"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message ...
"Michael Petukhov" wrote in message
om...
"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...
"Michael Petukhov" wrote in message
om...


(2) Should one of the Contracting Powers become engaged in
hostilities
with a European Power in consequence of action by that Power which
threatened the independence or neutrality of another European
State in
such a way as to constitute a clear menace to the security of that
Contracting Party, the provisions of Article 1 will apply, without
prejudice, however, to the rights of the other European State
concerned.

WOW! "another European State" now.
------------------


Irony Mode On
Gee what a surprise when the original treaty referred to
'a European State' it really meant 'a European State'

Exactly. according to this SECRET PROTOCOL Britain and Poland agreed
to start aggresive war against "a European State" using ANY action
of that "a European State".


Try again Michael , the agreement states clearly that this only applies
if the action of that European states threatens the security of either
Britain or Poland.

Too wide range of cases to be true defensive pact.

In your opinion

Not only. No government in a good mind would enter a
devensive pact with other goverment which can be triggered
by ANY action of third party goverment. It is basurd and nonsense,
unless of course this (first goverment) knew in advance that it
was not going to do anything to fulfil its obligations.


Who will decide what is threat and what is not?
Imagine for a moment if Poland invaded Lithuania
in 1939 and USSR moved forces to protect
it against Poland would it "threatens the security of
either Britain or Poland"?

Possibly but then that would not have happened
as a result of another European Nation but of
Poland which would give Britain an out.

Sure? Poland betraied France at least three times
in 38-39 having a defencive deal with France and
despite of all French efforts. After all that what
was a basis to trust Poland at all?



Very probable scenario
in 1939 by the way. Poles tried actually ones and were
stoped by strong Stalin reaction only. I think this is
why Mr. Halifax signed that mutual assistence pact
with (Keith note) THE SECRET PROTOCOL. His hopes for
big war in eastern europe of all against USSR were quite
real.

That is possibly the silliest statement ever posted in this
newsgroup.

Nevertheless it is most common views on the eurpean "real
politics" here on east. You do not like that? Well...
We do not expect any better from our "partners".

The one thing that characterised Chamberlain's
government was the view that virtually anything was preferable
to fighting a war.

But one thing, big war between all and USSR in 1939.
Hey Keith, what's was the british goal until sept 39.
Right?


In august 1939 there were two states who were practicing
aggresive attacks against its neibours namely Germany and
Poland, and both were united in pathological hate of USSR.


Oh puleeze, it wasnt Poland that invaded Lituania, Latvia, Estonia
and Finland.

Lituania, Latvia, Estonia officially invited russian army and
than voted on referendum to join USSR. All the rest are just
a empty talks. Actually all British colonies were captured
even without such kind of formalities. Nobody even asked local
population opinions.

In any case it was in 1940 when the WWII was going on. Britain
army had already invaded many foreign countries and even
attacked French NAVY, its former ally. I see no reasons
why we russians should behaive any better when
enemies were in front of us.

In 1939, official peace time, as I said there were two states
who were practicing aggresive attacks against its neibours
namely Germany and Poland. With both of them British goverment
was trying to make some sort of tricky deals.


Stalin signed a defensive pact with Hitler.

That allowed him to 'defensively' invade and annexe the
Baltic States,

In 1940 and with all neccessary formalities, like
deal to invite russian army and referendum.
No matter what but all formalities were done
properly.

Finland

It was not annexed, although it could be. Why is that?
We just moved borders a bit further from Leningrad
and leased a few islands to protect Leningrad
from the sea. BTW these borders are internationally
accepted now including by UK.

and Poland

Polish state voluntarily seased to exist on Sept 16
when Polish goverment cowardly escaped to Rumania.
If not USSR germany would occupy that part of Poland.
So what choice Stalin had? However in 45 he (stalin)
voluntarily restored Polish state. why is that?


Mr. Halifax signed aggresive pact with Poland.

That caused Britain to declare war on Germany after
Germany invaded Poland

Hoping for Polish resitence. I can imagine their
degree of british surprise of speed of Polish
goverment escape from the battle field. But it was
alrady too late.


Both had secret protocols. Feel the difference.


Good advice, why don't you take it.

So Keith, you do not deny any more the very existence
of the secret protocol in Btitish international
practice dealing with aggressor states. Tell
me know why Stalin would have to behaive any
better than others did?

Michael