Or about the Polish navy doing a runner before the war started.
It's Groundhog Day!
The entire Polish Navy? I thought it was just 3 Polish Destroyers? Ah, now I remember - the Peking Plan.
To refresh your memory, this was a scheme devised by HMG to remove these ships from the Baltic to go to Britain. The Poles agreed, presumably, amongst other things, in anticipation of having to discharge an obligation under Art 1 of the Treaty you and I know so well. In passing, these Destroyers served under the Royal Navy for the duration of the war (I think one was sunk in battle).
Would you be so kind as to tell me how many of the RN's ships steamed to Poland's aid at or before the commencement of hostilities? Just numbers, if you please - no need for any explanations.
By that logic Poland chose to be an enemy of both Germany and the USSR.
If we use such logic, then Poland deserved it.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
Ah, Western Betrayal. Common to both Czechs and Poles, they were systematically brainwashed with this.
This is an excellent example of argument by innuendo, and I applaud your courage in setting yourself up for correction as an example to show the forum how some posters may be disabused of their mischievous comments.
But I suppose that if for 50 years every book anybody can read says "Britain was responsible", it does take a bit of time for everybody to learn what really happened.
I'm confused here Haz. You're saying that for the last 50 years all books that say "Britain was responsible" were essentially wrong, and that everyone will learn what really happened given time, it flows that you purport to know what really happened (presumably from your own source of books), but how can anyone believe you when you get something so simple like the Peking Plan so horribly wrong in terms of what actually happened?
It's like the time when you were going to give us the actual invitation of HMG to the Free Poles to the Victory Day celebrations but came back with an itinerary of all things, or like the time you said that the Polish Eastern border was somewhat Sikorski's doing (even though he was dead when it happened), or like the time when I asked you to provide Court judgments to back up your claims and you cut and pasted some blogs, or like the time when you actually cited a judgment but the findings of same actually contradicted your claims...
Honestly, how can anyone believe your claim that we'll all know what really happened when it seems you don't actually know what happened yourself?