| August 25 |  |
Editor says, what if the British and French Governments had dropped the worthless Polish Security Guarantee? Please note that the opinions expressed in this post do not necessarily reflect the views of the author(s).
| Share this Article on: |  Facebook |  Twitter |
In 1939, on this day the House of Commons witnessed scenes of uproar which were surely without precedent since the English Civil War.
Countdown to War Part 2: Speak for EnglandThe Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs Lord Halifax revealed that it was infeasible for the British and French Governments to assist the beleagured Poles repel the German military which was even now massing on their border. And having re-evaluated the bleak prospects for such a misadventure, a logical decision had now been reached in London and Paris to allow the Polish security guarantee to "lapse".
Privately, Halifax was confident that Mr Hitler had "no plan or blueprint for world conquest". In fact the Swedish businessman Birger Dahlerus was acting as a freelance diplomat, and progress towards a framework agreement had already been made. The outcome would be the so-called "Munich II" Conference in which the Polish Corridor was returned to Germany along with the Port of Danzig.
"You were given the choice between war and dishonour. You chose dishonour, and you will have war"A cross party census was formed by Hawks and Doves alike. With Clement Attlee recovering from an operation, acting Labour leader Arthur Greenwood was given the impossible task of speaking on behalf of Her Majesty's Opposition, which was itself deeply divided. From the Conservative back benches Leo Amery cried "Speak for England, Arthur!" Only the previous year, his late colleague Winston Churchill had prophetically stated "You were given the choice between war and dishonour. You chose dishonour, and you will have war". But at least for now, more dishonour had been chosen.
Entry posted by Todayinah Editor
© "1939: Countdown to War" by Richard Overy, New Statesman Magazine, August 27, 2009 edition.Story Tags
Permalinks: Post, Day. Browse Thread: Countdown Source: New Statesman Magazine Labels: Winston Churchill, Leo Amery, Adolf Hitler, Poland, Germany. Editor says, please note that large amounts of content have been repurposed from the article in the New Statesman Magazine.
~ The British had no army and were dependent on the French. The French mobilization scheme gave them no army for 15 days [the active divisions were disolved on mobilization and everyone shuttled around to create three divisions for every active one]. They then needed months to train these divisions up to some level of military quality. Even then ...
~ Actually the West is better off. Their rearment was only coming on line slowly in 1939. By late 1940 they catch up to Germany in air strength. By 1941 they catch up in quality of aircraft as well.
~ Issue isn't nerve [THAT is a separate debate]. Fact is the UK made a decision post-WW1 that they simply were never going to do massive continental war again and accordingly built a military for imperial missions and sea control. UK's financial position was a mess and it was cheaper this way. France in turn built an army around the unwillingness ... Read Moreof the French public to spend a lot of time on active duty [military service was cut to two year and then 18 months before arriving at 12 months]. At the same time they refused to fund a regular cadre any larger than Germany was allowed under Versailles. Net effect was an army that would need two weeks to mobilize and then be useless for months after at anything more complex than positional defense. These decisions were made when Germany was prostrate and financial/political concerns trumped future security threats. It then proved politically difficult to change this in the mid-30's when Hitler kicked over the traces of Versailles. Real rearment did not get started until 1937-38. It was still getting rolling in 1939. This is how the UK could lose a campaign and have more tanks and planes at the end than at the beginning.
~ This would have headed off WWII, at least as we know it. Poland lying between the then-allies Germany and the USSR as it did, without the British and French guarantees they'd have known that the jig was up, and likely handed back the Corridor and Danzig.
~ Chamberlain's reputation would be in even worse shape than it is in OTL.
~ Mr. Oakley has the key point. The West went to war for Chamberlain to avoid having a confidence vote that he would possibly lose.
~ I suspect that Poland will go the same way as Czechoslovakia regardless of what's in this Munich II
~ "Without the British and French guarantees, [Poland] would have known that the jig was up, and likely handed back the Corridor and Danzig"--and then, on some pretext or other, Hitler would have invaded anyway. He needed to do so to get ready to attack Russia, which--despite the pact of 1939--he intended to do sooner or later. The Molotov-Ribbentrop agrement was simply an effort on both sides to buy time for further military buildup.
~ Interesting Eric my assumption was that Poland like Czechoslovakia wanted Hitler beaten even if they had to survive an occupation. So I had assumed they would fight anyway having nothing to lose, and after Munich, no confidence in handing over the Polish Corridor. The Free City of Danzig was run by the League of Nations so I believe that wasnt in their gift. I think the Poles would have fought. Also, they had the Enigma Codes so perhaps would have tried to bargain with Stalin perhaps? Like our July 27th story.
~ I wonder how Stalin would handle a one-front, full-brunt war with Hitler. It might've been the end of the Soviets in 1943.
© Today in Alternate History, 2013-. All characters appearing in this work are fictitious. Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental.
