A Brief History
On August 25, 1939, in a move meant to dissuade Germany from attacking Poland, the United Kingdom (Britain) signed a military alliance treaty with Poland which promised that if either were attacked, the other would come to their assistance. Meanwhile, in a deal made with the devil (you pick which side is the devil, both qualify!), the German Nazi government led by Adolf Hitler signed a “non-aggression pact” with the Soviet Union known as the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact in which each country promised not to attack the other.
Digging Deeper
Both of these agreements were not worth the paper they were written on, as Hitler and friends soon invaded Poland on September 1, 1939 and nobody, including the UK, came to her assistance. France also had a pact of mutual defense with Poland but did not come to the aid of Poland either. Instead, both the UK and France declared war on Germany.
Not only were the Poles taken by surprise, but they also faced a revitalized German military that was armed with more and superior weapons, especially in terms of aircraft (6 to 1 ratio). History and Headlines Fact: Poland had actually designed first-rate fighter planes but had sold the entire production to raise capital, leaving their air force to fight with obsolete models.
On September 17, 1939 with Poland already in desperate straits, the Soviet Union attacked from the other side, leaving no chance whatsoever for a successful defense of Poland.
In only 5 weeks’ time, Poland was taken and divided up between Germany and the Soviet Union.
Polish forces did, however, continue to fight during the rest of the war, both as partisans, as well as in organized units based in Britain. Polish men actually made up the 4th largest Allied contingent in the war on Germany, after the USSR, the UK and the U.S.
Meanwhile, Germany broke its side of the deal and commenced Operation Barbarossa, the invasion of the Soviet Union, in 1941. The most horrific conflict mankind has ever seen resulted. For a list of some of the battles in which the Germans and Soviets slaughtered each other, we recommend the History and Headlines article: “10 of the Bloodiest Battles of World War II.”
The bottom line here is that treaties, pacts, agreements, understandings and the like between countries are really a joke (Just ask any Native Americans you may know!). Throughout history it is apparent that a country will do whatever its leaders want to do regardless of whatever solemn pacts they made. Question for students (and subscribers): What egregious examples of treaty violations can you think of? (The Tet Offensive in Viet Nam comes to mind…) Please let us know in the comments section below this article.
If you liked this article and would like to receive notification of new articles, please feel welcome to subscribe to History and Headlines by liking us on Facebook and becoming one of our patrons!
For another interesting event that happened on August 25, please see the History and Headlines article: “10 Great Hoaxes: You Can Fool Some of the People All of the Time…“
Your readership is much appreciated!
Historical Evidence
For more information, please see…
Carruthers, Bob. Poland 1939 – The Blitzkrieg Unleashed (Hitler’s War Machine). Archive Media Publishing Ltd, 2011.
Williamson, David G. Poland Betrayed: The Nazi-Soviet Invasions of 1939 (Campaign Chronicles). Pen and Sword Military, 2009.
<span class="dsq-postid" data-dsqidentifier="4173 http://www.crackedhistory.com/?p=4173">156 Comments
This mysterious “A veteran” writer has been putting together good reads of late
It’s really sad that people and countries are not honest and stand on their word.
Yes, it does appear that countries do a poor job of following treaties and agreements. My first thought was many of the various treaties between the white settlers and the Native Americans. Those didn’t go down too well.
Obviously Soviet Union should have expected this from Hitler, he wwanted to take over the world and no one was going to stop him
I think it is interesting when treaties are so loosely followed. Treaties like those that brought almost all of Europe into WWI were followed, but treaties to protect Poland from invasion were not? I always wonder if it is more about a national interest than actually protecting an ally.
I like how these countries thought a piece of paper would keep them from entering all of the other countries away from conflict. Obviously that didn’t work out to well.
England couldn’t have done much even if they kept their agreement. Having to fight both the German and Russian invasion would had been an enormous task.
Treaties appear to be more of a ruse than an actual pact of allegiance
It is a shame that the Polish people had to deal with a false alliance. I can only imagine how frustrated my ancestors must have been to feel safe under an alliance that never really was.
It seems like Poland always comes under attack. What does the world have against Poland?
Countries and politicians going back on their word… Shocking! — DAVID WARDLE
Such a shame they couldn’t follow the treaty.
