Did the British war guarantee to Poland led to WWII?

[Tahuti]

Shortly after Hitler broke the treaty of Munich by destroying Czechoslovakia, Britain issued a war guarantee to Poland in which they swore to stand by it should it ever be attacked by Germany.

Now, what do you think would have happened had Britain not done it? Would there be no WWII? Would France and all of Western Europe have been spared German occupation? Or would Hitler have stabbed Britain and France in the back eventually - presumably after he was finished with the USSR?

 

[vonbach]

WW2 never even would have taken place. At least not until the Soviets attacked.
The last thing Hitler wanted was a war with Western Europe.

 

[Leoreth]

Your question implies the widespread notion that Hitler was out to "conquer the world", which is not the case. So any "backstabbing" on the Western powers would have only happened if it served his interests, given that his main goal was Lebensraum in the east. With a truely neutral France and GB, I don't see why he should do so.

However, as far as I know, the French-Polish alliance was much stronger than the British guarantee, and one of the key aspects of French foreign policy to contain Germany. So even without the British, France would be very likely to honor its alliance with Poland.

I'd still call that a world war, even with the British not involved (at first) in Europe, given that the whole Pacific theatre remains unchanged.

 

[Winner]

WW2 never even would have taken place. At least not until the Soviets attacked.
The last thing Hitler wanted was a war with Western Europe.

Yes, he was working so hard to avoid it... The war was inevitable at some point - either that, or the Western powers would have to completely give up on their aspirations and interests on the continent, because Hitler would have settled for nothing less. Also, being the idiot he was, he'd probably have started bleating about the rights of ethnic Germans in Alsace-Lorraine and Eupen-Malmedy. Unless France and Belgium had gone totally insane and decided to repeat the Munich fiasco on an even larger scale, there would have been war.

The Western powers should have invaded Germany in 1933, or 1936, or 1938 at the latest.

 

[LightSpectra]

WW2 never even would have taken place. At least not until the Soviets attacked.
The last thing Hitler wanted was a war with Western Europe.

Hi, I'd just like to bring attention to the fact that nobody has to respond to this person because he currently has not responded to counter-claims made in this thread about the exact same subject.

 

[Tahuti]

Your question implies the widespread notion that Hitler was out to "conquer the world", which is not the case.

Actually, that was the among the things I questioned, in a skeptical way. I'd just curious what others think.

However, as far as I know, the French-Polish alliance was much stronger than the British guarantee, and one of the key aspects of French foreign policy to contain Germany. So even without the British, France would be very likely to honor its alliance with Poland.

I don't think it was politically conceivable at the time that Britain would abandon France anyway. Since WWI, British foreign policy at the time was about preventing the creation of a hegemon over continental Europe. It's the main reason why Britain continued to fight WWII, even in the face German white peace offers.

I'd still call that a world war, even with the British not involved (at first) in Europe, given that the whole Pacific theatre remains unchanged.

I am willing to doubt that. Without Britain being distracted by Germany and Italy, Japan certainly wouldn't have rampaged the Pacific the way they did historically. Without Japan waging war in the Pacific, the US wouldn't have any reason to get involved as well.

 

[aronnax]

I am willing to doubt that. Without Britain being distracted by Germany and Italy, Japan certainly wouldn't have rampaged the Pacific the way they did historically. Without Japan waging war in the Pacific, the US wouldn't have any reason to get involved as well.

On Japan's list-of-reasons to invade South East Asia, "Britain is distracted" wasn't the main reason they decided to pounce.

 

[Tahuti]

Please, use some common sense: Without Germany and Italy to worry about, Britain could basically bang their full weight against Japan. Do you really think the Japanese military was that suicidal?

 

[LightSpectra]

Do you really think the Japanese military was that suicidal?

Um, yes? Need I remind you they declared war on the United States while they were still at war with Britain and also in a land war with China flanked by the Soviet Union? And they didn't surrender until after their navy was almost completely obliterated and their only hope (better-than-nothing peace terms) was shattered?

 

[aronnax]

Please, use some common sense: Without Germany and Italy to worry about, Britain could basically bang their full weight against Japan. Do you really think the Japanese military was that suicidal?

Pretty much. Japan's entire war campaign was fueled mainly by the refusal to surrender and surviving a trade/resource deficit.

It they were made enough to bomb Pearl Harbour in the original timeline, I don't see why, in an effort to sustain themselves after America began her trade embargo, they wouldn't invade SEA with an un-distracted Britain.

The original plan for Pearl Harbour was simply:
1) Bomb them
2) Fortify all the islands
3) Wear the Americans down trying to recapture them
4) Hope that the War exhaustion will result in a negotiated peace where they get to keep parts of China.

That plan was suicidal. And they still went with it.
In fact, assuming that they don't bomb Pearl Harbour, this version of WWII seems less suicidal as Britain is two oceans, two seas and one Canal away from SEA, who can't possibly move hundred of thousands of soldiers are sailors half way around the world, needing it as some deterrent to Germany. As compared to a relatively Westward direction from Pearl Harbour.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Do you really think the Japanese military was that suicidal?

 

[North King]

Waiwaiwaiwaiwait. So if two countries form an alliance and someone attacks one of those nations, the resulting war is the allies fault? I know new and exciting ideas in history are new and exciting, but when said new and exciting idea gets you to apologism for genocidal maniacs, you should probably have realized somewhere along the line that your reasoning was flawed.

 

[Tahuti]

Ok, you guys make a good case in that Japan was pretty much doomed from the beginning because they had suicidal war plans they would carry out no matter what.

