I have read a few hundred [at least] history books, and I can tell you that as a fact, Hitler offered Poland an alliance of sorts, which would have enabled him to get at all that lebensraum he wanted - in the U.S.S.R, where he announced to the world in 1923 Germany's future lay [but then, you did read MEIN KAMPF, correct?]. And it wasn't like Poland hadn't just engaged in negotiations with Hitler, since they took a piece of Czechoslovakia [along with Hungary] with Hitler's blessings in 1938.
World War II [which probably can be dated from 1931-Manchuria] had a lot of causes. It didn't date from the Poles’ refusal to accommodate Hitler. Hitler intended to fight before 1942, when the jump he had on the rest of the world in armaments would be gone [see the Hossbach Memorandum]. He wanted war with the west in 1938 - in Czechoslovakia. Chamberlain and Daladier didn't oblige.
By mid 1939, Hitler had Poland surrounded on three sides, and he was astute enough to realize the western Allies lacked the will to come to Poland's aid if push came to shove. That being said, Hitler's eyes were still fixed on the U.S.S.R, and the record gives weight to the supposition that he may well have been willing to reach an accommodation with the Poles; to get at the Russians. The guarantee by the West gave Poland the false security upon which she based her refusal to Hitler's offer [which came well before the public demands].
Between her Allies’ lack of will, Poland's idiotic war plan, and her strategic encirclement, Poland had no chance against the Germans. By facing off against the Germans, the Poles did not avoid an invasion by the Soviets. They were attacked anyway. And the Allies who promises led Poland to stand firm, and who went to war over Poland, left her to the Red Army in 1944 without a whimper.
As for the countries in the West, your knowledge of history is somewhat selective. Take Norway. The Germans invaded Norway to secure their iron ore transports from Sweden. They only turned their attention to Norway in February, 1940 after British warships boarded the ALTMARCK in Norwegian territorial waters to free prisoners taken by the GRAF SPEE in 1939 [ALTMARCK was her supply ship], and the Norwegians did nothing. And, coincidentally the German fleet that sailed in Operation Weser left for Norway 1 day ahead of the Franco-British occupation force headed for the same ports. And the Allies hadn't ‘negotiated’ with the Norwegians either.
As for Belgium, she had been a theater of operations in the first World War, and Holland was added at the behest of the Kriegsmarine, and for strategic reasons. Those countries were invaded as part of military operations. Since both were cooperating to one degree or other, with Britain and France, there was no reason for Hitler to negotiate with them in the middle of a war. Don't you agree? You do remember that by the time they were invaded, there was a war on, don't you?. Not quite the same as Poland and Czechoslovakia, wouldn't you agree?
Sorry, buyt Belgium explicitly refused to join the allies. Stop shilling for your beloved Panzer Leaders.
As for Belgium, she had been a theater of operations in the first World War, and Holland was added at the behest of the Kriegsmarine, and for strategic reasons.
VIZ THE FIRST WORLD WAR, THE “SCHLIEFFEN PLAN,” FORMULATED AND REVISED FROM 1891 - 1914 TO HELP GERMANY DEFEAT BOTH FRANCE & RUSSIA IF GERMANY HAD TO FIGHT BOTH, PROVIDED THAT GERMAN ARMIES (# 1-7) WOULD MARCH THROUGH HOLLAND AS WELL AS BELGIUM (TO FACILITATE A GERMAN ATTACK ON, AND SEIZURE OF, PARIS FROM THE WEST). HOWEVER, IN 1914, HELMUTT V. MOLTKE (THE YOUNGER), THE GERMAN CHIEF OF STAFF, THOUGHT IT WOULD BE SUICIDAL FOR GERMANY TO TURN HOLLAND - A NEUTRAL COUNTRY AS BELGIUM WAS - INTO AN OCCUPIED COUNTRY, AND SO BELGIUM WAS ATTACKED AND OCCUPIED, WHILE HOLLAND WAS NOT.
Those countries were invaded as part of military operations. Since both were cooperating to one degree [with Britain and France . . ]
WHAT KIND OF ‘COOPERATION’ ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? BOTH COUNTRIES WERE OFFICIALLY NEUTRAL AS TO GERMANY V. FRANCE & BRITAIN. FOR HITLER, NEUTRALITY WAS A DIPLOMATIC NICETY TO BE OBSERVED IF - AND ONLY IF - IT SUITED HIS LARGER PURPOSES. FOR THE PURPOSE OF ATTACKING FRANCE IN 1940, IT DIDN’T.
I’m glad you’re not one of the Buchanites and I’m sorry I subsumed you into that group. My bad.
wrt your last couple of paragraphs, the only point I was trying to make about the neutral countries to the west had to do with Buchanan’s worship of ‘negotiations’ as though the Poles could have benefitted from more or better negotiations — I was only trying to point out that maybe the Poles were correct to distrust Hitler’s promises, that by the spring of 1939 it was hardly irrational to believe that Hitler was an untrustworthy SOB. It was not easy in 1939 to be confident that he’d be regarding any treaties or alliances as sacrosanct. The example of how he did not exactly respect neutrality in 1940 was just another set of instances in which Hitler trashed international norms.
A lot of your statements seem to try to rationalize Hitler’s actions as if they were acceptable. I hope you don’t mean them that way and are simply describing how things appeared justifiable to Hitler or his officers. For instance, you seem to justify the invasions of Norway, Belgium, and the Netherlands as though they were legally and morally acceptable. I do know very well what happened in Belgium on May 10, 1940 because I have close relatives who woke up to the Nazi bombardment that morning, thank you. My family members survived but many of their friends did not. I do not regard Hitler’s rationalizations for the invasions of the neutral countries as in any way adequate, although I can certainly see how powerful the military justifications were.
I don’t quarrel with factual historical points you make, but I still have a lot more sympathy for the plight of the Poles and the truly awful dilemmas they faced than I detect in your comments. For instance, I do not think the “junior partner” alliance with Hitler to allow him to pursue Lebensraum further east could have been trusted by any Polish leader of sanity, and it wasn’t. How could they have acceded to a huge German army occupying their territory in order to attack the USSR? They could very well have become a permanent part of the Lebensraum that way. Why would they ever willingly choose to be part of Hitler’s grand expansion plan, trusting their fate in his hands? At the very least, it’s not the sort of thing that any sovereign state usually wants to allow, absent the most desperate circumstances. Yes, their situation did turn out to be even more desperate than they realized, but they did not expect to be overrun in 3-4 weeks or to have the USSR attack them from behind at the same time.
Thank you so much for bringing an informed historian’s voice to this thread.