Soo surprising, they didn’t follow the treaty..
Its a shame they didn’t follow through the treaty . What’s the point in doing it if you don’t keep your word .
I was watching today on ESPN that A-Rod is supposed to have a $6 Million dollar bonus coming his way for passing Willie Mays on the all time leader list (home runs). But the Yankees are ignoring that (not sure how legally that will turn out) since they claim the bonus was put in place for promotional reasons but now that they have announced they won’t be promoting this (for steroid purposes) they do not want to pay the bonus. But in terms of this article, it seems as if the agreement was put in for comforting purposes, not practical purposes.
Poor Poland, they are always getting screwed in World Wars.
It is crazy to imagine how Poland felt about this. Thinking they had the support of the UK and France and in reality neither of them follow through.
Poland was probably pissed when neither France or Britian came to the countries defense.
Poland: “So Britain, you got our backs, Tak?”
Britain: “Yeah bloke, we got ya.”
*German tanks storm over the border*
Poland: “…um, Britain, pomoz mi?”
Britain: “Lol J/k brah.”
France: “Joli, Grande Bretagne! Baguette?”
Britain: “Shut up, France.”
What was the point of even making a pact if you don’t bother following it? That’s just poor leadership on the part of the countries.
Hitler was also unintelligent to invade the Soviet Union while he was already fighting another war. Despite the fact that he thought it would be over quick, he still should have planned it out better. I fear what would have happened had he done that.
Hitler could have learned a thing or two from Napoleon who also attempted to invade Russia. The fact that Hitler thought that he could take the USSR with a weakened and split army really shows how rearranged he was.
It was a very unwise decision for hitler to invade the USSR. If he was smart he would have waited longer until he knew for sure that he was going to win the war. If he waited until then he could have put more focus on conquering the USSR. His problem was that he felt like he had the edge and got greedy and arrogant.
In my opinion, the fact the Hilter thought he could invade the USSR shows how delusional and misguided he was, especially when we was already fighting another war!
On August 25, 1939, in a move meant to
dissuade Germany from attacking Poland, the United Kingdom (Britain)
signed a military alliance treaty with Poland which promised that if
either were attacked, the other would come to their assistance.
Meanwhile, in a deal made with the devil (you pick which side is the devil. This right here is crazy to me.
I think its crazy that they didn’t follow the treaty. People should always follow through with their word.
It’s astonishing that none of these countries kept their word. I couldn’t imagine being in Poland and expecting 2 countries to help fight and neither showing up.
This reminds me of the Lord of the Rings movie where Rohan was expecting Gondor to come to their aid in the battle at Helm’s Deep. The king thought they had been deserted and he basically knew all his men were going to die, but after making it to sunrise, Gondor showed up to help. I guess the UK and France could’ve taken a lesson out of Tolkien’s book and learned “better late than never.”
No one kept their word, poor Poland had no help and two countries fighting over it.
I find it ironic that all these agreements were made but none of them were followed.
Treaties or any political agreement is only as good as those who are suppose to enforce it. If you have a power crazy leader he will obviously ignore any agreement he has made along with any before him!
Treaties and political agreements have always confused me. What really keeps a country from signing an agreement and quickly making the executive decision to break it? Is it just an ethical decision to stop from breaching the pact? Obviously, many in the past and present have been more than willing to overstep ethics.
I think that is dumb that Germany would do that after signing the paper that said they would not attack. I know if this happened today who ever attacked would have everyone after them in my opinion. If you sign the paper or have a hand shack that’s a true word not just a joke.
Signing a piece of paper doesn’t seem important if no one follows what the paper says.
The signed treaties couldn’t really be enforced, which was why Germany was able to invade Poland.
I feel like Germany could never be trusted 100% because they broke their side of the deal.
Paper has no meaning when the things on it are not followed through with. Treaties don’t always work the ways there supposed to.
Treaties don’t usually work out. I personally wouldn’t trust russia but treaties are just a piece of paper that can be broken whenever.
I hate the fact that these countries will sign these treaties, yet there is no way to actually enforce them if it’s broken.
I guess this article shows how you can’t always trust someone to have your back in dangerous times
I wonder why the treaty was made in the first place if they didn’t even follow it. It was made to dissuade Hitler from attacking Poland but it didn’t really seem like Hitler cared about making enemies.
