Should France And Britain Have Attacked Germany In 1939

[unmerged(11863)]

No, I'm not blaming it solely on alliances. I'm more blaming it on Poland for forming alliances. When I say 'Poland', I mean the people behind the leaderships. When I say the people behind the leadership, I mean the nobles. When I say nobles, I say szlachta.

If anything, at least 100,000 Poles wouldn't have died fighting for Napoleon. Had we fought for Aleksander, our relations with Russia would've been greatly improved. They weren't bad anyways, like I said, many patriotic movements favored an alliance with Russia in 1805. However, since we took Napoleon's side, or the 'West', all future uprisings were mottoed in such a way that the Poles expected foreign intervention. It never came. The Poles should've kept quiet until 1855 when the Tsar committed suicide after his debacle in the Crimean. If not, then the uprising of 1861 should've waited until... oh I forget when, but until the Balkan War. Moreover, these uprisings wouldn't have later been used as propaganda against Russia. The Poles fell under the impression that they are a purely Western country that does not belong with Russia. To some extent, they are a fairly different culture than Russia, but historicaly Poland never wanted to assimulate nor abide by Western influence to the same extent as the propaganda of the 20th and 19th century might've dictated.

I'm really not mad at anyone. I've recluded to reading Roman Dmowski's political manifestos that actualy are a sobering reminder that yes, Poles indeed had a sense of reality and understood politics on a much higher level; i.e, sought Russia as ally as a means to regain freedom in long run.

@Hardu
I like that quote.

 

[unmerged(13535)]

I'm Back ....

OK, I have searched high and low. I found a French copy of the Gamelin books but no translation. I have NOT found any original, western source document that supports a French timetable to attack. I still believe that it did not exist.

I see alot of Poles on this site. I see them posting alot. I hear all these impassioned pleas about their history and all the misinterpretation. They moan about this and moan about that. They dream up revisionist history at the same speed they claim everyone else is making it up. To back themselves up they offer their own proofs but no one else's. Their argument is a charade of make believe and desire. They want to believe that they actually meant something in the greater course of WW II. They desperately want someone else to blame for their country's rapid demise.

One of them accused Sire of using the I-Don't-Agree argument. Yet, the perpetually use it themsleves. They simply refuse to believe the obvious. The make the French out to be something they clearly were not. They make the Germans out to be less than they clearly were. They act like attacking the Siegfried Line is a trivial matter. The believe the movement of armies should take hours not days or weeks. They discount the ENTIRE FRENCH POPULATION'S philosophical bent towards the defnese. They dream up air superiority issues and talk about 28 casulaties like this is some valid point.

I wish I had time to go over all the reasons that France was incapable of going on the offensive. I wish I had time to go over the reason why if they had gone on the offensive they would have lost disasterously. I wish I could go over how there is not a shred of original documentation from ANY western source to back up the Polish claims but there is a MOUNTAIN of documentation to back up what actually happened. I have laid it all out before. No one can refute it, logically that is. I am sure that in the posts to follow they will claim all sorts of things. Watch them! There will be no proof. There will be no logical arguments. There will only be whining and words. Watch ... you will see.

For those of us that don't let our national pride and nationalist tendencies blind our logic and reason we can only continue in our quest. The quest doesn't seem big but maybe it is. Can they see the light? I don't think so.

 

[unmerged(6881)]

@Sokolowski, try department of Early Modern Foreign History on Jagiellonian University organized by prof. Gierowski once and now led by prof. Markiewicz if you feel disappointed . What do you think about some of the titles of doctorates like these: "English Policy towards Central-Eastern Europe during 7 Years War" or "Poles in the Austrian Army, 1772-1815"? Or "Political ways of thinking of nobility during Great Northern War" and biography of Izabela Czartoryska (in working now)?

There are dull assistents on every university but it doesn't mean that every assistent is stupid .

 

[unmerged(6881)]

@Shrike00

Well, I was looking for some books of Boris Vian once and couldn't find anything for a long time. Is that mean that they don't exist? No. It means that I haven't looked for good enough.

You know, there is great book (let me call it that way) of Art Spiegelman called "Maus". It's about Holocaust. But even now some people deny to admit that Holocaust happened. They want to see even single order signed by Hitler. No such source exist, so I'm asking you - had Holocaust happened or this is only our delusion?

