That's actually true. Early 1940, up until April 1940 Hitler was still hoping to make peace again with Britain or get a truce or sth. Because he saw the British as a fellow Germanic country.
That's an interesting anecdote on a self serving statement(s) from Der Fuhrer but largely irrelevant to the context of the discussion. It's irrelevant because upon the Nazi invasion of CZ in early 1939, HMG's resolve stiffened to the point where it was realised that the Nazis had to be stopped per se, quite apart from any notions of contractual obligations or altruistic purposes viz Poland. If memory serves it was Beaverbrook or like politician of anti-war ilk who uttered words to the effect that it was going to be a war of attrition with either GB or Germany prevailing. Don't fall into the trap of allowing assumption and hypothesis back up a statement which you purport to be incontrovertible.
But have any of you bright historians have any idea how she pssbly could've done that?
No need to profess indignation here. As far as I'm aware, you're the only person on this forum who purports to be a 'historian' but whose statements tend to suggest otherwise. Perhaps you'd indulge us armchair historians by referring us to some of your works on history - I however must profess to being unfamiliar with any genuine historian who signs himself off with a childish and vaguely feline monogram or who refers to themselves in the third person.
As to the real issue, there's no doubt in my mind that HMG were solid on the course of action that nothing more could have been done in '39 except for leaflet drops, a raid on Wilhelmshaven and other irrelevances that some may deem deserve mention. Historians such as yourself tend to wring their hands and say 'what more could we have done' and 'we did all we could because (insert your favourite contra-indicator to assistance)'. What I've never been able to reconcile however is how, in due course, several tens of thousands of Poles, if not more, managed to travel their way across wartime Europe and arrive in England after the fall of Poland and place themselves in the service of HMG. Given the difficulties you've elaborated on in excusing HMG from further assistance, it's nothing short of a miracle.
In any event, here's an easier one though - what could HMG not have done to help Poland? Here's a few:
1. Enter into the treaty of Mutual Assistance with Poland knowing that no meaningful assistance could be rendered, or, not caveating the term of obligations of assistance by setting out when, how and in what manner that assistance would be delivered or if there would be any matters absolving them of doing all in their power to deliver assistance. Once mutual obligations are formalised, each party expects the other to adhere to same. 'Doing all in your power' means just that, and cannot be read down, because it frustrates the intent of the treaty and makes it redundant. No amount of sighing, deflection, revisionist dogma, hand wringing or blame shifting will change the fact that at best HMG read down their obligations and at worst, failed to do all in their power to assist. In any event, Poland rightly assumed the treaty meant what it said and relied on HMG to fulfil same. A contracting party can be estopped from denying the existence or meaning of a clause if the other party relied on that clause to their detriment.
2. Breaching clause 5 of the treaty by not telling Poland about the relevant outcomes of Teheran. Poland could have then decided if it wished to continue fighting alongside the allies with the knowledge that HMG and the USA had acquiesced to Stalin's fait accompli regarding Poland's make up post WW2. Again, no amount of sighing, deflection, revisionist dogma, hand wringing or blame shifting will change the fact that a few simple words would have discharged that obligation.
3. Not consenting to releasing Anders and his troops in early-mid 1945 so they could fight their way back to Poland. Why not? Because HMG feared that the post war geo-political makeup, purchased partly at Poland's expense, could be displaced if, heaven forbid, Poland fought back against an invader and occupier.
No doubt some will say Poland breached treaties with other countries and so on, and that by virtue of those purported breaches Poland does not have standing to complain about the treaty with Britain. That is however irrelevant. If I breach a contract with party A am I precluded from complaining that my different contract with party B has been breached by party B? No.
If I cause a car accident and injure party A, then am injured by party B who caused another accident, am I precluded from bringing an action against party B simply because I caused another different accident and injured A? No.
