It is a fact that Poland’s refusal to bow to Hitler led to Hitler’s decision to attack Poland.
It is a fact that Poland was losing in a 6-week war with Germany. Stalin’s attack on Poland sealed her fate.
But how was Poland supposed win by continuing the policy of appeasement and granting concessions to Hitler before hostilities began? How do Polish concessions to Hitler make Stalin feel secure or satiate Hitler’s ambitions?
If war between Hitler and Stalin is to be supposed as a result of Polish concessions, how does that change what in fact happened? Germany and the Soviets went to war anyway. If Germany won, Poland would have been a Nazi satellite. If the Soviets won, Poland would become a Soviet satellite or buffer territory of the USSR for making concessions to the Germans.
Poland’s trust in Britain and France may have been misplaced, but Britain and France were the one’s who were slow to act on their guarantee. They had time to prepare and some time after hostilities began to at least do _something._
Poland could trust Germany to either attack Poland or to use Poland as a springboard for a war with Stalin. Either way, certain war with a neighbor was the only prospect for Poland. Neither neighbor could be called a victor in the previous war.
Chamberlain’s guarantee was the best option for minimizing the possibility of war. Britain and France failed Poland. Britain and France were the latest war winners and dictators of the terms to the losers. It should have been a safe bet to side with them.
The resulting war was not a case of Poland failing Poland. It was a case of the Britain and France failing Poland.
However it's not appeasement to *use your enemies against each other*. Think of it this way. Two wolves are salivating over a sheep. What does the sheep do? Say "you big bad wolves! appeasement is bad! I will stand up to you! just wait until my friends come!". You know the results of that, the wolves laugh and share the sheep.
On the other hand if the sheep actually thinks in its own best interest and pits the wolves against each other... (see Kissinger with the Chinese to beat the Russians) you just might get somewhere.
Good points - one thing I emphasize is that France and Britain didn’t merely fail Poland, but in 1939 it would have seemed to almost anyone (including many German officers) that the ‘guarantee’ was worth a lot. It was Hitler’s uncanny sense of the mental and moral weakness of his foes that led him to expect that there would not be serious action in the west while he invade Poland. However, what the Poles expected because they had been PROMISED it by France and Britain was an aggressive land and air attack on German forces in the west. France was supposed to have up to 70 divisions available on the western front compared to only 25-30 understrength, 2nd-tier divisions for Germany. Britain was known not to have much of an army but could have contributed a few divisions in a renewed “British Expeditionary Force” — the primary contribution from Britain was supposed to be their air force. That is what the Poles were expecting, that Germany would immediately be forced into a 2-front war with an inadequately defended western frontier. In reality, as we know, the Poles were badly betrayed as the French command decided it was better to stay hunkered down (they advanced only 5 km or so into Germany, with little resistance, and then stopped). The French saved on casualties in the short term, but of course they allowed Hitler to dispose of his adversaries one by one instead of facing the 2-front war right away.
Bradley, go to Poland sometime. (
Poland amounts to this. The historically German areas like Olstyn, Gdansk, Wroclaw are the Polish eqivalent of First World. The Polish areas administered for hundreds of years by the Germans, Cracow, Poznan etc. are Second World. The Polish areas historically administered by Russia ( the capital excepted) are third world. This remains true even after half a century of total Russian control. The Poles made a very very very very bad choice in 1939.