am not going to trust anyone. And someone just saying "that Britain wasn't obliged to declare war on the USSR" means nothing. That is exactly what the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs would be obligated to say. Hardly a reliable source. Why isn't the original available? No document, no acceptance of the claims.
...

As said above: The treaty between Britain and Poland, or rather the secret protocol, stipulates Germany as the enemy.

ecret Protocol attached to the Agreement of Mutual Assistance between the United Kingdom and Poland signed on the 25th August 1939
The Government of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland and the Polish Government are agreed upon the following interpretation of the Agreement of Mutual Assistance signed this day as alone authentic and binding.
1. (a) By the expression "a European Power" employed in the Agreement is to be understood Germany. (b) In the event of action within the meaning of Article 1 or 2 of the Agreement by a European Power other than Germany, the Contracting Parties will consult together on the measures to be taken in common.
2. (a) The two Governments will from time to time determine by mutual agreement the hypothetical cases of action by Germany coming within the ambit of Article 2 of the Agreement. (b) Until such time as the two Governments have agreed to modify the following provisions of this paragraph, they will consider: that the case contemplated by paragraph (1) of the Article 2 of the Agreement is that of the Free City of Danzig; and that the cases contemplated by paragraph (2) of Article 2 are Belgium, Holland, Lithuania. (c) Latvia and Estonia shall be regarded by the two Governments as included in the list of countries contemplated by paragraph (2) of Article 2 from the moment that an undertaking of mutual assistance between the United Kingdom and a third State covering those two countries enters into force. (d) As regards Roumania, the Government of the United Kingdom refers to the guarantee which it has given to that country; and the Polish Government refers to the reciprocial undertakings of the Roumano-Polish alliance which Poland has never regarded as incompatible with her traditional friendship for Hungary.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Agreement ... ndon_(1939)

But I guess you look for a facsimile on that, right?

[Barrington James]

The. British/ Polish treaty was all part of the 300 year, pre WW1, plan of Great Britain to maintain its policy of destroying the strongest country in Europe, in this case Germany. WW 2 was simply the extension of GB's attempt to do what it had tried to and had failed to do in WW1 and had done to France, Spain and Portugal from time to time.

The Treaty was all part of the careful GB and USA plan to force WW2 on Hitler by tricking him into believing that GB would never go to war against Germany, ( Munich and Chamberlain), by allowing him to take back the land that Germany had lost at Versailles, and then, finally, the killing of 58,000 German Nationalists in Poland knowing that Hitler would be morally forced to come to their rescue. Anyone who thinks otherwise is wrong . GB and the USA both supported Stalin, who would go on to destroy 50 million people, because the USSR and the USA were all part of the plan. However neither FDR nor Stalin were fools and they also had their plans. So Churchill's War backfired on GB. None of these schemers made the world, nor their countries any richer in the long. run. GB's 300 year old war plan to rule the world through its never ending series of wars failed . It is no longer the ruler of the waves, and the USSR is no more. He who lives by the sword , dies by the sword. The USA is yet to learn that rule.

[Mkk]

and then, finally, the killing of 58,000 German Nationalists in Poland

There's no convincing evidence of this. It was covered in another thread and the only proof offered was German propaganda books and a couple of speeches - no solid proof. If you have any, please post it in that thread.

As for why Britain didnt declare war on the USSR:

1. Our agreement with Poland only mentioned Germany
2. A war against both Germany and the USSR, presumably as Allies, would be very hard to win.
3. The Soviet invasion may well have been a one off (we didn't know then) and did not follow the pattern that Hitler's actions had been taking for a couple of years up to that point.

I dont share the viewpoint that WW1 or WW2 were "Balance of Power" wars to defeat the most powerful country on the continent. Britain had relatively little interest in the conflict unfolding in Europe in 1914 until neutral Belgium was invaded (see Max Hastings etc.) and before WW2, Britain went to quite a length to bend over to every move Germany made for years - reoccupation of the Rhineland, invasion and annexation of Austria, annexation of the Sudetenland, ultimatum to Lithuania and the annexation of Memelland, the invasion of the rest of Bohemia and Moravia, I also imagine that Britain woudn't have done anything to Germany if another Munich had been called over Danzig (AFAIK many Britons were sypathetic to German claims on Danzig)

[Barrington James]

Dear Mkk..You have some naive opinions on WW1. Great Britain became great for one reason: it was the most successful warring nation of its times. It was the most brutal, clever, purposeful nation in its wars for over three hundred years. It planned it wars carefully and often, including both World Wars and its hundreds of other wars. And when it exhausted itself on wars, the USA, it former colony, took over this role. Like father . like son.

