Having annexed the Sudetenland in October 1938, Nazi Germany went on to take over the whole of Czechoslovakia in March 1939. Then-British prime minister Neville Chamberlain on March 31 declared that if Germany attacked Poland, Britain would feel bound to lend Poland all the support within its power, and an Anglo-Polish agreement was signed on the same day.
On Sept. 1, 1939, Germany did invade Poland, and the UK declared war on Germany two days later.
However, Britain’s “support” was only to fight the relatively weak German navy in the Atlantic, rather than opening the more important Baltic Sea route. Poland soon became an occupied state and was partitioned under the Treaty of Non-Aggression between Germany and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, otherwise known as the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact.
Returning to the present, on Jan. 15, historian Niall Ferguson delivered an online keynote speech at a forum organized by the Taipei School of Economics and Political Science. Ferguson is a senior fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, a former professor of history at Harvard University, New York University and the London School of Economics and Political Science, and a former senior research fellow at the University of Oxford.
In 2004, he was named as one of Time magazine’s 100 most influential people, and his opinions on foreign policy are widely respected.
In his speech, Ferguson said that although the US has over the past three or four years repeatedly amplified its spoken promises to Taiwan, they might not have the desired effect, and it is risky to only rely on spoken pledges.
What happened to Poland in 1939 shows that even when there is a concrete commitment, or a specific signed agreement, it is just as risky as when there is only a verbal commitment, and perhaps more so. With verbal commitments, people still have some sense of uncertainty about the future. This heightens anxiety, leading them to act decisively and appropriately in the face of an immediate threat.
The Yom Kippur War waged by Egypt and Syria against Israel in October 1973 showed that when an enemy begins a war, a country can only rely on itself. Despite initial setbacks, Israel had a strong will to fight and reservists who were promptly deployed to stop its enemies’ advances.
Fortified by an urgent supply of weapons from the US, Israel emerged victorious.
A poll conducted early last month by CommonWealth Magazine found that 63.7 percent of respondents said they were not worried that there would be a war between Taiwan and China in the coming year, while 57.9 percent did not think that China would try to unite with Taiwan by force.
Nearly 60 percent thought that the US would send its armed forces to save Taiwan, and 54 percent thought that the US military could effectively protect Taiwan.
Nearly 60 percent of young people aged 20 to 29 did not reject bringing back military conscription, while 70 percent of all respondents were in favor of it.
Evidently, although people in Taiwan are optimistic about the US coming to their aid in a time of war, they, like the Israelis, are aware of the principle of helping oneself before expecting help from others as they feel uncertain about the future.
At a time when a consensus about bringing back military conscription is gradually forming, Taiwan should initiate the preparations and measures necessary as soon as possible.
To do so would demonstrate the nation’s determination to defend itself, just as a report this month describing navy marines training at the Zuoying Naval Base in Kaohsiung showed the world Taiwan’s willingness to fight.
Sung Chi-cheng is an assistant professor at Shih Hsin University’s Center for General Education and a former colonel instructor at National Defense University’s War College.
Translated by Julian Clegg
A gap appears to be emerging between Washington’s foreign policy elites and the broader American public on how the United States should respond to China’s rise. From my vantage working at a think tank in Washington, DC, and through regular travel around the United States, I increasingly experience two distinct discussions. This divergence — between America’s elite hawkishness and public caution — may become one of the least appreciated and most consequential external factors influencing Taiwan’s security environment in the years ahead. Within the American policy community, the dominant view of China has grown unmistakably tough. Many members of Congress, as
After declaring Iran’s military “gone,” US President Donald Trump appealed to the UK, France, Japan and South Korea — as well as China, Iran’s strategic partner — to send minesweepers and naval forces to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. When allies balked, the request turned into a warning: NATO would face “a very bad” future if it refused. The prevailing wisdom is that Trump faces a credibility problem: having spent years insulting allies, he finds they would not rally when he needs them. That is true, but superficial, as though a structural collapse could be caused by wounded feelings. Something
Former Taipei mayor and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) founding chairman Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) was sentenced to 17 years in prison on Thursday, making headlines across major media. However, another case linked to the TPP — the indictment of Chinese immigrant Xu Chunying (徐春鶯) for alleged violations of the Anti-Infiltration Act (反滲透法) on Tuesday — has also stirred up heated discussions. Born in Shanghai, Xu became a resident of Taiwan through marriage in 1993. Currently the director of the Taiwan New Immigrant Development Association, she was elected to serve as legislator-at-large for the TPP in 2023, but was later charged with involvement
Out of 64 participating universities in this year’s Stars Program — through which schools directly recommend their top students to universities for admission — only 19 filled their admissions quotas. There were 922 vacancies, down more than 200 from last year; top universities had 37 unfilled places, 40 fewer than last year. The original purpose of the Stars Program was to expand admissions to a wider range of students. However, certain departments at elite universities that failed to meet their admissions quotas are not improving. Vacancies at top universities are linked to students’ program preferences on their applications, but inappropriate admission
RSS