After some hesitation I'm going to say it last time. Official series of documents are the most reliable source to the diplomatic history of 20th cen. Even Irving doesn't deny it.

 

[Halibutt]

Re: I'm Back ....

Originally posted by shrike00
OK, I have searched high and low. I found a French copy of the Gamelin books but no translation. I have NOT found any original, western source document that supports a French timetable to attack. I still believe that it did not exist.(...)

All right, Shrike. You've found a copy of Gamelins' diaries... have you actually read it? I don't mean the whole book, I only mean the part of spring 1939...
Cheers

 

[Dinsdale]

Originally posted by sokolowski
No, I'm not blaming it solely on alliances. I'm more blaming it on Poland for forming alliances. When I say 'Poland', I mean the people behind the leaderships. When I say the people behind the leadership, I mean the nobles. When I say nobles, I say szlachta.

They are usually the ones to blame

If anything, at least 100,000 Poles wouldn't have died fighting for Napoleon. Had we fought for Aleksander, our relations with Russia would've been greatly improved.

Improved to what point? Napoleon did at least form a rump Polish State, and that no doubt would have increased in size had he defeated Russia.

Would Russia have granted any form of self-government had Poles fought with the Tzar?

I'm really not mad at anyone. I've recluded to reading Roman Dmowski's political manifestos that actualy are a sobering reminder that yes, Poles indeed had a sense of reality and understood politics on a much higher level; i.e, sought Russia as ally as a means to regain freedom in long run.

An interesting position. Doubtless having close geographic allies is more desirable than distant.

As for Napoleon, Europe might have been a very different place had he dictated a peace to Russia during 1812.

 

[unmerged(2695)]

Re: I'm Back ....

Originally posted by shrike00
OK, I have searched high and low. I found a French copy of the Gamelin books but no translation. I have NOT found any original, western source document that supports a French timetable to attack. I still believe that it did not exist.

I think you should accept this as an historical fact. It's in all the general histories of the time and place:

To quote from the Swiss Lt.Col. Eddy Bauer's "The history of World War II" (London : Orbis, 1979)

"This made the French Army essentially reservost and defensive in character, and also meant that the preparation of the French war machine would be slow.

It is interesting to note that all this was not lost on the Polish High Command, and that Warsaw did everything that it could to mitigate the consequences. After the Fall of Warsaw in September 1939, General von Manstein, Chief-of-Staff of the German Army Group "South", had access to the Polish Army archives and unearthed some fascinatig material. In the first months of 1938,General Kutrzeba, the Director of the Polish Military Academy, had submitted his views on the defence of the nation to Marshal Rydz-Smigly. Kutrzeba's personal opinion was a sound one: he held that "it will be necessary to wait for help from Frane; Poland will have to rely on her own forces for six to eight weeks, even if the French react promtly".


The following year the same question was the subject of a 48-hour series of talks between General Gamelin and General Kasprzycki, the Polish War Minister, on May 16-17. A protocol emerged, contaning the following points:
"As soon as part of the French forces is available(about the 3rd day after France's general mobilisation), France will launch a series of progressive offensices with limited objectives.
"As soon as the main German attacks come to bear on Poland, France will launch an offensive with the bulk of her forces(not earlier than the 15th day after France's mobilisation)."
General Joseph Georges, commanding the French North-East Front, intervened in the discussion to give "some information on the Siegfried Line and on the artillery that will be needed to attack it". His estimate was that "to attack this line and achieve a breakthrough cannot be contemplated until the 17th day [after mobilisation"].
Gamelin then declared that three-quarters of the French Army could - before any operations were launched on the North-East Front - undertake an offensive between the Rhine and the Moselle on the 15th day after mobilisation. But as far as the actual course of the Polish campaign was concerned, this meant the day before Soviet Russia stabbed Poland in the back and attacked from the East ...

The relevant documents do not show that the Polish War Minister raised any ojection to Gamelin's programme. From this one can only conclude that Marshal Rudz-Smigly and the majority of his French colleagues had absolutely no conception of the paralysing effects of dive-bombing attacks or of the imganiative use of armoured forces. (This to be fair, applied to many German commanders.)