I doubt any country would fully believe in such a treaty today. History tends to repeat itself.
Talk about being left holding the bag.
This seems a little dumb today but whatever i guess
What’s the point of a treaty if nothing happens when its broken?
I guess they signed the treaty hoping it would prevent the need to fight a war. And when war broke out they still wanted to avoid it as much as possible.
really dumb, no point in a treaty i guess
why would you call that a treaty it had no real purpose in being made. its like avoiding a train by putting a lampshade on your head, pointless
Did the polish and russians never hear of take-backsies?
It seems that is truly no point of a treaty or pact in a war, especially since there has been so much historical evidence that agreements are usually broke anyways. I wonder if today’s leaders would be more faithful to a treaty or not.
Poland and the U.K. had an agreement that if one was invaded the other would send in troops to help but when Poland was invaded the UK did nothing! Germany did the same thing to the Soviet Union by hey had an agreement nether would invade each other and Germany turned astound and invaded the Soviet Union! I guess all’s fair in love and war!
Agreements between war was a joke in the 20th century. No army would help one another if in battle. Even though those country’s said they would “assist”. Hitler is one misleading man and would do anything so that people would believe him and help the German side. Then, Hitler would turn his back like no treaty was ever talked about before.
I don’t even understand why these pacts were even signed if no one was going to honor them. I think that the England should have come to the aid of Poland if they were going to make this kind of a pact with them. I think this is just another example of how politicians have a tendency to say one thing and do another.
Like the previous commenters said, I believe that these pacts were pointless since no one was honoring them. I guess they were signed in order to prevent war, but let’s be honest, when the war started no one would even think about the agreements. Everyone would just fight for themselves, which is exactly what happened.
It was a really tough situation for Poland, being attacked on both sides by two super powers. Even if Britain had come to their aid I truly doubt the outcome would have been any different. Even with this being the case it is still sad to see a country so quick to abandon their promises.
I do not think you could say treaties, agreements, and pacts are a joke. They are there for reassurance, and during World War II, countries were put in tough situations. Also we have to remember who broke a huge pact, Nazi Germany (probably not a great example). Nevertheless, the U.S. has agreements with other countries that keep us as well as them safe. I do not think treaties, pacts, and agreements are going away anytime soon.
If historically treaties tend to be null, what are countries incentives in making them? Countries must not actually put so much trust in this agreements if they have a terrible track record. This is another aspect of war I cannot understand.
If only France and Britain held up their sides of their pacts with Poland the German army may have been crushed before it even got started. If the German army was crushed, WWll could have been a very different and shorter war. I don’t understand why countries even make pacts with each other if they do not hold them up.
I wonder what the outcome of this event would have been if Poland did not sell their first-rate fighter planes to raise capital? Its a shame treaties like this were broken and countries were nearly destroyed because of it.
I am sure Poland would have had a better outcome if they had not sold their planes for money before Germany had invaded them. I wonder if the Polish still hold grudges against France and Britain for not staying true to their pacts. Poland suffered greatly from the German invasion.
Treaties and pacts do not mean anything. As the article summarizes, the UK and Germany violate their agreements made with other countries. The UK does not come to the defense of Poland, while Germany decides to invade Russia. It is true that actions speak louder than words.
I do not think all pacts and treaties between nations are a joke. They have been beneficial a number of times throughout history, even today. That being said, I wonder how different the outcome of WWII would have been if the UK and Poland would have gotten involved much earlier, and if Poland did not naively sell their air force.
Great Britain should never have made such an agreement if they did not plan to carry their end of the deal. As intimidating as the German military was, the UK should have been there to support their ally, the Polish, as they had previously agreed to do.
What was the point for France and Britain of signing a treaty if they were not going to do anything for Poland if they ever were attacked. It is almost as if they tried to make themselves look better by declaring war on Germany because they did not come to Poland’s rescue.
I’m surprised that during this time anyone thought a treaty with Hitler meant anything. But why didn’t anyone try to help Poland? Yes other countries declared war on Germany when they invaded Poland, but then why did you not go fight them where they were fighting? Poland was lost in 5 weeks. They were completely caught off guard and unprepared to fight off both the Germans and the Soviet Union.
