By being 'enforcable' I meant the fact the the Brits, in the end, stayed true to their promises and declared war on Germany. Not sure where you got that 'political integrity' take.

When you provide a security guarantee to a country, it is typically expected that you will be trying to secure the country rather than pick a fight with some third party. Was Polish security achieved by the end of the war? Moreover, you still have not addressed why the Allies refused to declare war on the Soviet Union when the Red Army invaded Poland shortly after the Germans. Did they honour the promise they made to Poland? What about their other promise to send in troops into Germany as soon as war broke out, rather than leave Poland to be crushed by Germany as they did historically during the phoney war?

Should've chosen better foreign experts, than. That's, of course, if we consider for a moment that his advise regarding Poland had any influence over Hitler. I'm 100% sure he would've started the war anyway, given his previous actions and what we know about him and his ultimate goals.

A war with Poland? Maybe, though only the British guarantee made that necessary. A world war? No, not at all.

I doubt they considered long-term effects. And even if they did, they most likely figured out that stopping Germany was more important.

Stopping Germany was more important than not destroying yourself? Why? Plenty of people thought otherwise - for example, there was the "Why die for Danzig?" campaign. Certainly, the politicians had a pretty good idea of what a world war entails, given the devastating shock the first world war gave to the British empire just twenty years prior. The Polish guarantee was suicidal.

Not even close? Yeah, it's true that British power — economic, military, whatever had already been waning by the time the war began. But they still were an incredibly strong state, and there's this:

Incredibly strong by what standard? They were just another European imperial state. There's nothing particularly outstanding about interwar Britain. America was in a class of its own, whereas all the European powers were already heavily reduced in strength as a result of the first war.

Wrong, as always. Germany was always short on resources, and it owes lasting for so long in the war to occupying pretty much all the Europe and exploiting its natural and industrial resources. Their only hope was quickly defeating the Brits and their allies and pushing the former to the sea — which they did in 1940.

Germany "owes" lasting as long as it did in the war to its rearmament programme and the natural strength of its state and people. Neither France nor Britain could hold Germany alone and that much was already proven in the first war. The difference is that while Britain and France burned through a massive portion of their resources, Germany's strength was more or less the same as it had very little to begin with, given its lack of colonial possessions and external markets. No pressure by the British or the French could direct German policy, even if they could muster the will to exert such pressure, which they failed to do.

Germany invaded a state which was allied with those countries, and this is pretty much the same as declaring a war on them.

Good god, that's insane. You mean to tell me that Britain and France were at war with Germany for a whole year after the invasion of Czechoslovakia and no one did anything at all? History sure is strange.

And they chose to do so this time because they were tired of Hitler's lies and broken promises; they figured out that he needed to be stopped because the bastard would just keep breaking treaties and acting aggressively.

You've not only ignored my point, but you've also written up a list of accusations that apply equally well to the Allies. They betrayed several of the countries they had promised to protect and they aggressively tried to encircle Germany in every conceivable way just for the sake of frustrating German foreign policy.

You know what's funny? You're this close to the truth, but you either ignore it or don't want to accept it. Yes, Hitler broken every single previous treaty and the allies did nothing. They believed that he would eventually stop, but he just kept screwing them and demanding new shit. And the only reason they let him walk free with the previous ones was the fact that Allies didn't want another war in Europe to start, so they kept hoping that, maybe, this time Hitler will finally be satisfied. ...until 1939, when they figured out that he needed to be put down like the savage beast he was. And still, you've only got Hitler's arrogance to blame for the fact that he believed in Britain cucking on its promises.

Are you really this naive? How do you reconcile the belief that the Allies were some sort of moral crusaders that just HAD to oppose Hitler, BUT at the same time sold out a bunch of their allies to Hitler in the name of peace, BUT they ran out of patience at Poland, for some reason? It's such a contorted way of thinking about the war. The much more likely explanation is that the Allies wanted war with Germany far more than vice versa, but were unable to procure the necessary internal unity to prosecute such a war until Poland. The Polish guarantee was merely an instrument to justify the war to the citizenry, nothing more than that. This is the reason why they engage in the phoney war, why they ignore the Soviet invasion of Poland and why they abandon Poland to indefinite occupation in the postwar period - because the French and British statesmen genuinely didn't care about Poland, even remotely, but rather aimed to wage war on Germany.

You're not making any sense. Allies fulfilling Hitler's demands was not 'acting wise', it was acting extremely stupid because it allowed Germany to gain more industrial power and time to fuel its military. If the Allies decided to invade Germany, say, in 1936 (let's for the sake of argument assume that), they would have crushed it like a worm. And considering the fact that Hitler was hellbent on starting a war, it would've been a wise decision — better kill the vicious beast when it's weak and starving than when it's at full strength. Wait, your argument sounds so stupid that I need to clarify: do you really think it was 'wise' to surrender territories to Germany and let it gain strength only to fight the empowered Germany later? If you think that declaring war on Germany after the invasion of Poland was stupid, than what do you think was wise? Let them swallow it whole and become stronger again? I'm really hoping I'm mistaken about you, I mean, I like you, but here you outdid yourself.

The Allies couldn't have possibly declared war on Germany in 1936, because their citizens would not have bothered to die for the sake of liberal warmongering without the necessary propaganda and manipulation of public opinion. If we consider the self-interest of the democratic powers, the wisest course of action would have been to let the Germans pursue their expansion policy towards the Soviet Union, since France and Britain only stood to lose from another conflict with Germany. Instead, the Allies chose to pursue the so-called policy of appeasement which gave them time to justify war against Germany to the public and to rearm. This course of action, of course, was still suicidal, but also intelligent insofar as that is possible in this context. The Allies started the war as early as they possibly could, they simply had no other real opportunities to do so. Even the Munich agreement was predicated on the basis of self-determination, which the Allies themselves had vigorously championed just a couple decades prior and by the time the Germans occupied all of Czechoslovakia, the Allied reason for intervention had basically been neutralised.