In addition to the paradoxical situation there was the incredible optimism of Gamelin himslef. Pierre-Etienne Flandin [on and off French Foreign Minister] recalled: "I met Gamelin on August 27. [1939]. He spoke in the most optimistic terms about the Polish forces. When I pointed out that [the Germans] had expressed their belief that they could crush Poland in threee weeks, Gamelin rebuked me for believing Hitler's predictions. 'I know the Polish Army prefectly,' he said. 'Its troops are excellent and its commanders beyond praide The Poles will hold out and we will lose no time in coming to their aid.' And when I remained sceptical and asked how we could help the Poles, he replied with great conviction: 'The Poles will hold out for at least six months and we will come to their aid via Rumania.' I left the War Ministry, horror stricken."

Operation "Saar", the plans for which were contained in a French Army Instruction of July 24, 1939, was the first of the limited offensives mentioned by Gamelin."(Bauer 1979:34-35).


This is the "conventional historical version of the events". It's been accepted as the truth since 1939. The Germans published quite a lot of captured French and Polish materials in 1939-40 to show that the Alies had intentionally forced Germany into a preventive defensive war.

The most interesting point is of course that everybody assumed that the Polish Army would hold out for six months.

And, to refer back to the origins of the discussion: The Frewnch did exactly what they promised to do: Launch limited offensives as soon as possible after the 3rd day of mobilisation.

The collapse of Polish resistance made the big offensive planned for Sep.17 an exercise in futility - not least because the Germans enjoyed air superiority.

 

[unmerged(11863)]

"The collapse of Polish resistance made the big offensive planned for Sep.17 an exercise in futility - not least because the Germans enjoyed air superiority."

Most probably, and I'm just guessing here, going on a limb, September 17th just happened to also be the date Russia joined the war against Poland. I have a feeling this might've kept France from fulfilling it's role and not simply 'the collapse of Polish resistance'. The last of the Polish 'resistance' ended on October 7th (maybe even 11th), 1939, so the fighting still held up, but not to a large scale. The final battles were fought by the retreating armies of Poznan and remnants of the eastern front reserves, against the Russians and pursuing German detachments.

@Vikouak;

Sorry, I haven't yet read about these articles but I did read a book which had a compilation of many famous works on the Polish enlightment in the 18th Century from various members of the Jagiellonian university and Warsaw. Just happened to have a popular article on the Libertum Veto, and how it wasn't all that terrible (67% of Seyms did ratify laws from 1651 to 1696... only a 10% drop from before the veto). I can actualy get up and find this book right now as I'm in the library, but someone will take my computer spot because people are in line.
I recommend 'Dying with an Enlighttening Fall', apart from the strange title, it's a very good book assessing 18th C German philosophy regarding the Poles. This book concludes, and very rightly so, that since Poland was the country that set the 'bad example' for Germans, the popular notion was that Poland is a bad country. When the Poles did pass advanced reforms that were later adopted in Germany, the prevailing thought on Poland was in a lot of conflict. However, since Rzeczpospolita eventually fell, Germans returned to their contemporary idealogy of the Poles, regardless of the fact that many of their reforms after the disaster at Jena, were mere reflections (maybe not reflections, but slightly more progressive versions) of previous Polish reforms passed between 1773 and 1791. The author is David Pickus.

Currently I'm reading memoirs of Adam Czartoryski, and 'Meanings and Uses of Polish History' by Adam Bromke. This latter one is very gratifying. I also read 'The last King of Poland' by Adam Zamoyski; fine book. I never believed that Poniatowski was a bad king, this book proved me correct. This and many other of my intuitive hypothesis have been proven correct by one book or another. I'm boasting, I apologize.

@Dinsdale

Not only would he grant us self-government, as he did after the Congress of Vienna (we had our own constitution and such), but he would return much of our land. Adam Czartoryski was one of his closest advisors who sought an allied union between a future Poland and Russia. There were even talks about forming a Lithuanian state had the war of 1812 not interrupted Czartoryski's plans. Even Jozef Poniatowski was willing to fight for Russia for the sake of a Polish state... had it not been for the damn Polish legions, Gosh damn it.
You have to realize that even Tsar Paul, as crazy as he was, was ashamed of his mother dividing up Poland like she did.
Tadeusz Kosciuszko became close friends with Aleksander and was able to persuade Aleksander to grant Poland an English style government after 1815. I believe Kosciuszko was one of the smarter Poles at the time so his dislike for Napoleon must've been justified. His predictions and assumptions proved true; Napoleon simply used the Poles as pawns, taking advantage of their will to fight for Poland. After all, the remaining 20,000 or so at Leipzing were all massacred for the sake of guarding the retreating French army. 'We spilled blood, you only shed a tear'.