I am surprised that treaties and pacts mean so little. Leave it to Hitler to disrupt the peace and break treaties. Why didn’t the others try to help Poland? Maybe if someone had stepped in, Poland would not have been taken over in 5 weeks time.
It was a weak willed move by France and Germany to not honor their agreements to defend Poland. It is much less surprising that Germany turned on their “ally” the Soviet Union. This betrayal had much more serious consequences, as Germany was defeated by the Red Army.
What was the point of making these treaties and pacts only to break them in the near future. The fact that they did showed moral weakness on all parties.
Poland got screwed, no one came to help them out when they were being attacked, especially their so called “allies” were just watching until they decided to just go and attack Germany.
It is not cool when your allies do not live up to their word and help you when you need it. I do not get how this was ok to just leave Poland hanging. Also it drives me crazy how Hitler broke rule after rule and invaded Soviet Union after saying he wouldn’t. This just goes to show that pacts and alliances mean nothing between countries.
That is crazy that the mutual defense pact was signed only a week before Poland’s invasion. As Alex below states, Poland did get screwed. It was awkwardly caught between German “mainlanders” and German Prussians, who ambitiously seeked to connect the lands, and also ambitious Soviets.
All these treaties and alliances seem useless. At the end of the day each man (country) is for themselves. Not only did one pack get broken here, but too. You have to watch out for who you trust, you could be sleeping with the devil.
I am almost surprised that before this different treaties and alliances worked between countries. How is it really possible to trust someone especially if they were your enemy at once? The fact that these pacts and treaties broke is no surprise.
These treaties are useless at the end of the day, this is why we can’t have nice things.
I feel that because Hitler was in charge, they should have expected this act of a broken treaty to have one another back. Hitler seemed like a man for himself, and cared very little about anything else.
So many treaties and it’s sad people go against them.
I don’t think treaties are that big of a deal either. I believe Iran was caught breaking our nuclear agreement over the summer. Shocker.
Poland did not sell any modern – according to 1939 standards – fighters. What was sold was a construction from the begining of 1930′.
In the middle of 1930′ it was already known that new constructions were needed so the process started.Prototypes were ready (more or less – as there were problems with engines) and the full scale production was to be achieved in the beginning of 1940′ – before the expected war with Germany (1942 or even 1943).
All above said: yes, Poland wasn’t prepared for that war. But to make some justice: it was only 20 years of independence of which the first were dedicated to reuniting three partitions into one state (different rules, currencies, offices etc.) and building some completely new industries (not to mention the Polish-Soviet war) and then the Great Depression hit. In other words: quite a crappy situation.
And now look at France: compared to Poland it was much stronger plus had an additional half of year to prepare for war and yet they withstanded just a week longer (having to fight only with one enemy as Italy’s invasion had no meaning).
Yes, it is not surprising at all that Poland was unprepared for war in 1939, especially an unprovoked sneak attack, and then the stab in the back from the USSR.
I am not surprised that treaties get broken.
Poor Poland. I feel bad that they were put under the busy in trying to defend their country while making a poor alliance with Britain. It seems as though Poland did not see any of these attacks coming and were screwed to start.
Treaties are not meant to last they are always broken.
It seems like whenever is treaty is signed give it time it’ll be broken about 99% of treaties are broken it seems like. Look how quickly Germany broke the Treaty of Versailles as well.
Poor Poland for being attacked by the Soviet Union and Germany. Poland had terrible leadership in that they sold all their new planes. They should had kept their military supplied.
What struck me was that not only did Germany attack Poland, but no one else came in to help them. This shows poor agreement on treaties between several countries.
I did not know how poor the treaties were back then. It makes me wonder if they are still like today. To not receive help from the UK when they said they would help Poland is frightening.
I knew that Germany invaded Poland causing destruction and that they invaded the Soviet Union. I did not know that the UK and Poland had made an alliance to help the other if either were under attack. This alliance was broken because the UK did not help Poland when Germany attacked.
I did not know that the UK and Poland had made an alliance. I would hope that any of our alliances would not back out on the US today.
It almost seems like there were so many treaties back then that they did not take most of them seriously.
I have always felt treaties were a joke, because typically the Countries you making a deal with are not very trustworthy. Germany is definitely not to trust in those days with Hitler at the helm.
