Was it due to Italy Germany lost the war?

[Ronald Lameck]

Ah, such is life in the dream world of revisionism! As I wrote in the first part of my latest reply to "lwd", even Marshal Smigly-Rydz of the Polish gov't. knew Poland was better off aligning with Germany. Did Pilsudski know this too? He would have been a fool not to. As for Col. Beck - I wonder. He certainly acted in 1939 like someone suffering delusions of grandeur. Many Polish citizens were aware that it would have to align with either Germany or the S.U. sooner or later, or face partioning as happened in the late years of the 18th C. Logically, in the situation, the Polish gov.'t had far more in common ideologically with Hitler than Stalin.
Britain's coalition National Gov. had 492 of the 615 seats. The Conservative Party held 387 of those. Gov. and Party felt no concern about retaining power. - Indeed. In summer 1945, the Cons under Churchill STILL felt no such concern. That was why they were so shocked when Labour won the election.
There was no REQUIREMENT to have an election in 1940. That was a norm set by tradition, but could be easily circumvented by the gov. if it thought doing so was politically expedient. Unlike other countries, Britain had no constitutionally entrenched and judicially enforced edict about elections. It still doesn't.
The French government, Britain's ally, was not happy about the guarantee. It was persuaded to make a guarantee of its own, but had great reluctance about doing so. Meanwhile, the West were so arrogant and presumptive that they felt they could take their sweet time about securing Soviet aid. Thus the slow boat to Leningrad. The Germans flew directly to Moscow.
Finally, note that no one who was a member of the British gov of the time ever subsequently mentioned concern about an election. Not Chamberlain, Halifax, Eden, Churchill - none.

[ljadw]

The minimum one can expect is that a poster should inform himself and not write stupidities .As there were elections in 1935,the last year for the next elections was 1940 .
The parliament act of 1911 required that a parliament would be dissolved after a maximum of 5 years .(before it was 7 years).Thus,in 1939,there would be elections during that year,or,at last in 1940 .
I don't know why this is that difficult to understand .The maximum of 5 years could not easily be circumverted by the government .
That Poland would be better being aligned with Germany,is your opinion,but,it is only tittle-tattle .The opinion of all Polish governments was that Poland could not ,NEVER,choose between Germany and the SU,because this would undermine the statu quo dating from and created by the Treaty of Versailles .
There only was ONE country that could stop Germany from invading Poland,and that was the SU.
And,there only was one country that could prevent the SU from invading Poland,and that was Germany .
Thus,it would be very stupid of Poland to align itself with one of both:Poland AND Germany were the live assurance of Poland .If one of them fell away,Poland was at the mercy of the other .
And,I don't see the relevance of the story of the British delegation going slowly to Moscow:they were not going to secure the aid of the SU .

And about the conservative concern about the elections which would take place probably in 1939 (Chamberlain planned the dissolution of Parliament for the autumn of 1939) :it is obvious that you have no notions at all of the British political system,otherwise you would not cite the irrelevant figures of 1935 :in 1923,the Conservatives lost 0.5 % of the popular vote,and more than 80 seats,and the majority in the Commons :having a big majority in the Commons does not assure the ruling party of winning the next elections .
Last point :your figures about the 1935 elections are wrong:National Government had not 492 seats on 615,but 430,they had lost 90 seats and 7 % in 1935

[Ronald Lameck]

Enjoy your dream world as you will. Just don't bother to share it with me. Quothe the Lennon: "He's as blind as he can be, just sees what he wants to see. Nowhere Man, can you see me at all?"

[Ronald Lameck]

P.S. for "ljadw" - purely because it continues to irk me.
You mistakenly assume that I do not understand parliamentism. The simple fact of a law being created by the government leading Britain's Parliament in 1911, and it being followed by a few subsequent governments means NOTHING.
Every Parliament enjoys parliamentary supremacy. It may enact ANY law which is not physically impossible. It may ignore or repeal any law created by a previous Parliament at its pleasure. This was a major issue debated in Canada before the enactment of the Constitution Act, 1982. That Act abolished parliamentary supremacy in Canada, replacing it with a constitutionally entrenched and judicially enforced Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The Charter set clear limits on Parliamentary power. It established means by which any citizen who believed their Charter-defined rights or freedoms were denied or infringed by ANY government action could apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to seek remedy.
In a pseudo-democracy such as Britain and governments based off of it, one can be elected while receiving only a plurality of the popular vote. But Britain's 1939 government would have had to lose AT LEAST 123 seats (equal to 20% of all seats in the House of Commons) to no longer command a majority, and so be (at least theoretically) guaranteed to be asked by the monarch to form the new government. It could also have the most seats but NOT a majority, and still secure that end. Of course, in Britain's no-written-constitution bizarro world, the monarch can legally decide by whim and ask whomever he/she pleases to form the government.

Re: Poland. The 1939 "status quo" was hopelessly moribund. The situation clearly demanded - like it or not - that Poland align with EITHER the Nazis or S.U. That was the ONLY way any measure of its sovereignty and autonomy could be assured. No other nation could do anything substantive to aid it. If it chose the foolish way out (as the 3 Colonels DID), it was an absolute certainty the nation would be vapourised as in the 18th C. Partitions, and cease to exist. If someone, in hidebound arrogance, insists upon taking the worst possible option of an available three, it can be called many things. One that it cannot be called is intelligent.

[ljadw]

On the British parliament,you are forgetting that a loss of a few % could mean the loss of the majority :all is depending ,not of the majority in parliament,but from the number of marginal seats .
A theoretical exemple
A) you have a majority of 50 (366 on 630) and 60 marginal seats
B) you have a majority of 10(326 on 630) and no marginal seats
If elections are nearing,what's the best situation ? A or B ?

[lwd]

... Re: Poland. The 1939 "status quo" was hopelessly moribund. The situation clearly demanded - like it or not - that Poland align with EITHER the Nazis or S.U.

I disagree.

That was the ONLY way any measure of its sovereignty and autonomy could be assured.

Such an action would not and could not assure sovereignty or autonomy. Indeed the actions of both the USSR and Germany up to that point rather suggested the opposite. If Hitler had been rational and believed the British and French then the course chosen was the most likely to keep Poland independent. They misjudged Hitler but were hardly the only ones to do so in the 1930's.

[ljadw]

If one is looking on the 1945 elections,where the government lost 17 % of the votes and 230 seats,one can argue that a huge majority in 1935 for the government (427 on 615) did not exclude that in 1939 the government could lose the elections .
An other point:in 1931 the (Samuel) liberals had 6.5 % of the votes and 32 seats,in 1935,they won 0.2 % (up to 6.7) and lost 20 seats .
That's why I am saying that the rersults of a British election always are unpredictable
I also don't see why Britain would be a pseudo democracy:Canada and the US have the same electoral system.
Last point:it is obvious that (big majority or not) it would be very difficult for a government to win 3 successive elections :this happened 3 times in the 20 century :Thatcher in 1987,Major (a 4th majority) in 1992 and MacMillan in 1959.
I forgot :IMHO,what was more imortant for the government in 1939,were the nearing elections,not the foreign policy

[ljadw]

Poland allying with Germany /the SU,was suicide :if it allied with Germany,it would become a German satellite,if Germany won,it would be punished by the SU if the SU won .If it allied with the SU,it was the opposite .
And,there was no need for Poland to ally with Germany/the SU,because it was not in danger,till the M/R pact,and than,Poland was doomed .

[John W. Howard]

This topic has strayed and outlived its usefulness.