Finally, since history books injustice by abstaining from writing about the Polish cause, and when they do they make mistakes everywhere, I don't have any reason to be satisfied with what happened then.

The alliance between Poland and Russia is not so much a question of geography (though it's a very big one like I already mentioned), it's also a question of blood. A Russian and a Pole are much closer than a Pole and a German. Moreover, no Russian can ever claim superiority due to race... as ridiculous as that is. It's simply human nature, we naturally look down on some people. Regardless of whether we're justified or not, we do this; and as sincere and honest as some West-Polish relations are, Poland will always be looked down up by the West. That is, of course, until Poles stop licking butt and seriously plan the modernization of the state by fixing the infrastructure. This, of course, will likely not happen as nobody cares about long term goals. But hey, had they started to improve roads, modernize factories, scale down excess production, invest in state capital, all back in 1990, by now it would've been in much better shape. Now you have a country that has lots of new modern fluff, actualy looks like a 'western country' in some areas, but underneath it all, it's still backward as heck. The words of my signature still apply today, but no-one is listening.

Regards

 

[pithorr]

Re: Re: I'm Back ....

Originally posted by Hardu
I think you should accept this as an historical fact. It's in all the general histories of the time and place:

To quote from the Swiss Lt.Col. Eddy Bauer's "The history of World War II" (London : Orbis, 1979)

"This made the French Army essentially reservost and defensive in character, and also meant that the preparation of the French war machine would be slow.

It is interesting to note that all this was not lost on the Polish High Command, and that Warsaw did everything that it could to mitigate the consequences. After the Fall of Warsaw in September 1939, General von Manstein, Chief-of-Staff of the German Army Group "South", had access to the Polish Army archives and unearthed some fascinatig material. In the first months of 1938,General Kutrzeba, the Director of the Polish Military Academy, had submitted his views on the defence of the nation to Marshal Rydz-Smigly. Kutrzeba's personal opinion was a sound one: he held that "it will be necessary to wait for help from Frane; Poland will have to rely on her own forces for six to eight weeks, even if the French react promtly".


The following year the same question was the subject of a 48-hour series of talks between General Gamelin and General Kasprzycki, the Polish War Minister, on May 16-17. A protocol emerged, contaning the following points:
"As soon as part of the French forces is available(about the 3rd day after France's general mobilisation), France will launch a series of progressive offensices with limited objectives.
"As soon as the main German attacks come to bear on Poland, France will launch an offensive with the bulk of her forces(not earlier than the 15th day after France's mobilisation)."
General Joseph Georges, commanding the French North-East Front, intervened in the discussion to give "some information on the Siegfried Line and on the artillery that will be needed to attack it". His estimate was that "to attack this line and achieve a breakthrough cannot be contemplated until the 17th day [after mobilisation"].
Gamelin then declared that three-quarters of the French Army could - before any operations were launched on the North-East Front - undertake an offensive between the Rhine and the Moselle on the 15th day after mobilisation. But as far as the actual course of the Polish campaign was concerned, this meant the day before Soviet Russia stabbed Poland in the back and attacked from the East ...

The relevant documents do not show that the Polish War Minister raised any ojection to Gamelin's programme. From this one can only conclude that Marshal Rudz-Smigly and the majority of his French colleagues had absolutely no conception of the paralysing effects of dive-bombing attacks or of the imganiative use of armoured forces. (This to be fair, applied to many German commanders.)

In addition to the paradoxical situation there was the incredible optimism of Gamelin himslef. Pierre-Etienne Flandin [on and off French Foreign Minister] recalled: "I met Gamelin on August 27. [1939]. He spoke in the most optimistic terms about the Polish forces. When I pointed out that [the Germans] had expressed their belief that they could crush Poland in threee weeks, Gamelin rebuked me for believing Hitler's predictions. 'I know the Polish Army prefectly,' he said. 'Its troops are excellent and its commanders beyond praide The Poles will hold out and we will lose no time in coming to their aid.' And when I remained sceptical and asked how we could help the Poles, he replied with great conviction: 'The Poles will hold out for at least six months and we will come to their aid via Rumania.' I left the War Ministry, horror stricken."