I was surprised to learn that Poland designed first-rate fighter planes, but had sold all of them. There economy must have been in bad shape for them to be willing to leave their airmen with such obsolete models of fighter planes.
One thing that really struck out to me is in the last paragraph when the author states, “throughout history, it is apparent that a country will do whatever its leaders want to do regardless of whatever solemn pacts they made.” This really struck out to me because with a new president, this is one fact that Americans most likely do not want to face.
I have never fully understood all that goes into making treaties and deals with other countries, but I feel as though there are so many “what if” questions that would make signing one of these so hard.
It is sad to see how many times in history deals are made and then broken. One would think we would learn from others misfortunes.
I am not shocked that this promise was broken. War is a big aagreement
Even today, we see breaks in agreements between countries and leaders. Laws and rules of the land are becoming less and less valuable to people, in my opinion. All the conflict with our law force and protestors is a prime example. In the end, people will do what they want to do.
The broken treaties and pacts send the message that the government will do whatever it wants.
Treaties always seemed a little questionable to me as they can be broken or betrayed so easily. I do not have the amount of trust that one would need to have faith that the treaty would not be broken. It is a shame that it is so difficult for people to keep their promises.
Winston Churchill once said that there’s no perpetual friend, nor perpetual enemy, only perpetual interest.
It seems German wanted to control all the world.
It didn’t surprise me that Germany turned on the Soviet Union because they were so set on spreading their power and beliefs.
It was shocking to read that Germany turned on the Soviet Union.
I wasn’t surprised that Germany turned on the Soviet Union because they’re so power hungry.
Reading this article and learning about the different treaties being broken reminded me of the quote, “hope for the best, prepare for the worst, and expect nothing.”
After reading this article and learning about the treaties being broken, I was surprised that it didn’t happen sooner. It didn’t surprise me that Germany turned on the Soviet Union because Hitler was so power hungry
In all honesty the treaty makes sense, but the backing behind it was just a massive blunder.
When I think of a “treaty” I think of something that enforces law. It is shocking to know how disregarding people were to them.
that did not last long , and i could have figured it would go back to war , because seems like the leaders back then make temporary decisions.
why sign a treaty, and not follow it
What was the point in signing the treaty if you were just going to turn right around and break it?
I never understood the reasons for treatys when they were so often gone against. We still do t today in so many ways with jobs, house leases, contracts, and even probation. People sign agreements and they mean nothing.
I did not realize that treaties were ignored and broken easily. I would assume that this leads into another war.
This truly shows the evil and unworthiness of Adolf Hitler.
This article shows Hitler’s character.
War will always be war, the game of trust can never be played easily.
This just goes to shoe the trust and accountability there was at the time. Truly, the only place anyone could count on was The USA!
The manipulation that was completed by the leaders of the countries is astonishing. The US would be the only ones who would hold true because we were dedicated to the honor of our country and word.
One of the articles that I read prior to this one seemed to be an attempt at justifying Hilter’s actions. This article shows the true colors of such a cruel, corrupt man.
It really is amazing how fickle these agreements actually were. It’s like a bad bluff at a poker game, when it gets called all you can do is just shrug.
This was truly a brutal act and a bad bale in our history. Once again it is another thing dealing with Hitler.
So much manipulation going on
Can’t believe either Soviet Union or Germany would sign a pact with each other. They knew full well it would be broken, by either side, at any time!
This is an unlikely treaty between two countries, just more horrible dealings from Hitler.
In recent year, these agreements have been honored and are relied upon very heavily. We now have the United Nations which is a newer form of these treaties. Mutual aid is nothing new but needs to be worth more than the paper its written on. There should be repercussions for failing to aid.
Diplomacy is often a waste of time and the end result is usually a loss for someone.
This article does not state why Soviet Union and Germany wanted Poland so bad. They trust a piece of paper because most people never follow it or comply to the rules on it. WW II was all about what country control more land and they really did not care about the citizens or their armies.
When it comes to the survival of your country and all of the people in it they will break agreements every time. That is why there are some many smaller countries that want USA on there side because if you go against us you’re in for some trouble.
What was even the point of both countries going through all of the trouble in order to write these treaties when clearly they meant nothing? I think using the comparison to the Native Americans makes a solid point that you should be picky about who you trust in this world.
