Poland 1939

**Watchman** · 09-09-2006, 00:43

Uh... wasn't it just the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact (or rather, the secret parts thereof) where Hitler and Stalin pretty much divided East Europe between themselves ? Both would get a piece of Poland, and if the Soviets now felt like it they could attack Finland all they wanted as far as Berlin cared (at the time the Nazis were still largely dismissing Finns as a bunch of Mongols little different from the Russians, which attitude duly changed drastically once they became potential allies... kind of like how they went through some impressive rhetorical and theoretical contortions to rank the Japanese as "Aryans"). Unless I've been getting something important entirely wrong for a very long time, the invasion of Poland only came after that, right ?

AFAIK aside from sheer land-grabbing opportunism what motivated Stalin to go with the deal was his inability to get France and the UK agree to some sort of defense treaty against Germany, which he was (quite correctly) rather worried about. Failing that he then got friendly with the Germans in the hopes that'd keep them off his case - no doubt both Nazi and Communist sympathizers worldwide swallowed their tongues at the supposed arch-nemeses getting all cozy like that too...

**cegorach** · 09-09-2006, 07:14

[QUOTE=Watchman]

Unless I've been getting something important entirely wrong for a very long time, the invasion of Poland only came after that, right ?

And ? They did sign the treaty before the invasion, but does it change a thing ?

inability to get France and the UK agree to some sort of defense treaty against Germany, which he was (quite correctly) rather worried about. Failing that he then got friendly with the Germans in the hopes that'd keep them off his case

His suspected worries resulted in removing the only buffor which was between the SU and Germany. I have always wandered how could it help - the additional teritory he got was lost in one week's time in 1941 or even less, his invasion in 1939 backstabbed Polish defence shortening the campaign by no lesss than 2 weeks.

**Keba** · 09-09-2006, 10:05

Well, the Soviets did get to work on making a pretty impressive defensive line in Poland ...

Thing is, Stalin was misguided ... the line would have taken 5 years to build, and Soviet troops were moved to the new positions immediately, the old ones (on the former border with Poland) abandoned.

However, the new positions were not equipped, and not even remotely finished, so when the Germans attacked, they simply rolled over the defenses (no radio and barely any weapons were sent at that stage).

The border was shorter, you see ... that way, the Soviets could more easily fight off any attacks. But, they weren't exepcting a war, ever (Stalin) or, at least, until Britain fell (most everyone else).

**Kalle** · 09-11-2006, 21:36

Considering the points you put forward from that article it seem like it come from some revisionist source. Especially point 3 seem so stupid not even the author of the article could believe it.

3) After the annexation of the Czech Republic and the breaking of the Munich treaty, however, England changed his policy and gave guarantees to Poland. This changed the position of the Polish government and it did not want to have a compromise any longer.

1. Who broke the Munich treaty and who annexed Czeck Republik? I can give a clue: it was neither England nor was it Poland.

2. England guarantees the border of a small country threatened and pressured by a big aggressive neighbour. My oh my they must be guilty for the start of the war then. The only thing to blame England for here is that they should have put down the foot earlier.

3. Umm but why should Poland have to compromise at all? If Germany leave Poland and surrounding states alone there would be no trouble.

Kalle

**Kraxis** · 09-11-2006, 22:07

Kalle, perhaps Franconicus wasn't clear in his post, but he knows very well that Hitler broke the treaty.

The point was that after Germany broke the treaty Britain took a harder stance and guaranteed Poland. Thus Poland felt it didn't need to negotiate with Germany over Danzig/Gdansk, for now it was being protected and Germany wouldn't dare a twofront war... would it?

True, why should Poland compromise? Well, Germany lost areas that really were German after WWI. Poland got those areas (other areas were lost too which were Polish to be certain). Now Hitler wanted those areas back.
So both Germany and Poland had a claim on them (the areas had been Polish a number of times earlier, and German a number of times, thus it was not a new situation).

So while we can sit back and say "bad Germany... BAAAD Germany" it wasn't without a basis. We do know however that Hitler sort of wanted a war from this, given how he reacted after the Munich Treaty ("they deprived me of my war").
But hindsight is always perfect. People back then didn't know what we do, and what would the sensible action be for them?

**Kalle** · 09-11-2006, 22:23

Kalle, perhaps Franconicus wasn't clear in his post, but he knows very well that Hitler broke the treaty.

Im not talking against Franconius, im talking against the absurd statement that has been made in the article that Franconius present.