Operation "Saar", the plans for which were contained in a French Army Instruction of July 24, 1939, was the first of the limited offensives mentioned by Gamelin."(Bauer 1979:34-35).


This is the "conventional historical version of the events". It's been accepted as the truth since 1939. The Germans published quite a lot of captured French and Polish materials in 1939-40 to show that the Alies had intentionally forced Germany into a preventive defensive war.

The most interesting point is of course that everybody assumed that the Polish Army would hold out for six months.

And, to refer back to the origins of the discussion: The Frewnch did exactly what they promised to do: Launch limited offensives as soon as possible after the 3rd day of mobilisation.

The collapse of Polish resistance made the big offensive planned for Sep.17 an exercise in futility - not least because the Germans enjoyed air superiority.

Well, I must say it is probably most reasonable explanation of the problem we brought up...
However I am not convinced that Gamelin would commence a promised big offensive even if Poland would hold for longer

 

[unmerged(6881)]

@Sokolowski

Yes, Liberum Veto is usually misinterpreted as it turned out not as it should be. It was really not so terrible as it is usually viewed . But Decline of Poland is a great mystery for many. Since no simple explanation exist, "Liberum Veto" was made that way to appease our appetite for easy knowledge.

Try "Stanis³aw August Poniatowski" of prof. Zienkowska - very good and sometimes controversial book. Works of prof. Salmonowicz (like biography of Frederick the Great) are valuable too. Of course I recommend you bographies of August II and August III by prof. Staszewski. You may want to check his articles too as he introduce the new interpretation of 18th cen. in Poland with very redefined Age of Enlightement. There are some good books related to the new modernistic/mentality school like "The World of ministers of August II" by A.L Sowa or any book of prof. Rok and doctor Ronikier. They deals with mentality of people who lived in 18th cen. Poland.

Have you tried great source about Polish culture, flaws and customs by Jêdrzej Kitowicz?

I would be not so hasty about Napoleon and Alexander. Czartoryski was his close frined but about 1805 that friendship was all the gone cause Alexander realised that his plans about modernization of Russia are just impossible to introduce in such a backward country. Poland was the place for experiment for him but since he didn't want to make experiments anymore, then he didn't paid attention to Czartoryski. Read the memoirs of prince once more, you will spot his disappointment about Russia and that Czartoryski family was not granted kingship.

On the other hand Napoleon offered Illiria to Austria for Austrian Third Partition lands to be returned to Principality of Warsaw. No one in history ever made such a grant for the country that was not his national land.

I would rather blame our usual divisions. Leaders should part with one side but they dispersed and in fact Poland was lost.

Kosciuszko's bad feelings about Napoleon was not only because of Poland. He believed that Napoleon betrayed Revolution and is the bloody hegemon/tyrant forseen earlier who will destroy any achievements of Revolution.

 

[unmerged(13535)]

Just like I said ....

I rest my case ...... Hardu makes a passioned and logical seeming argument to support his case and provides NOT A SHRED OF PROOF.

Secondary sources do not count as proof. What are Mr. Bauer's sources for his work? I can find books that say the Holocaust didn't happen but guess what it did. Just because its in print doesn't make it true. Find me one ORIGINAL source that mentions anything about what you keep CLAIMING to be fact and I might believe you. Also, the use by Mr. Bauer of Flandin as a source is almost laughable. Flandin was a French politician writing to cover his own arse when it was all the rage to blame Gamelin for the French collapse. It is still a secondary source and worse it would seem to be a very biased and suspect source. If this is an example of Bauer's work, I am not sure even his secondary anlysis is valid.

I seem to recall that common scientific thought for over 1000 years was that the sun revolved around the earth. In fact you were considered insane for saying it wasn't true. Then these guys Copernicus and Galileo proved otherwise. So your argument that it is an accepted historical fact since 1939, which I don't agree with, doesn't hold water either.