North King: War is never about morality, but about improving your country's standing in the world. The Allied involvement in WWII was no different.
Remember that WWII all started for a stupid city on the baltic coast: Germany wanted to annex Danzig, Poland didn't let them so Germany invaded Poland with Britain declaring war against Germany in retalliation. And so it was that WWII began, nothing else.

Britain simply couldn't stand idly by, because it would lose credibility because of it's war guarantee: They had to fight as a matter of honour, not for the love of mankind. The point of this entire thread is whether Germany would stab Britain and France in the back eventually, or not, had Britain not allied with Poland.

 

[aronnax]

North King: War is never about morality, but about improving your country's standing in the world. The Allied involvement in WWII was no different.
Remember that WWII all started for a stupid city on the baltic coast: Germany wanted to annex Danzig, Poland didn't let them so Germany invaded Poland with Britain declaring war against Germany in retalliation. And so it was that WWII began, nothing else.

Britain simply couldn't stand idly by, because it would lose credibility because of it's war guarantee: They had to fight as a matter of honour, not for the love of mankind. The point of this entire thread is whether Germany would stab Britain and France in the back eventually, or not, had Britain not allied with Poland.

WWII didn't start because of 'a stupid city on the Baltic Coast'. WWII started because the aims of Nazi Germany was to destroy Poland and claim her lands and more Slavic lands for their policy of "Lebensraum", destroy the power of Communism AKA, break the Treaty of Versailles, take out the Soviet Union and recast Europe in their image of Supreme Ayran rule for a 1000 years. Even if Poland handed Danzig over, Hitler would have found some way or some reason to invade Poland. He wasn't rearming Germany to scare the Allies to accept his demands, he was rearming to conquer Europe.

 

[LightSpectra]

In addition to the above, Britain most definitely didn't enter World War II as a matter of honor. Also, the Machiavellian view of war isn't the only one. Sometimes, war is indeed about morality.

 

[Tahuti]

Arronax: Of course Hitler wanted Lebensraum in the East; that was his eventual goal. The point was that it started with Danzig. Hitler would've invaded Poland anyhow, sure, but that's not the point, as the war began with Danzig (which was, may I say, an independent city-state at the time, and not Polish). That whole Danzig thing gave the Nazis a false semblance of good behavior they wouldn't have had they invaded Poland all of the sudden.

LightSpectra: That would be quite inconsistent with the policy of appeasement: If this was a matter of morality, the war would have been fought much earlier. Alas, I don't think Britain would have issued the war guarantee if they knew beforehand Poland was going to war with Germany and certainly if they knew it would lead to a war that in turn would lead to the occupation of France.

It true though that the war eventually became a matter of life and death - and not just honor - for Britain after the fall of France, perhaps even the fall of Poland.

 

[LightSpectra]

LightSpectra: That would be quite inconsistent with the policy of appeasement: If this was a matter of morality, the war would have been fought much earlier.

Actually, that was the very basis of appeasement: instead of guaranteeing British and French hegemony over Western Europe through a preemptive attack, they decided to try to avoid bloodshed by making concessions to Germany. It was a bad idea, of course, but if the only purpose of war is to strengthen national interests, then doubtlessly the war would've occurred in 1936 over Anschluss, if not sooner over re-armament.

Alas, I don't think Britain would have issued the war guarantee if they knew beforehand Poland was going to war with Germany and certainly if they knew it would lead to a war that in turn would lead to the occupation of France.

The purpose of the guarantee was to prevent war: they didn't think Hitler was stupid or insane enough to drag two countries both more powerful than Germany into a continental war. That France was defeated in 1940 was due to an insane amount of luck on Manstein's and Guderian's part, and not foreseen by anybody.

 

[red_elk]

IMO, WW2 would have happened regardless of British guarantees to Poland, but its scenario could be different. Without guarantees, Poland would be less self-confident in negotiations with Germany and possibly would be forced to make concessions - similar to Czechoslovakia case. But this is very much dependent on the other things too, primarily on position of France.

 

[North King]

North King: War is never about morality, but about improving your country's standing in the world. The Allied involvement in WWII was no different.
Remember that WWII all started for a stupid city on the baltic coast: Germany wanted to annex Danzig, Poland didn't let them so Germany invaded Poland with Britain declaring war against Germany in retalliation. And so it was that WWII began, nothing else.

Britain simply couldn't stand idly by, because it would lose credibility because of it's war guarantee: They had to fight as a matter of honour, not for the love of mankind. The point of this entire thread is whether Germany would stab Britain and France in the back eventually, or not, had Britain not allied with Poland.

You're making a lot of noise here, but if you're going for the utterly pragmatic view of war, then the idea that the war is anyone's "fault" is completely untenable. Warfare is simply another method of imposing one's power on the world? Then warfare is simply something that arises due to preexisting conditions in the world, a natural order of human events, unavoidable as it comes out of human developments. German decided to invade because there was no other recourse for a country hemmed in on all sides; England, France, and Russia had to crush them in the previous world war in order to project their power, and, as expressed in the other thread, it just goes back and back and back until you're to someone hitting someone else with an antelope femur.

Or, you could take much simpler, ultimately less silly view that people have agency, and that the people who literally invaded a nation before anyone else was engaging in hostilities are the cause of the resulting war.

 

[Dachs]

Waiwaiwaiwaiwait. So if two countries form an alliance and someone attacks one of those nations, the resulting war is the allies fault? I know new and exciting ideas in history are new and exciting, but when said new and exciting idea gets you to apologism for genocidal maniacs, you should probably have realized somewhere along the line that your reasoning was flawed.

The nice thing is that the Hitler-Poland thing is fairly clear-cut. (A. J. P. Taylor, of course, is an utter loon.) Austria-Serbia and Basically Everybody-Napoleon is less so.