But to the point, You don't believe that 58, 000 German Nationals were killed in Poland by the Polish communists. This is not surprising given all the lies about WW2. After all, for example, despite all common sense to the contrary, the Brits still claim that their thousand plane raids on Dresden , then a jam packed city of a million, killed only 25,000 people over a three day period in which they dropped 3,300 tons of bombs or 6, 600,000 pounds of bombs on that defenceless city. This amounts to 1 death per 264 pounds of dropped bombs. Does this make sense to you? Need I say more?

The best way to settle our discussion on the Polish massacres or the validity of any other claim about WW2 without trying to sort out the truth, trash and lies in the “information” that can be found in our so called history books, particularly those written by the winners, would be to look at the character of the winners from WW2. England has been involved in over 300 wars since at least 1700, and several dozen wars since the end of WW2. Or, if you like , you count the number of years that the USA, Great Britain's sometime ally and sometime foe, has been in since 1776, when these two warring nations fought each other. If England or the USA were persons they would both have been labelled psychotic. Can you honestly trust anything that their historians say about anything?

The USA , for example , since its war of independence, its last good war in my opinion, has been at war for over 230 years. Great Britain , on the other hand, has been at war with over 90% of the 200 countries in the world, some of them like France and Germany, several times. And WW1 just did not happen, as our historian would have us believe. As soon as it was realized that a very young Germany was about conquer the world through industry, trade, skilled workers and imagination , and that the answer to the coming industrial revolution was to be driven by oil, as it is today, and that Germany was planning on building a railway from Baghdad to Berlin, the Brits began planning how to destroy Germany. WW1 was plotted, planned and ignited very carefully by a country who knew better than any other how to go to war and how to win. But WW1 failed to destroy Germany and so we had WW2. England began building city bombers for its next war against Germany as soon as it could. By the 1930 it already had its first city bombers in production. The Germans foolishly never created a true four engine city bomber and that is why we had WW2. If Germany had a city bomber, if Hitler had not stupidly forbidden the creation of a four engine super bomber , we never would have had WW2. But that is anothewr story.

I am telling you all these things to make you aware that when I state that 58, 000 Germans were killed by the Polish communists, or anything other claim that the winners deny . recall that both England and the USA were created through war and they have never stopped creating wars and do not believe anything their historians, politicians or people say about war.

As far as the truth of the murder of 58, 000 German nationals is concerned, Google Bloomberg massacre for a starter. But be careful what you read. The lies are everywhere. Best of all, you should read Udo Walendy: Truth for Germany. You will be amazed.

Thanks for you input Mkk, BJ

[Breker]

Well, it appears lads that we're off topic, but anyway, here is what is becoming more common in discussing WWI. While the author apparently buys the preposterous propaganda about the 'Nazis', we do see the idea of German guilt for WWI losing momentum.

At the request of the Taki Magazine editor I have not copied & pasted the full text, link here:
http://takimag.com/article/world_war_i_ ... z2qesGpIUZ
B.

[Mkk]

AFAIK the idea that Germany had the main war guilt for WW2 isn't really "losing momentum". You can find a contingent of authors that have put war guilt onto every 1914 participant in the conflict, but there has been a greater trend in more recent years (after the work of Fischer) to see Austro-Hungary as the initiators of the conflict.

I dont agree with the points made in the article above. Hastings debunked most of them in his most recent book.

[Barrington James]

Hello...The point I was trying to make , above, was that both Great Britain and the US, for their own private reasons , had obviously made promises to Stalin and the USSR concerning Poland. There is no way that Stalin would have invaded Poland otherwise , for his entire supplies of war machines , trains, trucks, tanks and plane production, ships and every other tool required for war depended almost entirely on the USA. One of the promises to Stalin being that Russia would get back Eastern Poland after the war....after Stalin's hideous, terrorists, communist country had destroyed Germany....as Hitler had long expected it to try to do. This promise was of course extended in a series of secret and not so secret meetings of FDR. Churchill and eventually Stalin during the war that took place from Newfoundland, Washington, Moscow, Casablanca, Quebec. Cairo, Teheran, Malta, and Yalta where the big three, like criminal bosses everywhere, tried to outmanoeuvre one another for their future, present and post war plans.

BJ

[Breker]

mkk:

AFAIK the idea that Germany had the main war guilt for WW2 isn't really "losing momentum". You can find a contingent of authors that have put war guilt onto every 1914 participant in the conflict, but there has been a greater trend in more recent years (after the work of Fischer) to see Austro-Hungary as the initiators of the conflict.

I dont agree with the points made in the article above. Hastings debunked most of them in his most recent book.

I stated WWI, not WWII, and I do believe the Allies started WWII as well.
Maybe you do not agree about WWI, but I have seen no "debunking" by Hastings. You have not demonstrated any trend to blame Austro-Hungary as the initiators of the conflict.
B.