Halibut - Ummm ...they were in French so no I didn't read the diaries. I only found a copy in French. I don't speak French.

vilkouak - I have already mentioned it but I wanted to elaborate on your arguement about the proof of the holocaust. There can be no doubt that the holocaust happened. There is plenty of original documentation to prove it. There are memos describing it, debating it, planning it, and ordering it. I have seen many of them. Your argument has nothing to do with whether the Holocaust happened. You only argue that Hitler MAY not have ordered it since there is no proof of this. That's two different things. There is clear physical, original documentation that the Holocaust happened. There is not clear proof that Hitler himself ordered it. (Although with hinsight we can most properly conclude that he did) These two arguments are not mutually supportive. To apply this to our argument about the French response to Poland's invasion isn't clear. Are you trying to say that France had an obligation even if there isn't proof? I'm not sure how this is relevant to our discussion since everyone here arguing for Poland's case is claiming there is eveidence. Granted its mysterious, mythical and only from Polish sources but it sure exists.


Once again we are left with NO PROOF.

 

[Dark Knight]

Please remain civil, everyone.

 

[pithorr]

Shrike, what are you talking about?
It is not a court hall, only the loose exchange of our views for the matter. What do you need - ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS?
I propose you to learn French, read your Gamelin diaries and you can start with your smart judgements then.

 

[Halibutt]

Originally posted by pithorr
Shrike, what are you talking about?
It is not a court hall, only the loose exchange of our views for the matter. What do you need - ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS?
I propose you to learn French, read your Gamelin diaries and you can start with your smart judgements then.

Well said. Shrike, if you really don't believe - I can only suggest you learn french or polish and read the documents yourself. Apparently, not every single piece of historical document has been translated to english, sometimes you have to rely on other language sources. Or deny the facts.
The choice is yours.
Cheers

 

[unmerged(5120)]

Shrike, were the Gamelin's memoirs you found online? I only have the last volume, about WWII itself and I'd be much interested in the previous ones.

 

[unmerged(2695)]

Re: Just like I said ....

Originally posted by shrike00
I rest my case ...... Hardu makes a passioned and logical seeming argument to support his case and provides NOT A SHRED OF PROOF.

Secondary sources do not count as proof. What are Mr. Bauer's sources for his work? I can find books that say the Holocaust didn't happen but guess what it did. Just because its in print doesn't make it true. Find me one ORIGINAL source that mentions anything about what you keep CLAIMING to be fact and I might believe you. Also, the use by Mr. Bauer of Flandin as a source is almost laughable. Flandin was a French politician writing to cover his own arse when it was all the rage to blame Gamelin for the French collapse. It is still a secondary source and worse it would seem to be a very biased and suspect source. If this is an example of Bauer's work, I am not sure even his secondary anlysis is valid.

I seem to recall that common scientific thought for over 1000 years was that the sun revolved around the earth. In fact you were considered insane for saying it wasn't true. Then these guys Copernicus and Galileo proved otherwise. So your argument that it is an accepted historical fact since 1939, which I don't agree with, doesn't hold water either.

Halibut - Ummm ...they were in French so no I didn't read the diaries. I only found a copy in French. I don't speak French.

vilkouak - I have already mentioned it but I wanted to elaborate on your arguement about the proof of the holocaust. There can be no doubt that the holocaust happened. There is plenty of original documentation to prove it. There are memos describing it, debating it, planning it, and ordering it. I have seen many of them. Your argument has nothing to do with whether the Holocaust happened. You only argue that Hitler MAY not have ordered it since there is no proof of this. That's two different things. There is clear physical, original documentation that the Holocaust happened. There is not clear proof that Hitler himself ordered it. (Although with hinsight we can most properly conclude that he did) These two arguments are not mutually supportive. To apply this to our argument about the French response to Poland's invasion isn't clear. Are you trying to say that France had an obligation even if there isn't proof? I'm not sure how this is relevant to our discussion since everyone here arguing for Poland's case is claiming there is eveidence. Granted its mysterious, mythical and only from Polish sources but it sure exists.


Once again we are left with NO PROOF.

OK, for one thing the title of the author is Lt.Col., not "Mr" Bauer. Secondly, he was chief of the Swiss Army historical branch. I'm willing to accept his words and the authentivity of the documents on which his narrative is based.


Hypercritcism is sometimes a bore. And somewhat puerile.
It is strange how accepted senquences of events suddenly become contested. You argue that the French never committed themselves to military action to aid the Poles. And since you have no "proof" in your possession you maintain that every narrative stating as a matter of fact that there wqas such a committment is in essence a lie. This without meeting the first requirement for being a historian: The ability to read the sources.

By your admission you cannot ever know the truth because all you have to go by will be translations.