Clearly, Hitler was not always a man of his word. Leaders of countries will do what they want, regardless of what treaties, agreements or understandings that they have between other countries.
I don’t think that a treaty or a pact ever really works right away. Some of the more evil ruler’s have the ability to say that they agree with what is on the treaty but can turn around and not follow it because the ruler wants something that the other country has or is evil like Hitler and other rulers were.
You have to wonder why Great Britain decided to sign that treaty with Poland. Geographically Poland was in a terrible position. This along with bad decisions such as selling off their best planes, planes that were the best in the world at the time, put Poland with the combination of both poor geographical location between Germany and Russia and a selling off their biggest advantage made them prime for invasion.
I had no idea that Poland had the 4th largest Allied continent on the war against Germany. It is sad that the U.K. and France did not respond to Poland’s aid.
I think these countries signed these treaties to show each other that they had their support. Unfortunately, when the war was in full force no one held up the treaty. It is kind of ironic that America came into the war and helped all of the ally countries that were not there for each other.
I think in this time war and violence was the only thing you could count on. Could ting on a treaty was almost naive of them to think it would hold up in the heat of battle.
Wow Polish men actually made up the 4th largest Allied contingent in the war on Germany.
It just goes to show you that some countries back then, especially Germany, didn’t have honor or respect for treaties. Also, I never knew Poland had the 4th largest allied contingent at the time.
When it comes to treaties being broken, I always think of the Native American people who were robbed of so much because the government broke treaties time and time again.
I agree that a country is going to do whatever it feels is in its best interest no matter what treaty was signed with another country.
Agreements can be made with one another but what it really comes down to is when a situation arises all the facts have to be looked at. Once all the facts are looked at for that particular situation the officials in charge will determine the course of action. This course of action may or may not be the best course of action in everyone’s point of view.
Talk about being stuck between a rock and a hard place. No matter what happens everyone and anyone was picking a fight and the treaty was going to be broken at some point in time.
Its was interesting to read that Poland was the 4th largest allied force fighting the germans in WWII.
The government sure hasn’t changed much! This was an interesting read nonetheless. Knowing who the top allied forces were is pretty neat.
The more things change, the more they stay the same. What a surprise. Two countries made a deal to protect each other and when the kitty litter hits the fan, one of them balks and walks away from the deal. As for policy, it always seems that the terms of the Geneva convention get violated during armed conflicts.
Unfortunately things like this seem to happen often both in history and present.Sometimes I feel that circumstances have changed so those that were originally allies have to change how they react to things. Sometimes, it could come from premature agreements being made or other reasons.
Is this akin to campaign promises made by politicians?
I wonder what, specifically, the UK government promised to provide in this defense alliance, because it seems clear that it only sought additional manpower from Poland. If Poland’s military technology was outdated, as the article notes could be said of its fleet of aircraft, soldiers are all it could really provide. Given that Polish men accounted for the fourth-greatest national representation within the Allied forces, with men joining the British army, it seems that the UK got what it wanted despite failing to support its end of the deal.
When thinking of a pact that was not upheld, I feel like I remember a cease fire agreement between the middle east and United States. I believe it was broken by the middle east. Unless of course this is just a movie I’m remembering and not real facts.
Japan and America were conducting peace talks when Japan attacked Pearl harbor. I don’t think anyone makes pacts to keep them. Just a strategy to catch the other off guard.
I didn’t have any family members service in WWII but I used to be a nurse’s aide at a nursing home here in Canal Fulton. A gentleman my mother and I used to take care of while we worked there was from Germany. We later found out that he was a Nazi soldier and worked under Hitler’s regime and fled to the United States.
This article proves that Treaties are like rules….always broken!!!
Because of the time period and the attitudes at that time, I am not surprised that the treaty was broken.
Unfortunately, my knowledge for treaty violations lack.
I do not know too much about treaties, but it seemed to be to dishonorable to violate the treaty.
Hitler could not be trusted to keep his word. This is evidence of that.
It was sad by knowing Poland was having no chance to defend. Later, Poland was separate up between Germany and the Soviet Union.
Hitler just put his country’s interests in the first place, the contract for Poland, there is no any function
I’ve sometimes wondered how strict the treaties are between countries. When it comes down to it, it is each man for themselves.