>>18071263
The better question is: Why did Britain give Poland a guarantee KNOWING it would cause a war and KNOWING that Poland would lose said war???

Why did Chamberlain, on the 15th March, declare that he didn't give a shit about German expansion and that the policy of appeasement would continue?

So-called "historians" talk about the guarantee to Poland, but very few talk about the Four-Power Alliance proposal of 21 March 1939. Poland rejected this BECAUSE they knew it was designed to cause a war.

But what's more interesting is that Chamberlain said just 4 or 5 days before this proposal, on 17th March,: "I am not prepared to engage this country in new unspecified commitments operating under conditions which cannot now be foreseen".

I DO NOT interpret that to mean "I only want to give guarantees that will definitely result in war".

The answer is found in, well, all the evidence, and particularly what Halifax said on 27 March at the Foreign Policy Committee meeting, and what Herbert Hoover wrote in "Freedom Betrayed": Roosevelt caused World War 2.

>>18072257
Except none of it makes sense, apart from the politically incorrect answer of "America caused WW2", then it all makes sense. Literally every question. For example "Why did Chamberlain give a guarantee to Poland AGAINST the advice of the British military?"

>>18072490
The secret protocol was added during the war, 1942 or something. They brow beat the Polish Ambassador into it for legal reasons.

It didn't stop the Poles from, rightly, pointing out that the British violated the original Treaty of 25 August in any case.