Which means that you will not be able to use the major source for the French debacle of 1940: The Riom trials transcripts.

 

[unmerged(13535)]

Hardu ....

You have the easier task Hardu. You have to prove a positive ... that a document exists that actually confirmes this belief that everyone has. You are asking me to prove a negative ... that such a document does not exist. Clearly I have the much harder goal.

I think I have done an adequate job of research. In this thread and in another I have posted or given links to the entire seris of French diplomatic correspondence for the period in question. There is no document. I have scanned the English and Italian series of documents to find even a reference to such proof and have found none. I looked through the collected speeches of several of the major players and have found no reference to such a document. The only source I have found that I have not been ablt to look into are the diaries of Gamelin. I'm not even sure I have the complete set. It seems a little misplacesdto say that I have failed to "read the sources" as you put it. In fact I have done more original documentation work on this issue than anyone else has done or at least has mentioned.

What is indeed hilarious about your remarks is that you fail in your own mark as a historian. Any historian worth the word knows that original sources are much better than secondary sources. I don't care how good "Mr." (Like Lt. Col makes him a better historian?) Bauer is of a historian. Unless he has origianl documentation to back it up, it is opinion .... not FACT.

It seems strange to me that no one can answer me this question ... If "every narrative" espouses this "accepted" line of thought as you say ... why can no one who has read these works find the source from which they get their information? If it is in all the history books why doesn't one person look in the bibliography? They are either making it up (not likely), accepting a common thought as fact (likely), or are very bad historians (not likely). If it is so common a thought then why isn't the source for this "common" thought available? Where did this common thought come from?

Did you pay attention to my Galileo example at all. Just because an idea is common thought that does NOT mean it is fact. In America the black man was considered by most to be less than the white for hundreds of years, does that make it fact? No. The world was considered flat by many for hundreds of years; does that make it fact? No. Nobody believed the biblical Hittites existed as a people until archeologists found evidence. I can go on forever about misplaced "commom" or "accepted" ideas.

I want to make clear that I am open minded. I am not unquestionably tied to my idea at the expense of reason. I believe that I am right, of course, since I think the evidence points my way. However, if any document could be found supporting your claim then I would obviously be proven wrong. That is all I ask for ... where did this "common", "accepted" idea come from. There HAS to be a reason if so many people truly believe this. Surely even you cannot argue that it is at least odd that a document that even eludes to it has not been found from a western source. Doesn't that make you at least question slightly the validity of your "accepted" idea?

 

[Halibutt]

I have posted or given links to the entire seris of French diplomatic correspondence for the period in question. There is no document.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but AFAIR you have not. You have posted only the link to a shortened version that concentrates mostly on diplomatical correspondence between Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Paris and various french embassies. Note that the talks of May 1939 were held in Paris (no embassy involved anyhow) between the generals and not between the diplomats. Moreover, the reference given in "Polsko-Francuski sojusz wojskowy" is the Documents diplomatiques francaises" volume XVI. I can't remember you posting any link to a site that big.

I'm afraid the only person to help us now (as you don't believe my polish sources) is Sire Enaique. He is the only person to live in France and who (I suppose) speaks french. However, if you are a follower of saint Thomas and have to see the proof for yourself, with your own eyes - tell us now.
Cheers

 

[unmerged(2695)]

Shrike,

You personally do not believe in any of the narratives from the secondary literature because you have not seen the sources.

Damn, you can't read the sources.

Sometimes you just have to take the work of other historians at face value - in particular when all concur.

But, as of 1977, the major source for the information on the military talks between Poland and France on May 15 to 21 1939 seems to have been Gamelin's memoirs. That is at least the only one quoted by Anthony Adamthwaite in "France and the coming of the second World War, 1936-1939 (London : Cass, 1977).


Just a slight edit --- Dark Knight

 

[unmerged(11863)]

@vilkouak

Interesting info. Actualy, I think Turkey proposed something like this even before Napoleon. After the Russo-Turkish war at the time of the Confederation of Bar, Turkey in full respect to Poland, announced that it was willing to cede certain parts of its land to Russia/Austria (?) as long as Poland was not partitioned. It's somewhere. I can't find the book where it says this but as soon as I do, I'll post in more detail.
I'll hit Czartoryski's biography a bit more tomorrow as currently I'm about to fall asleep... it's almost 1am here.

Regards