The point was that after Germany broke the treaty Britain took a harder stance and guaranteed Poland. Thus Poland felt it didn't need to negotiate with Germany over Danzig/Gdansk, for now it was being protected and Germany wouldn't dare a twofront war... would it?

And how can this in any way put blame on either Poland or England? It is Germany, or rather Hitler, pointing his guns in all directions demanding their "rights". Who cares about if it mean two front war or one front war. The warmongerer was Germany. I have for instance not heard that Poland was demanding areas in Germany, threating with violence and aggresive diplomay to get its will. That was in this case germanys doing.

True, why should Poland compromise? Well, Germany lost areas that really were German after WWI. Poland got those areas (other areas were lost too which were Polish to be certain). Now Hitler wanted those areas back.
So both Germany and Poland had a claim on them (the areas had been Polish a number of times earlier, and German a number of times, thus it was not a new situation).

Doesnt help Germanys rights one bit. Again their diplomacy was aggresive, and threatening. They showed in Austria and Tjeckia and elsewhere how trusted they could be. Give them the littlefinger and they eat ur entire arm and body. There are also numerous accounts on particulary the Polish question that Hitler know wanted war and his only fear was that some fool would offer a compromise that would stop it.

It would have been a diffrent matter had Germany not broken Munichtreaty, not Anschlussed Austria, not put armies on every side on Poland and so on but instead in civil diplomatic measures adressed any issues regarding Poland and Danzig through fair, honest and nonthreating diplomacy with an understanding that you dont get all you want.

As this was not the case no blame can be put on Poland for taking a firmer stand.

Yes, bad Germany, or rather bad Hitler and his friends.

Kalle

**Kraxis** · 09-12-2006, 00:14

Well, you first post indicated that you had thought the article meant Britain broke the Munich treaty.

The opinion of the article aside it isn't that susprising that Poland would pursue a more firm policy when Britain gave her support. That is only logical.
That point alone doesn't lay blame, it merely gives a reason for it. When we work with it alone I can't see why it is so important to lay a blame... And we ARE working with the points on a one to one basis. Do they hold water at all, or are they faulty?
And this point is pretty logical to me.

**cegorach** · 09-12-2006, 09:33

[QUOTE=Kraxis]

I cannot agree with one statement of yours:

True, why should Poland compromise? Well, Germany lost areas that really were German after WWI. Poland got those areas (other areas were lost too which were Polish to be certain). Now Hitler wanted those areas back.
So both Germany and Poland had a claim on them (the areas had been Polish a number of times earlier, and German a number of times, thus it was not a new situation).

True those areas were in Germany, however the crushing majority of population was undeniably Polish.

This map is based on German data gathered in early XXth century and Allied research which was often hardly pro-Polish

You see Germans were quite numerous - about 1 000 000 in 35 000 000, but they were living in various areas with only a couple of mostly German districts or towns, HOWEVER since late XVIIIth century Prussian/later Imperial German propaganda tried to implement some sort of superiority complex in them.
Simply they already believed they are better and rascist, nationalistic propaganda of early XXth century was especially popular in these areas they were the minority.

Funny, that Germans have almost always been the most reliable minority and the easiest to be polonised , yet they were so ready to accept the fairy tales about 'those brave Teutonic settlers fighting with Slavic barbarians'.

Simply the law in Prussia was virtually apartheit one ( Poles were banned to buy land, learn Polish etc) and the local Germans were under special care of the government - all that was lost after independent Poland re-emerged and in addition trashed them in a couple of battles.
No wonder there were numerous supporters of this 'reconquista'.

**Kraxis** · 09-12-2006, 12:50

No, I do not support any notion that Britain or Poland was at fault, of course not. Why should I support it?
I merely say that the point presented in ITSELF doesn't lay any blame, it gives a reason which as far as I can see is pretty clear.

If Poland was negotiating and suddenly stopped, then it should be little surprise that Germany might do something, that is the whole point. Should it be done? Yes! Of course I don't want to put anything onto Polish shoulders here, I can understand if someone would think it was a terrible price to pay and perhaps not worth it, but I think it was what was needed.

I'm surprised that you would think I am some sort of revisionist. I have all along tried to get away from the whole lay blame as I don't see the point as it is written laying any blame. The intention behind it, coupled with the other points do indicate a sort of "Germany was forced" kind of agenda, but not the point itself.

Thank you cecorach for the image, I had been under the impression that the Danzig/Gdansk corridor was a good deal more German. The western borders seem pretty fair in this image.