Anonymous
6/11/2025, 11:42:09 PM
No.17755753
>>17755722
>If Poland attacked Danzig then that is why. He would look a mong, as any leader would, if they did nothing after a foreign nation attacked one of their cities.
Lol correction; Danzig wasnt one of "their" cities any more than Åland is one of Swedens islands.
Also, I can still see this as far better optics for Germany from a diplomatic perspective if the Germans would embrace a long-term dispute. Again, it would be a stark callback to the French occupation of the Ruhr if Poland actually tried to militarily enforce Danzig status.
Even the Poles realised they likely wouldnt be able to hold on to Danzig forever, hence why they built Gdynia.
>should allow Chamberlain to save face and not plunge Europe into war.
And I am in the opnion that Chamberlain did not want war either, the guarantee was an attempt to prevent war while simultaniously prevent German expnasionism, just as appeasement was. Appeasement wasnt effective so they tried something else.
The British may very well have thought that Germany would back down if Britain gave guarantees to Poland, that it wasnt supposed to "bait" Germany. Had Germany backed down, there was nothing but further diplomacy to go on from there, and Germany absolutely could have attempted more diplomacy, I can think of a great number of actions that could have been tried and tested. Everyone who isnt insane should see further attempts as preferable to war. The only time war ís justified is if there is urgency that limits window of diplomacy, but in the case of Danzig there was no urgnecy so great or threatening that it justified war specifically in 1939.
>If Poland attacked Danzig then that is why. He would look a mong, as any leader would, if they did nothing after a foreign nation attacked one of their cities.
Lol correction; Danzig wasnt one of "their" cities any more than Åland is one of Swedens islands.
Also, I can still see this as far better optics for Germany from a diplomatic perspective if the Germans would embrace a long-term dispute. Again, it would be a stark callback to the French occupation of the Ruhr if Poland actually tried to militarily enforce Danzig status.
Even the Poles realised they likely wouldnt be able to hold on to Danzig forever, hence why they built Gdynia.
>should allow Chamberlain to save face and not plunge Europe into war.
And I am in the opnion that Chamberlain did not want war either, the guarantee was an attempt to prevent war while simultaniously prevent German expnasionism, just as appeasement was. Appeasement wasnt effective so they tried something else.
The British may very well have thought that Germany would back down if Britain gave guarantees to Poland, that it wasnt supposed to "bait" Germany. Had Germany backed down, there was nothing but further diplomacy to go on from there, and Germany absolutely could have attempted more diplomacy, I can think of a great number of actions that could have been tried and tested. Everyone who isnt insane should see further attempts as preferable to war. The only time war ís justified is if there is urgency that limits window of diplomacy, but in the case of Danzig there was no urgnecy so great or threatening that it justified war specifically in 1939.